nothing, so far as the right hon. gent. was concerned, should be suffered to interfere to prevent this business coming on first on Monday.

General Loft expressed his opinion that the noble earl would be found not to have acted in any respect unbecoming his cha

racter.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer acceded to Mr. Whitbread's proposition, on which the debate was adjourned till Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, March 5.

[THE EARL OF CHATHAM'S NARRATIVE -ADJOURNED DEBATE.] Mr. Whitbread rose, and moved the order of the day, for resuming the adjourned debate, upon the Resolutions he had moved relative to the Narrative of the earl of Chatham. The motion was put from the chair, and the debate resumed.

whatever. But such an intention as that of poisoning the King's mind against a gallant brother officer, never, in the slightest degree, occurred to his mind. If the noble earl had incurred blame by making this communication to his Majesty, without the consent or privity of his colleagues, he trusted that the House, under all the circumstances of the case, would consider it a venial error. The noble earl foresaw that some inquiry would take place. He knew the moment the paper was in an official form, it would be deemed a public document; and, as such, would be called for. He wished it to remain private for a short time, and not to offer it officially before it became necessary to his defence. Although, therefore, he had delivered it to his Majesty on the 15th of January, it was not made a public document until the 14th of February; because then the noble earl was aware that he should be put on his defence: and General Craufurd begged leave to pre- therefore, when the noble earl stated in face what he had to say on the subject in his testimony that he had not delivered discussion, by declaring every sentiment his Narrative until the 14th of February, of party feeling and personal animosity to he meant only that it did not become, till be totally absent from his mind. No then, an official document; and therefore person in that House, or, in this country, he could not refer to it as a public docuhad ever seen him betray such feelings in ment before that date, as he had given it word or action; and if he were to profess in the first instance merely as a private himself biassed by any partial feeling of communication; and to divulge that cir friendship towards the noble earl, whose cumstance would not have been consistent conduct was now under discussion, he with his oath as a privy councellor. If should shew himself but little dexterous in the House, therefore, considered the mothe task he had assumed. The noble earl tives which actuated the noble earl in this was accused of having delivered to his instance, they must extenuate his error, Majesty on the 15th of January, a Narra- and acquit him of every intention of casttive of his proceedings upon the late Ex-ing censure upon the gallant admiral, or pedition to the Scheldt, without having previously communicated upon the subject with his colleagues. The noble earl had most distinctly disavowed the intention, that any opinion he had ever given should cast the most distant shade of censure upon the character or conduct of the gallant admiral, who was his naval colleague on that Expedition. The Narrative he presented, therefore, was a plain and simple statement of the grounds for his defence, should inquiry be thought necessary; but whether he was right or wrong in delivering that paper (and the honourable general was willing to admit it might be an error), yet most confident he felt, that he never was actuated, in that instance, in the slightest degree by the motives ascribed to him. The noble lord considered the paper as applying merely to his own conduct, and nothing else

to prejudice the King's mind against him. The House would likewise take into its consideration, the time when the Narrative was first delivered. Shortly after the noble earl's arrival from the continent, he was aware that some inquiry into the business of the Expedition must take place. This idea pressed upon his mind; and he saw, that, unless some satisfactory explanation was given, he must be tried by a court martial. It was to give this explanation that he drew his Narrative up, and to state what would be the grounds of his defence. If it were possible that he could have harboured the views attributed to him, would he have kept it back from the time of his arrival in October until the January following? Why did he deliver it then? Because Parliament was about to meet. If the noble earl had any intention to prejudice

the King against the gallant admiral, would he have chosen such a mode to accomplish his purpose? To suppose such a thing would be to set down the noble earl as little more than a mere driveller.-Had he not daily opportunities of personal communication with his Majesty? and could he not, therefore, have used any one of those opportunities for conveying his accusations verbally in a way which would leave no trace behind, instead of making his statement in a written Narrative, which he knew must remain as a document, and which he meant should some day become official. Any member of a court martial, to which the noble earl might be eventually referred for trial, might have called for it. It must have been moved for by Parliament in the case of any inquiry being instituted there. The hon. general felt that if he had not stated these his opinions, he should not have done his duty; and he hoped the House, upon maturely considering all the circumstances, would, in its known justice and liberality, fully acquit the noble ear! of those motives ascribed to him by other gentlemen, from no other cause, he was sure, than a different view of the subject.

