Volume 1 — CHAP. XIII. DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.—WESTMINSTER ELECTION.— REPLY TO MR. SHERIDAN.—I AM ELECTED.—VIRULENT RECRIMINATIONS.—OPENING OF THE HOUSE.—MOVE FOR AN ACCOUNT OF SINECURES.—OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION.—MR. PERCEVAL’S PROPOSITION.—MY MOTION EVADED.—NAVAL ABUSES.— DETAILS OF ABUSES.—NAVAL HOSPITALS.—SPEECH IN THE COMMONS.—JOIN LORD COLLINGWOOD’S FLEET.

On the 27th of April, 1807, the short but busy parliament was dissolved, “his Majesty being anxious to recur to the sense of his people.” In other words, it was dissolved for political reasons not within the scope of the present work to enter.

In the following month of May writs were issued for a general election, and as my Honiton constituents, even during the short period I had been ashore, had heartily sickened me of further connection with them, by the incessant cry for places with which they had assailed me, I made up my mind to become a candidate for Westminster, with the object of adding the weight of an important constituency to my own representations on naval or other abuses whenever opportunity might occur. Or, as I told the electors of Westminster at a meeting convened at the St. Alban’s Tavern, my motive for soliciting their suffrages was, that “a man representing a rotten borough could not feel himself of equal 216consequence in the House with one representing such a city as Westminster—that disclaiming all attachment to parties or factions, it was not only my wish to be independent, but to be placed in a position where I could become so with effect, and that as this was impossible with no more efficient backers than my late constituents, my connection with them had ceased, and I had taken the liberty of soliciting the suffrages of the electors for Westminster.”

The candidates for Westminster were, the Right Hon. Brinsley Sheridan, Mr. Elliot, Mr. Paul, and myself. It was not till the poll had commenced, that Sir Francis Burdett—at that time confined to his bed by a dangerous wound received in a duel with Mr. Paul—was put in nomination, without his knowledge, the nature of his wound not permitting any person to communicate with him, except his medical attendant.

I was regarded as the opponent of Mr. Sheridan, and for want of better argument that gentleman’s partisans in the press sought to depreciate me in the estimation of the electors by representations of the most unjust character, a far more reprehensible act than that of pointing out to them the advantage of retaining an eminent and tried man in preference to one of whose political tendencies they could practically know nothing.

In electioneering all devices are considered fair, so in place of resenting or retaliating, they were met by my declaration, that—

“Whatever gentlemen might say of their long political services—to the electors belonged the privilege of judging for themselves, and that in looking for security for the performance 217of pledges, they should also consider the character of those who gave them. I was not a mere professed reformer, but the zealous friend of reform, earnestly desiring to see it thoroughly carried out as regarded many abuses which had crept into our constitution. Much had been said of profligacy and profusion of public money. But what was to be said of a Commander-in-chief of the Navy, who would give away those commissions which formed the stimulus, and should be the reward of honourable merit, in exchange for borough interests? If I had the honour of being returned for Westminster, I should feel confident in rising to arraign such abuses. But in representing a rotten borough, I was under restriction.”

This explanation was favourably received, and the result was, that on the 10th of May I was at the head of the poll, whilst my detractors were at the bottom; Sir Francis Burdett being third, and Mr. Sheridan fourth,—a circumstance which called forth from the latter gentleman one of those diatribes for which he had become famous.

To this I replied as follows:—

“I perfectly approved of the sentiments professed by the right honourable gentleman, that ‘with respect to his own principles, he would prefer the approbation of his country before the favour of any administration, or other set of men.’ It had, however, been said, that naval officers were unfit for representatives of the people in parliament. But how were abuses in the Navy to be pointed out or redressed by parliament, without the presence of men competent to point them out, give accurate information, and suggest remedies?

“For six years past, such abuses had prevailed as were paralysing the Navy. It was not the place to enter into details, but a few of the more prominent points might be 218mentioned. Under what was called the system of economy, adopted in the fleet, ships were kept at sea month after month, and in such a crazy state of repair, as scarcely to be in a condition to float. The system was, that when such vessels came into harbour for repair, the Admiralty artificers were sent on board to examine them. These men were afraid to tell the truth, if they considered it unpalatable to their employers, lest they should lose their places. They therefore reported, that such ships would do awhile longer, with some slight repairs.

