HC Deb 06 May 1817 vol 36 cc160-234
Mr. Lambton,

in rising to submit a motion to the House on the subject of the Mission to Lisbon, said, that if ever there was a subject which deserved the consideration of the House, it was that which he had now to bring before them. It was one which had occupied the attention, and drawn down the reprobation of the public from the very first moment of its occurrence; but that feeling had been strengthened by the disclosures which had lately been made of the communications which had taken place on the subject of the Portuguese embassy, previously to the appointment of the right hon. gentleman. He could not here avoid remarking on the ineffectual attempt to withhold the communications with Mr. Sydenham, and thus to give a most unfair ex-parte impression, by keeping out of sight the information most essential to a correct judgment of the case.

What he should now do was, to submit to the House a simple statement of facts, and by them dispassionately to draw conclusions from them. He did not consider this motion as an attack upon an individual, for the conduct of that individual had little to do with the question, but it was a charge against his majesty's ministers of delinquency, by which, in his opinion, they had subjected themselves to an impeachment (if that was not an obsolete proceeding)—a charge of a criminal misapplication of the public money for the most corrupt private purposes. The motives of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) in this transaction he should not attempt to discover; those of the ministry were sufficiently apparent, and he should be unworthy of the character of an independent representative of the people, if he hesitated to call for the judgment of the House on the conduct to which those motives had given rise. It was now for the House to show that their professions of economy were not empty sounds; and they would not, he trusted, forego the approbation of their constituents—their best reward—for the sake of sheltering the culpable and interested delinquency of ministers, and of propping up a system of measures already denounced by the people as ruinous and oppressive.

This was not the first time when this transaction had been made the subject of discussion, and within and without those walls it had been regarded as a measure resorted to, purely for the purpose of supplying the weakness of ministers by calling to their assistance the talents of the right hon. gentleman—talents too useful indeed to languish in obscurity; it had every where been asserted, that there were no public grounds for sending an ambassador to Lisbon after the conclusion of the peninsular war, that it was a disgraceful waste of the public money and solely to be attributed to the lowest species of political barter, and intrigue. That this was true, he had never doubted; but had he ever entertained any doubts, they would now have been completely removed by the papers which had been laid before the House. Those papers proved, that the mission to Lisbon was undertaken with no prospect of advantage to the interests of this country in its political or commercial relations—but with a view solely to the political, and he might almost say, commercial advantages of the ministers themselves, and that for these sinister objects, they consented to add to the burthens of the people already groaning under the weight of an insupportable taxation. The statement of the case was this: in July, 1814, a negociation was entered into by the ministers, for the purpose of obtaining the co-operation of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Canning), and his friends in both Houses. On the 29th of June, that negociation was brought to a successful issue, Mr. Canning being appointed ambassador to Lisbon, Mr. Huskisson surveyor-general of Woods and Forests, and Mr. Wellesley Pole master of the Mint. On the 30th of July, the member for Liverpool moved for a new writ in the room of his friend Mr. Huskisson, on the appointment of that gentleman. The motives assigned for the appointment of an ambassador to Lisbon had been two dispatches from lord Strangford, the minister at the court of Brazil, to viscount Castlereagh respecting the intention I of the prince regent of Portugal to return to Europe. The first of these dispatches had been received on the 24th of April, 1814, the second on the 26th of August. As these were the only authorities on which the measure rested he should read them. The first was in these words:

"I should fail in my duty, did I not earnestly recommend to the consideration of his royal highness's government, the speedy return to Europe of the Portuguese royal family. The prince's own feelings, and those of every member of his family, are earnestly in favour of this measure. Some degree of apprehension may, perhaps, operate upon the mind of the prince himself, to prevent him from coming forward as eagerly as the other individuals of the royal family would wish; but this sentiment would be easily removed; and his royal highness has explicitly stated to me, that as soon as ever Great Britain declares that his return to Portugal is necessary, he will accede to any intimation to that effect."

This, it would be observed, contained merely a declaration of the line of policy which lord Strangford had thought fit to adopt. The next dispatch was received on the 26th of August, and was in these words:

"The glorious events which have given peace and independence to Europe, have revived in the mind of the prince of Brazil those eager desires to revisit his native country, which had been for a time suppressed. His royal highness has lately done me the honour to state his anxious hope that Great Britan will facilitate the completion of his wishes upon this subject, and that he may return to Portugal under the same protection as that under which he left it. And his royal highness has, during the last week, intimated to me four or five times, as well publicly as privately, that in case Great Britain should send a squadron of ships of war to this place, for the purpose of escorting his royal highness to Europe, it would be particularly and personally gratifying to his royal highness that—should be selected for this service."

The blank, he believed, had been filled up by the name of sir Sidney Smith. Now, on one or other of the dispatches which he had read, the appointment of the Lisbon ambassador must have been founded, if it had any foundation but the desire to find an appointment for the right hon. gentleman. It was ascertained, that in the interval between the 24th of April and the 26th of August, no communication had been made from the Portuguese ambassador to our government: an address had been voted for all the communications from the Portuguese ambassador respecting the return of the prince regent of Portugal, and the answer was, that no written communication had been made. Indeed, he could prove at the bar, that not only had the Portuguese minister made no communication of the probability of the return of the prince of Brazil, but he had asserted, that the government had quite misunderstood the intention of his master. The appointment could not have been in consequence of the dispatch received in April, for it was on the 6th of, June that Mr. Sydenham was appointed, and on the 18th of July, when the noble lord opposite had written to Mr. Sydenham, telling him that he could not anticipate any public grounds why he (Mr. S.) should not confine himself within his ordinary allowances, he of course could have had no contemplation of any such appointment. It was still more impossible that the appointment could have been occasioned by the dispatch received on the 26th of August, for that was a month after the appointment of the right hon. gentleman had been announced to the public in the newspapers. He supposed it would not be contended that the appointment did not take place until it was formally announced in the Gazette—the evidentia rei, the previous notoriety of the transaction, was a sufficient contradiction of any such idea, and he did not think any of the ministers would stand forward in their places and assert, that the appointment did not take place in July. But if the right hon. gentleman had really been appointed for the purpose of welcoming the prince regent on his return, by what pretence could the appointment be justified in August, when the fleet intended to convey the prince of Brazil to Europe did not sail till the 29th of October? It was morally impossible, therefore, that his royal highness could have reached Europe till the month of May following.

He should now call the attention of the House to the expenses of the mission:—On the 18th of July, 1814, lord Castlereagh had written a letter to Mr. Sydenham, then the minister at Lisbon, in which he stated, that it was the Prince Regent's pleasure, that the expenses of the mission should be reduced to the lowest scale, and stating, that he could not contemplate any reasons for continuing the scale of expenditure which had been adopted during the peninsular war. He had been rather surprised to find this economical disposition in any production of the noble lord's, but his surprise was of short duration, for only ten days after Mr. Sydenham had been reduced to a salary of 5,200l. a year, the right hon. gentleman was appointed ambassador extraordinary with a salary of nearly treble that amount. On the 31st of October, in the absence of the noble lord (Castlereagh) at the congress, lord Bathurst wrote to Mr. Canning, then in England, to inform him that he was to be allowed 14,200l. a-year on the same grounds on which Mr. Sydenham had been limited to 5,200l. Why such a change had taken place in the allowance to the minister, while no change had taken place in the circumstances of the embassy, and when no chance existed of the immediate return of the prince of Brazil to Europe, yet remained to be explained. The expense of sir Charles Stuart had been referred to, but that could form no precedent for the expenditure of the right hon. gentleman. The whole of sir Charles Stuart's expenses were occasioned by the peninsular war. He actually held the reins of the Portuguese government. He was a member he believed the sole efficient member of the regency, and was forced to incur the whole of his large expenditure, to discharge the high official duties of his situation.—But the case was very different when the war had ceased, and when the ambassador was no longer a member of the Portuguese government. On the 30th of May 1815, the right hon. gentleman had found out a reason for this increased scale of allowance. In a letter to the noble lord (Castlereagh) of that date, he stated, that "the rank of ambassador, which could make no practical difference in expenses, of which the salary (whether as ambassador or as envoy) supplied only a part, was politically important, as counterbalancing the positive loss of rank and influence, which would otherwise have been occasioned by the British minister's being no longer a member of the regency." The right hon. gentleman had by that time forgotten the letter of lord Castlereagh, in which Mr. Sydenham was directed to reduce his expenses to the lowest scale. He seemed to have taken a former suggestion of his noble friend—to have "two strings to his bow"—for when he was forced to acknowledge that the object of his mission had ceased, as there was no probability of the prince of Brazil's return to Europe, he contrived to discover, that it was essential to the political welfare of England, that his salary should be continued; he discovered, in short, that as sir Charles Stuart had a large allowance, because he was a member of the regency, so he (the right hon. gentleman) ought to have a large allowance, because he was not a member of the regency [Hear, hear! and a laugh!]. The rest of this letter of the right hon. gentleman's was unimportant, except as it displayed talents for finance, which, although in this instance elicited for his own advantage, it was to be hoped he would henceforward contribute to the public service, and in support of his friend the chancellor of the exchequer in this season of financial difficulty.

From all these documents it was evident, that the plain and almost avowed purpose of the mission was, to procure a place for the right hon. gentleman. He was therefore sent, with a salary of 14,000l. a-year to a capital where there was no court, and to which, even while it had a court, no ambassador had been sent for almost a century. He superseded a deserving servant of the public acting there, as envoy with a salary of 5,000l. a-year.—He said, superseded designedly, for Mr. Sydenham's intention of resigning was not known to ministers when they made Mr. Canning's appointment, and when he had amassed a sufficient sum, or when a place was provided for him, or when the job became too glaring and called forth the public censure, he left the important business of the Lisbon mission under the sole guidance of a chargéd' affaires; and during the whole of this mission, the only duty performed by him was a speech to the factory [Hear! and a laugh]. The defenders of this mission had talked of the efforts which the right hon. gentleman had made to complete the abolition of the slave trade; and one of his friends, on a former occasion, had said, "that if there was the least chance that the abolition of the slave trade would be accelerated by this measure, the opposers of the appointment of the right hon. gentleman should pause before they called on the country to pronounce it a gross and scandalous job." He could prove, however, that since the appointment of the right hon. gentleman, the trade of Portugal in human flesh had increased instead of decreasing; and that not one single favourable declaration was procured from the Portuguese government by the efforts of the ambassador.

Under all these considerations, he called on the House to come to a decision on the merits of the case. He had now to put to the test the sincerity of the professions of the House, of economy and vigilance over the extravagant conduct of ministers. He showed them a case in which the public money had been most culpably and disgracefully squandered;—no sort of necessity had been shown in the papers which the government had submitted as their justification; on the contrary, every document tended to prove most clearly that in no one instance had they more abused the confidence reposed in them by parliament than in the present. If, in these times of distress and discontent, it was important for the House to acquire a reputation for strict public virtue, and incorruptibility, they would mark their sense of this proceeding, and show the people that they still retained within themselves the means of satisfying their just claims, and of protecting them against the culpable and profligate extravagance of ministers. He should move the following Resolutions:

  1. 1. "That it appears to this House, that on the 18th of July 1814, lord viscount Castlereagh addressed an official dispatch to Thomas Sydenham, esq., then his majesty's minister at Lisbon, acquainting him that it was the command of his royal 167 highness the Prince Regent, that during his residence at the court of Portugal, he should confine his personal expenses within his ordinary allowances as envoy extraordinary and minister-plenipotentiary, viz. 5,200l. per annum: that he had directed Mr. Casamajor to lose no time in removing the mission from the house of the marquis de Pombal, and that he could not anticipate any public grounds for continuing the expenditure of his majesty's servants at Lisbon on the scale on which it had been conducted during the war in the peninsula.
  2. 2. "That it appears that under the pretence of congratulating the prince of Brazil, on his return to his native dominions, the right hon. George Canning was appointed ambassador extraordinary to the court of Lisbon, with the increased emoluments and allowances belonging to that character, viz. 8,200l. as salary, 6,000l. as extraordinaries, 1,500l. as outfit, and 3,180l. as plate money, amounting in the whole to the sum of eighteen thousand eight hundred and eighty pounds.
  3. 3. "That such an appointment, on such a scale of expense, appears to this House inconsistent with the recorded declaration in lord Castlereagh's dispatch to Mr. Sydenham, of the 18th of July 1814; was uncalled for by any change in the circumstances of the mission subsequent to Mr. Sydenham's appointment; and has been attended with an unnecessary and unjustifiable waste of the public money."

The first Resolution having been put,

Lord Castlereagh

said, that as the hon. gentleman had stated the question to the House, he had founded on an historical narrative a charge against ministers of extravagant expenditure, not called for by the expediency of the public service, but highly detrimental to the positive interests of the country. He was happy to meet the charge on these broad and distinct grounds; and if he was not satisfied that the expense in question was perfectly justified by the circumstances that occasioned it, he would not attempt a vindication of the transaction. Considering the situation he held in the government of the country, he hoped he should not incur any charge of presumption if he felt willing to take the whole responsibility of the transaction on himself. At setting out, then, he should disclaim any disingenuousness that might have been imputed to him in the withholding from the House papers and facts more peculiarly within his own knowledge: the case, indeed, was very much otherwise; and so far from having withheld any paper relating to Mr. Sydenham, he had felt much relieved by their production. The fact was, that the hon. gentleman had first called for information connected with the embassy to Lisbon, and had never demanded any retrospective documents; afterwards he called for information on the dispatch forwarded to Mr. Sydenham, which was immediately afforded; and then the question was, whether there was any ground for expecting the return to Europe of the prince of the Brazils: but the view taken by the hon. gentleman so far from leading to any just conclusion, had embarrassed rather than facilitated the discussion.

Before he came to the principal question, it was necessary to separate from it an imputation, that a measure had been engaged in, calculated to produce unnecessary expense to the country. The hon. member had supported this imputation by drawing a comparison between the expenses of the embassy, and those incurred by Mr. Sydenham—a comparison that was in no wise fair. In the first place, the sum mentioned as the ambassador's allowance, included extraordinaries: and so far from the salary amounting to 14,000l. a year, it did not exceed 8,200l. if these extraordinaries were deducted; and 8,200l. was no more than was usually granted in all foreign missions. If the hon. gentleman wished to know what was the utmost expense of the mission, he would find that the ambassador's allowance, with the extraordinaries, increased as they were by all the circumstances which at that time tended to raise them, did not exceed in amount what the committee in 1815, on the civil list, had recommended, and the House had adopted, as expedient at Lisbon, not for an embassy, but for a mission of the second order. The statement, therefore, made by the hon. gentleman was not fair; but before he went into the question, whether a change had been necessary in the establishment at Lisbon, he thought it necessary to correct the statement, that the last mission had been arranged on a scale of unusual expense. With respect to the charge itself, it was quite clear that, in his letter of the 18th of July 1814, he had laid Mr. Sydenham under injunctions to confine his expenses as much as possible; but he did not say that cases might not occur in which it would be necessary to alter the scale of expenditure; on the contrary, he could fully justify an approach in the scale of expenditure to that incurred by sir Charles Stuart. But what was the case when he wrote to Mr. Sydenham? He had written without any knowledge of the peculiar local circumstances of Lisbon, without knowing that Mr. Sydenham had been writing to him on the judgment of the duke of Wellington, that he must be ruined by his situation at Lisbon unless the government allowances were increased. He put it, then, to the House, whether there were not circumstances connected with the local situation of Lisbon—the price of provisions, the necessity of keeping up appearances—which might render it expedient to raise the allowances beyond what he had calculated en. He had written, too, to Mr. Sydenham at a time when there was no court at Lisbon, and no immediate expectation of the return of a court. He would ask, therefore, whether with a view to welcoming home the sovereign of the country, it was not the duty of his majesty's ministers to consider how far the expenses should be increased when a mission was sent for the express purpose of that welcome? The scale of expenses, therefore, recommended to Mr. Sydenham, was not a fair ground of comparison. Mr. Sydenham had been sent on a mission to the regency, and not to the prince of the country; he had been sent on a mission of the second order, and not on an embassy; and the whole expense of the last embassy did not exceed the amount allowed by the House; and therefore, if he had not yet justified the embassy on political grounds, he trusted he had rescued it from the charge of wanton expenditure.

