Commons Sitting of 23 February 1810

LINCOLN'S INN BENCHERS—PETITION OF MR. FARQUHARSON.
Mr. Sheridan.— Sir, I rise to present the Petition of a gentleman of the name of Farquharson, to which I request the particular attention of the House. I present it with great reluctance, because it contains a grave and serious charge against a respectable body of men, the Benchers of Lincoln's Inn, and alleges, that they have committed an act of grievous and unwarrantable oppression. The Petition states, that the Benchers of the honourable society of Lincoln's Inn have violated the principles of the constitution of the united kingdom, and have usurped the powers of the Legislature, by making a certain rule or bye-law to the following effect:—"1807. That no per-"son, who has written for hire in the "newspapers, shall be admitted to do "exercises to entitle him to be called to

553
"the bar."—Now, Sir, I am not meaning to dispute the title of the Benchers of Lincoln's Inn to make individual objections to the admission of any person into their society, whom, upon just grounds, they may deem to be unfit to be called to the bar; but I do contend, that any general sweeping rule of this sort, applied to any particular class of men, and tending, as it necessarily must do, to degrade that class in society, is not only oppressive, and illiberal, and illegal, but is also unconstitutional. If it was merely oppressive and illegal, this would not be the place to which the parties aggrieved ought to resort for redress. I contend, that though I this bye-law is most illegal, it is likewise unconstitutional, and that against it there is no other mode of redress, but by an appeal to this House; the Society, whatever description it may have, or however it may be constituted, not being that kind of corporation against which any person can have a remedy by appeal to the Court of King's Bench, or by Duo Warranto. As I mean to take up this important subject on a future day, I shall, at present, barely observe, that if the principle recently adopted by this Society had been acted upon at a more early period, it would have excluded from the bar men who have been an ornament to the profession, and would have prevented many persons from having a seat in this House, who have been an honour to the legislative body. There is one other thing I wish to mention: the person whose petition I present, has written a series of letters upon this subject, which appeared in a respectable Morning Print, "The British "Press," and have since been re-published in the shape of a pamphlet. I have seen and discoursed with the writer of those letters, and he is now perfectly convinced that he was wrong in supposing the Lord Chancellor was the author of the measure of which he complains. He is thoroughly persuaded that the Lord Chancellor has too much liberality to have originated any such proceeding, or to have had any thing to do with the matter: I am proud to state this circumstance, because I should be sorry that it should for a moment be supposed, that his lordship was capable of giving his sanction to such a transaction; and I have to add, that the Lord Chancellor is in no respect privy to, or accountable for, this rule or bye-law having been affixed in the hall in which he holds the Court of Chancery.
554
The Petition was then brought up and read. It was in these terms:
"To the hon. the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of GEORGE FARQCHARSON, of Great Charlotte street, in the Parish of Christ Church, in the County of Surrey, Gentleman;
"Sheweth;—That your Petitioner, as a subject of the United Kingdom, by birth, is, and claims to be, entitled to all the rights, civil and political, which are, or have been, heretofore, enjoyed by the people of these realms, under the reign of his present most sacred Majesty, and the reigns of his royal and illustrious Predecessors.—Your Petitioner humbly submits, that the government of the united kingdom knows no distinction of Persons—that all conforming to the laws are alike the objects of its attention, and that no class of men can, without an infraction of the spirit and essence of the British constitution, be deprived of any of their rights, civil or political, by the act of writing for the newspapers, which are published in this free country.—That, some time previous to the year 1S07, your Petitioner was a writer for several of the newspapers, and, from his literary exertions in that capacity, derived considerable emoluments. And your Petitioner humbly suggests, as the result of his information and belief, that some of the most accomplished scholars, eminent lawyers, and enlightened statesmen, who have ever adorned society, or sat as representatives of the Commons of the united kingdom, in your honourable House, have been persons who, in the early period of their lives, have written for hire in the newspapers, and other periodical publications.—That the benchers of the honourable society of Lincoln's Inn, have, as your Petitioner submits, violated the principles of the constitution of the united kingdom, and usurped the powers of the legislature, by making a rule, or bye-law, to the following effect—'1807. That no person, who has written for hire, in the newspapers, shall be admitted to do exercises to entitle him to be called to the bar.'—That your Petitioner lately made application for the purpose of entering his name, as a member of the honourable society of Lincoln's-Inn, and studying the law in that society, with the view of being called to the bar; but he was informed at the office of the steward of the

555
said society, that he could not be admitted, in consequence of such rule, or bye-law, which excludes the class of men, therein designated, from doing the exercises that are to entitle them to be called to the bar; —and your Petitioner humbly submits to the judgment of your honourable House, that such rule, or bye-law, is an arbitrary and unconstitutional proceeding.—Your Petitioner, therefore, solicits the attention of your honourable House to the subject of his complaint, and humbly prays, that you will grant such relief as to your honourable House, in its wisdom, shall seem meet. And your Petitioner shall ever pray, &c.
GEORGE FARQUHARSON."
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table and Mr. Sheridan gave notice that on Friday next he would submit a motion to the House, grounded on it.
Mr. H.Martin.—I wish to make a single observation upon the subject of this Petition. I am one of the Benchers of the society of Lincoln's-Inn; but I do assure the House, that, so far from approving of this resolution, it was passed absolutely without my consent. I am, and ever was of opinion, that there ought to be no objection against any person being admitted to the bar, but an objection founded on his moral character. This is the only restriction which shall ever have my concurrence. I have to add, that this regulation has been sent to all the other Inns of Court, and that every one of them has refused to adopt it.

PETITIONS FROM ROMAN CATHOLICS OF ENGLAND.
Mr. Windham,after a few prefatory observations, presented a Petition from the Roman Catholics of England, setting forth, "That the Petitioners beg leave to represent to the House, that, at the time of his Majesty's accession to the throne, the laws in force against his Roman Catholic subjects deprived them of most of the rights of Englishmen, and of several of the common rights of mankind;; and that, by the acts of the 18th and 31st years of his Majesty's reign, several of the penalties and disabilities under which the English Roman Catholics laboured were removed; and that the English Roman Catholics are most grateful for the relief granted them by those acts, and have taken and subscribed the oaths and declarations contained in them; and that their conduct hath been conformable to their professions; In peaceable submission to the laws, and in the discharge of moral or civil duty, they have not been
556
exceeded by any of his Majesty's subjects; they have served him effectively and honourably in his fleets and armies; there never has been a call upon Englishmen to do their duty, which the English Roman Catholics have not been forward to answer; and that several penal and disabling laws are yet in force against them: They are not equally entitled with their fellow subjects to vote at the election of any member of the House, and they are excluded from a seat in either House of parliament; they are not admissible into corporations; every civil and military office is denied them, every laudable object of ambition, all that elevates a man among his fellow subjects, all hopes of public distinction, all means of attracting the notice of their country, or the favour of their sovereign, are placed without their reach; and the more they deserve of their country, the more sensibly their country makes them feel this exclusion: In the ranks, she suffers them to fight her battles, but to them victory is without its reward; promotion is wholly denied them; no services can advance, no merit enable them to meet their country's favour; and, even in their humble situation of private soldiers, the law follows them with pains and penalties; and, by the articles of war, if soldiers refuse to attend the religious worship of the established church, they are punishable by fine, imprisonment, and death: Thus the English Catholic soldiers are incessantly exposed to the cruel alternative of either making a sacrifice of their religion, or incurring the extreme of legal punishment, than which the Petitioners humbly conceive there never has been, and cannot be, a more direct religious persecution; and to an alternative equally oppressive the English Roman Catholics are exposed on their marriages: The law requires for the legal validity of a marriage in England that it should be celebrated in a parish church; as Roman Catholics believe marriage to be a sacrament, the English Roman Catholics naturally feel great repugnance to a celebration of their marriages in other churches than their own; and they are cruelly debarred from any means which their fellow subjects possess of providing for their families by employments of honour or emolument, so that, while they bear their full share of the general contribution to the wants of the state, they are denied even a hope of participating in those advantages by which the burthen of their fellow sub-

