Читать книгу Essential Writings Volume 3 - William 1763-1835 Cobbett - Страница 7

(Political Register, February, 1809.)

I last week expressed my regret, that any thing should have occurred to prevent me from giving an account of the campaign in Spain. That expression I now repeat; and, there are several other subjects, of great political importance, on which I am anxious to offer some remarks to the public; but, the subject of the Charges against the Duke of York, especially as these charges have been forced into connection with questions of general policy and liberty; this subject is not only of more interest than any other, but, it absolutely supersedes all other; discussion upon any other subject, is, in fact, useless, till this has been decided upon. An attempt has, through a connection with Mr. Wardle’s charges, been made to deprive us of the remains of our freedom. From the tone and manner of the venal herd of writers, it has long been manifest, that there was on foot a scheme for putting down all free discussion; and, upon the preferring of these charges, they have broke out afresh, and with more boldness than ever, in accusations, not only against the freedom of the press, but also against the freedom of the tongue. Their mode of reasoning is this: “These charges are false; such charges are the consequence of the licentiousness of writing and of speaking; such charges tend to overthrow the monarchical branch of the constitution; to overthrow the monarchical branch of the constitution would be to produce general confusion, distress, misery, and bloodshed; therefore, it is the interest of the nation in general, and particularly of all persons of property, to concur in putting a stop to this licentiousness of writing and of speaking.”

Such is the reasoning of the venal writers, in newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, and especially in the poor paltry Reviews, which are conducted by clergymen, by salaried magistrates, and by pensioners. To this sort of reasoning not a little countenance has now been given by persons in possession of great official power. One minister has said, that it is become matter of doubt with many good men, whether the benefit of a free press be not overbalanced by the licentiousness attending it; and another of the King’s ministers has said, that it is not perceived by every one, how difficult it is, in many cases, to convict a man of a libel, though the libel be obvious enough. Just at this very time, too, we see advertised, at an enormous expense, to be published by the Horse-Guards bookseller, Egerton, a pamphlet pointing out the present difficulties of producing conviction in cases of libel, which pamphlet is dedicated to the Duke of York and Albany. While this is going on, a Mr. Wharton, who, I am told, is the same that is Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, is publishing a pamphlet to inculcate the notion that Jacobinism is revived. This is, to be sure, an excessively stupid and dirty performance: it is so very low, so very shabby, so very despicable, that one cannot help laughing at it, especially when one considers it as opposed to the Edinburgh Review; but, it does, nevertheless, tend to prove the existence of a concert, premeditated or accidental, to persuade the public at large, that there is yet too much freedom of writing and speaking enjoyed.

Till this point, therefore, is settled, all other public matters are uninteresting. From freedom of speech and of the press, the next step is the safety of property and person. The war in Spain, or anywhere else; the success or failure of any military or naval enterprise; the additional conquests and increasing means of the Emperor Napoleon; all these are of no interest to us, if we be in a state of uncertainty as to what is to be the fate of our freedom at home. We are called upon daily for “sacrifices” in support of the war against the Emperor of France; and, upon what ground are these sacrifices demanded? Why, upon the ground, that the war is necessary to prevent our country from being finally conquered by Napoleon. And, why, wherefore, for what reason, are we called upon to make sacrifices to prevent our country from being conquered by Napoleon? The reason alleged is this: that, if he were to conquer our country, we should become slaves; that is to say, we, like the people in France, should be deprived of the liberty of uttering our complaints, whatever corrupt and profligate acts our rulers might be guilty of; and, that, we being thus deprived, should, in a short time, have no security for our property or our lives. It is to prevent this evil; this very evil that we are making daily such enormous pecuniary sacrifices, and that so many of our countrymen make a sacrifice of their lives. Viewing the struggle in any other light, there is no sense in it. In any light but this we cannot view the contest, without acknowledging ourselves to be almost upon a level with the brute creation. It is not for a name, for an empty sound, for any thing merely imaginary, that we are making all these unparalleled sacrifices. It is not for any thing theoretical; but for the substantial practical benefit of English freedom; the right the legal right, of freely making our complaints, and of demanding redress, when we think ourselves injured or insulted; which, as all the world must see, are the only means of ensuring safety to property and persons.