Having thus relieved the question of the imputation of disingenuousness, and of the charge of expense that had been brought against his majesty's ministers, he should call the attention of the House to an explanation of the grounds that had induced them to advise the special mission to Lisbon, for the purpose of welcoming the prince of Brazils on his return to Europe. The wish of this government, that the prince of the Brazils should return to Europe, had not been expressed for the first time, at the period to which the papers on the table related. It had been repeatedly urged, that the presence of the sovereign was essential to the interests of his country, and that his ab- sence was embarrassing to all the concerns of the state, and the exertions made by us for Portugal herself. Indeed, the duke of Wellington had encountered serious difficulties from this circumstance during the last years of the war, on questions that could not be decided without reference to the prince of Portugal. This was at a period when the war was carried on with vigour; but when it ceased, embarrassments were felt all over Europe from the absence of this prince. In 1814, serious difficulties had arisen at the peace of Paris; nor did they terminate there, but were again experienced at the congress of Vienna; and the questions touching Portugal could not be satisfactorily settled. The same difficulties recurred in the campaign of the second war; and the endeavour to bring the Portuguese troops to the aid of the allies failed, because the regency could not authorize such a measure without sufficient instructions. The House would therefore, see the necessity there was of pressing the return of the prince to Europe; and there had been every reason to suppose that the prince had designed to revisit Portugal as soon as there was any certainty of his not being again disturbed. It was true, that in the letter of the 18th of July, he (lord C.) had stated, that no change was anticipated, but he did not contemplate any certainty that circumstances might not occur which would justify a different scale of expenditure; and if the hon. gentleman argued, that government did not contemplate the possibility of the prince's return, he was entirely wrong: for they had long been in earnest hope and confidence that such an event would occur. That hope had been much increased after the peace of Paris in 1814, because one of the causes that had prevented a return to Europe was the unsettled state of the continent, subject to every kind of casualty. But in Jul}', after the peace had been established, the government thought the probability of the prince's return much increased.

As to the mission having been determined on in the middle of July, before any communication had been received of the prince's intentions; if the hon. gentleman looked, he would find, there was a communication in a letter received from the prince of Portugal, dated the 2nd of April, expressly mentioning the prospect of the prince's return; and that the cause of his delay was only the unsettled state of Europe. That letter gave additional confidence to the hope, that when his royal highness learned the event of the peace in 1814, he would immediately return. In answer to the express question put by the hon. gentleman, he could truly state, that the embassy to Lisbon had not been, determined on by him till the 8th or. 10th of August, at which time the prince's return was thought probable; and it was considered what sort of a mission, should be sent out to welcome him back. But the matter was not fixed till the 26th of August, when the letter was received from lord Strangford which left no doubt on the minds of his majesty's ministers. Did the hon. gentleman think that his majesty's ministers would dispatch a squadron across the Atlantic for an excuse to set up an individual in an embassy, and expose themselves to obloquy? He was certain that the hon. gentleman could not be sincere. There was something so ludicrous in such a supposition, that he should think he wasted the time of the House if he attempted to argue any further on the question. His majesty s ministers had been persuaded that it was the prince of Brazil's intention to return to Europe. They might, perhaps, be charged with believing what they wished; but so firmly did they credit it, that they had been anxious that his return should be attended with the highest marks of respect in their power. He should have thought it a most unpardonable neglect on the part of the government if such a measure had not been adopted, especially when the terms on which the two countries stood towards each other were considered. Portugal had always been our firm ally, and its interests had always been our care. But the measure was not confined to ourselves. What had been the conduct of France? Though it had a mission on the spot, yet it had sent one of its first noblemen, the duke of Luxembourg, to congratulate the prince of Brazil on his return. Neither had France alone, so acted. The embassy sent by the emperor of Russia to the Brazils had been originally appointed for the same purpose, and with the same character as our own. In the situation in which we stood with respect to Portugal, not to act as we had done, would have been most improper, especially as the sovereign of that country had sent an ambassador to our court, to express his gratitude for all that England had done in his favour. It was the duty of government to hail the return of the royal family of Portugal to their European dominions, with those demonstrations of respect which such an occasion required. It was for this purpose that the appointment in question had been made. As to the propriety of such an appointment he had not heard any thing to show, that it was not necessary that it should have been on such a scale. His right hon. friend would never have been asked to undertake the duties incident to such an appointment, were it not that, for other motives, he had resolved to visit Portugal, even long before the appointment was deemed necessary by the British cabinet. Although, for some time previous to the appointment, government had reason to think that the prince regent of Portugal intended to return to Lisbon, yet it would have been rather unjustifiable to have made any arrangement for his reception by appointing an ambassador until the most positive assurance was given that the Prince Regent was actually coming. When such assurance was received, and not till then, it was that his right hon. friend was appointed.

As to the motives which accelerated or retarded the departure of his right hon. friend from England, they were quite of a different nature; but the facts relating to it were these. In August, when news was received that the prince regent was just on the eve of setting out from the Brazils, lord Bathurst, on the very day that this news arrived, sent instructions to have a squadron prepared. His right hon. friend happened at that time to be in the West of England, and his appointment was scarcely then thought of. In his (lord C.'s) letter of the 25th of July, he stated that the squadron was then in readiness, but would not be dispatched till some more certain intelligence was received. The instructions of lord Bathurst to the admiralty were given on the 26th of August, when, as he had already stated, positive information was at last received that the prince regent was returning; and immediately on these instructions being received at the admiralty, admiral Beresford would have sailed, but that he was delayed for a long time by adverse winds. It was attempted to found a charge against his right hon. friend on the delay which took place between the time of his appointment and of his sailing for Lisbon. But did the House really suppose it possible that his right hon. friend or any other person could have made the necessary preparations for such a mission without some delay? Did any man suppose it possible that he could have set out instantly and made his preparations in Lisbon instead of in London? It was impossible for anyone who took a just view of the circumstances of the case, to say that the delay was not necessary and unavoidable.

And yet these were the grounds on which this calumnious charge was preferred. For his own part, he must enter his plea against the unfair and inflamed view which the hon. gentleman endeavoured to make the House take of the question, as related to the expenses of the mission. The facts on this part of the subject were grossly misrepresented, for the mission of Mr. Sydenham was in truth more expensive than that of his right hon. friend. The proof of this was to be found in the accounts, and to them he must refer the House for the refutation of all that was urged on this part of the question. If there was any fault to be found with the mission, it was not his right hon. friend, but himself and his colleagues in office, to whom the House must impute the blame. The British cabinet made this appointment, because, in their conscience, they believed that the prince regent of Portugal would come. If the hon. gentleman could, from the documents before the House, convince himself that by the mission an unnecessary expense to the country was wantonly incurred—that the design was to create a mission for so base a purpose as that of giving any political facility to any favoured individual—if such a conviction could be wrought in the mind of the hon. gentleman, it would only evince a strange perversion of mind. But, certainly, nothing which the hon. gentleman had stated could excite any such persuasion in the House. In the whole transaction and in all its stages, the House would trace the motives of the British cabinet, and they would find them the very reverse of those which the hon. gentleman so unfairly ascribed to them:—they would feel that, if under the circumstances of the case, when the return of the Portuguese royal family was announced as certain, and when the political situation of Europe so much required that our relations with the court of Portugal should be strengthened, and every means afforded by the presence of a British minister to put the energies of Portugal in motion—that under such circumstances, if the British cabinet would have neglected its duty; if it had not sent an ambassador to Lisbon of such weight and authority, and, in short, a mission of such a scale as that which had been sent they would have neglected their duty. Such being the view which he was sure the House would take of it, he must meet the motion of the hon. gentleman by moving the previous question.

Sir Francis Burdett

observed, that if it was the object of the noble lord, as it seemed to be, to involve the question before the House in obscurity, so as to withdraw attention from the real merits of the case, no failure had, he believed, been more complete than that which had been witnessed upon the present occasion. To the clear, distinct and able statement of the hon. mover, the noble lord had, indeed, made a most inefficient reply; for as to the noble lord's explanation of the mistake so casually committed with respect to the production of a certain letter, that mistake was in fact of no consequence to the merits of the question, whether the prince regent of the Brazils really intended to return to Portugal at the time the appointment under consideration took place. Upon this subject it appeared that a very intelligible hint was communicated to ministers, with regard to the Regent's intention, which they intirely slighted; for notwithstanding that hint, the right hon. gentleman was appointed ambassador to Lisbon for the professed purpose of receiving the Regent, at a considerable expense to this country. The noble lord had talked a good deal about the state of Europe, in order to show the necessity of this appointment; but upon this point he could not distinctly understand what the noble lord meant; for he had stated no reasons, grounded upon what he called the state of Europe, to justify such an expensive appointment. Indeed, the noble lord had offered no reasons upon the subject, and therefore he was a very incompetent advocate. But although a bad advocate, the noble lord, it must be confessed, had presented some striking characteristics of a good christian, for he had spoken well of those who had spoken ill of him—and had treated those kindly who had despitefully used him; he had, indeed, returned good for evil [a laugh, and Hear, hear!]. Such an instance of christian disposition had, indeed, been rarely, if ever, witnessed in the history of political men. The noble lord had, however, evinced nothing of the hu- mility, although he had shown so much of the spirit of a christian; for the triumphant tone in which the noble lord had spoken, in alluding to the appointment of his right hon. friend, as the noble lord called him, was very intelligible. The noble lord had, indeed, some grounds for triumph. The right hon. gentleman was known to have declared to his constituents at Liverpool that he could not, consistently with his honour, accept place in conjunction with the noble lord, and what a gentleman could not do, consistently with his honour, it was apprehended he could not do at all. But it seemed that a desire to do good for the country overcame this obstacle of honour, and the right hon. gentleman was induced to accept office under the noble lord. Thus the right hon. gentleman presented an example of condescension and forgiveness which was rewarded by the forbearance and panegyric of the noble lord, especially in the present discussion. There were two views to be taken of a question of this nature. It was very often stated, that public men had no real view to the public service in the course which they pursued, and that they were generally influenced by mercenary motives. The right hon. gentleman, whose conduct was under consideration, had frequently and loudly complained of this imputation, alleging that it was quite unjust thus to stigmatize the views of public men, while he was always forward to stigmatize by every means in his power the character of all those who differed from him in political opinion, and especially the advocates for reform. The right hon. gentleman was indeed uniformly heard, like the Pharisee in the temple, to express his pleasure that he truly, in his conduct, was not like other men [a laugh, and Hear, hear!]. But against the reformers the right hon. gentleman's invective was peculiarly levelled;—for they, according to the right hon. gentleman, were deserving of every possible censure. Yet the right hon. gentleman no doubt thought that he himself, even in this case, was not deserving of any censure whatever. The right hon. gentleman indeed seemed to take credit for blameless conduct both within and without that House. Nay, he appeared to think his conduct on all occasions quite laudable. But how stood that conduct in the instance under discussion? The noble lord was so fortunate as to have a place to dispose of, which he calculated would serve to reconcile the right hon. gentleman to the support of his administration, and the right hon. gentleman was so fortunate as to find that place suitable to his views, and therefore he promptly accepted of it. For the right hon. gentleman felt it very convenient to accept a place with a large salary, where he had nothing to do, by becoming ambassador to a country where there was no court, for so it turned out, and yet for this appointment the right hon. gentleman receive ed no less than 19,000l. a year. If the appointment of an ambassador to Lisbon were really necessary, surely it would hare been time enough to make that appointment when the prince regent, at whose court that ambassador was to act, had actually returned. But the right hon. gentleman was invested with his appointment, and in the receipt of his salary, before the fleet had sailed from England to bring the prince regent home, as well as before the intention of the regent to return was positively ascertained. What could be advanced or imagined in defence of this part of the case? The noble lord had no doubt stated that he expected the return of the regent at the time this appointment was settled, and this statement the noble lord made upon his conscience. What the noble lord thought or believed in his conscience, it was impossible for any other man to say; but this he (sir F. B.) felt himself warranted in asserting, that nothing appeared to justify the belief which the noble lord had expressed. On the contrary, he could not help considering the appointment, which the noble lord professed to ground upon his consciencious belief, as the grossest job he had ever witnessed, and he had no doubt that it so appeared to the country at large [Hear, hear!]. What, then, was to be thought of those who could, for the purpose of such a scandalous job, be induced to augment the burthens of this impoverished country, merely with a view to conciliate the support of the right hon. gentleman, for such was the universal and just impression upon the public mind. Such a transaction could only be regarded as a plain, open, palpable job. Sir Robert Walpole had observed, that every man had his price, he meant in parliament; but the noble lord, who although not so old as sir Robert Walpole, had had more experience, and had become more accurately informed, precisely ascertained the amount of the price, for here he had presented it in figures [a laugh, and Hear, hear, hear!]—On the whole, he could not hesitate to characterize this transaction, to borrow a word often used by the noble lord, as completely "disgusting;" for what could be more disgusting than to aggravate the burthens of a nation so impoverished at present, as well as at the time the extraordinary appointment under discussion took place? Therefore, whenever he should hereafter hear the right hon. gentleman indulge in his favourite system of traducing the reformers, his only defence against such a system would be to allude to the mission to Lisbon. His simple reply indeed would be "peculation—peculation—peculation." And it was no wonder that those who sanctioned such peculation should abuse the reformers. It was no wonder that the right hon. gentleman, in particular, who profited so much by such Peculation, should, in praising the constitution, while he only meant to protect its abuses, endeavour to deprecate those reformers who sought to put an end to the system by which he was sustained and enriched. It was no wonder indeed that the right hon. gentleman should reprobate the advocates for economy, and indulge in "merry descants on a nation's woes," while even those woes were to him a source of wealth. But the public would know how to appreciate the right hon. gentleman's motives, as well as those of the noble lord who had evinced so much of the spirit of forgiveness upon this occasion. The right hon. gentleman and the noble lord had, as well as others, often dwelt much upon the value of public character. The right hon. gentleman had indeed pronounced that character to be an important part of the public property, and quite essential to the interests of the country. But the country would consider the estimation which the right hon. gentleman sat upon that character from his own conduct in the transaction before the House. If the value attached to public character was to be judged of from such conduct, and this character was to be deemed a part of the public property, he was very much afraid that that property was in a state of great jeopardy, if it was not irretrievably gone. For the imputation which must attach to public character from this most disgusting job—which was only a sample of the system, however varnished, that was continually going on—could not fail to be degrading. But the enormous expense of such a job would be useful; for it must open the eyes of the country, and excite every public-spirited considerate man to struggle for the extinction of such an abominable system, by co-operating to reform the constitution of that House, to which this, as well as every other evil that afflicted the country, was mainly attributable.

Admiral Beresford

felt himself called upon to state to the House a few facts connected with the present question, which were within his own personal observation while stationed off the Brazils. In the month of September, the prince regent of Portugal desired him to wait at the Brazils as his royal highness intended to return in his ship to Lisbon, and only waited the arrival of dispatches from thence, to fix the time of his departure. Soon afterwards there was an arrival from Lisbon, upon which he waited on the prince to know his intentions. His royal highness said, that he waited the arrival of further dispatches, and desired him still to wait at the Rio. Soon after this time he (Admiral B.) was in very bad health, so that he could not personally attend on the prince; however, after some further time he sent to know the pleasure of the prince when he was again desired to wait, as his royal highness daily expected dispatches, which would induce him to go to Lisbon in his ship. The prince was then so fully determined to go, that he asked to be informed in what time the passage to Lisbon might be made. It was not till the 6th of April that the prince sent him a final answer that he had determined not to go. But for these circumstances, and the constant expression of the prince, until the month of April, of his intention to return to Lisbon, he could assure the House that no consideration would have induced him to wait at the Rio, for even five days after his arrival there.

After the speech of sir John Beresford, there was a considerable pause in the House. At length, no other member offering himself, and the question being about to be put from the Chair,

Mr. Canning

rose, and spoke nearly as follows:—

Sir; Upon a question which, however disguised in form, I cannot but feel, in common with every member who hears me,—in common with the hon. mover of the resolutions, and in common with the hon. baronet, who has fairly stated the real object in view,—to be an attack directed against me individually, I trust I shall not be considered as having shown any blame- able reluctance in pausing before I offered myself to the attention of the House. Sir, I could not bring myself to believe, that, in the two speeches of the hon. mover and the hon. baronet, I had heard the whole of what is to be alleged against me; and yet I must suppose that, if others intended to add their weight to the accusation, I must suppose that, in a casein which every thing that is dear to man, in character, in reputation, and in honour, is at stake, they would have had the fairness to give to the accused an advantage which is not with holden from the meanest criminal, that of hearing, the whole indictment to which he is to plead.

