Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

did not exist in such cases as these? The right honourable Gentleman has faid that it is impoffible during war to build any number of fhips in the King's dock yards, and that therefore a neceffity arises of reforting to the merchants' yards. What a melancholy expreffion-that in those yards, where there were 3200 men employed, nothing more than the mere repair of fhips could be done! If so, then our furprise must be diminished, that a French fleet fhould have been permitted, in the course of the laft war, to find its way to Egypt, and another French fleet to fail to Ireland, where nothing but the elements offered to prevent a formidable French army from landing. If, however, the King's dock yards are really fo little uleful, or rather fo ufe lefs, they ought to be abolished altogether. A new system ought to be adopted. If they could only faith in these yards 24 fail of the line, 15 frigates, and fome few floops, in the courfe of 20 years, although it is known that 45 hipwrights can build a 74 in one year-as there are 3200 shipwrights in thofe yards, and the expence, &c. could not be lefs in 20 years than 4,100,000l. a fum equal to the building of the whole navy of England, it follows, of course, that it is bad policy to continue the maintenance of these dock yards. It is befides well known that the internal fyftem of thefe yards is bad. There is no difference in the wages atlowed to the workmen'; the unskilful can earn as much as those of a different defcription. Thus emulation is prevented, and many advantages, of courfe, loft to the employers. The right hon Gentleman may answer this, and fay, that, although fo many abufes have been detected by the Commiffioners of Naval Inquiry, ftill the fyftem of the dock yards is good: but I affert, and am prepared to maintain the affertion, that abufe pervades every department of the fyf tem. Does the right hon. Gentleman know of the frauds which the Commiffioners have found to have been com mitted in every article with which thefe yards are furnished, particularly blocks? From thefe abuses arife the neceffity of advertising for contractors to build fhipping; and as to correct them, to produce integrity and arrangement in all the departments of the navy, is and has been the great endeavour of the high character upon whom it appears to be the object of the motion before the Houfe to fix an imputation, I fhall vote against it with as much fatisfaction as evet I gave a vote fince I had the honour of a feat in this House; fully convinced that fuch a motion is only calculated to gratify the corrupt, to frown upon reform, and to affail the reputation of a gallant officer, whofe claims to the gratitude VOL. II. 1803-4. R

of

of the country can only be equalled by the esteem and attachment he enjoys among all that are great and good.

Mr. Fox fpoke in fubftance as follows:-I feel mytelf placed in a fituation fomewhat extraordinary on this occafion. With a great part of what has been faid on the merits of the First Lord of the Admiralty, I am strongly difpofed to concur, but at the fame time, I cannot fee how thefe arguments tended to the conclufion at which they arrived. My hon. Friend near me (Mr. Sheridan) has made, as he always does, a fpeech of the utmost brilliancy and eloquence, in which, however, he feemed to me to have almost entirely omitted the reasons on which he was to negative the motion, and he contented himself with announcing the vote he was prepared to give. Though ready to give my ready affent to the diftinguished worth and pre-eminent fervices of Earl St. Vincent, I feel that the best way I can testify my respect for fuch a character, is to give my vote for the motion. I feel that a flur thrown on the reputation of Earl St. Vincent would be a lofs to the country, and to remove every fufpicion of that kind, I fay, let there be ample means of inquiry afforded, fo that the triumph of Lord St. Vincent may be the more complete, fatisfactory, and glorious. It appears to me that the defenders of Lord St. Vincent had but two courses which they could with propriety pursue, either to say that no cafe whatever had been made out, and then refufe all the papers afked, or to produce all the papers which could reasonably be asked for, and upon the confideration of thofe to call for the cenfure or the acquittal of the Houfe. But the line of conduct which Minifters have thought fit to take, does neither the one nor the other. By granting fome papers and refufing others, they admit enough to countenance the fufpicion of fomething wrong in the Naval Adminiftration, and do not go far enough to let that fufpicion be wiped away. But the courfe which Minifters have thought fit to adopt, it is not difficult to explain. They with to defend Lord St. Vincent as they would have defended themfelves; they wish to put him on a level with them, to obtain the precedent of his great name to refift inquiry, fo that every other inquiry may be fruftrated; they wish to put him on a level with Lord Hardwicke, fo that the refufal of inquiry in the inftance of one that can bear it, may be an argument for setting inquiry afide when it might tend to produce difcoveries they would fupprefs. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tierney) who fpoke first against the motion, agrees that the papers alluded to in two of themotions fhall be granted; but he is of opinion that the third