557
jects is alleviated; and in other occurrences of life, the law has the same humiliating and depressing operation on the Petitioners: Thus every Roman Catholic subject of his Majesty is forced below his fair line in society, and the general body is a marked and insulated cast, yet the Roman Catholics form more than one fourth of the whole mass of the subjects of the United Empire: Whatever there is of genius, of talent, or of energy among them, is absolutely lost for public use, and this at a time when the United Empire is engaged in a conflict formidable beyond example; and it therefore seems important, if not essential, to her preservation, that she should call into action, without qualification or limit, or any religious test or declaration, the genius, talents, and energies of all her subjects: It is true that the Petitioners profess some religious principles which are not professed by the established church, and to this, and to this only, their refusal of certain tests, oaths, and declarations is owing, which subjects them to the pains and disabilities they complain of; but none of the, principles which occasion their refusal affects their moral, civil, or political integrity; and the Petitioners humbly submit to the House, that no principle which leaves moral or political integrity unimpaired is a proper object of religious persecution; besides, the whole creed of the Petitioners was once the creed of the three kingdoms; it is the actual creed of four fifths of Ireland, and of much the greater part of Europe: It was the creed of those who founded British liberty at Runeymeade, who conquered at Cressy, Poictiers, and Agincourt: among those who repelled and annihilated the Spanish Armada none bore a nobler part than those by whom this creed was professed; and in all those achievements, in every other scene in which the ancient valour or ancient wisdom of this country has been displayed, the ancestors of several of the Petitioners have been distinguished; their creed did not lessen their zeal for their king and country, it does not lessen that of their descendants; and every disloyal or immoral principle, which malice or credulity has imputed to them, the Petitioners have solemnly and repeatedly disclaimed; they believe there does not now exist an honourable man who imputes these principles to them: they have sworn to be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty, and have acted up to their professions;
558
they most confidently appeal to the House and to the whole empire, whether in loyalty to his Majesty, attachment to the constitution, or zeal for their country's good, they are not equal, and are not universally known and acknowledged to be equal, to his Majesty's other subjects; therefore, conscious of the truth of these representations, and with the most perfect reliance on the wisdom and justice of the House, the Petitioners humbly pray for a total repeal of every test, oath, declaration, or provision, which has the effect of subjecting the Petitioners to any penalty or disability whatsoever on account of their religious principles."
Another Petition of the several persons whose names are there under written, Roman Catholics of England, was also presented to the House by Mr. Windham, and read; setting forth, "That the Petitioners beg leave to represent to the House, that themselves, in common with the general body of English Roman Catholics, have lately signed a Petition to the House stating the principal grievances under which they lie in consequence of their religious principles, and praying relief: and they now beg leave further to state to the House, that the English Roman Catholics, in soliciting the attention of parliament to their Petition, are actuated not more by a sense of the hardships and disabilities under which they labour, than by a desire to secure, on the most solid foundation, the peace and harmony of the British empire, and to obtain for themselves opportunities of manifesting, by the most active exertions, their zeal and interest in the common cause in which their country is engaged for the maintenance of its freedom and independence; and they are firmly persuaded that adequate provisions for the maintenance of the civil and religious establishments of this kingdom may be made consistently with the strictest adherence, on their part, to the tenets and discipline of the Roman Catholic religion; and that any arrangement, founded on this basis of mutual satisfaction and security, and extending to them the full enjoyment of the civil constitution of their country, will meet with their grateful concurrence."
And the said Petitions were severally ordered to lie upon the table.

EARL OF CHATHAM'S NARRATIVE.
Mr. Whitbreadin rising to make the motion of which lie gave notice, observed, that as many more members were then present

559
than wore in the House when lord Chatham's examination before the Committee closed on the preceding evening, he would state some circumstances which occurred at that period. Those hon. members, who were present last night, would recollect, that lord Chatham had been questioned relative to the Narrative which he had thought proper to present to his Majesty, and which had subsequently been produced in the House of Commons. They would recollect that the noble lord had also been asked, whether he had on any prior occasion presented to his Majesty any other narrative, paper, memorandum, or memorial, relative to the Expedition to the Scheldt. They would recollect, too, that after the noble lord had been repeatedly questioned on this subject, he at length declined to give any answer to the inquiry. This certainly was a circumstance which induced a strong suspicion that the noble lord had presented to his Majesty some document upon the subject before the delivery of that which had been placed on the table of the House. Lord Chatham however, standing at the bar as a peer of the realm, the Committee could not press upon him a question which he did not choose to answer; but it was in the power of the House to address his Majesty for the production of such a paper, if it existed. He did not think it necessary to trouble the House at any great length on the subject of the motion he meant to submit, the merits of which appeared to him to lie in a small compass, and to which he could not conceive the possibility of objection. On the 27th of January, the House resolved to institute an Inquiry into the policy and conduct of the Expedition to the Scheldt. On the 16th of February, a gallant officer, whom he did not then see in his place, a private friend of lord Chatham, (General Loft), proposed to the House to address his Majesty for the production of a Narrative given in to his Majesty by lord Chatham, which that gallant officer stated he knew to be in existence. On the first day of the session, in the speech from the throne, his Majesty deolared that he would direct all the papers that would be necessary for the satisfaction of the House on the subject of the Walcheren Expedition to be laid on their table. In the papers, however, which were in consequence laid on the table, lord Chatham's Narrative was not included. In point of fact, it did not then exist, and in point of fact his Majesty's
560
ministers did not know the contents of that Narrative until after it had been presented by lord Chatham to the King. The motion which had been made by the gallant officer for the production of this Narrative saved him (Mr. W.) a great deal of trouble on the present occasion; for, whatever had been his opinion of the propriety of calling for papers which were given to his Majesty personally, the House had voted that the thing might be done, and upon this impression they called for and obtained the Narrative.
Nothing according to his view of the case, could be more objectionable than the general principle, upon which a person placed in the situation of lord Chatham, having been in the command of an Expedition, and having access to the King as a privy counsellor, used that privilege for the purpose of putting into the King's hand a paper reflecting on the conduct of the officers associated with him in that enterprise. He called upon the House to consider the circumstances in which lord Chatham stood. The noble lord having acted in conjunction with sir R. Strachan in the command of the Expedition, arrived in England before the termination of the Expedition, and on such his arrival his distinct military command, of course, ceased. In all the public dispatches from the noble lord, not a single insinuation was to be found against the navy, nor any imputation cast upon the gallant officer who commanded that branch of the service. On the contrary, lord Chatham had in those dispatches expressed his most unqualified approbation of their conduct. In the Journal which had been presented to the House, adverse winds and unfavourable weather had been distinctly stated as the cause that parts of the naval service had not been performed with the celerity wished for by the noble lord. But in the noble lord's Narrative, in contradiction to the terms of approbation in which, in his dispatches, he had characterised the efforts of the navy; in contradiction to the causes distinctly stated in the Journal as having produced the delay, the noble lord had thought proper to throw imputations on the navy, such as were unfortunately calculated to put the two services at issue. In the short part which he (Mr. W.) had taken in the investigation pending before the House, he had asked no questions by which the two services could be committed. Up to the period of the delivery of lord Chatham's Narrative, the possibility