If, after a year of menace, and after three months of preparation, from amidst all the array which I see opposed to me, these are my only accusers; if the speeches which I have heard, contain the whole of the charges which are to be urged against me,—charges, which those who bring them forward state to be directed to no other object than the public weal, but which I know, and which they know, to be intended to disqualify me for ever from serving the public with credit to myself or with advantage to the state;—if this be all, it falls indeed far short of the expectations excited by such mighty menace and by such deliberate preparation! But, Sir, if this is not all, if there are gentlemen, who hold themselves in readiness to aggravate the matter preferred against me,—whose speeches, prepared for the occasion and now throbbing in their breast, are reserved till I shall be disabled from answering them,—from such I appeal to the candour of the House and of the world; declaring, and desiring it to be understood, both within and without the walls of this House, that if I do not refute what they may hereafter advance against me, it will be only because I am precluded by the forms of the House from speaking a second time [cries of No, no! from the Opposition]. O, sir, I am not to be told that the motion consists of a string of resolutions—that each resolution is a separate question—and that upon each separate question I may speak;—but neither are my accusers to be told that this is technical nonsense;—that the effective debate must take place upon the first resolution, and that the question upon that resolution once put to the vote, I should be heard upon those which follow, to very little purpose indeed.

I agree with the hon. baronet, that I have often deplored and deprecated, and, in spite of the hon. baronet's warning, I shall continue (not for myself but for the public good) to deprecate and to deplore the practice of calumniating public men on either side of this House, by imputing to them motives of action, the insinuation of which would not be tolerated in the intercourse of private life. If, indeed, I shall be found to have forfeited all claim to the confidence of the House, the hon. baronet needs not fear that I shall again offend him by such unpleasant animadversions. But if, on the other hand, I shall be fortunate enough to make plain to others—that which I myself confidently feel—my perfect clearness from any of the imputations attempted to be thrown upon me, the hon. baronet may depend upon hearing from me hereafter the same language which I have used heretofore, on this—and on other subjects still more disagreeable to the hon. baronet and his followers.

Sir, the charge which the hon. gentleman's resolutions involve, is this,—that the government, being perfectly aware that the prince regent of Portugal had no intention of returning to Europe, pretended a belief in such intention, for the express purpose of corruptly offering that mission which I corruptly accepted. It is true, that a distinction is most disingenuously affected to be drawn between the government and me; of which it is hardly necessary to say, that I disdain to take advantage. It is pretended, that a charge is brought forward only against the government for making the offer, but that I might have accepted that offer—if not altogether without blame, at least without absolute criminality. Sir, I disclaim this insidious distinction. I will allow no such exception in my favour. As my noble friend has claimed that my case shall be considered as that of the government, so do I declare on my part that the case of the government is mine.

The first head of charge, therefore, against the government and myself is, that there was no belief on the part of the government, or on mine, that the prince regent of Portugal intended to return to Europe: the second is, that the mission sent to receive and congratulate the prince regent on his return was on a scale of unnecessary, unexampled, profligate prodigality. To both these issues, distinctly, I mean to plead. All that I require of those who are to judge me is, that they will keep these two issues separate in their minds; that they will not confound them, as has been industriously done in the speeches of the hon. gentleman, and the hon. baronet. If a fraud were purposed—if the government did not believe in the return of the royal family of Portugal—there is crime enough for an impeachment, if you will, without entering into the question of expense. In that case the expense of one farthing was too much. But if on the contrary, the government was sincere in its belief of the occasion for the appointment when they made it, and I, when I accepted it, then the question of expense is indeed a fair subject of parliamentary jealousy (I am far from denying that it is so); but the amount of that expense must be estimated, with reference to its object,—and not upon the unfair and fallacious assumption that there was no occasion for any expense at all.

As to the first point, if I were pleading for myself alone, all that it would be necessary for me to do, would be to refer to one only of the papers before the House;—the extract of lord Strangford's dispatch to lord Castlereagh, dated Rio de Janeiro, June 21st, 1814 It is in these words:—

"The glorious events which have given peace and independence to Europe, have revived in the mind of the prince of Brazil those eager desires to revisit his native country, which had been for a time suppressed. His royal highness has done me the honour to state his anxious hope that Great Britain will facilitate the completion of his wishes upon this subject; and that he may return to Portugal under the same protection as that under which he left it."

The dispatch, of which this is an extract, was, in fact, the only one upon the subject that I happened to see before I went to Portugal.

Before I proceed further, I must here vindicate my noble friend, the secretary of state for the foreign department, from the allegation of the hon. gentleman, that my noble friend studiously delayed, or wilfully confounded, the papers moved for by the hon. gentleman or his friends. The hon. gentleman accuses my noble friend of having produced a dispatch, addressed to me by lord Bathurst, instead of the dispatch of my noble friend to Mr. Sydenham of the 18th July, well knowing that this latter was the paper really moved for. Now, Sir, I cannot pretend to say in what terms the motion of the hon. gentleman was conceived: I was not in the House (so far as I know) when he made it. The first knowledge that I had of it was from a note of my noble friend, inclosing a copy of the dispatch addressed to me by lord Bathurst; informing me that this dispatch was to be laid before the House of Commons; and desiring to know, whether there were any papers which I might wish to be produced in order to meet the charge, whatever it might be, which appeared, by the call for this dispatch, to be meditated against me. This was a courtesy which my noble friend, or any minister, would have equally shown to any other individual menaced with a parliamentary attack; and I only mention it, as affording a strong proof of the sincerity of my noble friend's belief that the paper first produced was that which had been moved for by the hon. gentleman. Lord Strangford's dispatch being (as I have said the only document that I happened ever to have seen, relating to the prince regent of Portugal's return, it was the only one that occurred to me as at all necessary to illustrate that matter. It was the only one, therefore, of which, with that view, I suggested the production; and, upon looking it over, as I was extremely desirous to bring forward nothing but what was absolutely necessary, I thought the two or three sentences, which are given in the first set of papers presented to the House, amply sufficient. I knew, indeed, that the prince regent of Portugal's intention of returning to Europe had been questioned; but it was not until after the production of these papers that I had any suspicion that it was denied The hon. gentleman now professes that his intention was to move, not for any dispatch to me, but for a dispatch to Mr. Sydenham. It is to be regretted, in that case, that the hon. gentleman did not mention. Mr. Sydenham's name in his motion, which} would have obviated any possibility of misapprehension. I am not without my suspicions, indeed, that if in return to the; hon. gentleman's ambiguous motion my noble friend had laid upon the table the dispatch to Mr. Sydenham, he would then have been accused of keeping back: the dispatch to me. In truth, Sir, if the hon. gentlemen wanted complete information, their obvious course was, to move for all dispatches relating to the subject in question, within a certain specified periods But if their object was to feel their way, paper by paper, in order that they might proceed or not, according as the information obtained by their successive motions should or should not correspond with the prejudices which they had endeavoured to raise; why, then, Sir, perhaps they, had not gone far in this course of discovery before they repented of having engaged in it.

But to return to the dispatch of lord Strangford. The extract from that dispatch which I have just read, appeared to me quite sufficient to establish the prince regent of Portugal's intention.—I confess, indeed, that my belief in that event rested on authority short even of this extract. It rested on the authority of a private letter from lord Liverpool, received by me on the 28th of August, at a considerable distance from London; which,—though it is not pleasant to quote in public discussion the contents of private letters,—I will now (having my noble friend's permission), read to the House. It is dated, London, August 26th, 1814.

—"Letters have been this day received from lord Strangford, by which it appears, that the prince of Brazil has intimated his desire to return to Portugal (in consequence of the recent events in Europe), and the gratification which he would feel at the arrival of a British squadron at Rio de Janeiro, for the purpose of conveying the royal family to Lisbon. Under these circumstances, Melville has given orders for preparing a proper squadron for this service,—and it will sail as soon as the necessary arrangements can be completed."

This letter, Sir, I received on the 28th of August, at Manchester, in my way from London to a distant part of the country,—from whence I had no thoughts of returning till the middle of September. My right hon. friend, now sitting near me, (Mr. Huskisson) was with me when I received it.—Now, the hypothesis of my accusers is, that the whole notion of the prince regent's return was a feint and a fraud on the part of the government, if not on mine. But, I ask of any candid man if he can believe,—I ask of any man living, if he will avow the belief,—that supposing a fraud to have been intended, it is likely that such a letter as this from lord Liverpool, written in the unguarded style of private friendship, and addressed (as any gentleman who would take the trouble to look at it would see that it is) with the usual formulary of the most familiar correspondence,—should have been one of the documents got up for such a purpose? Is it likely, that of two men, known to each other by nearly thirty years of intimacy, one should practise such a delusion upon the other? Or, is it likely that two such men should carry hypocrisy so far as to provide beforehand for the support of a public fraud, by the contrivance of such a private communication.

This letter from lord Liverpool was founded upon that dispatch from lord Strangford to lord Castlereagh, of which I have already read the extract, and which appears at full length in the papers last laid upon the table. The extract was moved for at my desire,—the extract only—when I conceived that my justification alone was in question: the whole dispatch was afterwards moved for, also at my suggestion,—when I found that the government were suspected of having deceived me into a belief, for which they had no foundation. I will now take the liberty of reading the whole dispatch:—

"Rio de Janeiro, June 21, 1814, [Received August 26th, 1814.] My lord;—The glorious events which have given peace and independence to Europe, have revived in the mind of the prince of Brazil those eager desires to revisit his native country, which had been for a time suppressed. His royal highness has lately done me the honour to state his anxious hope, that Great Britain will facilitate the completion of his wishes upon this subject, and that he may return to Portugal under the same protection as that under which he left it. And his royal highness has, during the last week, intimated to me, four or five times, as well publicly as privately, that, in case Great Britain should send a squadron of ships of war to this place, for the purpose of escorting his royal highness to Europe, it would be particularly and personally gratifying to his royal highness that—should be selected for this service. I have the honour to be, & c. STRANGFORD.' The name of the officer is omitted from motives of delicacy. Sir John Beresford had been already appointed and announced to the court of Rio de Janeiro, before this dispatch was received).

Submit this document to any man in the habit of canvassing evidence, and ask him, whether there is any thing in it that could create a suspicion of the sincerity of the wish which it announces?—whether the government could reasonably doubt the authenticity of the intelligence conveyed in it, any more than I doubted the fidelity of the abstract of that intelligence transmitted to me by lord Liverpool?—A man might say, that he intended to go a journey,—and the fact of his entertaining that intention might, perhaps, not be considered as altogether established by the mere intimation of it: but, when he ordered his carriage to the door, and named the servants by whom he wished to be conducted, then, surely, one would consider him to be really in earnest.

This dispatch, however, I did not see till after my return to London in September. I was quite satisfied of the fact, as stated to me by lord Liverpool. Nothing is more easy than, when an event has, has not, actually taken place, to find out that you ought to have foreseen how likely, or to have discovered how unlikely it was to happen. But who balances probabilities in this way, in the ordinary transactions of life? Who is the wise and happy man that receives every friendly communication with distrust; that calls for proofs of the most credible expectancies, and deems every occurrence problematical till it has actually occurred?—The prince regent of Portugal announced to the British cabinet his intention of returning; he requested that a squadron might be sent to escort him to Europe; he named the officer by whom he wished that squadron to be commanded:—yet ministers were to suspect that he entertained no intention of the kind!—For myself, I protest, that no shadow of doubt ever crossed my mind, as to the reality of this intention. Perhaps it may have been rash to believe: if so I must acknowledge my error. But when, in addition to such positive testimony, I considered how desirable it was, with a view to the interests of the Portugeuese monarchy, of this country, and of the world,—how essential to the complete restoration and tranquillity of that order of things which the French revolution had disjointed and broken up,—that Portugal, now sunk into a province, should resume her station among the states of Europe;—when I felt that no efforts of the British government ought to have been spared, and had reason to be assured that none had been spared, to induce that return,—I confess I know not on what I could have founded the smallest doubt that the return of the court of Portugal was really determined upon, and that this determination was upon the eve of execution.

It may be true, that there were, as has been asserted, at the precise period to which I am alluding, conflicting reports on this subject;—that merchants in Lisbon had received letters from their friends, in Brazil, contradicting the opinion that the prince regent would return;—that there were rumours of opposition to the measure in the councils of Rio de Janeiro; and that persons, supposed to have access to correct intelligence, avowed the conviction that the court would remain in South America. If there were such reports, I knew nothing of them. But I fairly own that had they come distinctly to my knowledge, had I even been consulted as to the weight to be allowed to them, I should have considered the British minister's testimony as outweighing them all. I will tell the House why the testimony of lord Strangford would have had so powerful a weight with me on this subject. In 1807, at the time when the court of Portugal emigrated to the Brazils, I had the honour to fill the office now filled by my noble friend (lord Castlereagh). When the first intelligence of the intended emigration reached this country, there was then, also, an abundance of conflicting and contradictory reports; and I believe I may say that for several days I alone, in London,—alone perhaps with my colleagues,—was persuaded of the existence of that intention. At that time, I knew nothing of lord Strangford, except from his official correspondence: but that correspondence had inspired me with a full reliance upon the authenticity of his sources of information, and upon his knowledge of the prince regent's mind; and lord Strangford all along affirmed, that the prince regent intended to emigrate. The general persuasion at Lisbon was, that the court would not emigrate; even up to the very day, when,—as lord Strangford had predicted,—the prince actually embarked in the Tagus, and set sail for Brazil.

My belief, therefore, in the present instance was founded, first on positive information,—secondly, on the obvious desirableness of the return of the prince regent to Europe, and on the certainty that this country must have used all means of council and persuasion to ensure that event. I was persuaded both of the reality of the intention, and of the probability of its instant execution. Nothing, absolutely nothing, had come to my knowledge that could excite a reasonable distrust. But even had such distrust been excited in my mind by any rumour, or any testi- mony less than official, it would have been dispelled by the assurances of lord Strangford. Such was my belief, my credulity, if you will—but a credulity of which I have assigned the grounds,—a credulity which was assuredly not so fatuitous as to be fairly construed into crime.

I must, however, beg not to have it understood that my belief in the return of the prince regent at once determined my acceptance of the mission;—though it might have done so, for aught that I can see, without blame. Undoubtedly no earthly consideration would have induced me to accept it without an assurance as to that return: but it required a combination of other circumstances, with which I need not trouble the House, to induce me to go in an official character to Lisbon; and in fact my acceptance was not determined till after my return to town, late in September.

The government bad stronger grounds for their belief than I had. They had before them the communications contained, or referred to, in the papers last submitted to the House:—letters, namely, from lord Strangford, of so early a date as February—and the autograph letter of the prince regent of Portugal to the Prince Regent of Great Britain, dated the 2nd of April. Of these I knew nothing till the other day, when the hon. gentleman's inquiries and denunciations led to an examination of the correspondence in the foreign office. This autograph letter disproves the notion of the hon. gentleman, that there was an interval between the month of February and the month of August in the communications respecting the prince regent's intended return. This letter fills up the supposed chasm in the correspondence. The reason why a copy of this document has, not: been laid before the House is, that—as many gentlemen who hear me must know—it is contrary to the etiquette observed towards sovereign princes so to make, their letters public. The practice is for the secretary of state to refer to the substance of such letters in an official dispatch accompanying them, or acknowledging their receipt: and such a record of the letter in question is to be found in the dispatch from the secretary of state to lord Strangford, of the 25th of July. In that dispatch, this autograph letter is noticed as stating that the prince regent of Portugal only waited for intelligence of the final success of the allies, in order to determine his return to Europe.

But all this evidence, all this testimony, is, it seems, to be considered as fallacious, if not absolutely false, because there is a solemn, indubitable, irrefragable witness at variance with it—a paragraph in a newspaper of the 29th of July, which announced my actual appointment as ambassador to Portugal!—An appointment of the 29th of July could not be in consequence of information received on the 26th of August.—Clearly.—But events might be contemplated as probable before the 29th of July, which intelligence of the 26th of August might confirm: and a speculation might be founded upon those probabilities, contingent upon their fulfilment or non-fulfilment.—I do not affirm that some such speculation, founded on some such possible contingency, but absolutely dependent for its realization on the happening or not happening of that contingency, might not be afloat before the 29th of July. The dispatch of the 25th of July, (of which, however, any more than of the autograph letter alluded to in it, I had not any distinct knowledge till it was brought into notice the other day in consequence of the hon. gentleman's inquiries,)—the date, I say, of this dispatch renders it not improbable that it may have been about that time that a mission to Portugal began to be contemplated as probable. But that I was at that time, or near that time appointed,—that I then accepted such appointment, if offered to me,—or that it could then have been offered to me, if I had been willing to accept it,—I utterly deny. I deny here, Sir, in your presence, and in the presence of my country, that which has been assumed as established because I did not deny it when asserted in a newspaper.—Sir, I value as much as any man the liberty of the press; I acknowledge its utility, I bow to its power; in common with all public men, I listen to its suggestions, and receive its chastisements, with all due humility and thankfulness: but I will not plead at its bar! I will continue to treat with scorn the attacks of anonymous malice. I disdain to make any answer to such charges, whilst there is a House of Commons before which I can vindicate my character. This is the place where it is my right as well as my duty to plead, before a competent tribunal, and in the face of known and accountable accusers. And in behalf of all that is sacred and decent in private life, as well as in behalf of the honour of public men, I protest against the inference— that he is to be held guilty of a charge, who resolutely declines to answer it at the bar of the daily press.

