rose in pursuance of his previous notice to make a specific motion on this subject, and spoke to the following effect:—Sir, but seven days have elapsed since I felt it to be my duty to submit to the consideration of this House a certain proposition, founded upon a strong and justifiable suspicion, that a line of conduct most unconstitutional and improper had been pursued by a noble lord, at this moment a member of the King's cabinet, and late the commander in chief of the disastrous Expedition to the Scheldt. I then contended, that it was not only the right, but that it became the incumbent duty of this House to call for the production of all documents and papers, touching the important inquiry in which it is engaged, which it had reason to believe were in possession of the crown, and most particularly if they had been communicated in in a way most likely to excite its constitutional jealously, and call for its unbiased and active vigilance. I had the proud satisfaction to find upon that occasion that my humble efforts were not ineffectual;—for to the immortal honor of this House let it be spoken, that, to the address, which it then agreed to have conveyed to the crown, an answer has been since returned, not only fully justifying the course it then found necessary to adopt, but too strongly illustrating and confirming the suspicion, which it thought proper on that occasion to entertain. I must be allowed to repeat that in that instance my efforts were successful in the most extensive sense of the word; for I most sincerely, consider the decision of that night, as forming a most important politicalæra in the history of this empire—anæra to which in distant times posterity will look back with national pride as a great political triumph, and a sound constitutional precedent. Have I not reason also to consider those efforts successful in an unlimitted degree, when I recollect that the decision was obtained in despite of all the power, all the persuasion and all the influence of the ministry? And here I must beg leave to intreat the House to look back to the conduct of the right hon. gentlemen opposite, to retrace and consider the course they have thought proper to pursue upon the occasion.

When the noble earl (lord Chatham) upon whose conduct I felt it my duty to animadvert was at the bar of this House; and when it was endeavoured to extract from him a plain answer to certain direct questions, it was asserted by his Majesty's ministers, that in consideration of the rank and privileges of that nobleman we had no right to press him upon these points. In answer to this doctrine, it was contended by us, that there did and must exist in this House a right to extract from any Individual, brought before us as a witness, the fullest evidence upon all public transactions to which our inquiries were directed—that right we maintained to be indisputable, at the same time admitting that the extreme cases for its exercise were undoubtedly rare. But what course did his Majesty's ministers propose? What line of proceeding did they in the spirit of an affected candour recommend? They told us that there was an easy way to extricate us from our difficulty. That way they stated to be, to proceed by an address to the crown, calling for such documents as we supposed to have been delivered: and, in order to engage us more cheerfully to pursue their recommendation, they assured us of an answer must propitious to our wishes. Such was their recommendation to us; now mark the contrast which their subsequent conduct exhibits. When this very address is proposed which they themselves first recommended, do they fairly act upon their own recommendation? No. They pursue a line of conduct wholly inconsistent with their former professions; they endeavour to defeat it by every exertion with in the grasp of their ineffectual power. Why do I mention this fact? I mention it, that this House should recollect it amongst the long and disgusting enumeration of similar measures of this administration.

To return to the immediate object of my present motion—We now know, from evidence unquestionable, that John, earl of Chatham, in a most unconstitutional and clandestine manner, as a minion and a favourite, has abused the royal confidence, at the same time, and by the same act, that he has violated the most sacred principles, of the constitution.—This knowledge, I say, we are possessed of from undeniable evidence, and it only becomes this House, to take the earliest opportunity of deciding upon that evidence and of expressing, by its recorded resolutions, its high reprobation and just indignation at such proceedings. Had it indeed been an ordinary member of parliament who had been thus guilty; had it been an individual unprotected by the privileges of elevated rank, there would in such circumstances be no necessity for the present motion. The case would have been long ago decided; the indignation of this House would have been before this time vented upon the offending individual. (Hear, hear!) Am I stating any thing which the examination of the noble lord does not fully warrant me in stating? I am confident that I am not. Compare the examination of lord Chatham, on the 22d of February, with his examination on the 27th of the same month; first with one another, and then with the answer, which his Majesty has been pleased to give to your address; and shall not this House act upon that paramount principle, that equal justice ought to be administered, and that the higher the situation of the offender, the greater should be its indignation and its censure? But the individual in this instance is a peer, invested with all the privileges of that exalted rank; still it is the right and the duty of every member of this House to observe upon his conduct, and that duty I feel myself imperiously called upon to perform.