“The vessels received those repairs, without coming into dock, and were sent to sea, where they were wrecked or foundered! This was the case with the Atalante, ship of war, which was four months off Rochefort last winter. I was ordered to victual that ship for a long voyage, and remonstrated—declaring my opinion that she was unfit to go to sea, and that, if she were sent, the first intelligence from her would be, that she had foundered. The result was exactly as I had foretold. In spite of remonstrance, she was sent to sea, and ship, crew, and all went to the bottom (loud laughter). It was no laughing matter. Like the fable of the frogs, it might be fun to some, though anything but fun for brave men, whose lives were so valuable to their families and their country. A similar fate attended the Felix schooner, which was compelled to proceed to sea in a like condition, and went down with officers and crew, of whom one man only was saved.

“Another point might be mentioned. What could be said of a man at the head of the Navy, who would lavishly grant away, in exchange for rotten borough interests, naval commissions which ought to be the reward of those brave officers who had for years devoted their lives at every hazard in the service of their country? Yet it was notorious such things were done.

“It had been asserted, that naval and military officers were ineligible to seats in parliament, because they might at any time be called away by their professional duty. But such 219men might—and often did—effect more for their country in a few days—sometimes in a few hours—than half those gentlemen who continued for seven years, sitting on their cushions in the House of Commons, without speaking a word for the public good,—nay, very often voting against it (laughter and applause).

“With regard to reform, it would be my wish to bring back the constitution to its ancient purity—to exclude altogether from parliament those placemen and pensioners who, by ancient laws, were excluded from it, but whom modern practice had deemed it expedient to place in the Legislature. What had the Committee of Reform done—of whose labours and intentions so much had been said? When the dissolution came, they were found sitting where they began their task, without having effected anything whatever.”

At the final close of the poll, Sir Francis Burdett and myself, being at the head, were declared elected, and I had the honour of representing a body of constituents whose subsequent support, under the most trying events of my life, forms one of my most gratifying recollections. I must also record it, to the honour of my Westminster friends, that during my long connection with them, no elector ever asked me to procure for himself or relatives a place under Government, whilst the multitude of applications for place from my late constituents formed, as has been said, a source of intolerable annoyance.

This election was remarkable as being the first in which public opinion firmly opposed itself to party faction. It had become unmistakeably manifest that the two great factions into which politicians were divided had no other object than to share in the general 220plunder, and, as a first step to this, to embarrass the government of the “ins” by the factious opposition of the “outs.” Indeed, so obvious had this become, that the appellations of Whig and Tory were laid aside by common consent, and the more descriptive names of “outs” and “ins” substituted in their stead. My election had no doubt been secured by the emphatic declaration, that I would belong to neither party, supporting or opposing either as in my judgment might seem conducive to the national good.

The animosity of these respective parties against each other was favourable to such a course. Each accused the other of grasping at offices for the sake of personal or dependent advantage, and averred that the aim of their opponents was neither the administration of government—which, as has been seen, was left to administer itself in its own way—nor the good of the country, but the possession and distribution of the public money. So virulent did these mutual recriminations become, that it cannot be wondered at if people took the disputants at their word; the more so as the moment either party was in power they threw aside the principles which had gained momentary ascendency, and devoted their sole attention to their former practices, knowing that, as their possession of office might be short, a tenure so uncertain must be made the most of. Statesmanship amongst such people was out of the question. Neither party could even foresee that the very disgust which their scramble for office was exciting in the public mind, must one day overthrow both factions.

221It was at this very Westminster election that the patriotism of the electors made itself felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, and laid the foundation of that reform which has been obtained by the present generation. To the error which had been committed both factions became speedily alive, and each in turn persecuted the expression of public opinion whenever opportunity offered. The press, as far as possible, was gagged; public writers and speakers heavily fined, and sentenced to lengthened imprisonment; and, where the rank or position of the offender rendered this impracticable, both parties joined in the most uncompromising hostility to him, as afterwards I had but too much reason to know to my cost.

On the 24th of June, the electors of Westminster insisted on carrying Sir Francis Burdett from his house in Piccadilly to a magnificent entertainment at the Crown and Anchor Tavern in the Strand. A triumphal car was provided, which on its passage through immense crowds of spectators was enthusiastically greeted, the illustrious occupant reclining with his wounded leg on a cushion, whilst the other was placed on a figure, inscribed with the words “VENALITY AND CORRUPTION,” which were thus emblematically trampled under foot.