Till, therefore, we see the result of the pending proceedings, and the fate of the doctrines, now abroad, relative to the freedom of the people, all other public matters, not excepting those relating to our means of defence against the conquering Napoleon, are, comparatively at least, of very trifling importance. To busy ourselves about schemes of war or peace, or of political economy; thus to busy ourselves, while the present proceedings are unclosed and while these new doctrines are undecided upon, would be as foolish as for a man to be engaged in making repairs at one end of his house, while the other end was on fire.

This being my view of the matter, I shall, as far as my small power will go, keep the attention of the public closely nailed to the inquiries now going on, relative to the conduct of the Duke of York, who is not to be regarded merely as “a son of the crown,” as Mr. Fuller called him, nor merely as the person, to whose skill and courage the military defence of our country is committed; but also as a person who has the chief command of a department, which costs this nation 23 millions of pounds sterling a year; and who, under the King’s sole control, has the absolute power of promoting, or of cashiering, any one, or any number, of about twelve, or fifteen thousand commissioned and staff officers, connected by ties, more or less close, with almost all the families of any note in the kingdom. Merely as a son of the King, and a person receiving such large such large sums out of the public purse, we should have an interest, and a deep interest too, in the moral example of the Duke of York; what, then must be our interest in his wisdom and integrity, when we see committed to his hands a far greater degree of power than as, in this country, ever before been committed to the hands of any individual?

In my last [at page 20], I was obliged to break off the insertion of the first debate upon this all-important subject. The remainder of that debate I shall now first insert, and, when that is done, I shall come to the first Examination of witnesses, of which Examination I shall be careful to omit no essential part, and especially of what has a tendency in favour of the Duke of York; because, on every account, my wish is, that no conclusion against him should be drawn from doubtful premises.

Debate of the 27th January, continued from page 20.

—and of this plan the present was only a particular instance, (hear! hear!).— ^{Ref. 006} Let blame fall where it ought; but the House ought to consider the illustrious object against whom the charge was directed; they ought to consider his high station in the country, and the eminent services which he had performed for the country, in the state to which he had brought the army—(hear!) What was the state of the army when he became Commander-in-Chief? It scarcely deserved the name of an army, and it was now found by experience to be, in proportion to its numbers, the best army that ever existed. The best mode to do justice to the sovereign—to do justice to the high character now impeached—and to do justice to the country, would, perhaps, be to appoint a Parliamentary Commission with power to examine each party on oath—(loud cries of hear! hear! from both sides of the House.) The gentleman might have circumstances in view to support these charges, which he believed to be founded in truth. He only spoke of this Commission with reference to his own argument. He had said that he believed a CONSPIRACY to exist, and if the House could go along him, and suppose that this was actually the case, he threw out for their consideration whether a Parliamentary Commission with power to examine on oath was not preferable to a Committee. He could not think he had done his duty if he had not thrown out this idea for consideration. The importance of the subject well deserved such a mode of proceeding. But at all events, he was happy that the matter would now be properly investigated.

Sir Francis Burdett considered the subject most important, and demanding the deepest and most accurate inquiry. He coincided with the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Yorke), that the House should maturely deliberate on the mode of proceeding best calculated to render effectual justice.

Mr. Adam stated, that for nearly the period of 20 years he had been, from professional avocations, very intimately connected not alone with the pecuniary concerns of the illustrious personage affected by the motion of the hon. gent. (Mr. Wardle), but even with his embarrassments. In the attention which he had directed to those concerns, he was assisted by the most frank and candid communications from his royal highness. Every difficulty, and every particular was disclosed to him by his royal highness with a recollection the most retentive, an accuracy the most correct, and a fidelity the most unquestionable. If, therefore, any such irregularities or transactions took place, as the motion of that night went to convey, it was almost impossible but that in the course of his inquiries some feature of such a system would have appeared, whereas the direct contrary was the result of a long and minute application to the pecuniary transactions of his royal highness. ^{Ref. 007} Having felt it his duty to make this statement, he had next to impress upon the House that both in justice to its own privileges, and to the dignified character of the illustrious personage, it ought not to surrender its inquisitorial powers, nor delegate to any Select or Secret Committee that inquiry, which, to be efficient, ought to be public, and for the publicity of which there was no person in the country more anxious than his royal highness the Duke of York—(Hear! hear!).

