Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

thing; and to suppose that they would not feel for it would be to suspect them of being of a disposition unnatural indeed. I dare say the gentlemen on both sides have a perfect fellow-feeling upon this score; and, though they may differ as to certain little points touching the manner of acting, and, sometimes, touching the persons who are to act; yet, upon the great fundamental principles of action, he assured, Mr. Hall, that they are perfectly agreed; and, what is of great advantage, the people now want nothing to convince them of the fact. The people, Sir, who now clearly perceive the real situation of the country, have an equal regard for "the gentlemen opposite" and the gentlemen upon the Treasury bench; and, whenever an occasion offers for them to express that regard in words and in a manner suitable to their feeling as well as to the respective merits of the objects regarded, you may rest satisfied that they will be as unimous as your heart can wish.Leaving Mr. Hall to the enjoyment of those sweet reflections which conduct like his must produce, and which the state of things is so well calculated to prolong in his mind, I shall now briefly record the issue of the debate. The Honourable House divided, as it is called, at six o'clock in the morning (for they care not for sleep, a nights, when the good of their country is in question), when there appeared for the amendment 155; against it, 350; leaving a majority, in favour of the ins of 195. What a striking proof is here of the utility of "appealing to the sense of the people!" Only two months before this appeal was made, the ins could muster, upon a day of the greatest trial, but 55 votes. They have now 350, there being to be noticed, with regard to personal considerations, merely the trifling circumstance that the ins were then outs!

In the House of Lords, where the hereditary wisdom and honour of the nation are seated, the debate was nearly the same as in the House of Commons, and nearly the same was the result; for, upon a division, which took place at four o'clock in the morning, the vote for the amendment (precisely the same as that in the House of Commons) were 07 against it 100; leaving, on the side of he ministry, a majority of 93.In" congratulating my country,' as the Morning Post does, upon this rious triumph, I wish, with all my heart, "I could with the editor of that paper, perceive how it, will tend to "appal the tyrant of Enrope" This, for my life, I cannot perceive, though it may be very evident to a Gerson livrgin London. On the contrary,

વધ

glo

it appears to me, that our divisions, of all sorts, are likely to please the Emperor of France. The Morning Post does, indeed, give his reasons. He says, that the Emperor will, from these votes, "see, that the pre"sentemficient ministry are cordially support. "by the whole of the PEOPLE of this "vast empire." But, my fear is, that he will see no such thing; that, owing to some fool or other that he will have about him, he will retain his old opinion of us, and will pay no more attention to these profound reasonings of the Morning Post, than the people of Westminster, on the 29th of June, paid to the words," down with the Morning Post!" which poor shoe-less wretches had, by the friends of that paper, been hired, at three shillings a day, to chalk against the walls and watch-boxes.—II. FINANCE COMMITTEE.- -On the 1st of this month a motion was made in the House of Commons, to revive this Committee, of which so much has, at different times, been said. The outs wished to have all the members, who were upon the former committee, upon this committee also; but the ins knew better! Faith, did they; and, as a majority of the House was with the ins, the ins took very good care to have a committee very different from the last. According to the report in the newspapers, the Committee, as it now stands, is composed as follows:

Mr. Bankes,
Mr. Biddulph,
Mr. Leycester,

Mr. Alderman Shaw,
Lord H. Petty,
'Mr. H Browne,
Mr Grattan,
Mr. Joddrel,
Mr H Addington,
Mr Leslie Foster,
Lord A Hamilton,

Mr H. Thornton,
Mr. W. Cavendish,
Mr. Alderman Combe,
Mr. N. Calvert,

Mr. T. Bring,
Mr Brogden,

Mr. Holme Sumner,
Mr P. Carew,

Mr Rutherford

Mr. Ryder,
Mr. Ellison.