561
of their being so committed was unknown, If they should now be committed, (which he prayed God to forbid), to lord Chatham alone would that disagreement be attributable. As in private life, many inferior traits must necessarily be passed over, when the great and leading features of a character were estimable, so in an enter-prize, such as the Expedition to Walcheren, minor circumstances in the proceedings of the officers, resulting sometimes from inevitable causes, and sometimes even from the clashing of contending zeal for the service, if the general conduct were exemplary, ought to be buried in oblivion, and never be suffered to interfere with or prevent the expression of decided approbation and unqualified praise. But when a commander in chief of an Expedition bestowed unqualified approbation on the officers connected with him in that Expedition, he betrayed the trust reposed in him by doing so with the consciousness, that that approbation would be succeeded by imputations, which it was impossible that any officer could bear unmoved. What then, had happened after the return of lord Chatham to England? Did the House recollect, that in the Answer which his Majesty had been advised to make to the Address of the city of London on the failure of the Expedition to the Scheldt, the noble lord being present in London, and doubtless in habits of daily intercourse with the other members of his Majesty's government, his Majesty was advised to declare that he did not think fit to institute any inquiry into the conduct of the officers commanding the naval or military service in that Expedition? If lord Chatham's Narrative had been presented before this period or if his Majesty's ministers had been acquainted with its contents, he defied any man to say that his Majesty ought not to have been advised to institute an inquiry into the naval service of that Expedition.
Now, as the noble lord had not denied that the Narrative, which had been produced in the House, was not the only paper of a similar description which he had presented to his Majesty, he (Mr. W.) had a right to assume that before the construction of that Narrative, some other report had been made by lord Chatham to the King, on the subject. He did not mean to say, that his Majesty's ministers could give a satisfactory answer to these observations. They might be as ignorant as he was on the subject. Aware as he was
562
of the state of the relations which subsisted between the various member of his Majesty's government, it appeared to him very probable that lord Chatham might have declined answering the same question, put by his colleagues, as that which he had declined answering when put by the House of Commons. How, then, was the House to proceed? Taking it for granted that the noble lord had presented to his Majesty some narrative or report prior to that on the table (and if this were denied by any hon. friend of the noble lord, he would sit down and say not another word on the subject,) taking this for granted nothing could be more evident, than that, in justice to the character of the navy, and in maintenance of the principles of the Constitution—principles which ought to be practised as much as they had been preached—the House should determine to address his Majesty for the production, of that prior document. How could it be said that the papers on the table were sufficient and satisfactory, when there was reason to suppose that there were still lurking in the closet of the King, papers of great importance upon the subject of the Inquiry, and which had not been submitted to the House? There was every reason to suppose those papers, which were kept back, contained charges and imputations against the gallant officer who commanded the naval branch of the service. When a military commander took such an advantage of his situation as a minister, and of the personal access he had to his Majesty, he must say, that this was a system of favouritism which the House must hold in perfect abhorrence.— It was a sort of favouritism which the constitution of this country knew nothing of, and which was not reconcileable to the idea of a limited monarchy. If such a system of favouritism was allowed to be practised, it would confound all the distinctions between those monarchies that are called limited, and those which are acknowledged to be absolute. The most determined democrats never brought a stronger charge against any monarchy, than that favourites had ready access to the ear of their sovereign, and secret opportunities to poison his royal mind against brave and deserving men, who had no means of defending themselves against such attacks in as much as minions had always a ready access to the sovereign when they had not. In what a situation would the gallant admiral, who was at the

563
head of the naval department of the Expedition, and the navy itself, have stood, if the existing Inquiry had never been instituted by the House of Commons. The papers laid on the table of the House would have manifested an apparent satisfaction at their conduct, while there would have lurked behind in the king's closet, in a form that could not be gainsaid, a direct accusation by the commander in chief of the expedition against sir Richard Strachan and all his officers. It was impossible that the House could allow any feelings so insiduously created, to exist in his Majesty's bosom, without asking him to communicate them to his people. If any other document than the Narrative already presented, existed, and that such a document did exist, he had a right to presume, since its existence was not denied, he had also a right to presume that such a document contained charges, the Narrative already produced containing imputations which only stopped short of charges. This Narrative, completely at variance with the noble lord's own letters and with the Journal of the expedition, had, according to his own declaration, been prepared by him so long back as the 15th October. It had been reserved, however, till a good opportunity offered for presenting it to his Majesty. On the 14th February it was presented, and on the 16th the gallant general moved for the production of that Narrative, a document which the noble lord had not even communicated to his colleagues for their revision. Refusing, as the noble lord had done, to answer the questions proposed to him yesterday evening, the House of Commons were called upon, on every principle of duty to their soveraign, and of justice to their country, to adopt the precedent of the gallant general, and to address his Majesty for the purpose of endeavouring to obtain any further document, if any such existed. In what office the right hon. gent. opposite must look for those documents, he knew not; but as they agreed to the recent motion of the gallant general, he left it to them to pursue the same course by which they became possessed of the Narrative already produced, as for every overt act of the king, ministers were responsible. His Majesty could do no wrong; and the right hon. gent. opposite must either account for the advice upon which his Majesty was induced to act, or they ought to withdraw from the situations which they occupied in his
564
Majesty's Councils. He concluded by moving. "That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to order that there be laid before the House copies of all reports, memoranda, narratives or papers submitted at any time to his Majesty by the earl of Chatham, relative to the late Expedition."
Mr. Secretary Ryderbegged it might be distinctly understood that he did not question the right of the House to present an address similar to that proposed by the hon. gent. Admitting this right in its fullest extent, he contended, however, that in the exercise of the right they must be guided by the limits of discretion. One of the last sentences of the hon. gent's, speech would serve as an answer to all that preceded it. The hon. gent. had said, that it was for his Majesty's ministers to consider to what office they would refer in search of the papers which he wished to be produced. Upon this head, he felt no difficulty in stating that there neither was nor had been in any office under government—(Hear! hear! from the opposition side)—He wished to be understood—there neither was nor had been in any office under government any paper, report, memorandum, or narrative upon the subject in question communicated to a single individual of his Majesty's confidential servants, other than that now on the table of the House, and that had not been communicated to them before the 14th of February, the day on which it had been presented by lord Chatham to his Majesty. All the addresses on any subject similar to the present, which the House of Commons had hitherto been induced to carry up to the throne, were either for the production of regularly official papers, to elucidate any measure the expediency of which they questioned, or to ascertain the advisers of his Majesty on any such particular measure. He did not deny the right of the Commons to apply to the crown in any other case, in which they might think fit so to do: but he was persuaded that the motion of the hon. gent. was wholly without example. For even supposing that such a paper as that described by the hon. gent. did actually exist, as it had never been communicated to his Majesty's ministers, he could not understand what possible reply they could advise his Majesty to make to an address from the House of Commons under such circumstances, It

