revenues would be more regularly paid; there would be fewer deficiencies; in short, in every point of policy, commerce, population, and even revenue, he was persuaded that the adoption of the plan which he had thus hastily thrown out, would be found much preferable to the present system of personal oppression, and all the mischiefs which arise from imposing rackrents upon the wretched people of that country. engaged in such affairs, and whenever he was called upon, he trusted he should shew himself ready to do what was proper. But he was then speaking as a member of parliament, and an advocate for the freedom of debate. If free debate were to be interpreted into personal attack, and questions of a public nature, which came before either House, were to be decided by the sword, parliament would resemble a Polish diet, and the members would do better to give up all ideas of parliamentary discussion, to abandon the senate, and resort at once to the field, where they might have recourse to arms, as the sole arbiter of political difference of opinion. Mr. Hussey approved of the noble lord's motion, and in reply to one of the speakers, who had termed the East India Company great and glorious, he denied that they deserved those epithets, declaring that the Company ought to be regarded with a jealous eye by parliament, or from gross mismanagement, the directors would lose all our acquisitions in India. He thought the propositions, which the directors had proposed as having been assented to as the basis of a treaty by the noble lord, such as the Company ought to have acceded to, and being a proprietor, he had voted at the general court accordingly. The House divided on the previous question; [Sir George Yonge NOES {Sir W. Meredith 142 68 Mr. Adam rose, and immediately the attention of the House was fixed upon him. He declared the hon. gentleman had made it necessary for him to say a few words, because most clearly the hon. gentleman had alluded to him in one part of his speech. With regard to a certain business, in which he had the misfortune to be concerned, no man could regret it more than he did, nor could any one have more unwillingly entered upon it. He thanked the hon. gentleman for giving him an opportunity of publicly declaring that he had in that unhappy affair acted without communication with any one, but solely in compliance with the dictates of his own heart, and the impulse of certain principles of honour and feeling, implanted The original question was then put and in his breast by nature, in consonance to carried. which he had ever acted, and hoped as long as he lived he should continue to act; Debate in the Commons on the Duel be- because whenever he struck out of that tween the Earl of Shelburne and Mr. Ful-path to which those principles directed, larton.] March 22. Sir James Lowther he should hold himself unworthy of attenrose and said, he had been excited, from tion from any man of honour and intewhat had happened that morning, to call grity. Amidst the unwelcome sensations the attention of the House to an affair occasioned by the recalling to his mind which he thought merited their immediate that unfortunate affair, which he hoped consideration. A duel, he understood, would be the last of the kind he should had that morning taken place, in conse- ever be involved in, he had one comfort, quence of some words which had been and that was, that it enabled him in the spoken in both Houses of Parliament. If face of the House to do justice to the this was to go on, and the House did not character of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fox) interpose its authority, there would be an concerned with him in the unfortunate end to the freedom-of debate, and an end affair alluded to, and to assert in the hearof the business in parliament. The cus-ing of so respectable an assembly, that he tom seemed to be growing upon gentlemen, and it behoved the House to exert itself, and proceed in such manner, that the two recent instances of the kind might be the last. When he said this, he by no means wished to put men of spirit into a dishonourable situation. It had been his misfortune more than once to have been had found in him that spirit, that manliness, and that honour, which it was before supposed the hon. gentleman possessed, and which equalled those transcendent abilities that had created him the admiration of every member in that House, and of none in a more eminent degree than of himself. He hoped what he had now said would not be thought flattery; he meant to flatter no man, and he was sure if he so far descended from his own principles to be mean enough to attempt to flatter the hon. gentleman in question, the hon. gentleman's liberal spirit, and dignity of feeling, would have induced him to reject the flattery with the disdain it would merit. His sole intention was, to do the hon. gentleman justice. He was conscious of the great respect due to that House, and he could read in the Speaker's countenance his sense of the impropriety of referring to such a matter within those walls. He felt the respect he owed to the House as much as any man, but he felt also the respect due to his own character, and he hoped the House would have the goodness to overlook the irregularity he had been guilty of, when they considered the torrent of abuse that had been poured down upon him in almost every newspaper, and the base motives that had been imputed to his conduct; motives so mean, so infamous, and so much beneath the adoption of any man who had the smallest sense of honour, that he trusted no person who had the least knowledge of his conduct in life, could for a moment harbour a thought so intolerably injurious to him, as to imagine they actuated him in the affair to which he had felt himself under the necessity of alluding. He declared to God, he had no motive whatever but the