The

By a reference to vol. 11., p. 1125, the reader will perceive what alterations have been made; he will perceive the extent of the new-modelling. Reader, do you not sec, that Mr. Leycester, the Welsh Judge, is upon this committee? Do you know him? Do you recollect any thing about him? If you do, I am sure it is quite needless for me to tell you to be satisfied; for satisfied, upon this subject, you certainly will be. observations, which constitute the greater part of this debate, will be noticed under the head of Jobs, to which they properly belong; but, I must just insert Mr. Perceval's closing speech, first reminding the reader / of what our friend, Mr. Hall, said upon the Speech, as connected with this matter; namely, that the gentlemen opposite had "asserted, that the object of the dissolution was to smother the labours of the Finance

[ocr errors]

62

"Committee; but His Majesty's Speech.

[ocr errors]

66

proved, that the present ministers were as "anxious for the continuance of the com"mittee as the gentlemen opposite." I thought our friend, Mr. Hall, was a little hasty in talking of prouf. To have continued the Committee, the very same persons, as nearly as possible, should have been put upon it. - But, let us hear Mr. Perceval. He said, "that the accusations of 1 partiality in the nomination of the propo "sed committee he retorted upon the gen"tlemen on the other side by stating, that, "in the names he proposed, there were a "considerable proportion of THEIR "FRIENDS, while it was to be recollect"ed that in a former committee there were only two gentlemen who were understood "to have any attachment to the party with "which he had the honour to act."- -Why really, from this, one would almost imagine, that "the gentlemen on this side" and the "gentlemen opposite" were, somehow or other, parties deeply concerned in the inquiries of this Committee, instead of being all members of the House of Com. mons, guardians of the public purse, equally anxious to bring abuses to light. It would almost seem, that the ins and the outs were litigating persons, choosing arbitrators. I say, it would almost seem so from this report of the debate; but, to suppose it to be so would be absurd; because we know how anxious both parties are to see substantial justice done to the country. We know their hatred of peculators and jobbers; and, though they did very widely differ upon this appointment, we must suppose, that, on each side, they were anxious to have the honour of dragging scoundrels of public robbers into day. "You had your friends be"fore, we will have our friends now." As if he had said, your friends had all the hopour before, ours ought now to have their turn. They, too, patriotic and zealous men, ought to have their share in the glory of putting down these public thieves. This is the sense in which we must understand the thing and then all goes right.During the debate, Mr. Biddulph proposed, that the name of Sir Francis Burdett should be put upon the list, upon which Lord Howick (late Mr. Grey of parliamentary-reform memory) is reported to have said "that, al

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

though he could assure the house there was no gentleman on the other side more "adverse to the general conduct of that

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

person than he was-although no man

was more the subject of that person's at"tack and that of the party, if such they could be called, who had acted with him,

"still he would advise the adoption of the "hon. gentleman's suggestion. It would "be recollected by any person acquainted "with the history of the times-that not

withstanding the attempts always made, "said the noble lord, to connect us with "this person's party, there was no party in "the country more obnoxious to them than "that with which I have the honour to act. "This gentleman, it will be observed, "stands forward as the enemy of public "abuses, and I would recommend minis"ters to keep a vacancy open for him in "this Committee. There he will have an opportunity of inquiring into the abuses "of which he complains, and proposing "the remedy in a much more proper way "'than he has heretofore done, or attempted to do. I should therefore wish to have "him afforded the opportunity, although I happen to be so obnoxious to his attacks, probably not so much from the "impulse of his own mind, as in consequence of the incitement of others."

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

My lord, my good lord Howick, dismiss your fears; for, there is not one sane man in the nation, who connects you with Sir Francis Burdett. When I saw one half of your lordship's face, at a window in Curzon Street, looking at Sir Francis Burdett's car, on the 29th of June, if any one had told me, that the Member for Appleby's name, as to political views, was connected with that of Sir Francis, I should have been almost tempted to imitate the members of the American Congress, and spit in his face. Connect Sir Francis Burdett with you and yours! Why, the very thought moves one's feet into the attitude of trampling upon the wretch who should have the audacity to do it. No, my lord; hush your apprehonsions; for, be assured, that your name, except by way of contrast, will never be mentioned with that of Sir Francis Burdett.