Mr. Wilberforce expressed his sense of the importance of the subject which was submitted to the consideration of the House. He was confident that the hon. mover was impressed with the great responsibility which attached to a charge brought, as it was, against such an elevated character in the country. He did by no means wish to convey that the extent of such responsibility ought at all to deter a member of that House from bringing before it an accusation, for which he had convincing testimony, although directed against one of the most considerable persons in the empire, both in rank and influence; but he did conceive that when high character was implicated, the most efficient and most satisfactory mode of investigation ought to be adopted. To enable the House to arrive at that desirable end, he fully agreed with his right hon. friend (Mr. Yorke) near him, that the investigation of the charges that night preferred ought to be committed to a Parliamentary Commission, specially delegated for that specific purpose. Such inquiry was not to be considered private or secret. It would afford the best species of communication, namely, publicity at the end, but not in the progress. Whoever had attended to the consequences of public examination at the bar of the House, could not be blind to the numerous and fatal inconveniences of such a mode of proceeding. The very object for which it was proposed was too often defeated by the means. By acquiescing to the appointment of a commission the witnesses would be examined upon oath, all party bias and personal altercation would be prevented, and, of course, a weight and confidence would be attached to the decision of those delegated, which it was impossible to expect from any public discussion or examination at the bar. It was for the House to bear strongly in its recollection, that in the present unexampled and critical state of the civilized world, all Europe looked with a vigilant and anxious attention to the deliberations of the British House of Commons. That House was now put on its trial before the scrutinizing tribunal of public opinion. It had to render justice, both to the illustrious personage, whose character he expected would come clear and unsullied from the ordeal, and to the country, who was equally interested in the result. The claims of the public demanded that the representatives of the people should look to substantial justice, however high the rank, eminent the services, or splendid the connections of the dignified personage against whom such charges were preferred.—That justice, he conceived, could be most satisfactorily obtained by an inquiry, private in its progress, but to be public in the result, particularly when he reflected on the description of persons likely to be examined and the importance of the interests affected by the accusation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer coincided in the unanimous feelings of the House, that to the most solemn and serious accusation brought forward that night, the most solemn and serious inquiry ought to be afforded. The only difference that seemed to exist in the mind of gentlemen was, as to the manner of conducting that investigation, whether the ends, to which all looked with equal eagerness, were more likely to be acquired by a private and delegated examination, or by a full, prompt, and public discussion, arising from the testimony, which the hon. gent. who submitted those charges to parliamentary considerations may be enabled to produce at the bar of that House. When he contemplated the important interests which the country had, whether in acquitting the exalted personage, if, as he was convinced, the event would prove, such charges could not be substantiated, or in rendering justice to the dignity of the character of parliament, he was compelled by all and every consideration, to call upon that House not to abandon its legitimate judicial province, and by its first step to deprive itself of that freedom of conduct and action, that might eventually preclude it from adopting the course which it might be convinced was ultimately serviceable. There was no course that could prove satisfactory to the country but a public one—and whatever inconveniences may follow from its adoption, they were dissipated by the superior and paramount advantages. Independent of its general recommendation, some consideration ought to be extended to the wishes of his royal highness. That wish he could positively state was, that the investigation should be most complete and public. (Hear, hear, hear.) There was nothing that his royal highness so particularly deprecated as any secret or close discussion of those charges. Standing as that illustrious personage did on the fairness of his character, and the fulness of the evidence which he was enabled to produce in refutation of these charges, he was most peculiarly anxious to appear before the country; if acquitted, acquitted by the most accurate and severe inquiry, or if condemned, condemned by the most public and undeniable evidence. Were the present moment suitable for the statements, he believed he could enter into particulars which would convince the House, that it was impossible to bring those alleged charges home to his royal highness. The hon. gent. (Mr. Wardle) had in the course of his speech stated a circumstance which particularly involved the character of his Majesty’s government. He had mentioned that two members of the King’s cabinet were concerned in this agency for the disposal of government patronage. This was a topic on which he felt it due to himself to require the fullest information, and it was for the option of the hon. gent. to determine, whether he would afford it in a public manner in that House, or by a private communication to some of the responsible servants of the crown. (A cry of “Name, name.”) When in possession of that information, he assured the House that by him no measure would be left undone to unravel and elucidate the truth or falsehood of that allegation. It was not for him to tell that House, that in this great capital it might happen that foolish persons were frequently deceived by advertisements in the public papers, announcing the disposal of official patronage. And perhaps it has occasionally turned out, that the very persons who were originally deceived by these advertisements to make applications, did ultimately obtain the very appointments for which they had endeavoured to negotiate; but he was convinced that as there was nothing so discreditable to government, so there was nothing more false in fact, than the idea, that money was paid to persons high in office for such transactions. For the distinct manner in which the hon. gent. submitted the question to the House, he conceived him entitled to its thanks. He had pledged himself to bring his charges home to H. R. H. the Duke of York. Upon that pledge the proposed inquiry was admitted; and both for the accuser and the accused, to guard against suppression and insufficiency of evidence, publicity was essentially necessary.