conviction that he could not exist with honour, without taking the step which he had taken. And so far from being guilty of the base servility of hoping to please a minister by what he had done, he disclaimed any connection whatever with the minister; he thanked God he could say he had never crossed the threshold of that minister's door, he had never asked him a favour, nor had he any favour to ask of him. He added, that though the grounds upon which the hon. gentleman, who had been concerned in the affair with a noble earl that morning, had proceeded, were uncommunicated to him, so well was he acquainted with the principles of that hon. gentleman's heart, of his high sense of honour, and of his strict attention to every thing that became a gentleman, that he would undertake to say, he had proceeded upon such grounds as would, whenever they were known, add to the respectability of his character, place him, if possible, still higher than he was, in the opinion of all who knew him, and entitle him to the approbation of every man of honour [VOL. XXI.] and sensibility. He had been bred up with the hon. gentleman, he knew his principles, and he should have thought himself unworthy of that friendship in which he lived with him, and which he regarded as a high honour, had he not said thus much in his behalf. Sir Adam Fergusson spoke in the praise of Mr. Fullarton, in terms of the warmest panegyric, and said, he was sure that gentleman had acted upon the most pure and correct principles of honour in the unfortunate affair which had taken place that morning, the particulars of which were unknown to him. He declared he had often felt the extremest pain at hearing in the course of debate that degree of personal invective which every gentleman, on reflection, must know to be improper, and must be conscious he would not be suffered to make use of in any other place. Sir Adam submitted it to the candour of the hon. gentleman who had first alluded to the transaction, whether it would be right, in point of delicacy, to proceed to discuss it, or make any motion upon it, in the absence of the hon. gentleman who was principally concerned in it. Sir James Lowther declared he had no intention to enter into a particular discussion of it, neither had he any intention to make any motion upon it in the absence of the hon. gentleman. If he had mistakenly proceeded to any such matter, he was sure the Speaker would have stopped him the moment he attempted it. He had spoken generally upon the subject, which struck him as directly militating against the freedom of debate; in this point of view he had taken it up as a member of parliament, and so far was he from designing to make any personal reflections, he had never been at the house of the noble lord, and the hon. gentleman was unknown to him even in person, till he had risen a day or two since, and complained to the House of his having been injuriously reflected on elsewhere. Without meaning any thing personal, therefore, he must repeat, that the matter ought by some means or other to be brought before the House, and if that was not fixed as the last day of their sitting, before the re‐ cess, and much important business was to be done, he should move, that the House proceed to the investigation of it instantly, because he considered the freedom of debate as an object of the first care and attention of parliament. As the House was situated, he would not move to have the [Y] matter then agitated, but he begged the House to receive it as a notice from him, that he should move, immediately after the holidays, that the hon. gentleman do attend in his place, and that the matter be then taken into consideration.-A general murmur of No! No! ran through the House; upon which sir James declared he had no objection to alter the words of the motion he should hereafter make, if they appeared to be improper. par Mr. Burke began with complimenting Mr. Adam for the encomium he had passed on his hon. friend. He declared that the warmest panegyric was but justice to his character, and complained of his hon. friend's having been called out, not to answer for what he had said in liament, but for what a newspaper had chosen to impute to him. God forbid, (he exclaimed) that gentlemen should be expected to answer for the gross misrepresentations of their speeches in that House, which appear from time to time, in some of the daily papers! Having said this, he went into a discussion of the matter which had given offence to the hon. gentleman, who had that morning fought a duel with a noble friend of his, a member of the other House. He contended that the words spoken by his noble friend were in the strictest sense parliamentary language; that it was impossible to talk of public measures, without alluding to the men connected with those measures, and that there was an end to the freedom of debate, if gentlemen gave way to their private feelings, and took offence at what was not personally meant. The hon. gentleman who was absent seemed to have confounded public debate with private conversation. In the latter, the object was the happiness and satisfaction of all present; it was there the duty of every one to be upon his guard, and to take care that he let no expression slip him which might give offence to another, or disturb the harmony of the meeting; in public debate, the case was widely and essentially different. The very means and end of public debate, were free discussion, and an open unreserved mode of agitating every subject, to which the question under debate had reference. Without that free discussion, the question could not be agitated at all. This doctrine, he proceeded to apply to the case in question; the earl of Shelburne had entered into a consideration of the state of the army, a material part of the public expence, and surely, a fit matter for parliamentary discussion; in doing