The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-02-24 00:00:00

.. •
_ _

1~
~ ~_.~l

. Pt.
tioutwaerantedi a
tsiere iskliio 'ire-nap/it Et-TI rail:- me/IUP then
;laid a letter from the Admiralty •to *Sir MIAOW.
date. Vier di/ subsequent` to threlsC
Wortto the King of- Lord Chatham's 'Nerrattvip..'
loin which the Head of that deriartment'offereCio:
Be the channel of conveying to' his Majesty ent
itttemeot witiCla Sir Richard Strachan should OA
gitoper to draw up. The Ron. Member cited this
ts i proof of the feeling which actuated those who
dultt, from theit Stations, feel a natural in-
tet.in the characters of naval officers. •
tiSir S: ROME/4Y observed, that as his Right
onourable'Friend (Mr. Ward) had stated, that
were he satisfied the paper was in existenCe he
YirQuld vote for the Address, he (Sir S.) thought
it in his power wholly to remove his doubts.
fie-had only to remind him of his fennel profes-
sional habits. ;le had only, to remind him, that in
a Court of justice, if a witness produced refoied
to give an answer to a question, purporting to in-
quire whether he had piesented such a paper or
not, the Judge would direct the jury to take it for
granted that such a document wisin existence Dear,
hear !] But even though it were not in existence,
that wotild be with hint in additional reason for
voting for the Address. Match hid been said of
jealotisles being created heiween the two branches
of our service. What then was the best method to
get rid of such apprehensions? Cif banishing
from the possibility of continuance,stich lamenta-
ble suspicions? Nothing could be more efficarious
far such a salutary Introit.; than -1144 Addreis ;.4
the answer to which would prove, if such papers
were not presented,' that there was no ground foi
entertaining such suspicions. Independent of these
considerations, the privileges of that.llouse were'
materially involved in the question. During an
investigation at the Bar, a Peer of the Realm was
Asked relative to certain papers. Ile refused to
Answer. As a Peer he was protected from those co.
ercive means which the House could put in force
against a Commoner. What then became of its inqui.
sitOrial authority ? It did fortunately happen, that
the House, in this case, had other means of arriving
at the sane end. Those means were by address.,
If the paper was in existence at all, it was in the
Imola of his Majesty, anti who was he that could
doubt that his Majesty would not cheerfully pro.
deco it to his faithful Commons ? (Hear, hear 0'
Did the nonce recollect the strong means resorted
to on a late. Inquiry to compel a witness to pro.
doe.) a paper (alluding to the case of Captain
Maley Sandott)? Was it even satisfied with the
production of the one document ? or,_slid it not,
in the exercise of its inquisitorial capacity, seize
upon all the papers contained in the private escru.
toire of that individual, and refer them to the con-
sideration of a Select Committee ? Will then the
House, while it reflected upon its course of pro.-
et:citing in a recent case,. refuse to irotefor an ad-
dress, intreatinr fur the produetion of a &tett.
meat, which, if it does exist, is most important
to the inteu'ests of justice, and which, if not in
existence, mist wholly remove all those sealskin,'
which, lung atootinsted, must be replete with lois.
ehievotts consequences ? 's..
'Sir JOUN ftivs.riw'rit ER, Wished to rem
the :Muse of 'f he critical fiittiario4 'in 'Which till
• wee. placed. .Ucibmvrclolved
_fawn the full(
Inquiry, into The pithey airitresruirct fer
pedition to the.'Seiveldt." Therfted -entered upon
that Inquiry, and What did the now ifop. at'
Evidence. A matter a evidOce is eats
w hich . was net:vinery to Bin clarsrrrr; on of. t!tat
Inquiry to the fullatt..igiget—lnd now.th•• !4,ea:
lion was, whether they would tike the iv)! I
steps to secure that evhienee 11. they wets
serioult in the Inquiry, they could not, °skdefy.
refuse to call for that farther evidence. Why.
was. tho paper. in qnistion :to be kept hack ?
B..cause it affected the aecused. lie could
imagine no other reason. fur' withholding it.
And then it would go to establish the prin.
ciple, that only so much evidence should • he
adoliteril as suited the wishes the person'accused.
If it was meant to be a fair Inqniry—it the
House were really in earnest iwthe prosecution of
that Inquiry, how could th.'y hesitate for a mo-
ment to call fur any evidence that might ba rea-
sonably supposed calculated to throw light upon
the progress of that Inquiry ? In fine, he thought
that if the Iloese meant to put the two services
:upon an equal footing—if they did- notowish to
suiuggle the consistent prosecution of the Inquiry,
or any of the accused parties, bellottl the King's
name, they could not well hesitate to accede 'to
the motiost of his Honourable Friend.

• The ATTOR N 111 Y-G.EN ER AL, in a short
spocch opposed the motion. He thought that
,Lord• Chatham did not refuse to answer any ques.
tiun arising immediately out of the conduct and
management of the
.Expedition ; and as to the
question . that was put and nut answered, he
'thought that it wait but fair Lo that Noble Lord
that' the ease should stand as N' such a' question
had net been put. Lie observed ton, that the
question wastiot put crimbiatory on Sir Rickard
Strachan, and therefore the refusing to answer to it
ought not to be considered as throwing•any impu.
lationOpon that Officer.
Mr. BATHURST:briefIy supported the motion.
Hi said, that his Majesty's Ministers did not op-
pose the motion made a few days ago for the pro.
duction of the written statement handed to his Ma.
jesty by Lord Chatham. Supposing that the mo-
tion then,,instead of being for that paper, or such a
paper, hail been for any papers communicated to:
his Majesty by Lord Chatham relative to the Ex-
pedition to the Scheldt; he wished to know if Mi.
nisters would have opposed any such motion ? lie
did not think they would; and if they would not,
he could not conceive a reason Why they might not
agree to the present motion. it hid, hoinwer,
been said by the Honourable Mover, that he as.
sumod that there was in that
.paper some matter
criminatbry o others in the conclart of that Et pt._
ditioto. lie Flid not know upon what grounds that
HotiourableQentleasint had made any sueltras.
s.umption. lint it had been said upon the other
r aide, that those who supported the motion were
all along !leggings the question ; 'that the. whole
• •
was a petitio denied it.' They
Nt net jistifiasle in "aveanting Ike vaiA.;:nce of ant
. •

I,

`T ,