On the 26th the House was formally opened by the delivery of his Majesty’s speech, through the instrumentality of commissioners, viz. Lord Chancellor Eldon, and the Earls of Aylesford and Dartmouth. In the course of the debate on the address, during which 222much party recrimination took place, I excited great animosity by expressing a hope that, “as each party charged the other with making jobs in order to influence the elections, the conduct of both might in this respect be inquired into, and that hence, some third party would arise, which would stand aloof from selfish interests, and sinecure places, for that, as parties were at present constituted, I would not support either unless they were prepared to act on other principles than those by which them present course appeared to be guided.”

On the 7th of July, pursuant to notice, I brought forward a motion to the following effect:—

“That a committee be appointed to inquire into, and report upon, to this House, an account of all offices, posts, places, sinecures, pensions, situations, fees, perquisites, and emoluments of every description, paid out of or arising from the public revenues, or fees of any courts of law, equity, admiralty, ecclesiastical, or other courts, held or enjoyed by, or in trust for, any member of this House, his wife, or any of his descendants for him, or either of them, in reversion of any present interest; with an account of the annual amount of such, distinguishing whether the same arises from a certain salary or from an average amount; that this inquiry extend to the whole of his Majesty’s dominions, and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records.”

My argument was. “that if this motion were granted, the result would prove whether there was any possibility of making those who had lived on, and enriched themselves by the public money, feel for the extraordinary burthens under which the people laboured. The 223late plan of finance proved that as much as could be exacted had been drawn from the people, and that it was not possible to extract more—ingenuity having exhausted itself in devising new sources of taxation; so that it was necessary to satisfy the greed of dependents on the public purse by the expedient of profligate advertisements, offering for sale the public patronage, and even seats in a certain assembly. It was proper to show the public that there was nothing in the character or habits of those composing that House which they desired to conceal.”

There was nothing factious in this, but the fear of the Government was, that were such a motion agreed to, the country would perceive that the vast accumulation of the national debt did not arise so much from warlike expenditure, defensive or aggressive, as from political profligacy. The motion was, therefore, opposed by one of the leading members of the House, on the ground that it was invidious and improper to convey to the public an insinuation that members of parliament were influenced by considerations of private advantage for themselves or their dependents; and that it was most essential, at this critical period, the character of the House of Commons should not be degraded or depreciated.

In this view both factions joined con amore, for the question as to which it was aimed at was only that of being in or out of office. That there was any chance of such a motion being passed was not expected by any one, and least of all by myself; but the predicament in which it had placed the House was that of either assenting 224to the correctness of its principle, or of asserting boldly that there were no grounds for the inquiry. The latter course was too high to be taken with safety.

Mr. Whitbread, a most excellent man, and a great peacemaker when practicable, came to the rescue, by stating that though he concurred in principle with my motion, yet it might be sufficient to refer it to a committee of finance, with instructions to inquire into and report upon the matters therein contained. Such a course would be useful without being invidious, and a report based upon such alteration would probably be attended with beneficial results.

Mr. Perceval caught at the alternative thus presented, and immediately proposed that the motion should be thus altered:—

“That there should be an instruction to the committee of public expenditure, to procure a list of all places, pensions, &c., specifying by whom they were held, with the exception of those belonging to the Army and Navy, and officers below 200l. a year in the revenue, and that they should cause this list to be laid on the table.”

To this compromise I demurred, stating that “my motive had not been made in expectation of pecuniary saving, but because a general feeling existed in the country regarding the corruption of the House of Commons! It was notorious that commissions in the Army and Navy had been given for votes in that House, and to such an extent was the system carried, that the best way to preferment was considered to be by the purchase of a house or two in usually contested boroughs. I could not accept as a substitute for my motion an 225alphabetical list of pensions and places, though it would be an object of great curiosity, and though many might be ashamed of holding such offices if their names were exposed to public view. On these grounds I would press my motion to a division,”—which was carried against me by a majority of 29.

Mr. Perceval then moved his amendment, which elicited from Mr. Whitbread a declaration, that “it was unquestionably Lord Cochrane’s meaning that there should be exhibited, during the present session of parliament, a list of all the members of that House holding sinecure offices, places, &c., under Government, and in that way liable to have their conduct influenced. If such a return were not made, the House would disgrace itself. Those who at present respected the House would suspect that all was not right; whilst those who already suspected it would have their suspicions confirmed.”