I find then, that John earl of Chatham, the late commander in chief of the expedition to the Scheldt, did, without any consultation with his colleagues in the cabinet, as I most truly believe—without intimating his intention to his brother officer who commanded the naval force upon that expedition, and wholly unknown, save to the royal personage whose confidence he has abused, did I say communicate to that personage a narrative of his proceedings on that expedition, so far back as the 15th of January last. I find that it lay in the possession of that august personage, wrapped up in the most impenetrable secrecy—a secrecy desired by him who presented it, until the 14th of February last. At least, it remained wholly undisturbed until the 7th of that month, when for reasons as yet only known to the earl of Chatham, it was requested of the king to return it to him for correction. I say, reasons as yet only known to that noble lord, for I am sure there is no man who can deny that the reasons since stated by him are so inconsistent and contradictory, that it is impossible to assume that we are acquainted with his real motives. On that day however the noble lord applied to have the document returned to him, for the purpose of alteration. His request was acquiesced in; and what was the alteration which he himself has told you took place? He told you that it consisted in the omission of a paragraph, containing an opinion—an opinion, observe—yet when solicited to state the nature of that opinion, he declares his inability to communicate that most necessary information. (Hear, hear!) His examination proceeds; and the noble lord is asked, when this Narrative so altered was again presented to his Majesty? Mark his answer. He states, that it was tendered by him to his sovereign upon the 14th of February. Struck with the peculiarity of the term 'tendered,' I myself immediately asked the noble lord, what he meant by the expression he had thus used, and whether the Narrative upon that day had actually passed into his Majesty's hands? To this his reply was—that it had not. Here then was a paper presented upon the I5th of January last, conveying at least twelve direct charges against the gallant naval officer who commanded, with an opinion of the noble lord's affixed. An opinion! And am I not bound to presume, that such opinion, so communicated, now not recollected, by the noble lord, went to inculpate the naval officer against whom this very Narrative now revised, contains, as I before stated, twelve direct charges of misconduct? (Hear, hear!).

The House will recollect, that this Narrative in the shape in which it was originally presented, with an opinion affixed, was for twenty-five days in the hands of his Majesty—that there did not since occur any conference, any retraction—that even in its amended, or rather in its altered form, it was not read to the King—that it was not admitted to that royal personage to say to the noble lord, I find your lordship has changed your Narrative, have you also changed your opinion? Is not this an offence of the most aggravated nature against the first principles of our constitution? Is it not an offence that if suffered to escape without the recorded animadversion of this House, is pregnant with the most incalculable evils? Look at the period, when the House of Commons is called upon to exercise its duty upon such transactions. We are now approaching the close of a long reign of a monarch, who above all others, has lived in the hearts and affections of his people. But as a monarch has his peculiar virtues, so has every reign its characteristic features. Most truly can we say of the revered Sovereign of these realms, that his virtues are his own, and that whatever evils have occurred, are to be attributed to the servants who have been successively in the enjoyment of his confidence. What then has been the characteristic feature of this reign? Have we not been told by authorities the most entitled to veracity and confidence, that from its very commencement there has existed a secret, mysterious, and unconstitutional influence, which has set at nought that responsibility which the constitution demands from the advisers of the crown? Has not such a communication been made within the walls of this House, by him who had carried the reputation of this country to the zenith of its glory—by him, who, by his unsullied and exalted patriotism, had acquired that title superior to what united kings could bestow, namely, that of the first commoner of England; I mean him, afterwards created William earl of Chatham? In power, and out of power, in favour and in disgrace, that ever to be venerated, statesman felt the malignant influence of this secret and monstrous conspiracy, which, as he declared existed behind the throne, and was greater than the throne itself. Has he not published it in those speeches, which we have authority to consider as his own; and yet we live in times, when for the very same declaration, men are actually suffering in your gaols. But, if its existence was heretofore problematical, we have it now before us unmasked and unravelled. Strange fatality! that in the son of that very man who first made the bold and awful annunciation, we should find one of the agents of that occult influence which the father so long depreciated and so long resisted.—Long has that fatal influence been but too successful in the accomplishment of its mischief! Vain has been the past efforts to resist or to expose it. Though certain in the realization of its views, it disappeared before it was detected. Whoever were the ostensible servants of the crown; however great and salutary the principles of their policy, or the objects of their administration, their labours were counteracted; their just expectations disappointed. However incessant the toil to weave the web, in one night, in one hour, this invisible power was able to unravel it. It like