Mr. Wardle stated, that he was anxious to afford the fullest inquiry in his power to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The office where this agency was transacted was in Threadneedle-street, under the firm of Pollman and Heylock. The persons conducting the business there did not deny the influence under which they were able to procure appointments. They had stated various situations purchased in the island of Jamaica, and that two members of the present Cabinet, for whom they acted in such negotiations, and to whom he alluded in his speech, were the Lord Chancellor and the Duke of Portland.

It was then carried nemine contradicente, that the conduct of his royal highness the Commander-in-Chief, in the appointment of Commissions, and filling up of Vacancies in the Army, be referred to a Committee.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved, that it should be a Committee of the whole House.

Lord Folkestone considered the hon. mover entitled to the fullest credit, for the manner in which he brought the subject forward. He was of opinion that the ends of justice would be best answered by referring the inquiry to a Select Committee, from whose reports all the benefits of publicity would be derived. It was extraordinary to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer interfere with the mode of proceeding which the hon. mover had adopted, when the House recollected with what severe comment that gentleman (Mr. Perceval) remarked upon certain members at his side of the House, for the alleged indecorum of taking certain measures out of the hands of the original proposers.

Mr. Secretary Canning conceived that the surprise expressed by the noble lord in seeing his right hon. friend propose to the consideration of that House the most desirable mode of proceeding, would have been prevented if that noble lord had considered the nature of the improvement which was recommended. The interference of his right hon. friend was not to restrict, but to extend inquiry—it was not to narrow the means, but to enlarge the sphere of deliberation. It was an improvement suited to the importance of the accusation, and to that serious discussion which so many commanding inducements pressed it upon that House to afford. The House should recollect that if such charges were proved, the issue of its deliberation might lead to a proceeding affecting the most valuable privileges of Parliament, and the dearest interests of the elevated and illustrious personage affected by their decision. It was established by various precedents in parliamentary history. It was to a Committee of the whole House the case of the Duke of Marlborough was submitted, because such proceeding was considered correspondent with the gravity of its judicial character, and because it was a species of trial which united earliness with publicity. When, therefore, the noble lord complained that an attempt was made to take the subject out of the hands of the hon. gent. who originally brought it forward, the propriety of his reproach amounted to this, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed a motion calculated most effectually to promote the object, which the original mover professed to have solely in his view. Indeed the hon. mover himself did not feel any unjustifiable attempt at interference, nor did he evince any hostility to submit his charges to the House of Commons in its most extended capacity. That hon. gent. had declared to the House, that in calling its attention to this very solemn subject, he was solely actuated by the sense of public duty; that he was free from any hostile feeling to the elevated personage whose character his charges went so vitally to affect. For the impulse of public spirit and disinterested patriotism, he (Mr. Canning) was willing to give him credit, and surely that hon. gent. could not be dissatisfied with those who placed him upon the most commanding stage, to reap the benefit of his patriotic labours. (Hear, hear.) He surely must be aware, that having undertaken the responsible task of submitting to a British House of Commons such a serious accusation, that whatever may be the issue of its deliberation; in whatever view the House shall consider the transactions which he has disclosed, whether they be refuted or substantiated, infamy must attach somewhere—either upon the accused or the accuser. From the system which has been deliberately pursued for some time past, by the enemies of H. R. H. the Commander-in-Chief, he had to congratulate that illustrious personage, and at the same time to thank the hon. mover, for the opportunity of canvassing the subject upon charges preferred in a tangible shape. Whatever result may ensue from such accusations, it was not to be denied, that that royal personage had been subjected to the systematic calumnies of a set of unprincipled libellers; that in their vile and malignant publications he had been treated with a brutality of insult which almost made good men hesitate in deciding, whether the value of a free discussion was not considerably depreciated by the evils of its unbridled licentiousness. For the last six months scarce a day elapsed without some fresh attack upon his honour and his feelings. There was a cooperation of cowardice with falsehood, which far exceeded the calumnious profligacy of other times. A cowardice too of the basest kind, participating of the most depraved and odious qualities, deserving of that execration which the best feelings of humanity would pronounce on the base assailant of female weakness, because to direct unfounded attacks against those in high authority, was nearly similar to an attack on an undefended woman. It was, therefore, as sincerely interested in the honour and reputation of his royal highness, that he rejoiced to find that this question had taken a distinct shape, and that in the due and proper place, the period for inculpation, and he was sure of exculpation, had arrived. (Hear, hear.) It was for parliament to give the subject the fullest inquiry, but he trusted that the hon. mover would in the first instance, without any subsequent restriction, direct his proofs to the specific objects on which his charges of that night were founded.