Mr. Sheridan also pronounced Mr. Perceval’s amendment “to be nothing but an evasion of my motion, intended to overwhelm the inquiry, and thus to suffocate the object Lord Cochrane had in view.” The House, however, was not inclined to publish its own shame, and Mr Perceval’s amendment was carried by a large majority. So far as the production of the general pension list was concerned, my first essay in the House was thus a success.

The ill-feeling, however, engendered towards myself amongst men of both parties, the greater portion of whom were either implicated in, or recipients of, the corruption denounced by a few servants of the crown, 226cannot at the present day be conveyed to the imagination of the reader. To appreciate it he must have been conversant with such matters fifty years ago, and have witnessed the first onslaught made upon them from a quarter so unexpected.

On the 10th of July, I brought forward a motion on naval abuses. As in the present day any discussion of a matter so remote would be tedious, it will suffice for the continuation of the narrative to transcribe from the pages of Hansard all that need be said on the subject.

“Lord Cochrane rose and said,—‘Sir,—A wish to avert part of the impending dangers of my country has made me resolve to move for certain papers relative to the Naval Service, not with a retrospective view to blame individuals, but that unnecessary hardships may cease to exist. I am willing to believe that members of this House, whose talents are capable to do justice to the cause, are ignorant of circumstances which for years have embittered the lives of seamen employed in His Majesty’s Service; and that as to the gentlemen of the naval profession who have seats here, I suppose that the diffidence occasioned by the awe which this House at first inspires, has prevented them from performing this important duty.

“‘I shall be as brief as possible, but as the nature of some of the papers for which I am about to move is unknown to many members of this House, it will be necessary that I should give some explanation. The first motion is, “That there be laid before this House copies of all letters or representations made by Commanders of H.M.’s sloop Atalante and schooner Felix, addressed to Captain Keats (commanding off Rochefort), respecting the state and condition of those vessels, and the sick therein.”

“‘The object of this motion is to prove that vessels, under the present system, are kept at sea in a dangerous state, and 227that the lives of many officers and men are in constant peril. Lieutenant Cameron, who commanded the Felix, and since lost in that vessel, was one of the best and ablest officers I ever knew. He found it incumbent on him to report that the Felix ought to be sent into port to repair. I shall read part of two letters from the surgeon, dated three months before they all perished, and previous to Lieutenant Cameron’s being appointed to command that vessel. The other dated eight days before that melancholy event. On the 14th of November, he says,—“Our noble commander has been very active in his endeavours to get confirmed to this vessel, much more than I should be: she sails worse and worse, and I think the chances are against our ever bringing her into an English port.” On the 14th of January, 1807, the surgeon says,—“Every endeavour has been put in force by Cameron and myself to get her into port, but without success. He attacked the commodore with most miserable epistles of distress throughout, and I attacked him with a very formidable sick list, but all, my friend, would not do.”

“‘I may be told that there is danger in agitating such subjects; but there can be none at any time in bringing to the knowledge of the Legislature, for redress, that which is notorious to those who have a right to claim it. No, Sir, let grievances be redressed in time, and complaints will cease. When the Impérieuse, the ship I command, was about to leave Rochefort, I was ordered to revictual the Atalante for six weeks, though she had then been out eight months—a period sufficient to ruin the health, break the energy, and weary the spirit of all employed in such a vessel. The Atalante was hauled alongside, the commander and several officers came on board, and informed me of the bad condition of their sloop. They said she was wholly unfit to keep the sea, and that a gale of wind would cause her inevitable loss. I think they said the fore-mast, and bowsprit, and fore-yard, were all sprung; besides, the vessel made twenty inches of water per hour. I thought it well to mention the circumstances, thus reported, to the commanding officer off Rochefort—for 228I well knew that the minds of subordinate officers ordered to survey were impressed with terror, lest any vessel surveyed should not be found, on arriving in port, quite so bad as represented. Their usual plan therefore is, to say such a vessel can keep the sea a while longer—knowing that if any accident occurs it will be ascribed to zeal for the good of His Majesty’s service! So much impressed was I with the bad state of this vessel, that I said to the builder of Plymouth-yard, in the presence of Admiral Sutton, on my arrival there, that the first news we should have from Rochefort, if there should happen to be a gale of wind, would be the loss of the Atalante. Under the harassing system of eight or nine months’ cruises, men get tired of their lives, and even indifferent as to the choice between a French prison and their present misery.

