tory matter, respecting the importance of the question, and the personal regard he entertained for Lord Chatham, expressed his sur prise and astonishment, that gentlemen of such knowledge, ability, and experience, as Mr. Stephen and Mr. Bankes, should ask,where is the charter-where the statute where the written decree, violated by the proceeding of the Earl of Chatham? When the great body of the municipal law of the country, the common law of England, was technically characterized as unwritten, did a lawyer ask that question? When the great and most valuable part of the law of parliament and of the constitution, had never been inserted in any charter, statute, or written decree, dd an old and experienced member of parliament ask that question? It was from the practice of parliament, from the usage of our ancestors, confirmed and perfected, by the invaluable usage of modern times, that we were to derive the law of parliament, and of the constitution. The practice of the constitution formed the law of the constitution. From the history of the country, even the least settled and most uninformed periods of our annals, Mr. Adam shewed, that it was a clear and well ascertained principle of the constitution, that to give bad counsel to the king was in itself and by itself, most criminal against the state; prosecutable and punishable, according to the practice and usage of parliament. If it were otherwise, he asked, how could we come at any guilty adviser without coupling an act with the advice? He examined the doctrine of the hon. gentlemen, by the analogy of the law of high treason. Did the laws of treason require, that the intention of the traitor should be carried into effect, in order to constitute that heinous crime? As to the allegation of Mr. Bankes, that a cabinet council was unknown to the constitution, Mr. Adam observed, that the king had, at all times selected certain persons of the privy council, in whom he more particularly confided, and by whose advice he more particularly acted. That selection in the reign of Charles II. was nick-named "The Cabal."-Now-a-days it was called a Cabinet Council. But in reality, it was a selection of the privy council, who was at all times known to the law and the constitution. That the conduct of Lord Chatham was against the practical constitution of the country, Mr. Adam proceeded to prove from history, and great legal authorities. He pointed out also the evil effects in practice, attending such a course as the delivery of the narrative by the Earl of Chatham -on the most conscientious conviction, that he had delivered the true doctrine of the constitution, he felt himself bound to vote in the terms of the second resolution, "That the Earl of Chatham, by private communication to his ma jesty, &c." The Solicitor General observed, that the main ingredient, in the alledged criminality of Lord Chathan, was the secrecy requested. But this But this was only temporary. And what one object could that kind of temporary secrecy answer? His lordship had, of his own free motion, made that secret paper public. Mr. Ponsonby contended, that the proceeding of Lord Chatham was most unconstitutional; and that there was no other word that could precisely express the nature of the offence which he had committed, and which demanded the censure of the house. If there had been any statute against that offence, the proper definition of Lord Chatham's conduct would have been, that it was illegal, and that house would then have carried the matter to the House of Lords, by impeachment. Mr. Ponsonby, in the course of his speech, made some very just, as well as interesting observations, on the connection between national character and government. It was to the constitution, he said, as established at the revolution, that we owed the character of the people of this country. It was owing to that constitution that there was less caballing than in any other European country; that even in political hostility there was more openness and candour; that this character was not confined to ministers and public men, but spread over the whole mass of the population. In the whole of the nation, there was more of probity, and less secret intrigue and duplicity, than in any other European nation, and this we owed to the constitution; of which, as had been observed by his learned and honourable friend, Mr. Adam, in his able and eloquent speech; the grand foundation was the complete irresponsibility of the king, and the complete responsibility of the ministers. But if such proceedings, as that of Lord Chatham, were to be passed over without notice, what would be the consequence? Instead of that candid and open frankness, which distinguished the higher, as well as the lower, classes of the community, we should sink to that degraded character, which had been the ruin of so many nations of Europe. Mr. Canning was not prepared to go the length of the second resolution. He was not, however, prepared to support the doctrine of Mr. Bankes, that the transaction was not unconstitutional. The second resolution, therefore, he would wish to see modified. He had drawn up a few lines, not with any intention of moving them himself, but for the purpose of submitting them to the consideration of the house, for any honourable member to adopt, who might approve of them. The modification he proposed was, "That the house saw with regret, that any such communication as the narrative of Lord Chatham, should have been made to his majesty, without any knowledge of the other ministers; that such conduct is highly reprehensible, and deserves the censure of the house." Mr. Bathurst was perfectly prepared to vote a censure, though not to institute any farther proceeding. Lord Castlereagh agreed with Mr. Canning, that the most moderate expression of the sense of the house would be best suited to the present occasion." Yet he could have no hesitation in pronouncing the act in question to be unconstitutional, and such an act, as if brought into precedent, might produce much serious mischief. Mr. Windham thought the conduct of Lord Chatham wrong towards his colleagues in office, and still more towards Sir Richard Strachan. But though he allowed it to be highly improper, he could not agree, that it was unconstitu tional. tional. He saw no reason for concluding, that the secrecy of the communication was to be indefinite; neither did he think the paper contained a charge against any person, unless, in as far as an attempt, on the part of the noble lord, to exonorate himself, might be supposed to imply blame in others. The best excuse for Lord Chatham, in not communicating his narrative to his colleagues in the first instance was, that from the situation of the government at home, he did not know who his colleagues were, and