Mr. Whitbread concurred heartily in the recommendation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the most public inquiry. It was due to the elevated rank of the illustrious personage accused, and to the great interests of the country, which were so implicated in the issue. The right hon. Secretary had assumed as a fact, that such a conspiracy as he described, existed, and upon that assumption he rested all his arguments. If such a conspiracy did exist, every man must lament, that such a character, elevated in rank and influence, should be exposed to unmerited calumny.—Still it was to be presumed and hoped, that a prince of the house of Hanover would prefer even suffering under such attacks, rather than risk the liberty of that press to which that family and the British empire owed so much. But why was this brutality of insult so long suffered to continue? Were the Attorney and Solicitor Generals asleep, and the other law officers of the crown asleep? How came it that they neglected their duty? He was ready to give them credit that the omission was not intentional. (A laugh.) There was one point in the speech of the right hon. Secretary from which he must dissent. It was assumed by him, that if the result should, as he trusted, acquit his royal highness, his hon. friend would be infamous for preferring the accusation. Such doctrine was not supported either by the spirit or usage of the constitution. If there were justifiable grounds for his charge, or if information of a strong kind was laid before him, it was his bounden duty, as an honest public servant, to act upon it in that House. In compliance with that sense of duty, his hon. friend did submit the subject to the House, and whatever might be the issue, he was convinced that not a particle of dishonour could attach to him (Mr. Wardle). There was one strong reason that it should go to a Committee of the House, which weighed particularly with him—namely, that it would be impossible to select any set of names that would satisfy this herd of libellers and calumniators, of which such mention had been made by the right honourable Secretary.

Lord Castlereagh supported the opinion, that such a CONSPIRACY did exist, with the determined object of running down the characters of the princes of the blood, and through them to destroy the monarchical branch of the constitution. Having failed in the attempt to injure it by open force, they now proceeded to sap and undermine it by the diffusion of seditious libels, converting the noble attributes of a free press to the most dangerous and detestable purposes. H. R. H. the Commander-in-Chief was the principal object of their rancorous invective. To his prejudice facts were falsified, and motives attributed to him of which his very nature was incapable. As to the observation of the hon. gent. that the crown lawyers had not done their duty in not prosecuting libellers, he had only to say, that it was not always easy to convict upon an obvious libel, as a very small portion of legal knowledge united with some ingennity, would be sufficient to defeat a prosecution. When forbearance was stretched to its utmost point, and prosecutions were commenced, the base libellers were found to have absconded. Scarce had the calumny of one of them proceeded from the press, when the calumniator was found to have withdrawn himself to America. (Hear, hear.) The motion of that night put the Duke of York and the public in a new situation. It gave the subject a distinct turn, and he knew that that elevated personage would deprecate any proceeding that did not rest upon steps taken in the face of day.