But the newspaper had, it seems, announced not only that I was appointed ambassador to Lisbon, but that my right hon. friend near me (Mr. Huskisson) was appointed surveyor of the woods and forests, and my right hon. friend (Mr. W. W. Pole) at the end of the bench, master of the Mint; both which nominations were immediately verified. It is very true that the latter office was shortly afterwards filled by my right hon. friend, who has discharged the duties of it with so much honour to himself, and advantage to the public: but I disclaim in the most peremptory terms any merit or influence of mine in that appointment. My right hon. friend near me, was, it is also true, appointed to the office of surveyor of woods, and undoubtedly not without my intervention. On the 30th of July I think it was that I moved the new writ for my right hon. friend. I moved that writ for the express purpose of showing that I approved, and was party to, the accession of my right hon. friend, and of other friends of mine, to the administration. And had I myself accepted office at that time, I should have been equally ready, nay anxious to avow it. At different periods of my political life, I have held, I have resigned, I have refused, and I have accepted office. And there is no occasion on which I have taken either of these courses, on which I am not perfectly prepared to vindicate (I will not say always the prudence, but I will say confidently) the purity and honourableness of my conduct.

I know, Sir, how difficult it is to speak plainly on subjects of this nature, without transgressing the decorum, if not the strict order, of our debates. But is it brought as an accusation against me, that, having no difference of opinion with the administration, I did not neglect an opportunity which presented itself of furnishing an accession of strength to that administration, which I wished to strengthen and uphold? Why ought I to have declined this? And by whom am I accused for not declining it? By those who consider the principle of party as a virtue, as a badge of distinction, and a pledge of purity, when predicated of themselves; but who are intolerant of any party, presuming to connect itself together, except under their banners. And, what is the bond of party? What are the boasted ties that connect the hon. gentleman on the other side of the House with each other? Fidelity in private friendship, as well as consistency in public principle. Their theory of party is a theory which they would confine exclusively to their own practice. One may become a satellite in their system, and welcome! but any eccentric planet, moving in another system, they view with jealous yet with scornful eyes, and denounce its course as baleful and destructive. To this exclusive doctrine I have never subscribed. To these pretensions I have never listened with submission. I have never deemed it reasonable that any confederacy of great names should monopolize to themselves, the whole patronage and authority of the state;—should constitute themselves, as it were, into a corporation—a bank for circulating the favours of the Crown and the suffrages of the people, and distributing them only to their own adherents. I cannot consent that the administration of the government of this free and enlightened country shall be considered as rightfully belonging to any peculiar circle of public men however powerful, or of families however preponderant; and though I cannot stand lower in the estimation of the hon. baronet than I do in my own, as to my own pretensions, I will (to use the language of a statesman so eminent that I cannot presume to quote his words without an apology), I will as long as I have the faculty to think and act for myself, "look those proud combinations in the face."—I plead guilty, then, to the charge, if it be one, of having treated with an administration, with the principles of which I perfectly agreed. I plead guilty to the charge, if it be one, of having on this, aye, and on other occasions, postponed my own interest to that of my friends. If, indeed, the charge could be turned the other way, if occupied exclusively with any personal objects of my own, it could be said that I had neglected the claims, the interests, or the feelings of any individual connected with me in political life, I should indeed hear that charge with sensations very different from those which I now experience; then, indeed, should I hide my head with shame.

When I moved the writ of my right hon. friend, on the 30th of July, I declare, upon my honour, that I thought it very doubtful whether I should myself have any official connexion whatever with the; government. I do not mean to say, that the question had not been mooted, as to my undertaking the mission to Portugal, if it should turn out that such a mission was to be sent. But many circumstances might have prevented the result that did afterwards happen. I was not pledged—I was very far from having made up my own mind—to accept the mission if it should be offered to me; nor had the government as yet any assurance that they should have it to offer. I had previously made arrangements of my own. My plans were to go were I did go, but from different motives and with a different object. What that object and those motives were, I am not called upon, nor do I think it necessary, to state in this place. It is sufficient for me to say that I was master of my own actions, and that I chose to go. My intention was known to my private friends, and had been communicated to my constituents two months before the close of the session.

The first official tender of the mission was made to me by my noble friend, the secretary for foreign affairs, I think about the end of the first week of August: I cannot be positive as to the day; but I recollect perfectly that I had but two interviews with my noble friend upon the subject, within a few days of each other, and that at the date of one of those interviews Mr. Sydenham had arrived in England. He arrived on or about the 8th of August. My noble friend was then on the eve of his departure for Vienna. His tender to me was altogether contingent and conditional. The way in which the matter was left, was this; that if the certainty of the prince regent of Portugal's immediate return should be established, I should hear from him (or, in his absence, from lord Liverpool) again. I did hear again, in the manner that I have stated: but, in proof that I had not, in the mean time, acted on the presumption that I should go out in an official character, I can appeal to some of the members of the board of admiralty, who sit near me, that I was, so late as in the month of September a supplicant at the admiralty, as a private person, for a ship to convey me and my family to Lisbon; and when I arrived in Portugal, I found a house provided for me, as a private person, through the kindness of a friend, a house in the neighbourhood of Lisbon, which, in my official character, I could not occupy.

But all this, it may be said, was but contrivance, an artificial chain of circumstances forged and linked together, with a view to the present discussion. Has such an imputation the colour of probability? What I have now stated both as to facts and motives is the truth. If any man shall contradict this statement, I can only say that he will affirm that which is not true. Where a matter rests—and from its nature must rest solely—on the consciousness of an individual, there is no other answer (that I know of) to be given to an arbitrary contradiction. I speak this, I hope, without offence. But, on this part of my case, I know of no other possible answer.

I did believe then in the intention of the prince regent to return. The government believed in it. Their belief would have been ground enough for mine. But I have shown that they had good grounds for their belief. Further, it appears, from what has been stated by the gallant admiral behind me (sir John Beresford), in anticipation of a question which I might perhaps have taken the liberty to put to him, that not only had the royal family really entertained that intention, but that the disposition to carry it into execution survived the report of its abandonment; that be was repeatedly requested by the prince regent of Portugal to defer his departure from Rio de Janeiro from time to time, in hopes that the next arrivals from Europe might bring intelligence decisive of the voyage; and that it was not until the beginning of April that those hopes were finally relinquished, and the gallant admiral permitted to take his leave.

Contrary and contradictory rumours did, no doubt, continue to prevail on this subject, in London, as they certainly did in Lisbon. Even when I received at Lisbon, in the beginning of April 1815, the first intimation from England on which I founded my resignation, I was in possession of most positive assurances the other way; and on the very day on which I sent off my resignation, I had heard through what I might have considered as authentic channels, that the prince would certainly embark. The day was specified on which the embarkation was to take place; and we were to look for the first news of that event in the arrival of the squadron off the bar. But did I act on this information? Did I endeavour to shake any credit which the government at home might be disposed to give to their accounts from Rio de Janeiro? Did I contrast the rumours of Lisbon with the rumours of London, for the purpose of clinging to my office? No. It appears, from the papers on the table, that upon the 29th of March the information of the prince regent's abandonment of his design was received here in an official shape. Probably this official information must have been preceded some days by private intelligence. The intimation which reached me on the 9th of April certainly was not official; I did not wait however for its official confirmation: on the 10th of April, I wrote and sent oft by an express packet the following dispatch to the foreign office:

"By the mails which came in yesterday, I learn (though not officially), that the accounts received in England from Rio de Janeiro, since admiral sir John Beresford's arrival there, create a doubt of the prince regent of Portugal's present intention to return to his European dominions.—Nothing has been received here from the Brazils, which indicates any such change in his royal highness's intention. But should any impediments have been interposed to delay the execution of it, until the intelligence of the late astonishing and afflicting revolution in the state of Europe shall reach Rio de Janeiro, it is possible that the receipt of that intelligence may determine his royal highness to remain there for the present. In that case, or in the event of your lordship's receiving such positive accounts, as satisfy your lordship's mind that such a determination has been taken by the prince regent of Portugal, I have to request your lordship, to lay at the feet of his royal highness the Prince Regent my humble resignation of the commission with which he was graciously pleased to honour me, in contemplation of the prince regent of Portugal's return."

So much for the first head of the charge against me, and against the government. I have shown, I hope to the satisfaction of the House, that we did believe in the return of the court of Portugal to Europe; that we had good grounds for that belief; and that, upon that belief exclusively, any mission to Lisbon was founded.

Remains to be considered, whether upon that ground, such a mission was necessary or justifiable. And this question again divides itself into two heads; first, whether necessary at all; secondly (if admitted to be necessary), whether conducted on a scale of disproportionate expense, disproportionate either to the unavoidable expenditure of the mission, or to its political importance.

In the first of these questions—was an embassy to Lisbon necessary, in the event of the prince regent's return? is involved another more personal question, from which I must not shrink:—namely—was there any unfitness in the offer of that mission to me, or in my acceptance of it? I feel all the difficulty of arguing this point in a manner at once satisfactory to the House and not unjust to myself. It is distasteful and revolting to one's feelings to be obliged to speak of one's-self, and of one's own fitness for any situation, or any undertaking. But it will be remembered, that I am upon my trial, that I am defending myself against a criminal charge; and if in such a defence something like egotism should be unavoidable, I hope the House will have the goodness to excuse it.

Sir, to place this question in its true point of view, I must once more go back to the year 1807. I have said that when in that year the royal family of Portugal adopted the resolution of emigrating to the Brazils, I had the honour to hold the seals of the foreign office. I had thus an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the wishes of the prince regent of Portugal in favour of lord Strangford, who had been employed to advise and to urge that splendid and magnanimous emigration. It was my duty to report these wishes, and to recommend the services of lord Strangford to the consideration of my royal master. The result was, that his lordship was appointed envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary; was invested with a red ribbon; and might also have received an advance in the peerage—which (for reasons nothing to the purpose of this night's discussion) he declined. There-was, however, another point respecting which the court of Portugal was extremely solicitous, a reciprocation of missions of the highest rank, and this point, from the period of which I am speaking to the last moment at which I held the seals of office, the Portuguese minister never lost an opportunity of pressing upon my attention. It has been said, by shrewd observers of domestic politics, that when once a coronet gets into a man's head there is no driving it out again; and I believe it may be as justly said, that when once a court takes up the notion of reciprocation of embassies, it is no easy matter to get the better of it. Such a notion reproduces itself on every occasion. A secretary of state is sure to be assailed with repeated solicitation till the favourite measure is accomplished.

To this application I at that time did not listen. And I believe I reconciled the court of Portugal to the refusal of it, by showing that it could not then be granted in the person of lord Strangford; whose diplomatic standing would not admit of such an advancement, having been already so recently raised from the station of chargé d' affaires. I promised, however, that on the occurrence of any signal event which might constitute a proper occasion for an embassy (and the two possible events in contemplation were either the final establishment of the Portuguese court at the Brazils, should the cause of Europe be lost, or, what was then a distant, though never with me a hopeless prospect—its restoration to Europe on a successful termination of the war), I would recommend to my sovereign, should I be then in office, a compliance with the wishes of the court of Portugal.

Long after I quitted office, and more than once or twice, or three times, I was appealed to for the truth of the assertion, that such a promise had been given; not that any engagement of mine could be binding on my successors. At last—I believe in 1811—without waiting for these long-coming events, the Portuguese minister here assumed the character of ambassador. The reciprocation was declined. Much discussion, it seems, followed during the three succeeding years upon the refusal to name an ambassador at the court of Brazil: and I perfectly remember, that in one of the conversations which I had with my noble friend, the secretary for foreign affairs, he reminded me of the circumstances which I have here recapitulated, and observed "we shall, besides, thus have the long-disputed point of a reciprocation of embassies settled, and your pledge to the court of Portugal redeemed in your own person."

If it is supposed by hon. gentlemen, that the aggregate allowances of the mission were necessarily increased by giving the name and rank of ambassador, instead of that of envoy extraordinary, to my appointment, I assure them they are mistaken.—The question of expense I reserve for separate consideration; but as it here mixes itself with the question of the rank of the mission, I am compelled shortly to advert to it, a little before its time. There are (or were before the regulation of 1815), two different scales of ambassadorial allowances; the higher scale with a salary of 11,000l. a year, and the other, on what is called the old salary of 8,200l. The difference between these two salaries is nearly the same as the difference between the lower of them and that of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary,—which is 5,900l. Now, Sir, a man who coveted an embassy for the sake of emolument would hardly fail, once ambassador, to choose the higher scale of salary. I choose the lower. But I do not claim any merit from this preference. For as neither 5,200l. (the salary of envoy extraordinary), nor 8,200l. (the salary of ambassador on the old scale), nor even the higher salary of 11,000l. reduced by deductions at home and abroad, was expected to cover all the expenses of the mission, without an addition of extraordinaries (as I shall presently show) it became indifferent in that point of view, what should be the nominal rank of the mission.

But it was not indifferent in other respects, I flatter myself, that I shall not be suspected of the idle and stupid vanity of caring under what name I did the public business. I believe, however, that it will be generally acknowledged, that having once—with however little pretension to so high a station—filled that office which presides over the diplomacy of the country, I could not consistently assume any other than the highest diplomatic rank,—that which alone represents the sovereign,—in any mission on which I should happen to be employed. Much less could I have done so with propriety on a mission to the court of Portugal, with which I had as secretary of state, engaged for those exertions, and (sanguinely perhaps, but—as it has turned out—safely) anticipated those results, by which that court was now enabled, if it so thought fit, to accomplish its return to Europe.

But neither was the question of what might be individually becoming, the whole of this question. The character of ambassador, though it may make little difference here, where every negociation passes through responsible ministers, is by no means a matter of indifference in many foreign courts. The mere question of precedency, trifling as it may seem in itself, is not a thing of no moment, in diplomatic transactions. The facility of access to the person of the sovereign, without the intervention of a minister, perhaps hostile to our interests,—and the right of pre-audience of that sovereign himself,—are advantages of no inconsiderable moment in courts where the will of the sovereign is mainly the policy of the state.

But what good did I expect to achieve through these advantages? What was there for me to do? What did I expect to be able to do? First, it was not for me to judge of my own qualifications; it was for the government. I might entrench myself behind this answer. But in the spirit in which I am stating my argument, taking the defence of the government upon myself (as my noble friend has taken mine upon the government) I will not do so. I must again remind the House, that I speak of myself only because I am upon my trial. With the allowance belonging to that consideration I may be permitted to say—I think that there was good to be done; and I think that I had as fair means, and as probable a chance, as any other man, of doing it.

I pass by many obvious difficulties and embarrassments in the present state of the relations of the court of Portugal with other governments in Europe, which might have been avoided had that court returned. But there is one subject which seems to be comparatively forgotten at this moment, but which, in 1814 (the year of my appointment) was the theme of loud remonstrance and incessant reproach against thegovernment,—as though they had been indifferent or lukewarm in their exertions upon it,—I moan the slave trade. I did hope to be able to effect something on this great and interesting subject. I cannot conceive a more favourable opportunity for this purpose than would have been afforded by the return of the prince regent to the kingdom of his ancestors: a kingdom saved, through the blessing of Providence upon the arms and counsels of this country. Of those counsels I had, from my official situation, been the humble instrument and organ: nor was it perhaps altogether an unreasonable presumption, to hope that the share which I had accidently had in them might have conciliated, even to so humble an individual as myself, something of kindness from the sovereign whose Crown and whose dominions had been, thus preserved and restored to him. I say, therefore, Sir, I cannot conceive circumstances which would have afforded a better chance of making some impression on the mind of a prince naturally good,—naturally religious,—upon a matter in which his personal character was the best, perhaps the one, hope of success.

I can assure the hon. gentlemen, that of the instructions which I carried out with me, three-fourths were directed to this object. And, besides the instructions of my noble friend, the secretary of state, I had with me ample and most useful suggestions from an hon. friend of mine, whom I do not now see in his place (Mr. Wilberforce) which should not have lain idle in my desk. I hoped nothing, indeed, from the "oratory" which the hon. baronet is pleased (I suppose ironically) to attribute to me; but much from a good cause in zealous hands. I did believe—I do still believe, that had I had the opportunity of personal intercourse with the prince, I might have effected some good in this matter; and if it had pleased God that I should succeed in it, I should neither have thought the expenses of my mission ill employed, nor have felt any disparagement to myself in having undertaken it.