-With respect to the rejection of Sir Francis by the House, the thing was quite natural. It was what the people would, in such a case, expect. Had he not been rejected, I should have been exceedingly mortified; because it would have led me to fear, that all was not right.-Nor does Sir Francis want any opportunity of inquiring into the abuses, of which he complains. There is no need of it at all. What he complains of he has proof in divers documents, to which he can easily refer. Besides, my lord, what need is there of being upon a committee to come at the knowledge of what you and "the gentlemen on the "other side" have been telling him for this fortnight past? You have obligingly informed

Never

Let us

the people of all they wanted to know. The slaves of the press seem dreadfully alarmed, lest the people should know too much; but their alarm and precaution, as well as those of others, come a little too late; and their grave admonitions put one in mind of the old simile of shutting the stable door after the steed has strayed. Poor fellows! They are afraid, that, in good earnest, they shall be cut off from their resources. Never mind then, my lord, out with it; out with the whole budget. stop at a brace of pensioned sisters. have it all. We have, however, quite enough to satisfy us. We have seen the sample, and we reasonably conclude, that the whole sack is of the same quality.III. SIR HENRY MILDMAY moved, on the 29th of June, for the laying of his memorial before the House. His speech entire is given in the preceding sheet, and I now insert the memorial entire, wishing to afford him every opportunity of justifying his conduct. But the memorial produces no one alleviating circumstance. The facts, the undeniable facts, remain unshaken.-Why, too, was this memorial delayed until the 29th of June? His contempt for the news-papers was not, surely, extended to the board of Commissioners? He says, in a postscript, that the expenses of the inquest amounted to £250. For what? For what, I ask? Twelve men eat and drink, in one day, £250 worth! This is dear justice indeed. Oh, but his two counsellors! Aye, but the public are not to pay for that, I hope, especially as the government sent no one to plead against them? In short, it will not do. The more he struggles, the deeper he gets. But, why move for the production of the memorial, without moving for some inquiry or discussion upon it? Why leave the matter there? Yet, there might have been incidental discussion, if Sir Henry's name had been put upon the list of the Finance Committee; but, this was prevented by his having modestly requested that his name might not be put upon it; though, as my readers will remember, he promised his Portsmouth dinner men, that he and Mr. Chute would be upon the Committee, and would take care to put an end to peculation and jobbing to the utmost of their power! -The thing must not die, however, especially in Hampshire, where, if we should be so happy as to have another election, the subject will be fully discussed.IV. INDIA AFFAIRS. I wish, at present, merely to communicate to my readers iny suspicion, that a bill, about to be brought in by the new President of the Board of Controul

(Lord Melville's son), is intended to make the people of this country answerable for a part, at least, of the East-India Company's enormous debt. I shall return to this subject in my next. In the meanwhile, I hope the public will be upon the watch. -V. SIERRA LEONE. Here is another Company, who, having failed in their undertaking, are modest enough to wish to surrender their sovereignty, their territory, into the hands of the king, and to place their debts upon the shoulders of the public. These are the Negro-loving gentlemen, who, in 1802, said, that with a little help, they should civilize the whole continent of Africa. Sixteen thousand pounds was grant. ed them by the guardians of the public purse of that day." The same sum has been annually granted since; and, now, behold, a bill is actually before the House for saddling this burthened nation with the whole concern. It will be useful to find out who are at the head of this concern. foretold, in the teeth of the report, what this would come to, in 1802.- -VI. The chapter of jobs is too long to enter upon here; and, it will, perhaps, come better in company with the remarks upon the reception of Lord Cochrane's motion, for which, at present. I have not room.

68

I

MEMORIAL OF SIR HENRY ST. JOHN MILDMAY TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF MILITARY ENQUIRY; LAID BEFORE THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, UPON HIS MOTION, MADE ON THE 29TH OF JUNE, 1807.