After a few observations from Mr. Wardle, it was resolved that the House should on Wednesday next resolve itself into that Committee.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer then proposed, that the honourable gentleman should give in a list of the names of those witnesses he intended to call to substantiate his charge, that such persons might be summoned to attend at the bar of the House on Wednesday next.

Mr. Wardle (after having gone to the table to make out his list of witnesses) returned to his seat, and said that he thought it would be attended with no inconvenience to defer mentioning the witnesses till Tuesday, when he should come down to the House prepared to furnish the House with the first part of the case he should proceed to prove, and a list of the witnesses whom it might be necessary to examine relative to that first charge.

On Wednesday, the 1st instant, Mr. Wardle, after an introductory speech, brought forward the charge, relating to an exchange of Major Brooke of the 56th foot to the 5th dragoons, the other party being Lieut.-Col. Knight.

The charge was this: that the application of these two gentlemen had been for some time before the Duke of York; that the exchange was not ordered to be permitted, till Mr. Robert Knight, brother of Lieut.-Col. Knight, had, through the negotiation of a Dr. Thynne (the medical attendant of Mrs. Clarke), got the thing effected by paying to Mrs. Clarke the sum of 200l.; that the Duke of York, before the exchange was ordered, knew that Mrs. Clarke was to receive some money in consequence of it; and that, after the exchange was ordered and the money received by Mrs. Clarke, he, the Duke, was informed by her of such receipt.

The first witness, in support of this charge, was Dr. Andrew Thynne, who stated, that, at the request of Mr. Knight, he made the overture to Mrs. Clarke; that he was authorized to offer her 200l. if she would cause the exchange to be expedited; that he expected her to be able to get the thing done through her influence with a certain great person; that this great person was the Commander-in-Chief; that, when the exchange was effected, Mrs. Clarke sent to the witness the Gazette, in which it was recorded, accompanied with a note from herself, saying, that, as she was going to the country, 200l. would be very convenient to her; that, when he made the offer to Mrs. Clarke, he gave her the names of the parties upon a slip of paper; that Mrs. Clarke talked about the necessity of secrecy, but the witness cannot tell from whom she was desirous to keep the thing a secret; that he never saw the Duke of York at Mrs. Clarke’s; that he, the witness, understood, from Mr. Knight, that the exchange would be carried through in the regular manner, but Mr. Knight wished, in consequence of the bad health of his brother, that the business should be expedited, and for that purpose application was made to Mrs. Clarke.

Mr. Robert Knight corroborated Dr. Thynne as to the motive of the application to Mrs. Clarke; he said further, that, when the exchange was effected, he sent Mrs. Clarke the 200l.; that his brother had before received, from the office of the Duke of York, a notification in the usual way, that when a proper successor presented, there would be no objection to the exchange; that he does not know of any positive promise made to his brother by the Duke, previous to the application to Mrs. Clarke. Upon being asked, “Why was the application made to Mrs. Clarke?” he answered, “There was a delay in the business; but the cause of it I do not know. I mentioned the circumstance to Mr. Thynne, who was then attending my family. He advised me to apply to a good friend of his, Mrs. Clarke.” He then repeated what he has said before about the offer of money.

Upon further questioning, he says, that Mrs. Clarke desired him to keep the whole transaction a secret, lest it should come to the ears of the Duke of York; and, that, recently, she has told him, that the Duke having used her extremely ill, leaving her in debt about 2,000l., she would, if she could bring him to no terms, expose him, whereupon the witness said, he hoped she would not expose him and his brother by mentioning their names, to which she answered, that God knew that was not her intention.

Mrs. Clarke was next examined by Mr. Wardle, and her examination, all through, I shall give just as I find it in the Morning Chronicle newspaper, where I find it given in the best manner. The whole of the Evidence, as reported to the House, will hereafter be published in the PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES; but, if, upon seeing it in that shape, which I soon shall, I should discover any material error in the newspaper report, I shall lose no time in publishing a correction of it. The evidence of this witness should all be before the public; we should have a fair view of every part of it; because she must necessarily be the principal witness as to the knowledge which the Duke had of these transactions with her; and because, of course, much, in our decision, must depend upon the credibility of her testimony, and that credibility must again depend upon the general complexion and character of that testimony.