“‘The next document I propose to move for is—“An abstract of the weekly accounts of H. M.’s ships and frigates employed off Brest and Rochefort, from the 1st of March, 1806, until the 1st of March, 1807.” From this the number of men employed, the number of sick, the time the ships have been kept at sea, and the time they have been allowed in harbour to refit the vessels and recruit the crews, will appear. The Plantagenet, for instance, was eight months within four hours’ sail of England. She was then forced, by stress of weather, into Falmouth, where she remained twelve days wind-bound; but an order existed (which I shall presently make the subject of a motion,) by which neither officer nor man could stretch his legs on the gravel beach within fifty yards of the ship! In order to show how little benefit has been derived from supplies at sea, as a substitute for refreshment and recreation which the crews were formerly suffered to enjoy, I shall next move—“That there be laid before this House an account of the quantity of fresh provisions, expressed in day’s allowance, received at sea by each of H. M.’s ships off Rochefort and Brest, from the 1st of March, 1806, to the 1st of March, 1807.” Formerly, when the four months’ provisions were expended, the return of 229a ship to port was a matter of course; but now they are victualled and revictualled at sea; so that an East India voyage is performed with more refreshment than a Channel cruise. Lime-juice is the substitute for fresh provisions, a debilitating antidote to the scurvy—unfit to re-establish the strength of the body impaired by the constant use of salt provisions.

“‘The next motion (which I shall propose) is—“That there be laid before this House all orders issued and acted on between the 1st of March, 1806, and March, 1807, respecting leave to be granted or withheld from officers or men, distinguishing who was Commander-in-chief at the times of issuing such orders.” It is a hard case that in harbour neither officer nor men shall be permitted to go on shore; these orders I do not hesitate to condemn; and the injustice appears the more striking, when it is remembered that the Commander-in-chief resided in London, enjoying not only the salary of his office, but claiming the emolument of prize-money gained by the toil of those in active service. I shall not be surprised to find the office of Commander-in-chief bestowed on some favourite as a sinecure by some future minister.

“‘With respect to the sick, I feel it necessary to say a few words, but I shall first read my motion on that subject—“That there be laid before this House all orders issued and acted on between the 1st of March, 1805, and the 1st of March, 1807, by, or by the authority of the Commander-in-chief of H.M.’s ships and vessels in the Channel, allowing or restraining commanding officers from sending men to the naval hospitals, or restricting their admission to such hospitals.” In consequence of regulations established in these institutions, men are frequently refused admittance. No man, whatever may be his state of health, can be sent to an hospital from any of the ships in the Channel fleet, unless previously examined by the surgeon of the Commander-in-chief. Deaths, amputations, and total loss of health, were the consequences of the impossibility of this officer going from 230ship to ship, in bad weather, when opportunity offered to convey the sick to port. So pertinaciously were such regulations adhered to, that although I sent a sick lieutenant and a man ruptured to the hospital, they were not admitted. The disease of the one (who was under salivation) was declared to be contrary to the order regulating admission, and he was returned through sleet and rain: the other was refused because everything possible had not been done to reduce the rupture, as he had not been hung up by the heels, in a rolling sea, which might have proved his death!

“‘The system of naval hospitals is thoroughly bad. Mistaken economy has even reduced the quantity of lint for the purpose of dressing wounds. To the ships there is not half enough allowed. Unworthy savings have been unworthily made, endangering the lives of officers and seamen. Indeed the grievances of the Navy have been, and are so severe, through rigour and mistaken economy, that I can see nothing more meritorious than the patience with which these grievances have been endured.’

“Sir Samuel Hood, Admiral Harvey, Admiral Markham, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Windham, and others, spoke against the motion.

“Lord Cochrane rose in reply, and said, ‘I disclaim, Sir, any motive whatever, except a regard for the real interests of my country, though I confess that I cannot help feeling in common with others the treatment received. Improper motives have been imputed to me, and I might reply to one of those gentlemen who has denied facts which I can prove, that he was one of those who established this abominable system. What his abilities may be, in matters not connected with the naval service, I know not; but it is a known fact that his noble patron, the Earl of St. Vincent, sent the master of the Ville de Paris to put his ship in some tolerable order. (Here there was a cry of order, order, from Admiral Harvey and others.)