Gentlemen,-Having seen that several passages in your Fourth Report, which relate to transactions in which I am personally implicated, have been industriously employed for the purpose of casting upon me the imputation of having either received undue favour from the government, or taken undue advantage of the public, I feel myself under the necessity of troubling you with a more detailed explanation, of every particu lar of those transactions, than any examina tions before you (from whom I received no intimation of any such suspicion) were calculated to produce.-About the year 1803, it was thought necessary to raise very extensive fortifications in the neighbourhood of Chelmsford, and it was decided, that they should be carried through the park and farm adjoining, and at about 400 yards from a mansion house, in which I was compelled to reside three months in every year. Sir James Craig, who commanded in the district, made an application to me for permission to begin the works without delay; to which I acceded, under an express stipula

tion, that, when they were complete, I should be entitled to receive compensation for any injury I had sustained. During the period of my residence at Moulsham, these works were constructing; and from the multitude of persons employed in raising them, and the great concourse of military, which the expectation of invasion on the Eastern Coast had assembled in the neighbourhood of Chelmsford, my living there with my family had become extremely inconvenient and insecure. I continued however to reside in the house till the inconveniencies arising from the above circumstanstances became intolerable, and till my property had become exposed to every sort of depredation; footpad robberies were also committed in the very field next adjoining my garden, nine nights out of ten. In addi tion to these serious inconveniencies, permanent Barracks were erected on each side of my house, at the distance of about half a mile, which rendered it wholly unfit for my family to remain there; I therefore considered I had a claim on the government to relieve me, by law, from a residence, which their own measures, for the public safety, had rendered untenable.-To the application I made to Mr. Addington's government, I received the following letter.--" White“hall, Nov. 30th, 1803.——Sir,—I have "had the honour of receiving your letter of "the 26th instant, and have made it my "business to see Mr. Addington this day on "the subject; and am directed by him to "acquaint you, that applauding as he does "the liberal manner in which you appear "to be disposed to act towards the public, "if you will have the goodness to direct 66 your agent to communicate with Mr.Van"sittart, he shall be extremely ready to do " on his part what may be proper to give "effect to your wishes, respecting your family seat near Chelmsford, as soon as he clearly understands what is desired by you, and in what manner it ought to be "accomplished.I have the honour to "be, Sir, your faithful, humble servant,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

R. Pole Carew.-To Sir Henry St. John "Mildmay, Bart."--This led to a bill, brought in under the sanction of government, and passed, to relieve me from compulsory residence for four years, and to enable me to let the premises at Moulsham for the same period -A treaty with government followed, for my house completely furnished, stables, garden, gardener's house, pleasure grounds, and about 16 acres of meadow lands.-This fair overture was, I think, made to Colonel Gordon; by whom I was, told that my offer should be communicated,

Mr.

to the Barrack Departmen, who would make a report on the subject. After which I was informed, that a report had been received from the Barrack Department, that government were ready to treat with me; and I was referred to the Secretary at War; on whom I waited immediately, and explained to him my terms, (which I had previously done in writing to Colonel Gordon) for the lease; which Mr. Dundas said must be referred to the Barrack Surveyor, who would be directed to inspect the state of the premises, and to report on my terms, before the agreement could be concluded. Johnson, a person wholly unknown to me, was sent down to Moulsham for that purpose, without any intimation to me, of the time at which he was to make his survey. This gentleman was unaccompanied and of course uncontrolled by any surveyor, architect, or other person on my behalf. The result of this inspection, (after stating the solidity of the building, and enumerating some trifling repairs which would be wanting) was in these words: " to put the house "into tenantable repair, will cost the sum "of £250; the annual amount will not "exceed £50 to keep them in repair. The "taxes are supposed to amount to £143. "If the said premises are put in proper repair, and to include the 20 acres of plea

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

66

give for the same, after Sir Henry has put "the premises in repair."--J. JOHNSON, Archt. May 24th, 1804.--On this report being communicated to me by the Secretary at War, I stated, that I was not aware the house required any repair, as a very large sum of money had been recently expended upon it; which was proved in the Committee of the House of Lords; but that I was willing to give up the first half year's rent (amounting to £200) if government would take the repairs on themselves, and make them in whatever manner they thought proper. On these terms the Secretary at War agreed with me at the rate of 14CO a year for 4 years Possession of the premises was given to government on the 24th of June, 1804, and they began the repairs immediately. I have in no way whatever interfered since that period, either with the occupation of the house, or with the repairs.—It must be obvious to every one, that when the government were once put in possessio a of the premises, whether they chuse to use them for the residence of a lieutenant general and his staff, or only for a major general, or whether they thought it adviseable to make