565
would be in fact to open the private escrutoir of his Majesty. Repeating his admission, that the House had a perfect right to address his Majesty on any subject upon which they might think fit to address him, he was compelled to add that he could find no just grounds upon which the hon. gent. founded the proposition that he had submitted to the House.
Mr. Ponsonbydeclared, that, if the right hon. gent. had not informed the House that he rose to oppose the motion of his hon. friend, and if he had listened to the right hon. gent.'s speech divested of that information, he should have supposed that it was his intention warmly to support it, for there was not a single argument in the whole of the right hon. gent.'s speech, which did not tend to the establishment of his hon. friend's proposition. The right hon. gent. had told the House, that he did not dispute the right of the House of Commons to address the King upon the subject, but to that confession he subjoined the declaration, that if the House were now to exercise that right, he did not know how his Majesty's ministers could comply with the terms of the motion unless by searching the King's private escrutoir. Was this language—was this doctrine for a Secretary of State to his Majesty to hold to a British House of Commons? Did the right hon. gent. a cabinet minister, not know where to find a paper delivered by the commander in chief of an expedition to his Majesty without searching the King's private escrutoir? Did the right hon. gent. think that such a paper was of the nature of a private and confidential communication? If that were the case, every other general who happened to be a favourite, may at any time go up to the King, and privately put into his hand statements tending to prejudice and poison his royal mind against the most brave and meritorious officers, who by this secret proceeding might have their characters most foully calumniated without the least notice or suspicion, and therefore without a possibility of defending themselves. How galling must it be to the feelings of any distinguished officer, to suppose that charges and imputations against him might be poured in secret into the ear of his Sovereign, and the royal mind be thus prejudiced against him? It would be subversive of every principle of justice, or of the constitution, that such papers, placed in the hands of the Sovereign by a minister, should be
566
conceived private and confidential papers, which the House could not call for. The right hon. Secretary had been most bountiful in allowing that the House had a right to present such an Address as that proposed, if they thought proper; but he said, that in the exercise of this right the House must be governed by its discretion. Now, he would wish to ask that right hon. Secretary whether, according to his ideas of discretion, he thought it was discreet to allow every commander in chief the power of putting what reports he pleased into the hands of his Majesty, without leaving the House of Commons the power of exercising their right (which the right hon. Secretary allowed they possessed) of praying his Majesty to grant them copies of such Reports? Of all the mischiefs which could flow from the access which lord Chatham's situation as a peer and privy counsellor would give him to his Majesty, the greatest evil would be, that of his being allowed to pour into the royal ear whatever charges he thought proper, against meritorious officers; whilst the House of Commons, when solemnly engaged in inquiry upon this Expedition, should be told that they must not be informed what those reports or documents contained, which the right hon. Secretary was pleased to describe as private and confidential papers, merely because they had not been sent (as they ought to have been) to his Majesty through the regular office of the government. The first and greatest benefit which arose to the public from the exercise of a right such as that possessed by the House, was, that all secret machinations for poisoning the mind of the Sovereign against his best servants, were by it rendered impossible, because whoever presented to his Majesty any private memorial, such as that alluded to, was responsible to the public for its contents; and because the ministers who suffered such a memorial to be presented, or who, after the presentation of it, attempted to shield the individual by whom it had been presented, were responsible to Parliament and the public for their conduct. If this were not the case, in what would the monarchy of England differ from the most absolute monarchy that ever existed? If this were not the case, a system of favouritism would be introduced into this country as pure, as palpable, and as perfect as ever prevailed in France or in Spain. The right hon. gent. had declared, thathe did not know where to

567
look for such a paper as that which it was the object of his hon. friend's motion to procure. He would ask the right hon. gent. where he looked for the last? Certainly the right hon. gent. would not revive much information on the subject Prom lord Chatham, for the noble lord had last night informed the Committee, that he had told his colleagues of his intention to present to his Majesty a narrative of the Expedition, only a few minutes before he actually did present it. In fact, it was in the levee room itself that the noble lord had first intimated to his colleagues the step which he was about to take. From the noble lord, therefore, the right hon. gent. judging by experience, unquestionably could not expect much information. The right hon. gent. said that the House had a right to address the King upon this subject, but that he could not understand what answer his Majesty's ministers could advise his Majesty to return to such an Address. Did the right hon. gent. suppose that, if the House of Commons had addressed the King on the subject, his Majesty would hesitate to deliver any papers which he might have in his possession of the nature required to one of his confidential servants for the purpose of submitting them to the House? On this point, the right hon. gent. had advanced a doctrine of the most reprehensible description. He had produced in debate, the name, personal character and honour of his Sovereign, for the purpose of protecting an administration. Would the right hon. gent say, that his Majesty was disposed to wink at the calumniation of a brave officer like sir R. Strachan, or that he would allow lord Chatham, by insidious representations, to deprive an officer of such long and approved service of the well-merited estimation of his King? Such a supposition was as opposite to the character, to the integrity, to the virtue, to the honour of his Majesty, as it was conformable to the dark spirit of low intrigue, which influenced the councils of his present ministers. To cover their own imbecility, to hide their own dissentions, his Majesty's personal character had been dragged by them into that discussion. He hoped the House would mark its reprobation of a practice so unconstitutional, and agree to the Address, which so many important reasons called upon them to adopt.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeravowed himself perfectly ready to expose himself
568
to his share of all the reprobation which the right hon. gent. had so abundantly cast on his right hon. friend. He contended that the principle laid down by his right hon. friend did not deserve the censures and animadversions which it had. received. His right hon. friend had stated that there was no question but that the House of Commons had a right to address his Majesty for the production of such papers whether they were in existence or not. This point his right hon. friend had conceded; but he had added, what was strictly true, that the House must on every question that came before it, whether on motion for an Address or otherwise, exercise its discretion as to the expediency of affording or withholding its consent. This was the statement made by his right hon. friend—a statement which in no way militated against the constitution: and in this statement, for his own part, he most fully acquiesced, knowing, that though it were within the legitimate scope of Parliamentary controul to call for all documents whatever, still, in its enforcement of that power, that House would not demand what was not expedient for the public service to have produced. Neither was it contended by his right hon. friend, that there was any act of the Sovereign for which his confidential advisers were not responsible. No such doctrine originated with him, and therefore it was wholly unnecessary to animadvert upon that principle, or to suppose, as the right hon. gent. did, that such a discretion would trench upon the constitutional privileges of that House.
The argument of the hon. gent. in support of his motion, proceeded on assumptions that were not true in fact. The hon. gent first supposed that some communication had been made by the commander in chief of the Expedition to the King before he had given in the Narrative on the table of the House: he then supposed, that in this previous communication the noble lord calumniated his brother officers; and on these two assumptions, he stated that his right hon. friend had dragged into the discussion the person, in order to defend the servants of the Sovereign: when all that his right hon. friend had said was, that if the House were to ask his Majesty for papers, the nature of which they could not describe, and even the existence of which they could not ascertain, they might, with just as much propriety, demand the production of any other imaginary documents what-

569
ever. It was most true, that the House might, if it pleased, call for the production of all papers, private or public; but he begged to remind the House that to agree to the present motion would be a new exercise of that right. Indeed so fully did the hon. mover feel the force of that observation, that the great tendency of his speech was to impress the opinion that, because the House had addressed the King praying him to have produced the Narrative of lord Chatham, therefore it could not refuse to vote for an Address, calling for the production of any other paper, even not official, relative to the same subject.—But he denied that the Narrative was a paper at all of a similar description, as that which the right hon. gent. opposite now supposed to exi3t. When the hon. general (Loft) who moved for the production of that Narrative, communicated to him on the 15th his intention of making such a motion, he was apprized of the existence of that document; he knew it was an official paper, and in official custody; and therefore it was that he had no objection in assenting to its production. If compared with the paper now supposed to exist and moved for, the two cases would be found to be directly the reverse. The first one which, when called for by the vote of that House, he knew to be in existence in one of the offices of his Majesty's confidential servants; the other paper now sought, had been absolutely denied to have any existence in any of the departments of the state. Under such circumstances, it was impossible that ministers could give any answer to the Address of that House, without a personal application to the Sovereign. He had no objection to the production of any paper which he knew was in existence and officially accessible; but when it was proposed to Call for a paper the existence of which unquestionably had not been rendered official by a communication to his Majesty's servants, and which was therefore out of their reach, to such a proposition he could by no means assent. Nothing could be more plain and obvious than this principle of distinction. The hon. gent. had expressed his opinion that if lord Chatham's Narrative had been known to his Majesty's ministers when the answer was given to the Address of the city of London, it would have been impossible for them to have given his Majesty the advice which they gave on that occasion. To this he would reply, that although the
570
existence of the noble lord's Narrative was certainly unknown to him at the period alluded to, yet that having had an opportunity of deliberately considering the contents of that Narrative, he had no difficulty in stating that it did not contain any thing which would have induced him to offer to his Majesty any other advice than that which he had offered on the presentation of the Address from the city of London. It was his decided opinion that there was not any thing in the Narrative of lord Chatham which ought to have required a different answer to that address. Whatever might have been the view which the noble lord took of the subject, in his Narrative he had merely stated his own ase, and left to the admiral to account for those circumstances of a naval nature, in which, as lord Chatham supposed, the impediments to the Expedition had originated, Whatever might have been lord Chatham's view of the subject, he would distinctly declare, that it appeared to him perfectly clear from the dispatches, both of lord Chatham and sir R. Strachan, that not the slightest blame attached to the gallant admiral, and that the delay which had taken place was not imputable to the navy, but to the hostility of the weather, and the difficulty of their situation. As the inquiry had proceeded, he had been more and more confirmed in this opinion. There was nothing in the case that ever induced him to give his Majesty any advice that sir R. Strachan should be tried by a court martial, or that any other inquiry of that or any other nature should take place. That was the extent of the answer given to the city of London. What other course would the hon. gent. have pursued, in such circumstances? Would he have directed an inquiry to have been instituted? What kind of inquiry? A joint inquiry? Did his reading or his knowledge of history afford any instance of such proceeding? An inquiry against a naval officer under such circumstances? Was such a thing ever heard of? When pregnant facts disproved the supposition of blame, would it have been justifiable to institute a court martial upon a gallant officer, against whom no charge had been preferred, but who had been delayed in the execution of his duty by circumstances which it was impossible for him to controul? The question now for the House to consider was, would it vote for an Address to the crown to produce a paper, merely for the purpose of ascertaining whether such a