—the drudging Goblin sweat

To earn his cream-bowl duly set,

When in one night, ere glimpse of morn,

His shadowy flail had thresh'd the corn

That ten day-labourers could not end;

And stretch'd out all the chimney's length,

Basks at the fire his hairy strength,

And cropful out of doors he flings,

Ere the first cock his mattin rings.

That his Majesty is not in any degree to blame, I am ready to admit, and that his sacred feelings are not to be violated by the course which I propose, is what I also contend. If his honour and his interests have been too long sacrificed to such an unconstitutional influence, it is right that his eyes should be at length opened; opened at the moment when this power is detected in its criminal influence, and unconstitutional exercise. It is right that Parliament should declare that the constitution of this country never will admit of any other advisers, but those who are the avowed, ostensible, and responsible servants of the crown. The House of Commons, now, that it has exposed to its view the exercise of this influence, should take care by the manifestation of its indignation, to warn others from a similar course in future. But in the present instance, is the danger of such an offence limitted to a mere abstract violation of the constitution? Is it a simple sin, not aggravated by the consequences of any actual evil? See what the noble lord has done, and extend your thoughts to what might have probably been the consequence of such conduct: Could he have devised any thing more likely to produce dissentions between the military and naval service, and all that frightful train of evils to which such a calamity would lead? It has been the glory of latter times, that between the two descriptions of our public force, upon all occasions, where the interests of the empire called for their combined exertion, the most zealous co-operation has been manifested. During this long and disastrous war, disastrous as I may say, when applied to the attainment of our original objects, this country has enjoyed the happiness of finding upon no one occasion, the least recognition of those complaints which did unfortunately exist at other periods of its history, and which, if they had now existed, would have been felt in the loss of thousands of our gallant defenders: but, on the contrary, we have uniformly witnessed the same zeal, the same energy, and heroic devotion, animating both descriptions of our defence, each adding to the glory of the other, by the reciprocal assistance afforded when their conjoint operations were demanded. I will not directly charge the noble lord with the intention of creating any disunion between the naval and military branches of the service, but I beg leave to call this House to the contradiction which exists between his own statements, together with their variance with the truth, which his Majesty's answer has unfolded. First, let it be recollected, that the noble lord determined upon his unconstitutional course, at a time when no inquiry into the Expedition to the Scheldt was intended; when in place of such a measure being intended, his colleagues in the cabinet had declared a contrary intention; when he must have known that they would exert all their power and influence to resist or evade it; when he could not contemplate that the public spirit of this House, in unison with the public voice of the country, would wring it from a reluctant but discomfited ministry. It was at such a moment, and under such a state of things, that the noble lord seized the opportunity of darkly and secretly stabbing the constitution of his country, or if not the constitution, of stabbing the naval reputation of sir R. Strachan. But he tells you, that on the 14th of February, he first presented this Narrative to the King. Why that particular time? Because it was a levee day. When questioned further for his reasons for delivering it at all, he states, that he understood it was the intention of sir R. Strachan to present a Narrative of his proceedings. He is further interrogated, and his answer is, that he was anxious that both Narratives should be presented on the same day, as he was unwilling not to deliver his before that of sir R, Strachan. Let the House remember, that the 14th of February was fixed upon by the noble lord, at a time when this House was ignorant, as were his colleagues, of any previous presentation. What were your reasons, (the noble lord is asked,) for selecting that day for this simultaneous operation between you and the naval commander? He had none. Had you any previous communication with that officer?—No. Were you called upon to produce such a statement?—No. Was sir R. Strachan?—I believe not. But you did deliver one on the 14th of February?—I did. Did sir R. Strachan?—I believe not.