So much for the objects in contemplation at the commencement of the mission. But these objects were not attained.—True. And it is supposed, that not to have attained them was to me matter of great disappointment.—In one sense, undoubtedly it was so. I should have thought the settlement of the question of the slave trade with one of the peninsular powers, an object of importance not easily to be over-rated.—In another sense, I do assure the hon. baronet and the hon. gentleman, that I had not experienced one half of the satisfaction in accepting my office which I felt when I was permitted to resign it.

When after writing the letter of April the 10th, tendering my resignation, I yielded to the request of my noble friend, and consented to remain at my post so long as my services might be thought neccessary, I must beg the House to observe, that the whole question of the mission had assumed an entirely new form. The war had broken out; and if there had not then been a minister of high diplomatic rank at Lisbon, it would have been absolutely necessary to appoint one. I failed, it is true, in the main object of my negociations during the war,—the obtaining the aid of a corpse of Portuguese troops to act with the allies in Flanders. But why did I fail? Precisely because that state of things existed in Portugal—because that form of local government remained there which it was the interest and the wish of this country to see altered. I failed because the sovereign himself was not at Lisbon:—an additional proof, if any had been wanting, of the adviseableness of that return which he had endeavoured to invite by every proper inducement,—an additional proof of the inconvenience of leaving one of the kingdoms of Europe with which Great Britain is most intimately allied,—under a delegated government; a government incapable, from the very nature of their trust and from the immensity of distance which separates them from their sovereign, of acting in all cases with the promptness and energy necessary for the glory of the absent sovereign, and for the welfare of his people.

Sir, I venture to hope that the House will feel that I have satisfactorily disposed of the first part of the question as to the, embassy, and justified the nomination of a mission of that character, on the supposition (which I had before justified) of the prince regent of Portugal's return. I now proceed to the second part of that question,—the expense of the mission.

If there was no delusion in the cause assigned for the embassy,—if I have shown that it was necessary or highly expedient in the case supposed to exist,—it still remains to be inquired, whether or not it was conducted on too costly a scale. I must observe, however, again, that if the belief in the return of the prince and the expediency of an embassy to welcome him are not made out, one farthing of expenditure was too much; and if therefore, in the opinion of one honest and impartial man who has heard mc, what I have stated appears to be founded in fraud or artifice, the question of pecuniary expense is at an end. On the other hand, if I have been so far successful, I am prepared to challenge a like decision on the issue now to be joined; and to demonstrate that the cost of this mission was not only not prodigal in proportion to its rank and character, but that it was economical, in comparison with any standard with which it can in fairness be compared.

The hon. baronet has quoted a dictum of sir Robert Walpole's that "every man has his price." I do not think this maxim true, of men;—I do not think it true that even every thing has its price. Things must be estimated, not merely by their intrinsic qualities, but by their relative fitness and value. There is no rule for judging absolutely what ought to be the cost of an embassy. There is no forming such an estimate à priori. Facts and experience are the only grounds on which you can safely or justly proceed.

I beg gentlemen then to look at the printed accounts of missions, in the years 1812, 1813, 1814; and I ask,—Who could tell, on going to Lisbon in the autumn of the latter year, what his expenses were likely to be? Who is there that having before him the expenditure of sir Charles Stuart, for the years 1812–13, and 1813–14, would have ventured upon such a mission, without coming to some understanding as to the extent of his expenditure, and as to the principles of its limitation?

I shall perhaps surprise the hon. baronet, when I confess that an application on the subject of extraordinaries was made by me to the government. But in what sense was this application made? Was it for latitude and indulgence? Was it that I might be put upon the same footing and allowed the same range, as my predecessor?—No, Sir; it was for strictness, for definition, for restraint.—In the beginning of October, I wrote a letter to my noble friend, lord Liverpool (my noble friend near me (lord Castlereagh), was then abroad), an extract of which, with their permission, I will now read to the House; The House will see that it was of as private and familiar a style, and as little destined for public citation, as that from lord Liverpool to me which I read to the House a short time ago:

"I have been looking over Stuart's extraordinaries, and they really frighten me. It may be very well for him, or any man not connected with politics, to draw thus at discretion;—but it would not do for me. For God's sake, limit me—to what you think right—I can form no judgment of the matter;—only limit me, so that I may have no responsibility."

This letter shows at least the quo animo, the disposition—with which I entered upon the subject. Is this the language of rapacity?—Is this a petition for large emolument and unbounded discretion? Or does it not rather indicate a cautious dislike of discretionary power, arising from a dread of responsibility, and an anticipation of injustice?—the former of which I am not ashamed of confessing I did feel;—the latter, I have at this moment, God knows, no reason to disavow.

Sir, in entering upon this most disagreeable discussion—disagreeable, because I must mention the names of honourable men in a way which may be liable to misconstruction, disagreeable, because I must speak (though but to repel them with scorn) of imputations with which I never thought my own name liable to be stained, I beg leave to preface what I have to say, by observing, that the name of sir Charles Stuart, or of any other person whom I may have occasion to mention in my defence, is brought forward by me most reluctantly. I have no choice. The necessity is forced upon me. The name of sir Charles Stuart I mention with the respect due to his talents and character. I consider him as one who has rendered eminent services to his country, and from whom his country may confidently look for such services hereafter. I believe him to be as free from pecuniary taint,—as I know myself to be. Large as his expenditure at Lisbon may appear, I am persuaded that it was at once justified and limited by the necessity of the case. It is to be borne in mind also that of the aggregate sums, which appear to have been expended by him, no small proportion was simply and absolutely loss upon the exchange and upon the conversion of English into Portuguese money. After these declarations, I proceed to state the expenditure of the Lisbon mission, as it stood in sir Charles Stuart's time; and the amount of his regular and extraordinary allowances.

For the year, from the 5th of April, 18–12, to the 5th of April, 1813, sir Charles Stuart's extraordinaries appear to have been £26,807
Salary 5,200
Total £32,007
For the next year, from the 5th of April, 1813, to the 5th of April, 1814, the extraordinaries are stated at £ 26,006
Salary 5,200
Total £31,206
This was the conclusion of sir Charles Stuart's mission. These statements are all before the House. They are to be found in pages 30 and 31 of the report of the committee on the civil list, in June, 1815;—which report I wish that the hon. gentlemen opposite would have the goodness to take into their hands, as I shall have many occasions to refer to it.

Then comes a period which is particularly selected as a contrast to my expenditure;—namely, the half year, beginning the 5th of April, 1814 (the termination of sir Charles Stuart's mission) and end- ing the 10th of October, 1814, (the commencement of mine). Here my accusers take their grand position. This is the narrow isthmus between two rushing seas of expense, on which they plant their standard of economy!—I do not complain of them for doing so. I do not blame the hon. gentleman who brought forward this question, for moving for papers to illustrate this position. But what I do think I have some right to complain of is, that having obtained these documents, they have some how or other totally forgotton to notice their results. When it suited the hon. mover's purpose, he asked for the information; and when he got it, and found that it was not precisely what he wanted, it suited his purpose to abstain from any observation upon it. In this respect, he will excuse me if, instead of following his example, I endeavour to supply his omissions.

At sir Charles Stuart's departure from Lisbon, Mr. Casamajor, the secretary of legation, was apointed chargé d'affaires, receiving of course the regular salary belonging to these two appointments. As Mr. Casamajor's salary during this half year was nearly the same as his salary of secretary of embassy with me, and made but a trifling part of the expenses of either mission, I shall not take it into calculation. Not so, however, as to his extraordinary allowances; which during this economical half-year appear by the civil-list report, p. 32, as well as by Mr. Sydenham's testimony, to have amounted to upwards of 2,500l.

I am not exactly informed at what period between April and July Mr. Sydenham was named envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the local government of Portugal. The first official despatch to him that I have seen is dated in July: but his nomination must have preceded that dispatch by some weeks. He had from the 5th of April the same salary as had been enjoyed by sir Charles Stuart. I speak here of the regular salary of 5,200l. a year,—not of extraordinary allowances. Mr. Sydenham arrived at Lisbon the end of the first week of July. He remained there until the 27th or 28th of that month, when he embarked for England, being obliged to quit his station suddenly on account of his health. These three weeks (or thereabouts) were the whole of Mr. Sydenham's residence at Lisbon; and for these he received (I am not blaming him, but I state the fact) two

quarters salary at the rate of 5,200l. a year—that is to say £ 2,600 0 0
he received also, for outfit, 1,500 0 0
he received for his journey to Lisbon 1,100 0 0
and lastly he received (at a subsequent period) for losses occasioned by his sudden relinquishment of the mission 2,000 0 0
In all £ 7,200 0 0
Add to this sum, Mr. Casamajor's extraordinaries for the same period 2,500 0 0
The result of cost to the public, for the half-year intervening between sir C. Stuart's mission and mine, is therefore £ 9,700 0 0
This was the reformed period which is to put all past and future ministers to shame! This was the rigid scale of economy which I ought to have taken for my guide, and for departing from which I am arraigned before this House and the country! Yet hear how Mr. Sydenham describes Mr. Casamajor's way of life. "I find," (says Mr. Sydenham, in his letter to Mr. Hamilton of the 8th of July, written immediately upon his arrival at Lisbon). "I find that Mr. Casamajor has been living in a very quiet retired way, with no suite to feed and lodge; and by the examination of his books I perceive that he does not live on Jess than 100l. a week." Here was no establishment, no representation, no call for display of any kind; and yet the ordinary expenses of Mr. Casamajor's household, were 100l. a week, or at the rate of 5,200l. a year!

It is true,—at least I have heard and believe,—that during the three weeks that Mr. Sydenham passed at Lisbon he lived in Mr. Casamajor's House. But as to charge upon the public—Mr. Sydenham was then in the enjoyment of a yearly salary of 5,200l. which comes to exactly another 100l. a week. So that independently of the extraordinary allowances of Mr. Sydenham, for outfit, journey, and losses, the aggregate of the regular salary received by him, joined to the extraordinaries allowed to Mr. Casamajor for weekly expenditure,—for victus and convictus,—during the economical half year, was at the rate of upwards of 10,000l. a year.

There is not upon earth a more honour- able mind than Mr. Casamajor's; and I had myself the opportunity of verifying the statement respecting his expenditure, by the inspection of his books, at his own particular desire. But I must take the liberty of reminding the House, that from the moment at which I arrived at Lisbon, Mr. Casamajor, then becoming secretary of embassy, became part of my family; and as such, lived at my table. From that time therefore his expenses (salary excepted) were involved in mine. Why, Sir, if I were to calculate by simple audition, or by the rule of three, I might say, that, according to what I have shown you,—on Mr. Sydenham's testimony as well as my own—two Casamajors ought to have eaten up my whole allowances, ordinary, and extraordinary. And, by the way, I had two Casamajors—for in addition to the gentleman of whom I have been speaking, and of whom I speak with every feeling of kindness and of respect, another gentleman, Mr. Croft, who was recommended to me by ray noble friend as secretary for the Portuguese language, (and who had been with sir C. Stuart in the same capacity), lived with me as one of my family, during the whole period of my mission. I, of course, do not mean seriously to state that the increase of my expenses was in exact proportion to the number of persons whom I had to maintain. But I do mean seriously to show the different footing upon which Mr. Sydenham and Mr. Casamajor separately, or even Mr. Sydenham and Mr. Casamajor jointly—stood in respect to the claims upon their expenditure, from that in which I stood,—with all the accessary burthens, and all the unavoidable representation, of an embassy. With neither of the two gentlemen, whom I had the good fortune to have attached to me, Mr. Casamajor or Mr. Croft,—had I any personal acquaintance before my mission began. I learnt, during our official and domestic intercourse, to value and esteem them both. I am sorry to be forced to mention their names in connection with these miserable details; but I am driven to it by the unsparing coarseness of the attacks which have been made upon me, and by the foolish, fallacious, and dishonest contrast of my expenditure with that of Mr. Sydenham:—Mr. Sydenham's who, during his three weeks residence at Lisbon, was an inmate in the House of Mr. Casamajor,—and mine, who during the whole period of my mission, had the suite of an embassy to maintain!

And now, Sir, come we to the famous letter of letters, upon which it seems that the whole of the case against me is made to turn—the letter from the secretary of state to Mr. Sydenham, directing him to confine his expenditure within his regular allowances. Before this letter is made conclusive against me, I might perhaps contend that it should be shown that I was in some degree, if not party to it, cognizant of it. Upon my honour, I never saw it till after the hon. gentleman's first notice of his motion. I cannot say that I had never heard of it. I had heard, or perhaps seen in a newspaper, that some such letter had been written to Mr. Sydenham by my noble friend:—and I well remember that the same authority stated the rate of 5,000l. a year as that which covered all Mr. Sydenham's allowances. I have already shown the accuracy of that statement.

But I wave this plea: I acknowledge the authority of the letter;—and if the circumstances of Mr. Sydenham's situation and mine were the same,—and if she meaning of this letter was what has been attributed to it,—and if that meaning was enforced against Mr. Sydenham, or was not remonstrated against by him,—I will admit that notwithstanding my ignorance of the law I was bound by it, and am guilty of not conforming to it.

And, first, what was Mr. Sydenham's situation? That of envoy to the local government;—mine, that of ambassador to the sovereign. (With the propriety of the appointment we have in this part of the argument nothing to do). Secondly, What was the meaning of the letter?—My noble friend, the writer of it, has told you, that it did not mean the absolute exclusion of extraordinaries, which he held to be almost impossible; but it did mean to prescribe the discontinuance of that rate of expenditure which had brought, during the war, such heavy charge upon the public. The letter itself says,

"I cannot anticipate any public grounds for continuing the expenditure of his majesty's servants at Lisbon, on the scale on which it has been conducted during the continuance of the war in the Peninsula."—To be sure he could not. Who dreamt of an expenditure of upwards of 30,000l. a year in time of peace?—Lastly, the instructions which were given, were they executed? Did Mr. Sydenham think it practicable to conform to them? Did he receive them without a remonstrance, and act up to them with strictness and fidelity?—With fidelity, in the moral sense of the word, I have no doubt he would have acted up to them if he had remained at Lisbon; but have we no positive proof that he regarded the literal execution of them as impossible?

And here, Sir, again I feel myself called upon to guard against being supposed to mean any thing unkind in the reference which I am compelled to make to Mr. Sydenham. That gentleman is no more! He has closed a distinguished and honourable life, during which he endeared himself to his friends, and has left behind him an unspotted character. I implore of those who hear me, that if a word should escape me in the heat of argument, which can be thought to bear any colour of disrespect to Mr. Sydenham's memory, they will believe it to be wholly unintentional. I am the last man living who would wantonly throw a slur upon his reputation, or give a wound to the feelings of those who mourn his loss. I would most gladly have avoided any allusion to him: but his name has been made the vehicle for a foul calumny against my character; and the House will feel that not to me who repel an attack, but to those who have misused Mr. Sydenham's name for the purposes of attack upon me, is to be imputed the guilt of profaning (if it be profaned) the sanctity of the tomb.

The fact is, that while the mandate to Mr. Sydenham, directing him to confine his expenses within certain limits, was traversing the ocean in one direction, a remonstrance by anticipation against such a limitation was on its passage to the foreign office. Mr. Sydenham, I suppose, might have heard rumours of such intended restriction; he knew, from what he saw of Lisbon himself (in the amount of Mr. Casamajor's weekly bills), and from what he had heard of it from others, that a literal compliance with that restriction was impracticable; and, on the 8th of July, the very day (I believe) after his arrival at Lisbon, he thus addressed himself to Mr. Hamilton, the under secretary of state (for the information of my noble friend), in the letter from which I have already quoted an extract:—

"While the duke of Wellington was at Madrid, he spoke to me on the subject of my allowances at Lisbon, and he gave me the comfortable assurance of my being ruined, unless government allowed me something more than the usual salary, di- minished by the usual deductions in England, and the loss of exchange. He promised to mention the subject to lord Castlereagh; and I have written to him to remind him of his promise.—I find that Mr. Casamajor has been living in a very quiet, retired way, with no suite to feed and lodge, and by the examination of his books, I perceive that he does not live on less than 100l. a week."

So far is printed. Further on, in the same letter, the extract of which now lies before me, he states that he "shall live with the greatest possible economy, but that what he cannot pay out of his allowances he shall trust to the government to pay for him."

Mr. Sydenham, as I have before observed, resided about three weeks in Lisbon, namely, from about the 7th or 8th to the 27th or 28th of July. I have already stated the allowances, regular and extraordinary, which he received during that period or on account of it—viz. 2,600l. salary, 1,500l. outfit, 1,100l. for the journey from Paris and Madrid to Lisbon.—All these sums are in the printed accounts of the civil list report; and therefore gentlemen might have known them without moving for papers: but I was not aware,—and I suppose they were not aware, till in an evil hour they brought it out by their own motion for papers,—of the sum of 2,000l. for losses, which makes up the aggregate of Mr. Sydenham's receipts on account of his half-year's mission, to 7,200l.

