table. For what did it purport to be? A narrative of the expedition, signed by the military commander, and presented to his majesty without the intervention of any responsible minister. How did the house know that it was a true copy of the document said to have been so presented? Through what office had it passed? and by what accident did it come into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by whom it had been laid on the table? But his main objection was of a constitutional character. Lord Chatham had, not in his character of a peer or privy counsellor, but in that of a military commander, presented to the king in person an account of his military proceedings, although directed under the sign manual, by which he was appointed, to make such communications through the proper officer, the secretary of state, whom the constitution recognised."

Upon this Mr Canning observed, that the error in point of form might be corrected by withdrawing the paper, and presenting it in a regular way, stating whether the document had been presented to his majesty by the secretary for the war department, or by Lord Chatham; and if by the latter, in what capacity. This, he said, was the simplest course of proceeding; but he remarked, that all orders from that house relative to public documents were addressed to some responsible minister, who was officially answerable for their production, and that all papers of this nature were generally presented to his majesty through some responsible minister: great inconvenience indeed must obviously result from a different course.-Mr Perceval now informed the house, that when, in pursuance of General Loft's motion, the paper had been ordered, he found it to be in the hands of the

secretary for the war department, to whom it had been delivered by the king, and from whom the copy which had been laid on the table was received.-Lord Folkestone now repeated, that he was sorry the paper had been called for, and sorry it had been produced, because it had found its way to the royal presence in a most unconstitutional manner; and his objections were considerably aggravated by a knowledge of the contents, for it now appeared to be a special address from the commander of one part of the expedition reflecting upon the conduct of his colleagues, and appealing to the judgement of his majesty, without the intervention of any responsible minister.

It was asked by Mr Yorke, What there was unconstitutional, if the paper was presented in the regular way to the king by a cabinet minister, who was also master-general of the ordnance, and peer of the realm ?There was a loud cry of Hear! hear! at this, upon which he grew warm, and asked, What gentlemen meant by that exclamation? If they meant that he did not understand the constitution of his country, they were deceived: if they meant more, why then no expressions of scorn and disdain which he could use to repel such insinuations would be strong enough.

Mr Tierney replied to this, that he must then come in for a share of this scorn and disdain, for he certainly should contend, that not only was the paper introduced unconstitutionally into the royal presence, but that the character of the navy had been clandestinely undermined by it. And this secret practice of poisoning the royal breast with doubts and suspicions of his most approved and zealous servants, while it deprived them of the knowledge, and of course the means of repelling them, deserved im

peachment. As for impeachment, Mr Perceval said, he regarded it merely as a bye-word; but he could assure the right honourable gentleman who had thought proper to use it, and others also, that neither in that house nor out of it would such allusions tend in any degree to promote the object which they had in view in prosecuting this inquiry. There was no one circumstance, he affirmed, connected with the paper for which there was not an adequate responsibility. Lord Chatham was responsible, if there was any thing culpable in its character and construction; and he himself was responsible for the production of the copy to that house. Had not Lord Chatham or any other individual a right to lay a paper before his majesty? Nay, had not any peer or privy counsellor a right to demand an audience of the king?

Mr Ryder and Mr R. Dundas maintained the same doctrine. But their antagonists had a strong case, and did not fail to press it home. "Leaving alone for the present,' Mr Windham said, "the contents of the paper, which he trusted would ere long become the subject of their most serious consideration, their present business was with the mode and form in which it came before them, and this was wholly repugnant to every practice which past experience and the principles of the constitution warranted. For instance, they knew by what means the paper had come to them from the king; but could they say who was the author, by what organ, or through what channel it had reached the royal presence? On the face of it it appeared to have been unofficial, and to have been delivered privately into the king's closet; and they could neither constitutionally nor decently look for evidence from that august quarter. Who

?

then could say that the earl was either the author or deliverer of the paper It might be said, that he was that night to be examined at their bar, and the difficulty would be solved by asking him the question; but what if his lordship refused to be examined? The paper, therefore, came in so questionable a shape, so contrary to every precedent and practice grounded on the principles of the constitution, that the house was bound not merely to reject, but to censure it."

