Page:Protestant Exiles from France Agnew vol 1.djvu/417

 enjoyed their posts as sinecures. He concluded by proposing that his motion be now read.

Lord Galway’s estimable cousin, the young Duke of Bedford, then came forward and presented a petition from the Earl. The Clerk read it, and it was to the effect that the Petitioner, being informed that matters which very much concerned him were inserted in the Journals of the House, prayed their lordships to give him time to put in his answer before they came to a determination. A similar petition from Lord Tyrawley was presented by the Marquis of Dorchester. This reasonable request was objected to by Major-General Lord North and Grey, who said, “The Lords Galway and Tyrawley ought to have put in their answers to Lord Peterborough’s paper, instead of petitioning for time, which looked like delay.” But the reader sees that the Generals had had only one clear day, viz., Wednesday, to collect their references and compose their replies. The Duke of Devonshire said that the petitions should be granted, as a censure upon the two lords might follow upon the motion which had been tabled. The Earl of Rochester observing that the petitions were improper both as to matter and time, Lord Somers replied, that the petitions were neither improper nor given in at any improper time; that it would be too late for the petitioners to apply to the Lords after they were come to a resolution; and it was but natural justice that men in danger of being censured should have time to justify themselves. Lord Cowper concurred; he said that in things essential to justice, the ordinary forms of courts of judicature ought to be observed. On the same side was the Earl of Wharton, who remarked, A censure is a punishment; to punish men without giving them an opportunity to make their defence is equal to banishment; I hope the subjects of England are not yet reduced to that. The Duke of Buckingham held that proceedings might be stopped to hear a party in questions as to property but not as to reputation; yet as a concession, if the petitions were withdrawn, he would move that the two lords be called in and heard. The Earl of Poulett said, “They have been heard already.” The Earl of Godolphin answered, “There is new matter, and an imputation.” Lord Halifax said, “Sir George Rooke was heard for three days; pray, my lords, proceed according to the rules of justice; out of affectation of avoiding delays and not going fast enough, we have been going too fast and must return to the point.”

Such equitable and courteous views were overruled. No importation of good manners came from Scotland along with the metaphysics lately noticed. The Duke of Argyle said, “I don’t know what service it would do to the petitioning lords to have time, and to say to this House that they differed from the House.” And the Earl of Mar exclaimed, “I do not wonder that some persons endeavour to shuffle and prolong the debate; but if we grant these petitions, we may be afterwards desired to postpone this enquiry till Mr Stanhope can be heard.” The view which carried the day was expressed by the Earl of Nottingham: “The petitioners have already been heard and been allowed time to add anything to their former declarations. The lords are not now enquiring into facts, but forming their judgments upon them. The admitting of Lords Galway and Tyrawley to take notice of what passes in this House would be admitting them to a co-ordination with the Lords.” The petitions were rejected by a majority of 57 to 46.

The Duke of Argyle said, “I take for granted that the petitioners are out of the way and not to be found;” this was ascertained by sending an officer to the door. Lord Poulett’s motion was then taken up as the question before the House. It was as follows:—

“That the Earl of Galway, Lord Tyrawley, and General Stanhope, insisting at a conference held at Valencia, sometime in January 170, in the presence of the King of Spain, and the Queen’s name being used in maintenance of their opinion, for an offensive war, contrary to the King ot Spain’s opinion and that of all the general officers and public ministers, except the Marquis das Minas; and the opinion of the Earl of Galway, Lord Tyrawley, and General Stanhope being pursued in the operations of the following campaign, was the unhappy occasion of the Battle of Almanza, and one cause of our misfortunes in Spain, and of the disappointment of the Duke of Savoy’s expedition before Toulon concerted with her Majesty.”

Lord Peterborough took a leading part in the debate. His account of the councils having been adopted by the House on Tuesday, without waiting for Lord Galway’s explanations, and the ministry being determined to hurry on to a division, the generals’ friends did not take up the narrative portion of the motion, but confined