Mr. C. W. Wynn had never had the honour of any personal intimacy with the noble lord to whose conduct the resolutions before the House applied. But there were other considerations of feeling and near connection, which would render it much more pleasing to him to give a silent vote on this question. The extreme importance of the subject, how ever, rendered it impossible for him to justify the vote he meant to give to himself, without stating the reasons upon which it was founded to the House. It was now, he must observe, allowed, even by the hon. general who had just sat down, that the conduct of lord Chatham had been erroneous. No man who possessed any parliamentary information or constitutional knowledge could commit his character by asserting the contrary. When this, then, was admitted on'all hands, was the House of Commons, by not agreeing to the resolutions of his hon. friend, to put it upon their journals that such conduct was not erroneous? For that would be the effect of voting the previous question, which he understood was to be moved by the right hon. gentleman opposite. Lord Chatham, a cabinet minister, and also commander in chief of an important expedition, having given in to his Sovereign

a statement containing heavy charges against a gallant admiral who had been employed conjointly with him in that expedition; and having, contrary to all constitutional practice, and the whole course of precedents, accompanied his statement with a desire of secrecy, it was impossible that the House of Commons could declare such conduct not only not erroneous but justifiable. It would be to hold out to all military men an encouragement to follow the same practice. It would, in any such case, be open to them to give in any statement containing any charges against other officers, with a request of secrecy, and without communicating it to the confidential servants of the crown, at least those who were formerly considered confidential servants; and then, if it was likely that the paper should be called for by that House, all they would have to do would be to demand the statement back, and expunge such passages as contained the most objectionable charges. This was a principle which he was persuaded that House would never sanction.

But it had been argued that the statement was not official till the 14th of February, when lord Chatham had given it in to the secretary of state by his Majesty's command, after having omitted, as appeared from his own evidence, that part which contained a particular opinion. He could not perceive the force of this observation, because he could not consider the original statement in any other light than as the official report of the proceedings of the army under lord Chatham. He could not conceive any thing which would ever more satisfactorily prove the statement to be official, than that it was given in to his Majesty with the signature, "Chatham, lieut. general."-If it had been a private communication, and not an official one, it would have been signed in the ordinary manner, “Chatham." But there would be an end of all responsibility of ministers, if the doctrine now set up were to be admitted. All that any minister need do in that case, to avoid responsibility, would be to say, that any advice which he might have conveyed to his Sovereign, was a private communication. He for his part could not conceive how any paper presented to his Majesty respecting a public measure could be considered in any other light than as an official document. If it had not been an official document till the 14th of February, he would ask what act of lord Chatham had made it official then?

its production. When they recollected how they had come at the knowledge of such a paper having been presented to his Majesty-when they weighed all the circumstances of the case, and looked to the conduct of lord Chatham-it was impossible for them to be so insensible to what was due to their own character and dignity, as to declare by their vote, that such conduct was in the slightest degree justifiable. Upon these grounds, therefore, he should feel himself bound to vote for the resolutions.

He had, it appeared, then tendered the Narrative to his Majesty in the same manner as in the first instance. His Majesty, however, having reflected upon the business, and recalling the examples of his own uniform conduct, and the practice of all the constitutional monarchs who preceded him on the throne, directed the noble earl to give the Narrative in the regular way to the secretary of state. If his Majesty had given the same directions in the first instance, was any gentleman prepared to say that the paper would not have been official? He felt it necessary, Mr. Stephen said the question really was, therefore, for the character and dignity of whether the House should now pronounce that House, to follow up the address of the the very serious opinion on the conduct of former night, by the adoption of the re- the earl of Chatham, which the resolutions solutions then under consideration. They proposed, pending the inquiry at their could not have had the slightest suspicion bar. He for one had not heard, yet, any that such a paper existed, till it was moved argument to justify him in pronouncing for, and presented for their inspection. so very serious a censure on the conduct The House was now in possession of the of the noble earl. The House would not whole business, and was bound to prose- act consistently with itself, if it were to cute it to some satisfactory issue. They agree to the resolutions, and to suffer the were particularly called upon to adopt this matter to rest here. But, before he could be course, because they had been left to brought to concur in the severe censure themselves to sift the transaction as they now proposed to be passed on the noble could, and had come at the circumstances lord, he must examine a little more into merely through the examinations at their the nature of the charge and the premises bar. Lord Chatham might, if he had on which it was built. He did not observe thought proper, have required permission that the statement contained in the report to correct his former evidence: he might was charged as being false or insidious. have, in that case, admitted, that he had He did not hear it characterized as conpreviously conveyed to his Majesty a taining express or implied reflections on paper, which paper he had afterwards re- the other commanders; or that it was an quested back for the purpose of omitting a attempt to poison the king's mind. But particular part; and that the paper before the motion was founded on the mere abthe House was the same as the original stract fact, that the noble lord did present paper, with the exception of that omission. a paper to his Majesty, desiring at the same Had this been done, it might have pre- time that it might be kept secret; and, on sented the case in a far different light: this foundation, it was assumed that the but no, the noble lord left the matter to noble lord, a cabinet counsellor, had viotake its course. Was such conduct, he lated that sacred system, the British conwould ask, justifiable or not? The House stitution. If it had been said, that by prewould recollect the circumstances of an senting the paper in question, the noble inquiry which took place respecting the lord had intended to prejudice his Majesty disposal of a seat in parliament so late as as to the conduct of the other commandlast session, In that instance the noble ers employed in the service, then he should lord (Castlereagh), whose share in the have said that the truth or falsehood of the transaction was under discussion, had can-charge should have been inquired into; didly admitted that his conduct had been and then too, he should have had an unincautious; and it may have been to that answerable objection to state to the present admission that it was owing that no fur-motion-the House had not yet finished ther proceeding was taken by the House the evidence. upon the subject. The House had, on a former night, considered it so alarming that a private paper should be given in to his Majesty, without the privity of his other confidential advisers, that an address was voted to his Majesty with a view to