The charge was pressed more vehemently by Mr Whitbread. "Was this communication of Earl Chatham," he demanded, "known to the ministers, or unknown? An address from the city of London had been presented, praying for inquiry; to which his majesty was advised to answer, that he thought no inquiry necessary. Lord Chatham could not have been consulted as a minister upon this answer; for he must have said, that inquiry into the naval part of the expedition, at least, was necessary. How, then, did he stand as one of his majesty's responsible advisers ? If ministers did not know of this communication, then they deserved impeachment for advising such an answer to the metropolis. If they did know of it, and Lord Chatham was a party to their answer, then his conduct was reprehensible in the extreme. Mr Perceval had said, that every man might have access to the king: Why then was not the city of London admitted? But Lord Chatham, as a favourite, might do what others could not; and ministers might try to persuade that house of their responsibility, when they knew that the very way in which they got into power was by means of their irresponsibility. Mr Perceval spoke lightly of impeachment; but if the house did not impeach him and his col

leagues, then all their rights and privileges were indeed gone. He accused his opponents of envying him the possession of his place. For all the gold," exclaimed Mr Whitbread, "that human sinews, bought and sold, could ever earn, I would not be in his situation! We do indeed wish to turn him out, for the salvation of the country; but even out of office, I trust that punishment will follow him."

Mr Williams Wynne spoke more temperately, and with that parliamentary knowledge which distinguishes his speeches. “If,” he said, (following Mr Windham's argument) "the house thought proper to impeach Earl Chatham, what evidence of the narrative could they produce to the House of Lords? The cases of Lord Bristol, and of the Seven Bishops, were exactly in point: the difficulty was found in those cases; and was the house, with these precedents before their eyes, going to put themselves in the same situation?" He then called on the speaker for his opinion, saying, there never was an Occasion in which the house stood so much in want of his assistance.-The speaker said," he had kept back with the intention of forming and giving the best opinion his judgement and ability would allow. There were precedents. In 1776, the house thought proper to call for a memorial delivered to his majesty in his private closet by an imperial resident. In that, as in the present case, his majesty had graciously condescended to send by the proper channel, one of his privy council, the paper asked for, to which the house was entitled to give full credit. Lord North had presented several similar papers, and was considered prima facie accountable for them. These precedents, in his opinion, left the house at full liberty to

discuss the merits of the narrative,a point upon which he did not presume to touch.'

He

Three days afterwards, Feb. 22. Lord Chatham was examined before the committee. stated, that the report in question had been prepared, as it purported by its date, on October 15th; but it had not been delivered then, because he did not think it right to state, in fact, what would constitute his defence in case of any inquiry, whether civil or military. He had submitted it to the cabinet after it was delivered to the king, and on the same day.Was that, he was asked, the only memorial on the subject of the expedition which he had delivered to the king? was there no other paper, narrative, memorial, or memorandum of any sort ?-Lord Chatham twice evaded the question, and when it was a third time repeated, he made answer in these words: "This paper is my official report of my proceedings. When I am asked with respect to any other paper, or to any other circumstance not coming under that description, I do not feel myself at li berty to enter at all into any examination of that sort, and I must beg to decline any answer to the question put to me.'

On the evening after this Feb. 23. examination, Mr Whitbread moved an address to his majesty, praying that copies of all papers submitted to him by the Earl of Chatham at any time, concerning the expedition, might be laid before the house. "The tenour of Lord Chatham's answer," he said, "was such, as induced a strong suspicion that he had presented some other document to the king, and he called upon the house to consider the circumstances in which Lord Chatham stood. Having been in the command of the ex

pedition, and having access to the king as a privy counsellor, he had used that privilege for the purpose of putting into the king's hand a paper reflecting on the conduct of the officers associated with him in that enterprise. In all his public dispatches not a single imputation nor insinuation was to be found against them; on the contrary, he had expressed the most unqualified approbation of their conduct: yet now he had thrown such imputations on the navy as were calculated to put the two services at issue. Now, taking it for granted that some prior document had been presented, (and if this were denied by any friend of Lord Chatham, he would sit down, and say not another word on the subject) taking that for granted," he continued, "which was not denied, that prior document ought to be called for in justice to the navy, and in maintenance of the principles of the constitution. There was reason to suppose that there were still lurking in the closet of the king papers of great importance upon the subject of the inquiry: there was reason to suppose that those papers contained charges against the naval commander, the narrative already produced containing imputations which only stopt short of charges. When a military commander took such an advantage of his situation as a minister, and of the personal access he had to his majesty, it was a system of favouritism which the house must hold in perfect abhorrence, which the constitution knew nothing of, and which was not reconcileable to the idea of a limited monarchy. If such a system was allowed, it would confound all distinctions between those monarchies that are called limited, and those which are acknowledged to be absolute. The most determined demo. crats never brought a stronger charge