571
paper was in existence or not; a paper, if in existence, of whose contents and quality those who called for it knew nothing, and of which he must say, that whatever were its contents and quality, it could never be considered as an official document, for the reception of which there needed any advice, it being merely a communication upon certain facts. It was upon such grounds that he felt himself disposed to oppose the motion for an Address.
Mr. Tierneyreplied to the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and expressed his determination to vote for die Address.
Sir Home Pophamrose for the purpose of submitting a few observations to the House in support of the motion for the Address. He had thought, that, after the course adopted by the House on a former night, with respect, to the production of the Narrative of the earl of Chatham, no argument could have been necessary to induce the House to agree to the motion of the hon. member on the floor. It would be for the House, however, to decide in what manner it should dispose of that motion; but this he would assert, that unless the paper, which it was its object to procure, should be granted, the refusal of it would be productive of much wrong to the gallant officer who had commanded the naval part of the Expedition. That the paper moved for did really exist, he was justified in assuming, because no person during the discussion had ventured to deny its existence. If the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer should even then state to the House, that no such paper existed, he would not say another word on the subject. As the existence of the paper, therefore, was not denied, he must assume that such a paper did actually exist; and if such were the case, he hoped, that the members of that House would feel a sympathy in the situation of the gallant admiral, who was suffering, and would continue to suffer, under the charges insinuated against him, unless, by the production of this document, he should have an opportunity of meeting such charges in every shape in which they could be presented. He felt it difficult to account for the resistance made to the present motion upon any principle of fairness, candour or impartiality. The House would recollect, that the Narrative of the noble earl had been voluntarily produced on a former night, fourteen
572
days after the Inquiry had commenced; and yet a paper, relating to the same subject, and necessary to the effectual prosecution of this inquiry, was not to be obtained by the eloquence of some of the most eminent members of that House. The withholding of the paper in question was much more severe towards the gallant admiral, whose conduct had been so unaccountably brought in question, than the production of it could be prejudicial or inconvenient. He would recal to the recollection of the House the actual state of the case, and then leave them to decide whether or not they should think the production of the paper necessary. Early in last July, an expedition was undertaken, which had unquestionably not succeeded to the extent which the public had reason to expect. Upon this subject the House of Commons had instituted an inquiry; and 14 days after it had been entered upon, a Narrative of the conduct of the commander in chief, and a journal of the proceedings of the army under his command, were laid upon the table. What reasonable objection there could be to laying any other paper, the production of that noble general relative to the same subject, before the House, he could not perceive. But it had been said, that the Narrative contained no insinuation against the gallant admiral, or the naval part of the expedition. He knew, however, that sir R. Strachan did feel that serious insinuations against his conduct were contained in that paper. But what was still more grievous was, that if he should refute and repel every charge contained in the Narrative before the House he could have no security that a second statement would not then be produced, and then a third; and so on, statement upon statement, and edition upon edition.
He begged of gentlemen not to look upon this as a party question; no, it was a question of justice to the navy, and particularly to the character of that gallant admiral, the idol of the navy, whose whole life had been devoted to the service of his country, who had frequently and gloriously distinguished himself in that service; whose merits were well known to that House, as they had been rewarded with the highest distinctions it could bestow, and the most substantial proofs it could give of its marked approbation, in granting to him a parliamentary provision; in addition to which honourable testimonials of his spen did merits, he had

573
also received from his sovereign the high honour of a red ribband. He could assure the House that that distinguished Officer felt acutely upon this occasion: and he could add, of his own knowledge, that the whole of the navy fully participated in his feelings and sentiments. What hon. member, he would ask, could, after voting against this motion, go down to his constituents and tell them, that on an occasion when the character of a gallant and most meritorious officer had been aspersed, and a paper had been moved for to enable him to meet the charges against him openly, and to refute them to the satisfaction of his country, he had voted against the production of such a paper. For his own part he knew nothing of the pigeon-holes and skulking-places which had been alluded to by an hon. member; he only knew that this was a question of right, and that the invasion of the right of an individual, like the invasion of the country, ought to unite all parties in one common spirit of resistance. He had the honour to be admitted to the confidence of that gallant admiral, and whilst he had a seat in that House, or an opportunity any where of defending his rights or vindicating his character, he should always be proud to prove by his conduct, that he was not unworthy of that confidence, nor prepared to pass over any insinuations against him, which, upon every ground of truth and justice, he could so triumphantly refute.
He had but one or two observations more to add, on a subject more personal to himself. An hon. member had read, from the statement of the earl of Chatham, a passage which represented that the flotilla under sir Home Popham had arrived nine days later than was expected at its destination up the Scheldt. The fact was, that this flotilla had been only 42 hours later. On the 9th of August, it was ordered to proceed; and, on the evening of the 11th, as appeared from the dispatch of that distinguished officer, sir R. Keats, it arrived at its position, and one of the enemy's gun-boats was burnt in the midst of the flotilla. He had sailed up the river, at night, with a foul wind, without any buoys in the river, and depending for the safe passage of his division upon his personal recollection of the state of the channel, having 16 sail of sloops of war and 50 gun-brigs and gun-boats under his command; and the approbation of such an officer as sir R. Keats was the best proof of the manner in which that service
574
had been performed.—But it appeared as had been stated, from the Narrative, that the earl of Chatham had written to consult sir R. Strachan on the 4th, and that he had not received an answer till the 9th. On that subject, he had only to observe, that it was perfectly true; that on the 5th, sir R. Strachan had received a long letter from the commander in chief, referring to a variety of important subjects. Instead of replying to that communication by letter, sir R. Strachan thought it would be more respectful to the commander in chief to confer with him personally on these several subjects. The answer mentioned in the Narrative was but the official record of the substance of the conversation at that personal conference, communicated in writing within 48 hours after. But there was a passage in that letter, which he felt it necessary to refer to; it was thus—"Sir R. Strachan informed lord Chatham that if he met with any inconvenient delay in the bombardment of the town, his lordship had only to signify it to him, and he should lay himself with six sail of the line along side the walls of Flushing." Was that the offer of an officer deficient in zeal, activity, or enterprize? Was that the language that would have been held by a person who would leave any effort untried to promote the great objects of the Expedition? All the dispatches of the noble earl, rising in terms of praise in proportion as difficulties were surmounted, conveyed the most unqualified approbation of the conduct of the navy. It was reserved for his Narrative, composed on the 14th of October, and since revised, re-read, corrected, altered and amended, to convey a different impression. As soon as the gallant admiral should get an official copy of the Narrative, he should prepare his statement in reply to it. He trusted that what he had stated would be sufficient to induce the House to vote for the address; and he begged that gentlemen would not suffer themselves to be persuaded by fallacious or sophistical arguments, to vote against the production of a paper, necessary to the ends of justice and the effectual prosecution of the inquiry.
General Loftdefended the conduct of lord Chatham. The hon. officer, who just sat down, had laid much stress on the Narrative, and asserted that it was calculated to produce disunion between the army and navy. Could lord Chatham have done otherwise than present it, after the