Compare these statements with what we now know to have passed before, and there is, I contend, no necessity for comment. Compare his examination on the 22d, with his examination on the 27th, and there is, I contend, no necessity for comment. Yet, after all these statements, shall it be contended, that though twelve direct accusations are conveyed against the navy, there existed no wish or intention upon the part of the noble lord to impute blame to that quarter? What! Is the noble lord then to throw firebrands in sport? Indeed if it could be supposed that in the military service minds could be found liable to be imposed upon, and deluded by such a proceeding, then it were almost impossible to calculate upon the consequent evils. But I confess, as circumstances have now unfolded themselves, I am not at all apprehensive of such consequences; now that the dark and clandestine intrigue is exposed in open daylight, no difference between the two branches of the public service can exist. But both, will, I trust, continue to proceed, evincing the same zeal, cordiality and valour as have heretofore characterised their combined operations. That I may not waste the time of this House, or prevent abler men from addressing more persuasive arguments to its consideration, I now beg leave to conclude, not without some emotions of anxiety—not an anxiety proceeding from any doubts or fears that I entertain as to the propriety of the conduct which I have felt it my duty to pursue; but an anxiety created by the apprehension that I have not done full justice to my country—an anxiety I feel for the decision of this night. I still however, cannot anticipate one hostile objection to the resolutions I shall propose, when I remember what your recent conduct has been when you addressed the crown, even upon the suspicion of an unconstitutional proceeding. When, therefore, you find that the deed which you suspected has been done; when the undeniable proofs are before you, not to pass a vote of censure upon him who has offended, would be not only inconsistent with your former vote, but would be as highly derogatory from your character, as it would be incompatible with your most imperative duties, subversive of the most vital principles of the constitution. (Hear! Hear!). On the contrary, should the vote of this night crown the labours of your former struggle against all the influence of power and favouritism, you will give the best answer to whatever has been stated to your prejudice, exemplifying an integrity of principle, and a spirit of patriotism, which could not be exceeded in any reformation which others, or I myself, would wish to see effected in the constitution of this House. The hon gent, concluded with moving. "1. That it appears to this House, that John, earl of Chatham, having requested his Majesty to permit him to present his report to his Majesty, and having also requested that his Majesty would not communicate it for, the present, did, on the 15th of January last, privately transmit to his Majesty a paper, bearing date the 15th day of October preceding, and purporting to be a Narrative of his proceedings Commander in Chief of his Majesty's land forces in the late Expedition to the Scheldt; and that he withheld all knowledge thereof, both from his Majesty's ministers, and the admiral commanding in the said Expedition, whose conduct is materially implicated in the said Narrative; that the same was, on the 10th day of February last, returned to him by his Majesty's command, in consequence of his own request; and that, on the 14th of February, he again tendered the said Narrative to his Majesty, the same having been previously altered by the suppression of a paragraph, containing matter of opinion, the substance of which, this House by the examination of the said earl of Chatham, has been unable to ascertain.—2. That the earl of Chatham, by private communication to his Majesty, accompanied by a desire of secrecy, did unconstitutionally abuse the privilege of access to his Sovereign, and thereby afford an example most pernicious in its tendency to his Majesty's service, and to the general Service of the State."