That the naval commander on the late Expedition instead of censure or insinuation of any kind, was justly entitled to the thanks of his country, he (Mr. S.) entertained not a doubt. He could not, however, sitting in judgment on lord Chatham,

been lately said, but he was sure, gentlemen on the other side would not say that those who were guilty of such dangerous practices, were, on that account, to have their conduct stigmatised in the manner now contended for.-He, therefore, for these reasons, was desirous of not being pressed to give a definitive vote on the subject as it now stood; and, as the present motion went to pass a high censure on a British subject, without any previous investigation into the justice or injustice of it, if called on, he must vote in the negative.

feel himself entitled to take that for granted, and to find, without proof, that such was the fact. But, if the principle was so laid down, that the mere presenting a paper, and requesting that it might be kept secret, was a violation of the constitution, he must deny that it was any violation of the constitution. In what law or charter, in what dictum even of any theorist could it be shewn to have been laid down, that to present a paper to the king, and to require secrecy concerning it, was a violation of the constitution (Cries of hear, hear!) From the acclamations of gentlemen opposite, he presumed he should shortly be obliged to take shame to himself for his ignorance in this respect. He should bow with submission to such authority when he saw it, but at present, he could only repeat again his former asser. tion. In the practice of this country, and in the progress of its constitution, he ventured to assert, that no such principle had been countenanced, and it was only from our written law and from established pre-people of this country to think that no cedent that we could judge upon such a question. He did not stand there to defend the noble lord from error. He admitted, with other gentlemen who had already spoken on this occasion, that the noble lord had acted erroneously and unbecomingly. He would even go farther, and would admit, that the noble lord would have acted in a way more befitting himself, and more properly with respect to that House, if he had at first declared what had passed.

But admitting all this, he could not go the length of saying that the noble lord had violated the constitution. It was not because a thing had a dangerous tendency, that it was to be visited in the way the present motion suggested. Luxury was dangerous to the constitution: (a laugh, and cries of hear, hear!) but it would rather be going too far to contend, that because a man chose to give a grand and voluptuous entertainment, he should become the object of severe censure as guilty of an offence against the constitution. He could mention other things which were still more dangerous-Party spirit-factious combination! (repeated cries of hear, hear! from the Opposition bench.) He knew he had touched the spring, by which gentlemen opposite to him were most easily moved, which vibrated with most elasticity in their bosoms. These were infinitely more dangerous than the influence of the crown, of which so much had

But there was another question of very material importance, and it was this; though the motion proposed might at one time or other be proper to be adopted, whether this was the time? In his opinion, the noble lord had been hardly dealt with, and had much to complain of, in having been made the object of unfounded clamour, unjust prejudice and unbounded calumny. So natural had it become for the

blame could attach to our navy, that it was almost now a matter of course to attribute failure, when it did occur, to the army or its commander, and to exculpate the navy from any share in the cause of the failure. He himself was one of those who had been infected with this malady, and he was one of those, in particular, who, in his own mind, did not do justice to the noble lord. He confessed he had not had leisure to read all the evidence; but, with all the attention he had been able to bestow upon it, he was free to declare that he did not see a single line which gave countenance to, or rather, which did not completely answer the public calumny and clamour with which the noble lord had been loaded. He (Mr. Stephen) was an utter stranger to the noble lord; he had never been in his company in his life. He looked to him only as a British officer; and he begged his pardon as he felt sorrow for having entertained the opinion which he certainly did at one time entertain, prejudicial to the conduct of the noble lord in the late Expedition. He was satisfied, from the evidence, not only that there was no ground for the censure re-echoed by various Journals against the noble lord, but that he did all that could be done; even that he had the merit of saving the army of which he had the command, seeing that he had already done all that could be effected. He believed he might even say, that lord Wellington, and that was