575
letter of sir R. Strachan, of the 27th August? for having written which, the gallant admiral, in his examination, had expressed his regret. It was to defend himself from that letter that the noble lord had written this Narrative, and he defied any man to say that it contained a single reflection on the British navy. The noble lord had never shewn a wish to sow mistrust and disunion between the army and navy. He would have been happy could he have made the same declaration with respect to the speeches of the gentlemen opposite.
Mr. R. Wardwas not surprised at the warmth of the gallant officer: He did not mean to follow him into the topics he had touched upon, but had risen merely to make an observation upon one point. The gallant officer argued, that unless the paper moved for should be granted, sir Richard Strachan would have no opportunity of vindicating his character from the insinuations said to have been made against it. But he could assure the House that the noble person at the head of the Admiralty, who had not been acquainted with the circumstance of the Narrative having been presented to the king till the night of Wednesday, had lost no time in communicating the transaction to the gallant admiral; at the same time informing him. that if he should deem it expedient, in like manner, to make a statement of the naval proceedings of the expedition, it would be his duty to become the channel for transmitting it to his Majesty. He could assure the House, that it was not the desire of the Executive Department of the navy to call for such a statement; but if sir R. Strachan should think that his own character, and the feelings of the country, required such a statement, he would, of course, prepare it, when furnished with an official copy of the noble earl's Narrative. He had but one word more to add upon the fallacious foundation of the arguments of the hon. gentlemen opposite, when they assumed that to exist, of the existence of which they had no proof, and called upon those on his side of the House to prove a negative, when they were them selves bound to prove the affirmative. If they could shew the official existence of the paper, he was ready to go along with them.
Sir S. Romillywould feel it necessary to say but a few words upon the subject before the House, and trusted, that what be should say, would procure him the vote
576
of his hon. friend opposite—(Mr. Ward.) His hon. friend had stated, that if the paper were proved to be in existence, he should vote for the motion. His hon. friend must recollect, that if a witness were asked in a court of justice, whether he wrote a certain paper, and declined to answer, the judge would direct the jury to consider that paper as in existence. But supposing the paper in question were not in existence, that was a still stronger reason for agreeing to the motion. If suspicions existed in the minds of gallant officers; if jealousies were felt, as if the earl of Chatham had availed himself of his access to the king to present to him papers reflecting upon the character of brother officers; if that were the case, he would ask, whether it would not be much better, by agreeing to the motion, to prove in the most satisfactory manner, that no other paper existed referring to the subject, but that which had been laid before the House. But this was a question of a higher nature, as materially involving the privileges of that House. In the course of the important Inquiry then pending, the earl of Chatham had been called to the bar to give evidence. As a peer of the realm, he was not obliged to answer; and consequently, standing upon his privilege as a peer, he had refused to answer, when asked whether he had given in any other paper to his Majesty than the Narrative on the table. To compel an answer from a peer, that House had not the right. If a commoner had refused to answer under such circumstances, he might have been compelled by the exercise of these coercive powers which that House possessed, but which were inapplicable to the case of a peer. Yet, if they could not oblige a peer to answer, they fortunately had the means to obtain all they wanted—the possession of the paper, if it existed. If such a paper had been put into his Majesty's hands, and that House should vote the Address, he had no doubt, that his Majesty would cheerfully order that it should be laid before them. The House would recollect I he means it had resorted to in a former Inquiry, to come at evidence, which was only supposed to be material to the objects of the Inquiry. In that instance, one of the messengers had been sent with a witness, to bring not alone such papers as were material, but all papers that might be found in the escrutoir of an individual, which papers had afterwards been referred

577
to a Secret Committee to examine and report such as were relevant to the pending investigation, without allowing the owner to see any of them. When the right was so clear, and the object so important, would not the House, he would ask, vote the Address? If there should be no such paper in existence, then all doubts would be satisfactorily cleared up; the characters of the distinguished officers supposed to be aspersed, would stand as high as ever, when it should be obvious that they had not been injuriously affected by any secret insituations.
Mr. K. Dundasbesought the House to consider the ground upon which the question rested. It had been assumed in argument, that a paper existed containing charges against sir R. Strachan. If it had been the wish of the earl of Chatham to insinuate charges against that gallant admiral, he might have done it in a more effectual manner. What lord Chatham had done in presenting his Narrative was purely in his own vindication. The right hon. gent. then proceeded to justify the Answer which his Majesty had been advised to give to the Address of the city of London, and contended, that if all the circumstances which had since transpired had been then known, they ought to have caused no difference in the terms of that Answer.
Sir J. Anstrutherobserved, that no member had denied the existence of the paper moved for: that no person had been found to say, he did not believe that such a paper was in existence. But it had been said that it was not an official paper. Any paper relative to an Expedition which led to the waste of millions, and the death of thousands, could not, he contended, be considered in any other light than as an official paper. If no such paper existed, why should they leave it in doubt whether the commander in chief had calumniated the character of the navy? Was there any danger in saying that the paper did not exist? Could any man believe that there was not danger in leaving this question doubtful? The House had resolved upon the fullest Inquiry into the policy and conduct of the Expedition to the Scheldt. They had entered upon that Inquiry, and what did they now stop at? Evidence. A matter of evidence was suggested which was necessary to the carrying on of that Inquiry to the fullest extent: and now the question was, whether they would take the right steps to
578
secure that evidence? If they were serious in the Inquiry they could not possibly refuse to call for that further evidence. Why was the paper in question to be kept back? Because it affected the accused. He could imagine no other reason for with holding it. And then it would go to establish the principle, that only so much evidence should be adduced as suited the wishes of the person accused. If it was meant to be a fair Inquiry; if the House were really in earnest in the prosecution of that Inquiry, how could they hesitate for a moment to call for any evidence that might be reasonably supposed calculated to throw light upon the progress of that Inquiry? In fine, he thought that if the House meant to put the two services upon an equal footing; if they did not wish to smuggle the consistent prosecution of the Inquiry, or any of the accused parties, behind the king's name, they could not well hesitate to accede to the motion of his hon. friend.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that lord Chatham had evinced, in his examination, no wish to conceal any point connected with the Expedition. He only refused to answer a question which related to his own conduct subsequently, viz. whether he had presented any Narrative to the king, since his command closed? He then argued the two grounds of right and discretion, and also the matter of precedents. The former he conceded; but contended, that the two latter went against granting the motion. He repeated, that the paper did not exist in any public office of the state: and indeed no paper had been specifically called for, or stated to exist, the whole being founded on an assumption and supposition.
Mr. Bathursthad thought on a former night, that the narrative ought not to have been produced, but he had on that occasion bowed to the authority of the chair, and felt, on the ground of that decision, that the present motion should be agreed to. Supposing that the motion then, instead of being for that paper, or such a paper, had been for any papers communicated to his Majesty by lord Chatham relative to the Expedition to the Scheldt, he wished to know if ministers would have opposed any such motion. He did not think they would, and if they would not, he could not conceive a reason why they should not agree to the present motion. As to the objection started that the paper was not an official one, he should only