this, he had complained of one regiment being put under the command of a person, whom he described, perhaps not very correctly, as a clerk. Would any gentleman say that this was not parliamentary? What offence was there in it? He would take upon him to assert that there was none. It was not directed personally, and no gentleman ought to have mixed his private feelings so far with public debate as to have taken it to himself. Sir H. Hoghton interrupted Mr. Burke, by begging him to remember that it had been in a manner agreed, that the subject should not be discussed in the absence of the hon. gentleman concerned. Mr. Rigby subscribed most fully to the doctrines laid down by the hon. member who spoke last but ohe, relative to the freedom of debate. Public measures and public men were fit subjects of discussion, and if any check was put to the unreserved agitation of such topics, parliament would be of no use, and might as well be abolished. Certainly every member had a right to speak his mind in parliament, in the freest manner upon all public matters, and in some offices and appointments the man was so blended with the office, and the two were so inseparably connected, that it was impossible to make a distinction, and allude to the one without at the same time alluding to the other. These were facts that every gentleman must agree in. How far it was warrantable in the discussion of public matters, and in the allusion to public men, to throw out reflections of an invidious nature, and to treat them contemptuously, was another question respecting which every gentleman must draw his own line, and act accordingly. An hon. member had said he should move an enquiry into an unfortunate affair, which he understood had taken place that morning; might he advise, no enquiry whatever should be instituted respecting it. That, and every other matter like it, should rest undisturbed, and be buried in oblivion. Both parties, he was happy to hear, were safe, and that no affair of the kind had terminated more to the honour of those concerned in it. Why, then, interfere with it? Did the hon. gentleman think that any order or resolution of that House, that any act of the legislature could prevent a gentleman's going out, as it was termed, with another, if he felt his honour injured? Had gen hon. member had accused him of intending to go into a personal discussion of the affair of that morning, and in the same moment had desired that he would not say a word in his justification. He must, however, break through the rule, and declare that he had no design to go into a personal discussion of the affair of that morning, he only meant to have argued it on parliamentary grounds. With respect to what the right hon. gentleman who spoke last had said relative to the impossibility of preventing duels by orders of that House, he could not surely imagine that either he, or the hon. gentleman near him, were so absurd as to attempt to make laws for the restraint of the human feelings and passions. No such thing was in their view. He then proceeded to state the real object of their design. Sir James Lowther declared, that there should be an enquiry, for he was determined to move it an early day after the holidays; and though he certainly would not move that the hon. member be ordered to attend in his place, he hoped the hon. member's friends would inform him of his intention, when, as a man of honour he did not doubt but he would be present. As a proof of the propriety of the House's in tlemen so soon forgot that there were acts of parliament against duelling now in being? The very attempt to prevent one man's fighting with another, was absurd, because it was impossible, by any regulation of parliament, to prevent it. What one gentleman felt as a reason for calling another out, might not operate equally in the breast of a second person. Every gentleman had his own peculiar feelings, and every gentleman would preserve his honour, in his own way. Duels of the kind that had happened that morning, had happened occasionally, time out of mind, and indisputably would happen again and again, as long as the world should endure. They were therefore matters which every man must lament, but which no man, nor no set of men, were able to put a stop to. Out of this great evil, however, he did think some little good would ensue, and that was, it would teach gentlemen to confine themselves within proper limits, and though it might not, and he hoped it would not, abridge the freedom of debate, he hoped it would make men speak in parliament with better manners. This remark, he declared, he did not mean to apply personally to any gentleman. They were all apt to be off their guard in the hurry and heat of debate. He had him-vestigating it, he instanced the late interself been as guilty of this error as any member, and he had lately in a particular instance treated an hon. gentleman with less civility than he ought to have done. He was conscious of this, and condemned himself for it. He repeated, therefore, that he hoped the unfortunate affair that had taken place that morning, and a similar one which had preceded it, would serve as a warning to all of them, and teach them to distinguish between the freedom and the licentiousness of debate. He disapproved of the idea of moving that the hon. gentleman concerned in the affair of that morning, be ordered to attend in his place. Such a motion was highly improper. It involved censure in it, for no member had ever been so ordered, unless the House were previously in possession of some matter of complaint against him, for which they called upon him to answer and clear himself. He concluded with earnestly desiring that the matter might be dropped. Mr. Burke said it was unfair to attack any gentleman in his absence, but it was still more unfair to accuse a man of having done wrong, or of designing