If it is said, that as this sum of 7,200l. includes outfit, and allowances for journey and for losses, it is not fairly to be stated as Mr. Sydenham's expenditure for half a year, I readily admit that it is not so: but then I must observe, that, on the same ground the aggregate of my allowances cannot be fairly stated as the expenditure of a year. The cost of outfit and plate in my case would not have been repeated another year; any more than that of outfit and allowances for journey and for losses would, in Mr. Sydenham's case, have been repeated in another half year. But it is quite fair—it is indeed absolutely necessary, since the contrast between Mr. Sydenham's half year and my year, has been so much insisted on,—to state as I have done, Mr. Sydenham's salary joined to Mr. Casamajor's extraordinaries for the same half year, as constituting the expenditure of the mission for that period. And it is fair to state the whole of Mr. Sydenham's receipts joined to Mr. Casa- major's extraordinaries, as the aggregate expense of that half year with which the aggregate of my receipts for a whole year is to be compared.

Whatever comments, therefore, gentlemen may think proper to make on my conduct in other respects, they will at least I think, abandon the contrast between Mr. Sydenham's mission and mine as to the rate of their respective cost to the public. This point, on which they relied so confidently, completely fails them. They may, if they will, continue to arraign my political sins; but, if comparison with the period of Mr. Sydenham's mission be a decisive test of economy, they must on that comparison absolve me from pecuniary transgression.

But, Sir, it is not on pecuniary matters only that they have guessed wrong as to me and Mr. Sydenham. They flattered themselves that they had another case against me on his account;—a case of hardship,—as if this valuable public servant had been displaced purposely to make way for me. It has been asserted that I superseded Mr. Sydenham. Sir, I did not supersede Mr. Sydenham. If the fact were so, I know not that it would constitute any charge against me. It would, I believe, be the first time that the undoubted right of the Crown to appoint and to change its foreign ministers has been made a matter of charge, or even of question, in parliament. But the fact is not so. Mr. Sydenham's mission was irretrievably at an end before mine began. He quitted Lisbon not only unrecalled, but without leave. He did this from necessity, on accoont of the impaired state of his health. He arrived in England (as I have already had occasion to say) on or about the 8th of August. From that day to the 10th of October he received in England his appointments as minister at Lisbon. Are the economists angry that he did not continue so to receive them longer?—He was neither then, nor at any subsequent period before his death (as I shall presently show, by a document founded on his own representations) in a state of health to admit of his resuming the Lisbon mission—or accepting any other. If he had happily been so, my noble friend will bear testimony not only to the fact, but to my knowledge of the fact, that another and more important employment was in contemplation for him.—So much for that charge.

I have in my hand a copy of the letter from the foreign office to the treasury, which authorized the payment to Mr. Sydenham of that sum of 2,000l. for losses, which forms the last item in his account. I almost wonder, by-the-by, that I have not been told in distinct terms that this 2,000l. was given to Mr. Sydenham to reconcile him to my supersession of him. The House, if they will allow me to take the liberty of reading this letter to them, will sec how that matter stands. I am ready to move for its being laid on the table, if they think it necessary. It is luckily the last document of the kind with which I shall have occasion to try their patience. It is as follows: "Foreign office, Oct. 25, 1815. My lords;—Thomas Sydenham, esq. late his majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the court of Lisbon, has represented to me the very great expense he was at in making preparations to undertake that mission, with a view to a permanent residence at Lisbon, and the great loss he sustained by the sudden disposal of his effects, &c. on his being obliged to relinquish that mission, on account of the dangerous state of his health after a residence of only a few months, whereby he has been a loser of considerably more than two thousand pounds, and is thereby involved in difficulties beyond the reach of his private fortune to satisfy." [There is a slight error of inadvertency here as to the period of Mr. Sydenham's actual residence at Lisbon—which was, as I have shewn, weeks only and not months. I now come to a passage to which I particularly wish to call the attention of the House.]—"Having considered this application, it has appeared to me, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, (Mr. Sydenham's state of health still preventing his being employed in the diplomatic service of his majesty), to be just and reasonable that Mr. Sydenham should receive a compensation on account of these losses. I am therefore to desire your lordships will be pleased to take the commands of his royal highness the Prince Regent, with regard to the issue of the sum of two thousand pounds, nett, to Mr. Sydenham, or his assigns, as a compensation for the losses above-stated."

Is this also a sham letter and a concerted fraud? Perhaps the date will help us to a solution of this question. It is dated the 25th October, 1815, that is to say, six months after I had tendered the resignation of my mission, and three months after my resignation had been accepted; a period, therefore, when, if Mr. Sydenham's health had been sufficiently restored to enable him to resume his station at Lisbon, there had been for three months no impediment whatever, and for six months no impediment on my part, to his resuming it. It was manifestly the hopelessness of his return to public life that weighed with the foreign office in writing this letter; to which I am happy to have had an opportunity of referring, both for the proof which it affords of good-natured and considerate disposition, and the just testimony which it bears to the merits and character of Mr. Sydenham. I had not the honour and the happiness of a personal acquaintance with Mr. Sydenham. I knew him only by reputation—by the report of common friends, whose report would of itself have been sufficient to ensure my belief of his good qualities; and by the exhibition of his talents in that memorable investigation which was carried on in a committee of this House upon the renewal of the East-India company's charter. In the course of that examination the gentlemen connected with India displayed a degree of ability and information, which perhaps could not have been matched, certainly not excelled, in any other service, or in any other country. Among these very able men Mr. Sydenham stood eminently distinguished, evincing a capacity for great affairs and a fitness for important employments, such as are rarely to be found even in more practised statesmen. If, therefore, I have been driven to say any thing of this gentleman (I hope I have not, I am sure I have not intended it) which may have appeared in any degree disrespectful or disparaging,—if I have been obliged to soil the name of a high-minded and liberal man with money, the blame (I repeat it) is not with me, but with those who forced Mr. Sydenham's name into this discussion.

I now, Sir, come to the details of the expenditure of my own mission, the account of which is among the papers upon the table. The hon. gentleman who made the motion, has had the goodness to compliment me on the minuteness and accuracy of my calculations. I understand the nature of the hon. gentleman's compliment; and I see that he has been taught thoroughly to understand the nature of the advantage which he has over me on this day. Undoubtedly any charge connected with money, places the accused in a dilemma of painful difficulty—a difficulty the more painful in proportion to the consciousness of his innocence, and to the warmth of his indignation. If he contents himself, as is the first natural impulse of every honourable mind, with general and lofty denial, he exposes himself to be triumphed over as having evaded investigation; and figures are then invoked as the only test of truth. If, on the other hand, he condescends to detailed arithmetical calculation, he becomes liable to such compliments as those of the hon. gentleman; and must feel (as I do now) a certain inevitable degradation in the very process by which he is to be justified. It is certainly not without such pain that I made up my mind to this latter alternative.—Those who know me in private life are, I am afraid, too well aware how little I am versed in questions either of arithmetic or of economy, not to have been as much surprised as the hon. gentleman professes himself to be gratified at the proficiency in figures which is displayed in the papers before the House; particularly in that laboured dispatch of mine of the 30th of May, 1815.—In truth, I availed myself, for the purpose of those statements and calculations, of the aid of persons much more conversant with such matters than I can pretend to be. I beg the hon. gentleman also to understand that I do not profess, in these accounts, to state my whole expenditure at Lisbon, but only; my expenditure of public money.

Sir, the expenditure of sir Charles Stuart's mission for the two years, 1812£13 and 1813£14, and that of the interval between the conclusion of sir Charles Stuart's mission and my appointment, can hardly be denied to justify the nominal amount of the allowances assigned to me. But that nominal amount and the real effective value were very different indeed. For my actual expenditure (as distinguished from nominal receipt—or rather nominal issue), a fair but strict standard of comparison is furnished by the report of the civil-list committee of June, 1815. If it shall appear that my whole actual expenditure as ambassador, tallied within a very trifle with the amount fixed by that committee and sanctioned by the House for a minister at Lisbon of the second order, I think it will not be imputed that I abused the discretion confided to me.

Assuredly I did not, on going out to Lisbon, anticipate the trial of this day; but I did, as has been seen, dread and de- precate any unlimited pecuniary discretion. It has been shown how anxious I was to have the limits of my expenditure defined; and within those limits, whatever they might be, I resolved to restrict myself.

My nominal allowances were, as I have said, and as appears from the papers upon the table,—

Salary £.8,200
Extraordinaries, not to exceed 6,000
Total £.14,200
Of this amount of extraordinaries I drew only for thee-fourths, or 4,500l. I received (like every other minister of whatever rank) the sum of 1,500l. for outfit. If that sum be taken as replacing the 1,500l. extraordinaries which I declined to draw, the result of salary, extraordinaries, and outfit for that one year (outfit could only be a charge on the first year), is, as above, 14,200l. I had plate, like other ambassadors and envoys extraordinary, &c. but upon the scale of an envoy.

Having no rule or experience to guide me, all that I could determine was, to consider the established recognized amount of the salary as the limit of my public expenditure: and to draw for no more extraordinaries than should makeup the nominal salary of 8,200l. to that effective amount. Had therefore that salary been paid free from deductions at home, and without loss on the exchange and on the conversion into Portuguese money—I should not have drawn for one shilling of extraordinaries for my expenses at Lisbon. But the case was very different. This nominal salary was liable to deductions amounting to no less than about sixteen per cent, in England, which reduced it from 8,200l. to about 6,900l.; and this latter sum again to a loss of something more than twelve per cent, in its transit and conversion, reducing it from 6,900l. to somewhere between 6,100l. and 6,000l.

This statement applies to the first three quarters of the year, ending the 5th of July, 1815. In July, I received the report of the civil-list committee, to which I have so often had occasion to refer. From that time, therefore, I had—what I had always wished—a positive writtten public rule, not laid down indeed for my mission, but which I might safely take for my guide. By the civil-list report, the minister to Portugal was considered prospectively on the footing not of an ambassador, but of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. To that minister of the second order the report assigned a salary of 8,000l. a year. It further recommended that all sums for foreign missions should be paid free of all deductions except the property-tax; thus relieving the issues' of salary from all the established legal defalcations at home, amounting to about six per cent., (in addition to the property-tax), and from all losses by exchange, or otherwise, in the transmission abroad. At the same time, the allowance for outfit,—which had been hitherto in all cases, and for all ranks, only 1,500l.—a sum which is Stated by the report not to be sufficient to cover above one-third or one fourth of the real expense, was raised to 4,000l.; and an annual allowance of 500l. was given for house-rent. These several arrangements are to be found in pp. 47 and 48, of the civil-list report, to which I beg the gentlemen who do me the honour to watch what I am saying, to refer. Deducting 800l. the property-tax, from the salary of 8,000l. these issues to the new envoy would amount to 11,700l. nett for the first year; and to 7,700l. nett for every subsequent year.—And this exclusive of plate, for which the report makes a special provision.

When I received the copy of this report I instantly determined that, so long as the mission continued in my hands, I would limit myself strictly to the amount specified in it. For the last quarter, therefore (from July the 5th to October 10th, 1815), I conformed to the new scale of ordinary allowances, and received only 1,800l. nett, without any extraordinaries whatever. The exchange was now, in consequence of the termination of the war, become so favourable as in a great measure to counteract the loss upon the paper-money, which continued to be about 7 per cent, The result of this counteraction was, that the loss upon 1,800l. by the exchange and paper-money jointly, which three months before would have been about 220l., was now only about 70l.

Of the 6,000l. extraordinaries which I had liberty to draw, I drew only for so much as was sufficient,—First to replace the deductions on 6,150l. being three quarters of nominal salary at the old rate of 8,200l. (gross), and on 1,800l. one quarter at the new rate of 7,200l. (nett); secondly, to make up the old allowance for outfit, viz. 1,500l. to the sum of 4,000l. specifically allowed by the committee.—And not one farthing more, so help me God!

So scrupulously did I adhere to these limits, (which seemed to me to have been formed on a clear principle, and which had the sanction of the House of Commons), that finding that my agent hail drawn, for the last quarter, a sum of 1,500l. as extraordinaries (at the rate of the 6,000l. originally allowed to me), I directed him to return that sum to the treasury: and I declare, on my conscience, that when I gave this direction, I had no more expectation that the transaction would ever be known to any one except to my agent,—to my righthon. friend near me (Mr. Huskisson), whom I requested to see my direction executed—to my noble friend (lord Castlereagh), whose permission was necessary,—and to the treasury, to which the return was made,—I had no more expectation that I should ever have to state this transaction privately or publicly in vindication of my character,—than I had apprehension that on such grounds my character would ever be assailed.

It is undoubtedly still open to the hon. gentlemen who are the framers and supporters of the impeachment against me, to recur to the charge that the mission to Lisbon was unnecessary; to find fault, if they please, with my personal conduct in accepting it (of which a word by-and-by); and to censure the mode in which I may have discharged the duties of it; but as to pecuniary imputation, I stand upon a rock.—I stand upon the authority of a committee of this House, appointed long after my embassy was established and endowed; and not merely approving by retrospect the amount of its actual endowment: but recommending prospectively the same endowment for a mission of a lower character. Before that report was known to me,—with the power to go to a certain extent of expense, I restrained myself within that extent, to limits narrowed by my own sense of what was right. As soon as I had the authority of that report to guide me, I adhered to it voluntarily and strictly, living as an ambassador within the allowances assigned for an envoy. To other allegations of misconduct, political or prudential, I may be obnoxious;—but surely no fair adversary, after this exposition, will impute to my embassy either a wasteful prodigality on the part of the government, or a corrupt rapacity on mine.

I am afraid I have already wearied the House with figures: but there is another calculation, of which the result is so strik- ing, that I cannot help requesting of the House to allow me to state it to them. Its elements are few, and the process short and simple. I particularly request attention to it from the right hon. gentleman who sits opposite to me (Mr. Tierney), whose skill in these matters peculiarly qualifies him to detect any error in the statement.

The report of the committee on the civil-list fixes the salary of the Lisbon envoy at 8,000l., to be reduced by the deduction of the property-tax to 7,200l. This sum of 7,200l. was to be received nett at Lisbon, free from all other deductions at home and from loss by exchange and conversion abroad. Sir, I desired a person far better skilled in calculations than I am to make out for me how much must have been received nett from the treasury here, to produce 7,200l. nett, in Lisbon, during the year 1814–15?—The following is the statement of my arithmetician:—

The first addition to be made is that of the amount necessary to cover the average loss of something more than 12 per cent, by exchange and paper-money: this would be about £.980
which being added to 7,200
gives £.8,180
as the sum necessary to have been received nett in England, in order to produce 7,200l. nett in Lisbon.

But, again; how much would it have been necessary for the Treasury to issue gross to produce (on the footing on which my salary was issued) 8,180l. nett in England?—The deductions at the exchequer, I have shown, amounted to about 16 per cent., the property-tax included. The sum necessary to cover these deductions,

would be about £.1,556
which, added to 8,180
shows that the gross issue at the Treasury must have been about £.9,736
Add to this sum the allowance for outfit 4,000
Add the allowance for House-rent (to which by the way might be added 12 per cent, for loss on exchange, &c. 500
And the gross nominal issues at the treasury to meet the recommendation of the committee, for the first year of the new envoy, must have been £ 14,236
Does not the very sound of this sum carry conviction, and I could almost hope compunction, to the bosoms of my accusers? Does it not excite in the minds of all impartial men, an indignant recollection of the arts and the clamours, by which, during two years and a half, I have been stigmatized to the country as an instance of unexampled waste, as an insatiable pillager of the exchequer?

Sir, of the pecuniary charge I trust that I may here take my leave. After my own vindication however (which must on every account be nearest to my heart), I confess, I am most anxious to put the well-intentioned part of the nation on their guard against those exaggerations for mischievous purposes, by which public men are run down. If the result of this night shall warn them not to be too easily misled into the belief of monstrous and improbable corruptions, I cannot say that I snail not still regret the calumnies with which I have been overwhelmed, but I shall be in some degree rewarded and consoled for them.

I have thus disposed of the two main heads of accusation. I have shown that there was a sincere and well-grounded belief in the return of the prince regent of Portugal to Europe: and I have shown that the cost of the embassy appointed to receive him on his return was not only not extravagant, but that according to every test by which expenditure can be tried, whether of contrast with what had gone before, or of comparison with what has been deliberately established for the future, it was limited by a reasonable and scrupulous economy.