against any monarchy, than that favourites had ready access to the ear of their sovereign, and secret opportunities to poison his royal mind against brave and deserving men, who had no means of defending themselves against such attacks; inasmuch as minions had always a ready access to the sovereign when they had not."

Mr Ryder replied, "that there neither was, nor had been in any office under government, any paper, report, memorandum, or narrative, upon the subject in question, communicated by Lord Chatham, other than that which was then upon the table. But even supposing that such a paper as that which Mr Whitbread had imagined did actually exist, as it had never been communicated to his majesty's ministers, he could not understand what possible reply they could advise his majesty to make to an address from the house under such circumstances. It would be, in fact, to open the private escrutoir of his majesty."-Mr Ryder laid himself open to a severe reply. "Was this language," said Mr Ponsonby, "was this doctrine for a secretary of state to hold to a British House of Commons? Did the right honourable gentleman, a cabinet minister, not know where to find a paper delivered by the commander-in-chief of an expe dition to his majesty, without searching the king's private escrutoir? Did he think that such a paper was of the nature of a private and confidential communication? If that were the case, every other general, who happened to be a favourite, might at any time go up to the king, and privately put into his hand statements tending to prejudice his royal mind against the most brave and meritorious officers, who might thus have their characters most foully calumniated, without the least notice or suspicion, and

therefore without a possibility of defending themselves. The first and greatest benefit which arose to the public from the exercise of a right such as that possessed by the house was, that all secret machinations for poisoning the mind of the sovereign against his best servants were by it rendered impossible; because whoever presented to his majesty any private memorial, such as that alluded to, was responsible to the public for its contents, and because the ministers who suffered such a memorial to be presented, or who, after the presentation of it, attempted to shield the individual by whom it had been presented, were responsible to parliament and the public for their conduct. If this were not the case, in what would the monarchy of England differ from the most absolute monarchy that ever existed? If this were not the case, a system of favouritism would be introduced into the country, as pure, as palpable, and as perfect as ever prevailed in France or in Spain The right honourable gentleman had advanced a doctrine of the most reprehensible description. He had produced in debate the name, personal character, and honour of his sovereign, for the purpose of protecting an administration. Would he say, that his majesty was disposed to wink at the calumniation of a brave officer like Sir R. Strachan, or that he would allow Lord Chatham, by insidious representations, to deprive an officer of such long and approved service of the well-merited estimation of his king? Such a supposition was as opposite to the character, to the integrity, to the virtue, to the honour of his majesty, as it was conformable to the dark spirit of low intrigue which influenced the councils of his present ministers. To cover their own

imbecility, to hide their own dissentions, his majesty's personal character had been dragged by them into that discussion."

To this Mr Perceval made answer, “ that the address was called for upon two assumptions, which were not true in fact: first, that some prior communication had been made by Lord Chatham to the king; and secondly, that in that prior communication he had calumniated the naval officers. They might with just as much propriety demand the production of any other imaginary document whatso

ever."

Replying then to what Mr Whitbread had said on a former night, he affirmed, "that though, when the answer to the city address was given, the existence of this narrative was certainly unknown to him, yet, now that he had deliberately considered its contents, he could state, that nothing which it contained would have induced him to advise a different answer. Lord Chatham had merely stated his own case, leaving the admiral to account for those naval circumstances, in which, as he supposed, the impediments to the expedition had originated. But for himself, it appeared to him perfectly clear, that not the slightest blame attached to the gallant admiral, and that the delay which had taken place was solely imputable to the weather and the local difficulties."

Sir Home Popham now addressed the house. "He was justified," he said, "in assuming that the paper did really exist, because no person ventured to deny its existence; yet even now, if Mr Perceval would state that no such paper existed, he would not say another word. Its existence then was not denied. He knew that Sir Richard Strachan did feel that serious insinuations against his con