to do wrong, and then to condemn him to silence. An position of the Speaker, when a serious affair was near taking place between a learned gentleman, and an hon. friend of his, on that side the House. Mr. Fox declared, that what a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rigby) had said, made it necessary for him to say a few words. The right hon. gentleman was apt to speak in a loose and careless way, and therefore, perhaps, he had not any particular meaning in what he was going to mention; but as the words seemed to point to him, he must notice them. The right hon gentleman had said, he hoped what had hap pened that morning, and what had happened before of a similar sort, would keep gentlemen within proper limits, and at least teach them better manners. begged to say for one, that what had happened to himself had not taught him better manners, nor should it ever restrain him within any other limits, than those which he had chalked out for himself. With regard to the noble earl concerned in the affair of that morning, about which it certainly better became him to talk than about any thing which related to himself, he did not believe it would teach him better manners, and for this reason,-he He was sure his noble friend had not gone beyond proper limits, in what he had said. So sure, that when the new levies came under consideration, he meant to object to that particular regiment, which his noble friend had objected to, on the very same ground, namely, because the person appointed to the command of it, did not appear to him to be a fit person to hold that command. Here the matter dropped. Debate in the Commons on the Army Estimates and the New Levies.] April 5. The Secretary at War moved that the Army Estimates be referred to a committee. Sir P. J. Clerke opposed this motion. He directed his objections principally to the new levies, and in particular to the regiment over which Mr. North was appointed to command, declaring that in his opinion, the appointment vacated the hon. gentleman's seat in that House. It was evident the whole business was a job of the minister, that it was an insult to the army, and might lead to most mischievous consequences. He declared he had no objection to the noble lord's son, nor any suspicion that the regiment would be improperly employed under his direction. The hon. gentleman was every way a respectable character'; but if men not bred to the army were of a sudden to be preferred to the command of regiments, there was an end of military system, and those who deserved best of their country from long service, would loudly complain of the gross injustice of such conduct. Every good officer must be expected to retire in disgust, and thus the country would be deprived of all the advantage their army could receive from being commanded by officers of knowledge and experience in the art of war. Sir Philip enlarged upon the dignity and advantage of being a colonel; shewed that interested men might put a large sum of money into their pockets from holding such rank, by selling the commissions of the officers under them, and called upon the House to support him in interfering in the very beginning of the mischief, and put a stop to a business founded upon a mere jobbing idea, and which could do no good, but might do a great deal of harm. In order to effect this purpose he objected to the papers in question being referred to a committee. Mr. North, (lord North's son) rose for the first time, and said he would not have troubled the House, but as the hon. member had pointed a great part of his speech personally at him, it might be thought ne cessary for him, out of respect to the House, to say a few words; still however he should have remained silent, had not the whole of the hon. gentleman's argu ment been founded upon a complete mistake, as far as it regarded the regiment at the head of which he had the honour to be. The hon. gentleman had said a great deal about rank and emolument; in answer to which he could only declare, that he was neither to have permanent rank nor any pay; and that his appointment could be attended with no advantage to him whatever, further than the honour which he derived from the circumstance of contributing by his personal service to the defence of his country in a moment of public danger. With regard to the doubt which the hon. gentleman entertained respecting the vacating of his seat in conse quence of his being appointed colonel of the regiment in question, the hon. gentleman perhaps was not aware that his regi ment was one of the fencible regiments, upon the same footing with the militia, and that the officers of the fencible regiments were by two clauses moved by the right hon. gentleman opposite to him (Mr. T. Townshend) exempted from vacating their seats. Lord North, in confirmation of this assertion, moved that the clauses referred to be read; after which his lordship gave the House a detail of the regiment being raised, and the mode of raising it. He stated that by the new militia law, the cinque ports were exempted from the provisions of that act. That as matters stood previous to the beginning to raise the regiment his son commanded, the cinque ports, which were more liable to attack than any part of the kingdom, were left defenceless, and that they contributed in no share to bear the burthen of the public defence. That they could not arm but under the old militia law, which had been exploded in that House, and which would have been exceedingly difficult to the cinque ports, and when carried into practice of little or no use. That thinking they ought to contribute their share towards the public defence, he had conferred with the inhabitants of the cinque ports, and had offered to contribute a considerable sum towards raising a regiment of fenci bles. That upon their agreement, they had made a tender of such a regiment; |