Some minor charges remain to be refuted. I am accused of having held the mission after all hope of executing the duty which I undertook to fulfil was abandoned. But, before I enter on this point, I am reminded that I am accused also of having assumed the mission too soon. It is said that I assumed it in October, although the prince of Brazil could not be expected in Europe for six months from that date. Now if there were any ground for supposing that the return was altogether a false pretence, the acceptance of the embassy sooner or later would be of no consequence; the acceptance of it at all was a crime. But if the prince regent of Portugal was to come to Europe, there was a fair probability that sir John Beresford might have landed him at Lisbon in February. Sir John Beresford sailed from Portsmouth on the fifth of October. True, he was driven back to Plymouth after having been some days at sea. But, as to the length of the passage, he did reach the Brazils in seven weeks from the date of his last sailing (that too with a convoy under his protection); and it was not only no improbable expectation, but it was the belief of sir John Beresford himself, stated repeatedly to the prince regent of Portugal, that from five to six weeks would be sufficient for the voyage from Rio de Janeiro. It is true, that the hypothesis was, that the prince regent would be ready to embark, and would have made all the preparations necessary for his departure, between the period of his writing for a squadron and its arrival. Such in fact was our expectation; and upon that supposition (as I have said before) the arrival at Lisbon of the prince regent himself would have been the first intelligence that would have been received there of his departure from Rio de Janeiro. I sailed in the beginning of November. I landed at Lisbon (I think) on the first of the following month. I had no more doubt of the impatience of the Portuguese royal family to return to Europe than I have that I am now addressing this House. I consequent reckoned upon their arrival in Lisbon almost as soon after my own as I could conveniently be prepared to receive them. In the month of February, I well remember, we used to be looking out at Lisbon, at every favourable turn of the wind, for the arrival of sir John Beresford with his royal passengers, in the Tagus. The only period, therefore, during which I can be accused of receiving a salary without executing a public duty, is that between the date of my appointment and my sailing for Lisbon, a period of about three weeks. Surely this then is a charge of minute and petty captiousness. It is said that nature abhors a vacuum; and I believe it may be equally said that an exchequer quarter abhors a fraction. My salary was reckoned from the 10th of October, the quarter-day which preceded by about ten day's my taking leave at Carlton-house; and which preceded my actual departure (as I have said) by about three weeks. Of the scores or hundreds of missions which have gone out from this country for the last century, I very much doubt whether one could be found whose allowances had begun to run from so short a period before its departure. If this, Sir, be not a sufficient defence on such a matter, I can only give myself up to the mercy of the House, with a frank expression of my regret that I was gazetted three weeks too soon.

As to retaining my office too long, I have already answered to this point incidentally, but I must briefly answer to it again here in its proper order. The first loose intimations of a doubt of the return of the prince regent to his European dominions arrived in England in the month of March. They reached me at Lisbon on the 9th of April. On the 10th of April I wrote to the foreign office, tendering my resignation. I was desired to continue in the exercise of my functions; and from that moment the mission entirely changed its character. I was no longer the pageant ambassador to a non-forthcoming sovereign. The war had broken out, with the ominous re-appearance of Buonaparté: and who was there in this country, or in Europe, that ventured to predict its speedy, its miraculous termination? Who could presume to say what might be its course; or what the extent of effort required to give effect to its operations? Henceforth, therefore, I filled, (whether worthily or not, is another question), a situation of business, at a not insignificant post, and at a most eventful crisis. If I had not been on the spot, another must have been appointed,—a minister of the second order, if you please, but even if so, with all the allowances and expenses incident to a minister of the second order at Lisbon, which I have already shown to be, according to the recommendation of the civil list report, substantially the same as mine. Henceforth, therefore, I did not add one farthing to the unavoidable expenses of the country. It may be alleged, that a more able individual might have been found to discharge the duties of the mission; and that I did wrong in continuing to do what others might have done better; but there is not a shadow of pretence for affirming that my continuance at Lisbon laid any burthen upon the public, or that any saving could have been effected by the acceptance of my resignation on the 10th of April.

It is obvious that in the refusal to accept my resignation, I was wholly passive; but neither does my noble friend require any justification for having recommended to the prince regent to decline accepting it. My noble friend is sufficiently justified by the case itself, and by his subsequent conduct. For no sooner was the battle of Waterloo fought, and the war thus happily ended (almost as soon as begun), than my noble friend signified to me his royal highness's acceptance of the resignation which had been before declined. It is true, that it was not until three months after this notification that I was finally relieved from the mission. Amidst the important negociations in which my noble friend was then engaged, he appears to have forgotten that he had not appointed any one to receive the business and correspondence of the Lisbon mission, out of my hands. Portugal and myself had (no wonder) sunk into insignificance and oblivion; and up to the beginning of August, no successor to me was appointed. Did I think this a lucky chance? Did I go on quietly to enjoy the advantage of this oblivion? No. After about a month had elapsed without hearing any thing from the foreign office, I wrote to my noble friend, to remind him of my existence: and, apprehending him to be—as he in fact was—absent from England, I wrote by the same packet a private letter to lord Bathurst, begging leave, in case any difficulty should have occurred in the nomination of a successor, to recommend Mr. Croft (whom I have already mentioned as having been first introduced to me by my noble friend), as a person perfectly competent to act as charge d'affaires; and offering, at the same time, the aid of my unofficial advice, so long as I should remain (which I intended to do through the winter) in Portugal. I desire to know if this conduct can be characterized as a clinging to my office?—or whether my pertinacity in adhering to it was more than exactly on a par with my eagerness in seeking it?

Perhaps, Sir, I might now sit down perfectly satisfied with having cleared the integrity of my conduct; and, perhaps, with a feeling rather of gratitude than of hostility towards those who, by manfully giving a distinct and substantive shape to their allegations, have afforded me an opportunity of refuting them. But I cannot pass by the taunts of the hon. baronet, and the grave admonitions of the hon. mover of the question, without assuring them, that so long as I possess in my own breast the consciousness of integrity, such assailments, whether taunting or monitory, will excite in it no emotion warmer than contempt. I must above all things assure the hon. baronet, that no attempt to impeach my character and to degrade me (as he flattered himself this proceeding might do) in that estimation with this House which constitutes all that is valuable and all that is efficient in a public man, no such attempt, I say, will cause me to lower my voice one key, or to abate one jot of my exertions, in opposing and exposing those doctrines of which the hon. baronet is the representative and the champion. Let not the hon. baronet flatter himself with any such result from this attack upon my reputation. Let him not flatter himself with the hope of such a result from his asperity to-night, or from his menaces for the future. If I am satisfied to have done right, for the peace of my own conscience, I am also glad to have made that right apparent, mainly because I know how necessary are the good opinion and the favouring attention of this House, to enable me to exert myself successfully for the defeat of those projects which the hon. baronet has at heart, and which, I verily believe, would bring this country to ruin. The hon. baronet has spoken out: and the only sentiment with which I am inspired by the bitterness of his declared enmity, and by the burst of his anticipated triumph, is that of a pride—I hope an honest and pardonable pride, at the proof which he has thus unintentionally afforded of the reasons to which I am indebted for his hostility. It is because I am held in hatred and in fear by those who share the hon. baronet's opinions, that by them I have been sought to be destroyed. I have been sought to be destroyed, because I have declared myself—(with what effect it becomes not me to say, but with all my heart and soul), against schemes, which if unchecked, would bring destruction upon those hallowed institutions by which the mixed and free government of this great kingdom is upholden, and from which the practical blessings of our constitution are derived.

Sir, I thus dismiss all that part of the charges which, if substantiated, would have established against me the guilt of criminality or of culpable misconduct. But I wish to leave nothing unnoticed, whether of charge or of insinuation,—whether conveying the imputation of positive guilt, or only implying discredit and disparagement.

It is made matter of accusation and reproach against me that I have accepted office with my noble friend who sits beside me (lord Castlereagh),—between whom and myself it is assumed that our former differences had placed an impassable barrier.—First,—from what quarter comes this reproach and accusation? From a bench, on which I do not see any two neighbours who have not differed from each other,—and that within short memory too,—much more essentially than myself and my noble friend. But it is insinuated that the differences between my noble friend and myself were of a sort which precluded reconciliation!—Since when have such matters become topics of parliamentary discussion? Since when has it been the practice of this House to take cognizance of the disagreements of individuals, and to indulge in such animadversions on the most delicate topics of personal conduct as in private society no gentleman would venture to hazard? Since when, I say, has this practice commenced? And how far is it to be carried?—I know of no precedent for it. I know of no authority.—It is not for my own sake, but for the sake of this House, that I protest against it; for, if this practice be permitted, our discussions must inevitably sink in to grosser personalities than have disgraced the meetings of Palace-yard and of Spa-fields.

The Hon. baronet is entirely mistaken as to what he supposes me to have addressed to my constituents at Liverpool in 1812. Nothing that I then said was intended to convey, or did convey, the notion that I was precluded by any feeling, or (in my own judgment) by any principle, from acting in office with my noble friend. I had declared the directly contrary opinion some months before, in a correspondence respecting the formation of an administration, which the discussions of those times brought before the public, and which is now upon record. What is not publicly recorded is, that some time after those discussions had closed, but six or eight weeks before my election at Liverpool, other negociations which had for their object my return to office, had taken place; amongst the proposed arrangements of which, my noble friend—with a manliness and generosity which I hope I felt as they deserved—had voluntarily tendered to my acceptance the seals of the office which he now holds. Other reasons induced me to decline that tender. I might be right or wrong in my view of those reasons. One among them was, that I was at that time embarrassed with respect to a most important question (the discussion of which is now fixed for no distant day) by pledges which I could best hope to redeem with unquestioned fidelity and honour, by remaining out of office till I had redeemed them. But what would be thought of me—what should I deserve to be thought of by any liberal mind—if, after such a transaction as I have described, I could ever pause for a moment, to consider in what order with respect to each other my noble friend and I should march towards our common objects in the service of the country?—In that transaction, any feelings which had previously separated my noble friend and myself were buried for ever. The very memory of them was effaced from our minds:—nor can I compliment the good taste of those who would call them up from oblivion; surely not with the vain hope of exasperating differences anew, but with the purpose of making a reconcilement now of five years standing, a subject of suspicion, taunt, and obloquy.

What I have said, Sir, is, I hope, a sufficient comment upon the notable discovery that I accepted public employment not with, but under, my noble friend. This paltry distinction, I can assure those who are so vain of it, occasions me not the slightest uneasiness. When lord Pembroke went out to Vienna, and the marquis Wellesley to Spain, during (or under, if you will) my administration of the foreign department,—had I the ridiculous vanity to fancy that these distinguished noblemen acted under me, in any sense of degrading subordination? Or is it imagined that when the duke of Wellington undertook his mission to Paris, my noble friend, conceived that he was therefore entitled to claim a pre-eminence over the deliverer of Europe?—They know little, Sir, of the spirit of our constitution,—they are very ill acquainted with the duties that it imposes, and the privileges that it confers,—who are not aware, that in whatever station a man may be called upon to serve his sovereign and his country, there is among statesmen, co-operating honestly for the public good, a real substantive equality which no mere official arrangement can either create or destroy;—they—who are yet to learn, that in a free country like ours, it is for the man to dignify the office, not for the office to dignify the man.

Sir, I have now done. I have humbly to apologize to the House for having trespassed upon them so long, and to thank them for their indulgent attention. The mariner in which I have been heard by the House, has been such as satisfies me that they justly and kindly considered how much I had at stake on this day. If I have succeeded (as my conscience tells me that I must have done), in refuting the charges brought against me, I have not spoken in vain; and you, Sir, will not regret having listened to me. If I have not succeeded,—if the House shall be of opinion that any stain remains upon my character,—then indeed, Sir, have I troubled you too long; but I have troubled you for the last time.

Mr. Brougham

declared, that he was not one of those to whom the right hon. gentleman could have alluded, as hanging back in his accusation. The charge must have applied to some one, but he was at a loss to determine who was meant. His hon. friend who made the present motion had Stated the accusation fully and fairly; he was answered by the noble lord opposite; what the noble lord had said was replied to by the hon. baronet. There was then a dead pause in the House—nothing being offered to be said on the other side. Was the accusation to be repeated without hearing any defence? Were the common forms of the House to be departed from on this occasion, and were he and his friends to be accused of want of candour for following the usual course recommended by common convenience and general experience He did not hold back, and he was sure his hon. friends did not. If he now came forward, he did not bring any new charges; he would not state a tittle that had not previously been stated; and if he travelled out of the accusation, he begged he might be stopped. He would tell the right hon. gentleman that he was not his accuser; that he stood there in a different capacity. The accusation was already made; the defence had been heard, and he, with the House, was now to act as judges. The noble lord against whose administration this charge was principally directed, although the right hon. gentleman was deeply involved in it, began with a remark about suppressing one of the documents moved for. His hon. friend had brought no such charge, but merely alleged that it had been kept back till other papers, calculated to do away its effect, were brought forward with it. The hon. and learned gentleman here proved his allegation by different references to the date of the papers, and then addressed himself to the question. He observed, that the right hon. gentleman, was anxious to separate the two questions of the return of the Prince Regent, and of the expenses of the embassy. He had no objection to this line of argument, and would show from dates, that there was not a shadow of pretence for this job, which was as barefaced a one as was ever exhibited to the animadversion of parliament. The blame of it was participated between the administration and the right hon. gentleman who benefitted by it. The charge, however, had been supposed to have been more extensively stated than was intended: it was never said that there was no intention expressed on the part of the prince regent of the Brazils to return to Europe: he and his friends charged them with appointing a minister at a time when there were no functions to be exercised. The charge admitted that there might be a mistake: on this mistake the job was founded: the mistake was pardoned, but the job was reprobated. It was by facts and by dates only that the question under debate ought to be decided, not by empty professions or noisy declamation, which, in the opinion of the world, would be of no more value than the wind of which they were made.

Referring, then, to the dispatch of lord Strangford to lord Castlereagh, dated the 20th of Feb. 1814, he found it stated, that hopes were entertained by the British minister that the Prince Regent was disposed to revisit his ancient dominions; but this, intention would never be executed without, the concurrence of the English government. It was added, subsequently, that any intimation of the wishes on the part of our government would probably be acceded to. We were thus left altogether to determine upon the time and the mode in which the return of the prince regent of Portugal should take place. The right hon. gentleman had pretended, that this return was an affair of the highest importance; that it was an event so desirable, I as to justify all the expense and all the extraordinary proceedings which belonged I to this transaction. But if it had been of such mighty interest to the concerns of Europe, ample time had been previously afforded between the downfall of Buonaparté's power in the Peninsula and the period of the right hon. gentleman's appointment. Not a word, however, of the return of the royal family was heard till the 25th of July, and then arose a question which was now to be determined upon stubborn dates on one side, and metaphor and verbosity on the other. During the three months previous to this period, although the noble lord opposite was all that time apprized of the probable return of the Portuguese court, as far as the dispatch of lord Strangford could create that expectation, it was never before thought of sending out an embassy extraordinary upon the mere possibility of such an event. Such an intention, if ever entertained, had hitherto lain dormant, and never appeared till it was wanted for private purposes or for cabinet arrangements. To show the temper in which the whole matter was conducted it might be of use to examine one of the pretexts upon which the whole defence of the case rested. It had been asserted, that the appointment of an ambassador-extraordinary was made, in one respect, for the purpose of gratifying the feelings of the Prince Regent; but it was worthy of observation, that whilst we complimented him with an ambassador whom he had never asked for, or evinced any desire to see, we refused him the favour of appointing the commodore whom he had expressly applied for, to command the convoy on his passage home He believed this officer was sir Sidney Smith, [No, no, from the treasury-bench]; but, if he were mistaken in this, it was probably the officer who commanded the vessel in which his royal highness sailed from Europe to the Brazils. Why, if there was so much anxiety to gratify the personal feelings of his royal highness, was so slight a civility refused?