579
say, that when they were called on to consider what was an official paper, it had always appeared to him that it was not the place where it was found, but the nature of the paper that made it official. It had been said by the hon. mover, that he assumed that there was in that paper some matter criminatory of others in the conduct of that Expedition. He did not know upon what grounds that hon. gent. had made any such assumption. But it had been said upon the other side, that those who supported the motion were all along begging the question. That he denied. They were justifiable in assuming the existence of any papers called for; they were justifiable in calling for them in order to ascertain whether they did or did not exist. But he would ask, was there a man in that House who doubted the existence of the paper in question? Did any hon. gent. affirm that it did not exist? Did his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for a moment contend, that there was no such paper? He thought that for these reasons the House must accede to the motion.
Mr. Canningbegged the candid attention of the House while he stated to them frankly the reasons that influenced him to give the vote he intended to give upon the question now before them. Perhaps the shortest, the simplest, and the fairest course would be for him to state, that according to the principles he had imbibed from what he had seen of the theory, or known of the practice of the constitution, he was long of opinion, that the more fortunate mode of proceeding would have been in the first instance to have referred the whole question of the conduct of that Expedition to a court of inquiry; not that the decision of that court was necessarily in any degree to bind the judgment or fetter the subsequent proceedings of that House. Opinions were numerous that blame must rest SOUR where, and it was highly important that the country should know to whom it was really imputable. It must, therefore, in the nature of things, have been expected that the conduct of the Expedition would be enquired into. He thought, therefore, it was extremely to be lamented, that his Majesty's ministers had not instituted proper inquiries into both the branches of the service, naval and military, and by that means enabled themselves to come prepared to meet parliament. His Majesty's government would then have placed themselves in a
580
situation more favourable and fortunate both for the country and themselves. Even if the opinion had been, that blame was no where imputable he should naturally have supposed, that one of the first steps to be taken by his Majesty's ministers would have been to call for narratives of their transactions, both from the earl of Chatham and sir R. Strachan. Indeed, so well satisfied was he that that would be the course pursued, that he actually came prepared, on the first day of the session to ask for the narratives of both the commanders, and was only withheld from taking that course because he was told that government had not required, nor obtained any such statements. He found, from every information he could collect, that no such thing as a narrative existed. And after the speech from the throne he had made up his mind, as he believed most persons did, that no such narrative was in being. The fact however turned out to be otherwise, the narrative did exist, but it did not seem to exist to any efficient or beneficial purpose; it did not seem intended to make part of the documents upon which they were to form their judgment in the inquiry, nor upon which the executive government itself was to form its judgment. A narrative, then, had thus been found to exist, which though written on the 14th of October did not make any part of the documents on which the executive government formed its opinion that no inquiry was necessary. The House was hereby placed in a very embarrassing and almost unprecedented situation. Lord Chatham (when he spoke of that noble lord, he begged the House to believe that it was with every sentiment of respect and affectionate regard, both from what was due to him personally, and from that high regard and esteem which he should ever entertain for the memory of his much-lamented and illustrious friend, Mr. Pitt, who was so nearly related to him) was, it was true, at the time of the Expedition, a cabinet minister, and a privy-counsellor. In this situation lord Chatham was called on to command the Expedition; and as soon as he accepted that command, he became as responsible for his conduct as any other officer in the army, or any man in the ranks. Then, if this was, as he took it to be, undeniable, he could not see upon what principle that noble lord, or any other person entrusted with such a command, had a right to cut out for himself a royal read to the King's audience.

581
He was, no doubt responsible to the King, but that responsibility ought to have been addressed through the regular and ordinary channel. As one of the cabinet, he was responsible equally with the rest of his colleagues in office, for the wisdom or policy of the Expedition, to the country and to parliament; but, as the commander of the Expedition, he was responsible through his secretary of state to the King. There was nothing in the principles and character of the constitution of this country, which said, that any thing of a mixed nature was the consequence of his being a privy-counsellor, which entitled him to exemption from the usual responsibility attached to a commander in chief of an Expedition. He should therefore have conceived that the Narrative of lord Chatham should have gone through the secretary of state, or the commander in chief of the army. It was not right that the defence of one officer should go to the office, while that of the other went to the King. If the principles which he maintained were true, the Narrative of lord Chatham ought to have been presented, either through the secretary of state, or through the commander in chief of the army. He had heard that some doubt had arisen on this subject, in consequence of lord Chatham's appointment having taken place under the sign manual of the King. It was supposed that some new and extraordinary right must have resulted from such an appointment, and that that of presenting a narrative to the King, in person, was among the number. In this doctrine he could not acquiesce. The instructions of all foreign ministers received the same sanction; but there was a clause in the instructions, that they should conform to the orders and correspond with the secretary of state who appointed them. Lord Chatham's instructions under the sign manual was precisely the same; and it could never be supposed that lord Chatham was to pass by the secretary of state, and communicate only with his Majesty, because he was a privy-counsellor or a cabinet minister.
Every minister, on his return from a foreign court, was entiled to an audience of his Majesty; and the reason for this privilege might originally have been, that in case a secretary of state should have neglected or misrepresented any part of his conduct, he might, in that audience, have an opportunity of repelling any ill founded charges, and of justifying him-
582
self to his sovereign. Lord Chatham had aright to the same audience on his return home; and if it could be said that this Narrative had been given in at that audience, it would be entitled to a very different view in regard to its motives. The House would now see what happened—No narrative was called for on the termination of the Expedition—no narrative was called for in that more important period, when his Majesty's ministers were framing the speech which was to be delivered to both houses of parliament; and which promised the production of all papers relative to the conduct, execution, and termination of the Expedition to Walcheren. When those papers were laid before the House, there was no narrative from lord Chatham, nor till the 14th of February, when, instead of being delivered to the secretary of state, it was placed directly in the hands of the Sovereign, and by his Majesty directed to be placed in the hands of the secretary of state, for the purpose of making it an official paper.—He could not conceive on what ground this motion, consistently with the state in which the House found themselves, should be resisted. He believed, in his conscience, that if the papers did exist, they were in idea greatly exaggerated; but he would fain believe they did not exist at all. If the other paper which had been read, had taken the course of going, through the medium of the secretary of state, into the King's hand, he should most certainly have thought the papers now moved for did not exist. But the Narrative having first got into the King's hand, and then being made official; and the same adviser having perhaps, thought proper not to make these if they did exist, official, shewed to his mind pretty strongly that they were not such as ought to be made official. He did not, however, think that those papers could properly be withheld, on the ground of their not being official.
The Solicitor Generalwas satisfied of the propriety of opposing the motion, upon the very same principles which had been stated by his right hon. friend who spoke last, for supporting it. But, he maintained, that there was no analogy whatever between the two cases quoted by his right hon. friend. For, in the one case, the paper was in existence, and referred to the Expedition to the Scheldt; but in the other case, in that to which the present motion alluded, it did not ap-