therefore went to the fountain head. He would, however, vote for Mr. Whitbread's motion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed great surprise at the conclusion of Mr. Windham's speech, as his arguments were all on one side, and the vote he was to give on the other. It was unquestionably Lord Chatham's intention in writing that narrative, which was his statement and defence, to make it public at some period. He did conceive that it was unconstitutional to communicate that statement directly to his majesty, with a charge of secrecy. This, however, was not a crime, but a venial error, from which no practical inconvenience had occurred. If so, the justice of the case might be satisfied, by adopting the previous question; which would imply, that the offence was of a nature so slight as not to call for a serious judgment. Mr. Whitbread replied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also to Mr. Bankes, and to Mr. Stephen. He was asked, Will you be so inhuman as to tear the stones from the monument of the father, to He bruise the head of the son?" would appeal to those, who had opportunities of judging of his habits and feelings, whether in private life he was capable of violating any of those social affections that bound man to man. But here he was not his own master.He would discharge his duty as an honest and independent servant of the people, and hold up the proud, noble, and constitutional conduct of William, Earl of Chatham, as a glaring contrast with the suspicious, clandestine, and unconstitutional conduct of John, Earl of Chatham. Mr. Whitbread, in the course of his speech, animadverted, in some instances with severity, on the inconsistencies in the evidence given by Lord Chatham, on his examination. There were other inconsistencies, he said, which it was not now necessary for him to dwell on, as they had been so clearly pointed out by his right honourable friend, Mr. Ponsonby.-He trusted, in conclusion, that the house would not suffer the Right Honourable Chancellor of the Exchequer to take refuge under the shabby shelter of the previous question, and give the country an opportunity of saying, that parliament dare not to do its duty. General Loft vindicated the conduct of Lord Chatham, and assured the house, that the noble lord had expressed to him his readiness to come back, and answer to any points in his evidence, that were supposed to want explanation. General Grosvenor, as to the alledged inconsistencies in the noble lord's evidence, said,' he had hoped, that the noble lord, in the conversation he had held with Mr. Whitbread, at the bar, had had satisfied the honourable gentleman, that there was nothing contradictory in his answer. His lordship gave his evidence, one of the days, he could not recollect which, under the disadvantage of indisposition. He was fatigued by the length of the examination. In fact, he was quite done up. On a division of the house, which had become exceedingly clamorous for the question, there appeared For the previous question, 188. Mr. Whitbread's first motion was carried, and he waved the second. Mr. Canning then proposed the amendment mentioned in his speech; and Mr. Whitbread seconded it. This motion being also carried, Mr. Whitbread moved that the resolutions agreed to, be laid before his majesty, by such members as were of his majesty's most honourable privy council: on which some members exclaimed, "By the whole house." This proposition called up Mr. Wilberforce, and Mr. B. Bathurst, both of whom concurred in the wish, that nothing of heat or personality might appear upon the proceedings of the house. The main object had been obtained, by recording on the journals, the sense the house entertained of the transaction, in a constitutional point of view; and proceeding any further would not be for the dignity of the house. Mr. Whitbread coincided entirely with this observation, and with the consent of the house,withdrew his motion. In consequence of these resolutions, Lord Chatham resigned his office of master-general of the ordnance. СНАР. CHAP. V. Summary View of the Impolicy and Misconduct of the Expedition to the Scheldt.-Resolutions moved by Lord Porchester on that Subject.— Debate of four Days.-Lord Porchester's Resolutions negatived.The Conduct of Ministers with regard to the Policy of the Expedition to Walcheren approved.-The Retention of Walcheren also approved. TH HE discussion respecting the Earl of Chatham's narrative, formed a kind of episode in the general inquiry into the Scheldt expedition; but that episode of a nature still more interesting than the main action itself, as involving a question, on the decision of which nothing less depended than the liberty of the country, with all the blessings in her train, or the degradation, torpor, and vices of despotism. While the energies of a country are preserved and fostered by liberty, errors in policy and war may be repaired. Where liberty is extinct, the victories of the despot serve only to rivet the chains that bind his unhappy subjects. Under the impression of this great truth, our intelligent readers will adinit the propriety of bestowing a greater proportion of space in our annals on the discussion of a principle, fundamental to political and civil liberty, than on the causes of the failure of any particular project, on the part of government; though this, at the time, might excite greater interest and livelier passions. House of Commons, March 21. The committee appointed to enquire into the policy and conduct of the expedition to the Scheldt, having finished their long and painful labours, Lord Porchester, who was the principal manager, as well as mover of the investigation, rose to submit a series of resolutions, declaratory of his sentiments, on that most important subject, which had occupied so much of their attention, since the commencement of the present session. Of the expedition in general, Lord Porchester said, he had hoped to find, that such dreadful failures were, at least, in part attributable to those uncontroulable causes, which are incident to all the operations of war, and enterprises dependent for their success, on the state of the elements. But what had the disastrous issue of this expedition proved? To be the result of predicted and anticipated causes. It had verified every prediction, and realized every fear, expressed by all those most competent to decide upon its policy and practicability, but whose opinion, on this occasion, his majesty's ministers did not deem it expedient to follow. This position This position Lord Porchester proceeded to establish, by a clear and comprehensive analysis of the evidence, taken at their bar. The commander in chief, Sir David Dundas, had given it as his opinion, June 3, 1809, that in what • ever |