“‘With respect to the assertion made by the same gentleman, that the health of the men is increased by long cruises 231at sea, and that of the Commander-in-chief is improved by being on shore, he may reconcile that if he can. I shall not follow the example of imputing improper motives (looking at Captain Sir Samuel Hood); but another complaint is, that under this obnoxious system of favouritism, captains have been appointed to large commands of six and seven sail of the line, as many frigates and as many sloops of war, the right of admirals who have served, and can serve their country, and who have bled in its cause. But perhaps, for such times, their ranks did not afford a prospect of their being sufficiently subservient.

“‘This House, I believe, need not be told that from this cause there are admirals of ability who have lingered in neglect. (A cry of order, order, from Admiral Harvey and others.) Sir, two parts of the statement of the Honourable Knight are especially worthy of notice, so far as they were meant as a reply to my statement. He said he had an hundred men killed and wounded in his ship, and no complaint, no inconvenience arose from want of lint, or anything else. First, this occurred when surgeons supplied their own necessaries, and next, the wounded men were sent on the day following to Gibraltar Hospital.

“‘Now, Sir, with respect to the blame said to be attributed by me to Lord St. Vincent for the loss of the Felix and Atalante—I have to say, that it is of the general system and its consequences of which I complain—of endless cruises, rendering surveys at sea a substitute for a proper examination of the state of ships in port. The Honourable Knight is a little unfortunate in the comparison he has made—saying, that Lord St. Vincent was no more to blame in the case of these vessels, than for my getting the Impérieuse on shore on the coast of France. Now, since this subject has been touched on, I must state, that I made application for a court-martial on my conduct; but it was not granted, because the blame would have fallen where it ought—on the person whose repeated positive commands sent the ship to sea in an unfit condition. The people of the yard had not 232finished the work, all was in confusion. The quarter-deck guns lay unfitted, forty tons of ballast, besides provisions of all kinds, remained on deck. The powder (allowed to be taken on board only when the ship is out of harbour) was received when the ship was in that condition, and the Impérieuse was hurried to sea without a cartridge filled or a gun loaded! The order issued was, to quit the port the instant the ship would steer, regardless of every other material circumstance. (Another cry of order, order, from the same gentlemen. The Speaker said the Noble Lord must confine himself to the motion before the House.)

“‘Well, Sir, it is asserted that a profusion of oranges is supplied to the fleet at Lisbon, in reply to my statement, that none are allowed in the hospitals at home. I have not heard from any of those who have so zealously spoken on the other side, a defence of the obnoxious order to keep all officers and men on board. All such grievances may seem slight and matter of indifference to those who are here at their ease; but I view them in another light, and if no one better qualified will represent subjects of great complaint, I will do so, independent of every personal consideration.

“‘In the course of the debate it has been asserted, that I said lime-juice was a bad cure for the scurvy—no, it is a cure, and almost a certain cure, but debilitating—it destroys the disease, but ruins the constitution. An Hon. member (Mr. Sheridan) has said, that all this should have been represented to the Admiralty, that this House is an improper place for such discussions, and he has threatened to call for all letters from me to the Board. To the first, I answer, that Boards pay no attention to the representations of individuals whom they consider under their command; next, that if the Right Honourable gentleman calls for my letters, he will find some that will not suit his purpose.

“‘Sir, besides the public abuses, the oppression and scandalous persecution of individuals, often on anonymous information, has been, and is matter of great complaint. Sir, if the present Admiralty shall increase the sum allowed for the 233refreshment of crews in port, instead of corrupting their bodies by salt provisions, and then drenching them with lime-juice, they will deserve the gratitude and thanks of all employed. In the Navy, we have had to lament the system that makes the Admiralty an appendage of the minister of the day, and that just as a Board begin to see, and perhaps to plan reform, they are removed from office. I trust, Sir, that I shall not be denied the papers moved for, and that my motion will not be got rid of by a blind vote of confidence, or the subterfuge of the previous question.’

“The motion was negatived without a division.”^[36]

From the preceding extract it will have been seen that my motion produced no effect upon the House. It however produced a cessation of my legislative functions! for immediately afterwards I was ordered to join Lord Collingwood’s fleet in the Mediterranean; it being perhaps anticipated that I should vacate my seat in consequence; but this the electors of Westminster prevented, by giving me unlimited leave of absence from my parliamentary duties.

234