complained that a most unfounded misrepresentation had been given by the hon. gent. of his conduct. He had contended, that it was inconsistent to ask a privy counsellor and a cabinet minister to reveal what by oath he was forbidden to disclose. With respect to the inconsistency imputed to him in voting against the Address after he had stated it to be the proper course to address the throne on such occasions, the hon. gent. himself did away the charge while he made it.—He had said, that he would always maintain the right, but always contend for using it with discretion. Saying this, he admitted it to be a fair question, whether or not that was a time, at which it could be used with discretion? He therefore, thinking it improper, could consistently oppose it. With respect to the motion, he hoped the House would not be precipitate, and vote the Resolutions proposed without due consideration. On Thursday, when he was informed that notice had been given of such a motion, he had asked if it was just that the evidence given at their bar should be canvassed before it had been printed. It was not fair to select one or two questions from the evidence, for the purpose of creating a discussion. If that course were to be pursued, of what use was it to print the minutes of the evidence, as gentlemen, who on that account did not regularly attend, could not be prepared for the debate. The hon. gent. seemed, indeed, in some measure aware of the impropriety of taking up the subject in such a manner, as he had expressed an intention of putting the evidence out of the question. But had he not raised considerable prejudices against the individual whose conduct he had so fully discussed, by contrasting the evidence given by him on the 22d with that of the 27th, where it appeared to be of an unfavourable nature? Was it too much to require a short time to consider of it? Would it be well to hurry themselves on an occasion, which might consign the character of an individual to such obloquy as the resolutions went to throw on the noble lord? What advantage could there be in passing those resolutions on a Friday, that might not be gained if they were not decided on till Monday? Would it not be better to postpone them till then, that they might at least have the appearance of deliberatively considering the subject before they gave their vote? It was not well to decide on that evidence which had only been put into their hands since entering the House that day.—The hon. gent. had commented on the evidence given by lord Chatham on the 22d and 27th of February; but could it be supposed that the House was prepared to enter into the subject? If the conduct of the noble lord had been such as had been imputed to him, he should think the resolutions submitted to the House not sufficiently severe. If lord Chatham had endeavoured secretly to blast the character of sir R. Strachan, he would readily admit that no censure the House could pass on such conduct would be too severe. But was there any thing in the conduct of lord Chatham that could give a colour to such a charge? Was there any thing in his character that could justify such an imputation? He would have them try it by dates and by circumstances. If it had been his object to gratify any malignant motive, he was of opinion he would have adverted very different measures. He was not the advocate of the noble lord; under all the circumstances, he thought his conduct in presenting the Narrative such as no man could thoroughly approve; but it remained to be seen what degree of censure he might deserve. He would try the dates to see whether or not any malignant motive towards sir R. Strachan could be fairly imputed to him. If his Narrative was intended to injure the character of that officer, why in the name of reason and of sense, did he keep it back at all? On what principle could it be supposed that he delayed to present it till the 15th Jan.? If it were intended to injure sir R. Strachan privately, would lord Chatham ever have recalled it with a view to have it published? For the situation in which the noble lord stood, he felt himself to be in some degree responsible; and unless his mind changed very much, he would never place an officer in a similar situation, to unite in himself the cabinet minister with the general officer.—The inconveniences arising cut of that circumstance, which he had not anticipated, were of such magnitude, that he would never again blend the two characters. If at a future period a member of the cabinet should be thought a proper person to conduct an Expedition, he would wish his functions as a cabinet minister to be suspended for the time. The noble lord, acting as he did, was certainly not correctly right, but it was not fair thence to argue that on any question he could not give advice without his colleagues being acquainted with the circumstance. He might have been in some degree driven into the measure by the popular feeling excited against him. It was not too much to say, that after the evidence had been given at their bar, the Current of public indignation running unjustly strong against him, it was not unnatural for the noble lord to think it would not be prudent to produce his case or defence, before he knew what counter statements were to be made, that such might not appear to answer his. Again, he wished the House to observe that he was not the advocate of the noble lord; though in the view he took of his conduct he could see error; he could not consent to bestow the epithets proposed; he could not accede to the resolutions. He did not wish to evade the subject; he merely wished to give the House a fair opportunity of reviewing the whole of the evidence. He had no objection to state what line of conduct he intended to pursue on Monday. He should move the previous question.—The Narrative had, been spoken of as if it had been constructed with a view of creating differences between the army and navy? There were no more grounds for such a statement than if the substance of that Narrative had been given in evidence at the bar. The hon. gent. had stated the paper to have been drawn up by the noble lord at a time when he knew that ministers were determined to grant no inquiry. He denied the truth of that assertion. It was determined to give the House such papers as would prove that no culpability attached itself to the army or navy, long before the paper was delivered It was for the House, then, to determine on calling for more if it should think more necessary, but, unsolicited, it was the intention of government to give so much at least. Gentlemen, however, on the other side thought they had nothing to do but to wait to see what government did, and then whatever line of conduct they might adopt, condemn their measures, and assert, that had the contrary course been pursued all would have been well. If the noble lord had merited the imputations thrown out against him, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would have said that he ought no longer to have been a colleague of his, But under the present circumstances, if ministers had acted so, and said he should no longer have remained one of their number, it would directly have been imputed to them that they had basely taken advantage of the slip of their colleague, and sacrificed him as a peace offering to the people, for that misconduct which ought to have been visited in vengeance upon the whole of his Majesty's government. He had no difficulty in saying, that under such circumstances in a balanced case, he would support a colleague. He begged, however, not to be misunderstood: he did not mean to say if a colleague was wrong he should, under any circumstances, be supported. But in a ballanced case, where a colleague was merely in error, he thought by deserting his cause, he should be exposed to more merited reprobation than could otherwise fall to his share, justice, decency, and propriety alike called on them to postpone coming to a decision on the resolutions that night; he therefore concluded by moving an adjournment of the debate till Monday.