third cannot be granted. If, however, to afk for any papers at all be to caft fome flur on the First Lord of the Admiralty, why are any papers granted at all? or is it becaufe those which are refufed might lead to inquiry, that they are withheld? If this be the object of the defenders of Lord St. Vincent, I am confident that he muft difclaim fuch a mode of proceeding. I am confident that he would countenance no fhuffling or evafion to fupprefs inquiry; and that he would not be content if he thought that it could be fufpected he was adverfe to have his adminiftration canvaffed. Thus Ministers, knowing that the conduct of the First Lord of the Admiralty is in every refpect a contraft to their own, with to make common caufe with him, in offering a mode of defence to which, on a future occafion, they themselves. may refort. Towards Lord St. Vincent I feel much perfonal friendship, and this renders me anxious that his re putation fhould ftand high; but public motives give me a till greater intereft in his fame and honour. Of his glorious achievement on the 14th of February no man can think higher than I do; but his conflict with the abuses and corruptions of his department appears to be, though lefs brilliant, not lefs arduous and meritorious. On the 14th of February he engaged and vanquished the enemy; but he has waged a war no lefs difficult, with jobs, and contracts, and frauds. He has broken their embattled line, no less arduous than to penetrate that of the enemy. My admiration of him is increafed to find him poffefs in fo high a degree, that which is more rare than gallantry in the field,-civil courage and decifion as well as perfonal courage. I feel that his virtues and public deserts in this conteft with corruption have naturally led to that obloquy by which he has been pursued. The attempt to put to rout the hofts of corruption must have created him enemies. Such may have been the perfons from whom an honourable Gentleman oppofite (Mr. Wilberforce) obtained the information he mentioned; but let the miferable witneffes be brought forward, that their teftimony may be examined and difproved. This calls to my mind an anecdote of a rifible nature;-It happened that when Juftice Willes, a man who to many eminent qualities added a confiderable portion of humour, was one day employed in trying a caufe, I believe of murder, and one of the witneffes depofed that a ghoft had faid fo and fo: -" Q very well (faid the Judge), I have no objection to the evi-. dence of a ghoft; let him be brought in and fworn!" So, provided the witneffes alluded to by the honourable Gentleman can be brought forward, I have no objection to receive

R 2

ceive their evidence at the bar of the Houfe, that we may afterwards decide upon it.-During the whole courfe of the debate, the only perfon who has made any direct charge against the conduct of the Admiralty in general is my honourable and gallant Relation (Admiral Berkeley), who fpoke lately. As to the right honourable Gentleman who made the motions, I confefs he feems to me to have made out little or no cafe. With refpect to the number of gun boats in employment now and at former periods, the comparifon affords no conclufion, unless it be fhewn likewife that the exigency of the cafe was fuch, as to demand greater exertions and a greater proportion of this fpecies of force. Unless too it can be thewn, that of gun brigs a greater num ber ought to be employed, the late period at which the Admiralty made the contracts for fuch veffels proves nothing. The night hon. Gentleman likewife propofes to addrefs the Crown, recommending greater exertions in this way; but any measures for the improvement of our defence must be left to those who are in official fituations. But in viewing our state of defence, the great mind of the right hon. Gentleman must see that it must be judged of upon a general fyftem, and not upon any particular point. It is impoffible but that, in viewing each point feparately, there must appear to be fome deficiency. It is evident, however, that fome inferior parts must be overlooked, in order that the perfec tion of the whole may be obtained; and I am inclined to think, that if there be any part of our defence which it was more fafe to facrifice than another from its being of inferior moment, it is that for which the right hon. Gentleman has argued. Had the motion been for papers generally, I might have been a little puzzled to know how I fhould vote, though I believe I still fhould have voted for inquiry; but as the matter ftands now I cannot hesitate. If the papers are refused, it must infer fome flur upon the First Lord of the Admiralty; if fome of thefe documents are withheid, it may be faid by the right hon. Gentleman, that he was prevented from carrying the queftion he meant to move, because inquiry was fuppreffed, and he was denied the papers by which his cafe was to be proved. But it is faid, that if all the papers were granted, a fufpicion would lie against the First Loid of the Admiralty. But how long could fuch a fufpicion continue? No longer, furely, than till the inquiry took place. But if any fufpicion arifes from the motion or from the papers produced, it is impoffible to fay how long fufpicion may remain, fince no inquiry is allowed by which it can

be

be removed. Minifters profefs themfelves friends of Lord St. Vincent in the prefent inftance; but how have they fhewn themselves folicitous about the fame and the accommodation of that noble Lord on other occafions? Do we not know that, for at least eighteen months, a difference of the most ferious kind, and to the impediment of public bufinefs, exifted between the First Lord and the Secretary of the Admiralty; yet that Secretary preferved his place for a year and a half, under those very Minifters who lately contended, that on account of a coolness between the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Commander in Chief there, it was impoffible that the latter could, confiftently with the public safety, remain in his place a week. I cannot help thinking therefore, the defence now fet up by Ministers, as rather intended to be a convenient protection to themselves for the future, than as any thing which Lord St. Vincent's cafe would require. If Lord St. Vincent's conduct, which would stand inquiry, is to be opposed to any inquiry, then will others avail themselves of the example, to contend that they too, though they declined investigation, were equally conscious of rectitude and merit. And is this the way to do honour to Lord St. Vincent's character and fuperiority? Indeed, that Ministers look more to the benefit of the example than to the credit of the First Lord of the Admiralty, appears to me from the manner in which the motion had been oppofed. It seems as if it were faid, we will grant fuch papers as do not inculpate the First Lord of the Admiralty, and do not lead to inquiry. Why then are others refufed? Will it not be faid, that they would have inculpated the Admiralty and led to inquiry? And this is the way in which Lord St. Vincent's reputation is to be defended by his colleagues. The fame right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tierney), to whofe defence of the Admiralty I have just alluded, fays too, that there is no complaint against the Admiralty out of doors; and alfo that the publicwere equally content with the whole conduct of the prefent Minifters. As to the general character of Minifters with the public I fhall give no teftimony; but if the conduct of Minifters were to be the fubject of difcuffion, and decided by argument, it would not be difficult to fhew what the public ought to think of them. This foffer me to illuftrate by a. good humoured comparifon, which on general principles often. affords the best illuftration.-In one of Moliere's plays, a grave old gentleman marries a young wife, or does fomething or other not very fuitable to his character. Every body, how

« PoprzedniaDalej »