583
pear that there was any paper whatever— indeed, it was distinctly alledged that there was no such paper in any of the ministerial offices. Suppose the Narrative of lord Chatham was kept back by ministers; suppose it were a paper which they did not choose to divulge, what would the House think of them? Instead of withholding such an important document they had, on the contrary, without hesitation, sought and found it in the proper office, and like an honest man his right hon. friend had produced it when called for by that House. But what was his right hon. friend to do in pursuance of the motion now before them? Was it demanded that he should rummage the King's escrutoire to search for any communications that might be found there with respect to the Expedition to the Scheldt? Was it to be contended that if a private letter upon a public subject were addressed to the Sovereign, that letter was to be laid before that House, if it had any allusion to the matter of this motion? Such arguments were not to be endured, and upon these grounds he should vote against the motion.
Mr. Whitbreadfelt, that although he had good reason to be satisfied with the condition of the debate, it was yet necessary for him to offer something upon the observations which the House had heard in opposition to his motion; but as to the learned gent. who spoke last, with the most sincere, unfeigned respect for that gentleman, he would pass him over very lightly. He begged, however, to correct a mistake of that learned gentleman upon one point. He did not want papers cujus cunque generis to be produced, but those sui generis, which were applicable to his motion. Now, as to the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), he confessed that he had heard it with delight, not only because it was the first time that he had ever happened to experience the support of that right hon. gent., but also because the speech itself was marked by all that peculiar character of reasoning, and ability of statement which belonged to that right hon. gentleman. It was, however, free from those sallies of wit and humour, which were wont to excite such pleasure among the gentlemen who occupied the ministerial benches. But the right hon. gent. had no reason to regret the silence with which his speech was heard. He was not so loudly and liberally cheered tonight, but sure he was, the right hon.
584
gent. had never delivered a speech which his old friends so strongly, perhaps, so severely felt.
There were many subtleties and sophisms advanced by gentlemen on the other side, which he did not think it necessary to notice, as they had been already so ably exposed and refuted by the right hon. gent. on the lower bench (Mr. Bathurst), who was fully competent to the task. Bat something had fallen from the hon. officer on the other side (general Loft), upon which he could not forbear to remark. That hon. officer, the professed advocate, the acknowledged friend of lord Chatham, had stated, that the noble lord's Narrative was presented in consequence of the letter written by sir R. Strachan on the 27th of August last. What then, lord Chatham had so long fostered his anger!—Although the letter of sir R. Strachan contained such statements as demanded inquiry; although it communicated such information as would have prompted any minister's attention immediately to inquire, lord Chatham was as still and silent as the minister; but yet he nursed his wrath, and kept it warm until sir R. Strachan had been examined at the bar of that House, until he had delivered his testimony, he would say, like a candid and gallant man; then, and not till then, came that paper from lord Chatham, which was so heart-breaking to the navy, not because they deserved the reflections it contained, no, but because, after cooperating with all the zeal in their power, they found the colleague with whom they had acted, by whom their services had been applauded in all his public dispatches, had clandestinely put a paper into the King's hand, containing a direct depreciation of their exertions, and an attack upon their character, attempting to poison the royal mind against them. If after the exposure that had since taken place, the navy did not now writhe under this paper, he thought he knew those who did. The detection was calculated to make some men wince. What did the noble lord say upon his examination at the bar as to this paper? Why, "that he delivered it to his Majesty at the levee." Did he see any of the ministers there? yes—spoke to some of his colleagues about the paper, but did not notice lord Mulgrave; could not say that he was there."
Such was the noble lord's account. Well; what followed? Why, at a very late hour of the night, lord Mulgrave

585
wrote to sir R. Strachan, stating that lord Chatham had presented a Narrative of his proceedings on the Expedition to his Majesty, but of what nature was not described, and calling upon Sir Richard in like manner to present another. And here he could not help repeating an old anecdote to the House. He did not pretend to have any talent for humour—no, not even for that lowest species of humour, a pun. But there was a pun which occurred to his memory, and which, he thought, might be not inappropriately quoted upon this occasion. Perhaps the story was familiar to many, who heard him, of the lawyer at a coffee-room, maintaining very eagerly, that there was no distinction between the words also and likewise, when a wag denied his assertion, addressing him thus: "Mr. Dunning is a lawyer, sir, and you also, but not likewise"—So with regard to the application to sir R. Strachan on the occasion alluded to. Lord Chatham had presented his Narrative, and sir R. Strachan might present a Narrative also, but not in like manner. No; Sir R. Strachan's Narrative was to be put into the hands of lord Mulgrave. What, he would ask, could any man say in defence of such conduct? A right hon. gent. (Mr. S. Dundas) had observed, that he thought it unnecessary to re-state the arguments urged on his side of the House. But where could he find arguments to re-state. In fact, if the right hon. gent. was appointed to collect arguments on his side of the House, he would enjoy a perfect sinecure—which, by the by, was a kind of office to which the right hon. gent., his friends, or his countrymen, were not generally supposed to entertain a very strong objection.
But were there no other papers presented to his Majesty by lord Chatham, relative to the Scheldt Expedition, than that before the House? He believed in his conscience there were, and he would call upon any man in the House to lay his hand upon his heart and, say after all that had passed that night, that he did not believe so. If such a man was to be found he could not expect his vote upon this occasion. But those who concurred with him in his belief must feel the necessity of calling for the production of such papers. Ministers had repeatedly said, that if such papers were in existence they were not to be found in any of the ministerial offices. But this was the jet of the charge—they could not say that
586
there were no such papers: no, they would not venture upon that. In fact, if they had asserted at the outset that there were no such papers, he would have withdrawn his motion. Could they say so even now, and he would proceed no farther. Several of the gentlemen on the ministerial benches endeavoured to maintain that lord Chatham's proceeding was quite a justifiable act? Was it to be inferred from that, that they would feel it justifiable to follow such an example— that any of them would deem it right secretly to memorial his Majesty against the conduct of a colleague? Possibly, if they could open the King's escrutoire, such a memorial might be found—perhaps a similar manuscript to that on the table against the whole of the right hon. gentlemen; a complaint from lord Chatham, that so imperfect or unfounded was the information with which his colleagues had furnished him, and so clumsily contrived their arrangements, that he found it impossible to execute the object of the Expedition. What, if the Lord Chancellor were to have a peep into his Majesty's escrutoire, might he not have occasion to exclaim in the words of one of the first dramatists of any age or nation, in The School for Scandal—but no; his lordship was too pious to swear, although another Chancellor might:—"A memorial from Mr. Perceval against lord Chatham, and another from lord Chatham against the minister, by all that's damnable."—Really from the conduct these ministers were so ready to vindicate, and from that course which they were so liable to pursue, the worst consequences were to be apprehended, if it were not for the character of the monarch under whom we lived. But if such ministers had been in existence at the close of the 17th century, under the wily sovereign who then sat on the throne, he would have encouraged them to memorial against each other, he would have kept alive dissentions among them—he would have by such management put each of them in his power, and through then he would have ruined the country. The hon. member could well suppose such a king's escrutoire like the lion's mouth which once received the secret information which treachery communicated to the government of Venice, and which often to led destruction. In the Narrative under consideration he recognized some striking features of that species of information; for it attempted to blast the fame

587
and prospects of a body of gallant officers. But the papers still kept back, might be still worse. They must, however, be brought to light. Such a practice as lord Chatham's conduct disclosed must be exposed and reprobated, or responsibility was a mere name, and there would be an end of even the forms of the constitution. —Some gentlemen even among his own friends were pleased to say, that they pitied the minister. He could not, however, feel any pity for such ministers; for to their own conduct was attributable all the difficulty, distress, and odium, which attached to their condition and character. But he pitied that country which had the misfortune to be placed under the government of such men; and if they retained that government long, he had no hesitation in saying, that England must be the victim of their discordance between each other, and their general mismanagement. Was it possible, he would ask, to reflect upon any part of their recent conduct without a disposition to censure—without a feeling of indignation? How was their answer to the City of London to be accounted for? Were they in the habits at all of consulting with each other? Had they any conversation with lord Chatham, with the writer of the Narrative on the table, before they returned that answer. Did they not even meet at cabinet dinners? They might have had their cabinet dinners, but if they went to cabinet suppers, let them go to one after this night's debate, with what appetite they could.

Upon a division the numbers were—

For the motion

178

Against it

171

Majority against Ministers

7