But he now came to a part of the question which had been wholly omitted by the noble lord, and but incidentally mentioned by the right hon. gentleman at the close of his justification; but upon which he would venture to say, that the judgment of the country would finally be formed: he meant whether any real necessity had existed for the appointment of the embassy, or whether it was not a mere pretence to suit the views and interests of individuals. Had there been any doubt, or even the smallest uncertainty, with regard to the occurrence of those circumstances which called for so extraordinary an appointment, it was the duty of the noble lord not to have precipitated the embassy; for, if delayed but a short time, the whole of this useless expense might have been saved to the country. The right hon. gentleman had argued as if it were absolutely necessary that an ambassador should be present on the occasion, if it had taken place; but if a chargé d'affaires had remained there a year and a half, he could see no great inconvenience in his remaining a week or a fortnight longer under the existing circumstances. He apprehended, however, that the fact was, the right hon. gentleman was going to Lisbon at any rate, and that if the appointment was longer deferred it would come too late to answer his purpose [Hear, hear!]. The court of France had taken a very different view of the intentions of the Portuguese court, and had sent their minister to Rio Janeiro; and he could conceive no reason for our pursuing a different course, except that it was necessary to put money into the pocket of an individual, as a means of settling certain political arrangements. He believed the French mission was subsequent to the British, but this was of little moment. In considering the amount of the right hon. gentleman's allowances, a great deal had been said as to the expenditure of Mr. Sydenham. He agreed entirely with all the praise which had been bestowed upon that lamented gentleman, and could have wished that the right hon. gentleman had not qualified his panegyric by certain expressions which could hardly be intended to do honour to his memory. Why did the right hon. gentleman endeavour to place the character he eulogized in an odious light, by ironically calling Mr. Sydenham "that prince of economists," or mock the reputation which he affected to have at heart? Mr. Sydenham had remonstrated against a two rigid system of retrenchment; he had told the noble lord that it was vain to attempt to cut so deeply; and therefore, if the right hon. gentleman had any censure to direct against an excess in the disposition to economy it was the noble lord, his present colleague, and not Mr. Sydenham, to whom it properly applied. The regular expenses of Mr. Sydenham had been distinctly limited to 5,200l.; and admitting the highest amount to which they had been swelled by an accidental addition of 2,000l. incurred through ill health, and 1,500l. of outfit, there was still a wide difference between the aggregate amount, and the sum of 18,000l. expended upon the mission of the right hon. gentleman. When the plain fact was before the House, that although the return of the Portuguese court was announced in April as a probable event, yet that an envoy was considered to be sufficient on the 18th of July following, it would not do for the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman to put themselves generally on the House for an acquittal, without any attempt to controvert the facts. The noble lord, on the 18th of July, thought of nothing but economy, and in this spirit wrote his dispatch to Mr. Sydenham, expressing the Prince Regent's commands that he should, under the altered circumstances of the country in which he resided, confine his expenses strictly within his ordinary allowances: but on the 25th a new light had broken in upon him, he now knew more of the right hon. gentleman, with whom for some years before his acquaintance had been but slight; and although he knew no more with regard to the return of the prince regent from the Brazils, he had ceased to preach upon economy. It was not till the 31st of October that it appeared by the dispatch of lord Bathurst, that a new view of the scale of expenditure necessary in Portugal was taken, and that it was discovered that a variety of charges were incident to a transition from a state of war to a state of general tranquillity. It did not appear at what particular moment this discovery, as to the necessity of a gradual transition, was made. What did all this evidence indicate, but that the whole was a pecuniary transaction, the direct end of which was the acquisition of money by one of the parties? The right hon. gentleman might tell them, that without a clear acquittal this should be the last time of his addressing them; but he would say that such an acquittal would shake his confidence in the verdict of any plain men upon a plain matter of fact. The House roust decide whether this was or not a bona fide transaction, entered upon with no views but those of national advantage, originating in no private or personal considerations; or whether it was not exclusively the result of party schemes and cabinet arrangements; whether it was any other than a money-getting contrivance, whether the scale of expenditure which it created, great as it was, was not infinitely pitiful and miserable in comparison with the object which it was intended to serve; and whether the whole aim and end of the negotiation had not been to make the country pay the price of the purchase of the right hon. gentleman's accession to the present administration.

To refer once more to the subject of Mr. Sydenham's expenses, he could not but notice the manner in which those expenses had been swelled to the amount of several thousands, for the short space of a fortnight. Never had he known a matter of fact so entirely distorted. He had received the usual appointments and outfit, when the sudden breaking down of his health impeded the full execution of his mission. It would be as fair to consider the 200l., which a wounded officer might draw during the six months he was confined by it, as a remuneration for a week's or a fortnight's service. Sir Charles Stuart, like all the other personages alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, though treated with professed respect, met with very little indulgence. But the right hon. gentleman could hardly forget that sir C. Stuart was not merely the resident minister of this country, but that he was a member of the Portuguese regency. He might as well have taken, as a scale for his own expenditure, the royal establishment at Rio Janeiro, or of Carl-ton-house. Whatever might be the judgment of the House on the whole of this combined transaction between the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman, he was convinced that no impartial man out of doors would regard it in any other light than as it had been described by a worthy baronet—that of a pecuniary and profitable party job [Hear, hear!].

Lord Milton

thought the House and the country indebted to his hon. friend who had brought forward the present motion, because it was important that the characters of public men should be understood; and he did not think they would have been so well understood but for the discussion which had taken place. He was not ashamed to confess himself a party man; and to own, that he was not vain enough to suppose himself gifted with a wisdom superior to all other men. He had, however, endeavoured to bring to this question the most impartial disposition and judgment that he could command. He had listened attentively to all the different speeches which had been made; and the result was, that he could not conscientiously agree with his hon. friends in the vote of censure which they had proposed. Much as he rejoiced at the right hon. gentleman's acquittal, he felt great concern at the necessity of differing from his hon. and learned friends; but he could not forget that he had a higher duty to perform. He desired at the same time to say, that he could not acquit the right hon. gentleman of all blame, and that he thought the negociation between him and the noble lord, which led to his subsequent appointment to the Lisbon mission, not very creditable to either.

Mr. Warre

supported the motion, and contended, that the mission was not at all necessary.

Mr. Gordon

was of opinion, that the right hon. gentleman had completely cleared himself from all the charges that had been brought against him in a pecuniary point of view; and if it was necessary to send an ambassador to Lisbon, he could see no reason why the right hon. gentleman should not have been sent. It would, however, in his opinion, have been more consistent if government had sent their ambassador to the Brazils.

Mr. Abercrombie

agreed that the right hon. gentleman could not be considered as a principal in the fault of this transaction. His vote in support of the motion would be given upon the ground that the embassy itself was not a necessary measure. If the prince regent had arrived, the appointment might have been justified; but, under all the circumstances, he could not but think that the appointment was premature.

Mr. Sharp

was satisfied that the charge had been fully substantiated against the government, who had, it appeared, not only deceived the country, but the right hon. gentleman.

Mr. Tierney

disclaimed all personal hostility against the right hon. gentleman, but maintained that, notwithstanding all the glosses in the right hon. gentleman's speech; no doubt would exist out of doors, whatever there might be within, that if there had been a vacancy in the cabinet at the time he was sent as an ambassador to Lisbon, no ambassador would have been sent. And yet if ever there was a coalition that ought to be distrusted, it was that which had taken place between the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman, the former difference between whom had arisen, not on any ground which time and circumstances might change, but because the right hon. gentleman thought the noble lord not wise enough for a cabinet minister, and the noble lord had other reasons for declining the right hon. gentleman as a coadjutor. He certainly regretted that the right hon. gentleman had so entangled himself in this affair. The public money had unquestionably been unnecessarily expended, for he was convinced no man believed that the appointment of an ambassador to Lisbon was necessary at the time the right hon. gentleman was sent thither. There would have been sufficient time for sending out the right hon. gentleman on his extraordinary mission, after it had been ascertained that the court of Portugal was to be re-established at Lisbon. But what reason had the noble lord to expect that such an event was to take place? He could state from his own personal knowledge a fact, which to his mind proved that the expectation was quite unfounded. It had been stated to him, by the Portuguese ambassador, the count de Funchal, that if his majesty's ministers had applied to him for information on the subject, he could have told them that the prince regent had no intention of returning to Europe. Thus it appeared, that if the noble lord had taken the trouble of making inquiries in the proper quarter, he would have been able to have saved the expense of the six months embassy with which the country had been so unfairly burthened. If there had been a necessity to send an ambassador at all, he should not have said a word on the subject. The right hon. gentleman, as he had already observed, was as well calculated for that office, generally speaking, as any other person who could be appointed to it. Something had, however, been said of the fancies of crowned heads, with respect to such missions, which did not tend so well to support this particular appointment. He believed, that if crowned heads were flattered by such attentions, they looked more to the rank than to the talents of the ambassador sent to them; and viewing the subject in that way, the right hon. gentleman certainly was not the fittest person that might have been chosen for this complimentary embassy to the court of Lisbon. In the comparison made on the other side between the expenses incurred by Mr. Sydenham's residence, and the mission of the right hon. gentleman, the whole expenses incurred by Mr. Sydenham had been charged upon the half year. This was not fair; but how would the case stand were the whole expense of the right hon. gentleman in salary, plate, outfit, and other expenses, to be put on the half year, with the additional consideration that it was an expense which ought not to have been incurred at all in addition to the other expenses, a considerable loss was incurred by the rate of the exchange. He had that day sent to the city to inquire what the rate of ex- change at Lisbon on London had been from July, 1814, to March, 1815; and he had learned that it was 68½, instead of 67, as had been stated. The loss, therefore, in the negotiation of paper was 14 per cent., and adding that to all the other charges, the expense of the half-year would be 11,000l. This would be the amount of the charge if he were to follow the example which had been set up, and put all the expenses on the half-year, as had been done with Mr. Sydenham's mission. But he should do no such thing. He would not argue so unfairly. It was sufficient for him to state, that when the right hon. gentleman was appointed ambassador to the court of Lisbon, he came into the possession of a salary of 14,000l. a year; that that salary, the 3,000l. for his plate, and all the other expenses of his outfit, were totally unnecessary, and formed a burthen most improperly imposed upon the country. The right hon. gentleman had made some very extraordinary flourishes, for which the noble lord was certainly much obliged to him. The noble lord seemed somehow or other to think that he had been accused of taking other people's money unfairly. The right hon. gentleman seeing his embarrassment, had, however, got up, and, in wishing to clear his friend of the character of the thief, acknowledged himself to be the receiver. He must say, however, that he had no intention of bringing against the right hon. gentleman the charge of peculation. There never was a country in which public men were more free from such an accusation than this; and in that respect he was free to confess, that he regarded the right hon. gentleman as perfectly clean-handed. But it would be paying the right hon. gentleman a compliment on the score of his possessing a degree of virtue and self-denial which fell to the lot of few, were he to suppose that he ought to have refused the emoluments which were pressed upon him; that he should have refused to listen to a person who told him he was a better judge of what his services merited than he could possibly be himself; and that he ought not to have a farthing less than 14,000l. a year, with 3,000l. for his plate and all the other expenses of his outfit. With respect to the relation between the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman, he had no doubt that it would soon return to its ancient state; that the noble lord would find himself gradually sinking below the minister for Lisbon, and that the minister for Lisbon would find himself gradually rising above the noble lord [a laugh]. On the whole, he felt that he should not do his duty to the country, if he did not heartily and cordially vote for the resolutions of his hon. friend.

Mr. Lyttelton

did not think either the appointment by his majesty's ministers, or the acceptance of it by the right hon. gentleman, justifiable at the time it was made, and could not perceive any grounds on which it could be defended. He was farther of opinion, that considering the circumstances in which the right hon. gentleman stood towards the noble lord, the transaction was not one which was creditable to him.

Sir James Mackintosh

was desirous of stating the precise grounds of his vote. He did not entirely agree with his hon. friend who had last spoken. He considered the resolutions as resolutions of censure on the appointment of the embassy to Lisbon, and not on the acceptance of that appointment. On that ground alone he voted for them; for he thought that the right hon. gentleman was bound to believe the representations which had been made to him of the necessity of the embassy. He did not conceive, however, that ministers were justified in the appointment, and he considered it a waste of the public money.

Mr. Canning

said, that he would content himself by stating two facts on the present occasion: the one was, that he had not solicited a place in the cabinet at the time alluded to; and though he could not substantiate the fact by parliamentary evidence, he could yet satisfy any private gentleman, that so far from seeking a seat in the cabinet, no consideration would at the time have detained him in the country. As to the declaration of count Funchal, all he would say was, that that personage furnished sir J. Beresford with a list of the individuals who were likely to return to Europe with the prince regent of the Brazils.

Mr. Cartwright

observed, that an hon. baronet had stated, that whenever this subject should be brought forward, he would apply to it the term "peculation." After the defence which the House had heard; after the full and satisfactory explanation of all the circumstances which had been given; he should have expected that common candour would have induced the hon. baronet to get up and disavow that epithet as far as possible. He must say that, after what had passed, he should think it very extraordinary if the hon. baronet persisted in that sentiment.

Sir F. Burdett

said, that he had not used the term peculation in its common and gross sense; but as the appointment was the result of a political negociation between the parties for their own interests, he still regarded it as what he had already stated it to be, namely, a pecuniary job.

Sir T. Acland

was confident that the candour of the hon. baronet would not permit him to hesitate in pronouncing the full acquittal of a person accused, whom he had discovered to be innocent. He did not know what the hon. baronet meant by his concluding words, in which he denominated the transaction under consideration a pecuniary job. He did not think that such terms could be fairly applied to it, after the defence which had been heard. After a speech so eloquent, which had thrilled through every heart in the House, he would have been proud to have been so accused, in order to have so defended himself.

Mr. Lambton

rose to reply.—He observed, that it would be useless in him to detain them for any length of time, after they had so plainly manifested their desire to proceed to a division—it would be presumptuous in him to expect to succeed in dispelling the noise and clamour which had been prevailing from the conclusion of the right hon. gentleman's'(Mr. Canning's) speech. He should, therefore, merely notice some misrepresentations which affected him personally. The right hon. gentleman had, for what purposes he knew not, grossly misrepresented him; when the right hon. gentleman stated that he had alluded to the personal differences which had existed between the right hon. gentleman and the noble lord (Castlereagh). He appealed to the House whether such was the fact. He had carefully avoided every thing which could convey the most remote allusion to that subject, in introducing his resolutions to the notice of the House.—He also thought it incumbent on him to notice what had fallen from some gentleman on his own side of the House. He begged leave to inform the noble lord (Milton) and the hon. member (Mr. Gordon) that, with every sense of the obligation they had so kindly conferred on him in disclaiming his motion, he could not accede to their mode of reasoning—their arguments had nothing whatever to do with the question. The question was, not whether the right hon. gentleman had justified himself in a pecuniary point of view, but whether the ministers had justified themselves from the accusation of having, by that appointment, imposed an unnecessary expense on the country.—That alone was the object of his motion, which his hon. friends seemed, whether purposely or not he could not tell, entirely to have forgot. In his opinion, nothing had passed during the debate—nothing had been urged against his motion either by the hon. gentleman opposite, or his hon. friends near him, which could induce him to change his opinion as to the propriety of the course he had pursued, and he should therefore call for a division.

The House divided:

For Mr. Lambton's motion 96
Against it 270
Majority —174

List of the Minority.
Abercrombie, hon. J. Latouche, Robt.
Archdale, M. Latouche, R. jun.
Atherley, Arthur Lemon, sir Wm.
Aubrey, sir John Lloyd, J. M.
Baillie, J. E. Lyttelton, hon. W.
Bennet, hon. H. G. Leader, Wm.
Barnett, James Mackintosh, sir J.
Barnard, visc. Maitland, hon. A.
Brougham, Henry Markham, adm.
Byng, George Martin, Henry
Butterworth, Jos. Martin, John
Broadhurst, John Matthew, hon. M.
Browne, Dom. Molyneux, H.
Boughey, sir J. F. Monck, sir C.
Calcraft, John Moore, Peter
Calvert, Charles Newport, sir John
Campbell, lord J. Northey, Wm.
Campbell, gen. D. North, D.
Campbell, hon. J. Nugent, lord
Carew, R. S. Ord, Wm.
Carter, John Osborne, lord F.
Cavendish, hon. H. Ossulston, lord
Cavendish, hon. C. Parnell, sir H.
Duncannon, visc. Pierse, Henry
Dundas, Charles Philips, George
Ebrington, visc. Power, Richard
Fergusson, sir R. C. Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.
Fitzgerald, lord W. Prittie, hon. F. A.
Foley, hon. A. Pym, F.
Foley, Thos. Ramsden, J. C.
Frankland, Robt. Rancliffe, lord
Grant, J. P. Ridley, sir M. W.
Harcourt, John Romilly, sir S.
Hamilton, lord A. Rowley, sir Wm.
Heathcote, sir G. Russell, lord Wm.
Heron, sir R. Russell, lord G. W.
Hughes, W. L. Russell, R. G.
Hornby, E. Rashleigh, Wm.
Hill, lord A. Scudamore, R.
Jervoise, J. P. Sharp, Richard
Sefton, earl of Webb, E.
Smith, J. Wharton, John
Smith, G. Wilkins, Walter
Smith, Wm. TELLERS.
Stanley, lord Burdett, Sir F.
Spiers, Arch. Lambton, John G.
Spencer, lord R. PAIRED OFF.
Talbot, R. W. Cavendish, lord G.
Tierney, rt. hon. G. Neville, hon. R.
Thompson, Thos. Howorth, H.
Walpole, hon. G. Fitzroy, lord J.
Waldegrave, hon. W. Moseley, sir O.
Warre, J. A. Portman, E. B.