any use of them, was a matter with which I had nothing to do, and for which I'cannot be responsible. With respect also to the repairs, I must remark, that having paid £200 according to agreement, I had nothing more to do with the transaction, and whether the money laid out on the premises has either amounted to, or exceeded that sum, I am at this moment wholly ignorant. During the whole of this transaction, I was not aware that any part of the arrangement was a matter of consideration for the Treasury; and I had at no time during its progress any communication on the subject directly or indirectly, to the best of my knowledge and belief, with any person connected with that department. I have already stated, that government took possession of the premises at Moulsham Hall, and the land let with it, on the 24th June, 1804. On the 6th of August following (the military works in my park being nearly completed) a precept was signed by Sir James Craig: in consequence of which, a special jury, composed of the most respectable gentlemen and magistrates in the county of Essex, (General Strutt being foreman) was impanelled in the Mansion House on the 18th of the same month. Government had then been about eight weeks in full possession of it, with the other premises, and they had made considerable progress in the repairs, and it was notorious to all the country, that an agreement had been entered into between government and myself, which had placed the house in the hands of the Barrack Office.-The jury examined the evidence, took a very minute and accurate survey and view of the military works, and the damages; and after being shut up for more than two hours, made the following award, as stated in the report page 164: "One thousand three hundred pounds to "be paid for the use and possession of the "lands (stated to contain 30 acres, 1 rood, "39 poles, in the occupation of Thomas "Chandler and Wm. Meyhill, as tenants to "Sir Henry Mildmay? but then occupied "by the military works) from Michaelmas "1803 to Michaelmas 1804, and from that "time 600 a year so long as the same

should be in the possession of his Majes"ty."--There is nothing in this verdict which by any possible construction can have reference to the contract, which I had entered into with government, for the lease of my house, furniture, stables, garden, gardener's house, &c. I can neither conceive that this verdict precluded me from residence in the house, if I had thought proper; from pulling it down; from letting it to any individual, or to the government; or inter

feres with any disposition of it, which I may judge it prudent to make.—It is not possible that it could be considered, that the letting of my house for four years only, at £400 per annum, ready furnished, could be a compensation for the use of the land covered by the military works, and for the injury my house and estate must sustain, so long as those works should be continued; for it must be observed, that the contract for the house terminates in June, 1808, but there is no limit within my choice as to the occupation of the ground for the military works. Government may keep it as long as they please. The verdict confines itself strictly to 30 acres of land, which is particularly described to be in the occupation of Thomas Chandler and Wm. Meyhill, and which is stated to be covered by the field works. If the jury had intended to include the rent of the house, furniture, &c. in their verdict, they would have expressed such intention distinctly; on the contrary, they have stated their precise meaning to be otherwise, by defining the lands, as those alone occupied by the military works, containing 30 A. 1 R. 39 P. in the occupation of Chandler and Meyhill. The premises let with the house, amount to about 20 acres, and the lands occupied by the military works, '30 acres. Had the jury intended to include both in their verdict, they would have stated 50 acres, and not 30. The lands let with the house were never in the occupation of Thomas Chandler and William. Meyhill, nor were any part of them used for the military works. It is therefore most obvious, that the jury did not mean to include them in their verdict, or to meddle in any way (as indeed I understood afterwards) with any disposition, or any purpose, to which I might convert the use of the house and furniture and premises. This construction of the verdict of 12 of most respectable gentlemen, cannot be a wrong one.-I will only further remark, that by a reference to various transactions of a similar nature, as well between individuals, as where the publie has been a party, it will be found, the compensation which I have received, under all circumstances, has not been beyond that which has been customarily given.-On the amount of the rent which I receive for the house, &c. from the public, I must beg leave to say, that having expended £200 on repairs, which I did not deem necessary, my receipt is reduced to £350. The land occupied with the house, garden, gardener's house, &c. cannot be valued at less than 60 a year. The furniture of a house containing 14 rooms on a floor, one of them 50 feet long, can be estimated at no inconsider

« ZurückWeiter »