said, that in his opinion the proposition now submitted to the House went no farther than as being confirmatory of the facts contained in his Majesty's message. Having said so much, he should, notwithstanding, have no objection, to adjourning the discussion till Monday. He could not forbear remarking, however, on the mode in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had conducted the defence of a Cabinet Minister, in a matter submitted to the House as a great constitutional question, but which he wished to reduce to a mere personal consideration. Instead of treating the subject in a high tone, he thought, his hon. friend had introduced it with the greatest moderation. He was of opinion that the conduct of the noble lord had been highly unconstitutional. A great man, now no more (Mr. Burke) had described the secret influence of the advisers of the crown as destructive to the best interests of the country. On this principle he contended, that in the present instance the constitution had been outraged. His hon. friend had therefore, properly treated the question as affecting the constitution. It was in fact, a question of constitutional law, not at all one of personal application. If the evidence delivered that day had gone to affect this constitutional question, he should have been the most eager to postpone the consideration of it. As it stood, he confessed the evidence could have little effect upon his decision. A splended victory might apologize for a general's overstepping his duty; but here a favourite of the court was seen availing himself of the ear of his Sovereign, to prepossess him against another officer, in another branch of the service. The navy was the grand bulwark to which we must trust for humbling our enemies, and it was the duty of the House to see that no court favourite should presume to interfere to the prejudice of a gallant and meritorious naval commander.

said, if this was a question, both of a constitutional nature and one affecting a private individual at the same time, it was desirable, that in attending to the one, the other should not be prejudged. He therefore wished the debate to be adjourned, not that he thought it material, if the question were taken on the broad principle, but because he saw both the Narrative and the Evidence adverted to in one of the motions. Gentlemen, who were not present, might attach some importance to this, and he wished, that there should be no excuse for saying, they had acted without evidence. He was free to admit, if he did not hear something much stronger than he had yet heard in the way of apology for the noble lord, he should not be able to find an excuse for his conduct, but, however reluctantly, must view it as making much more strongly against him than his right hon. friend seemed disposed to admit. His right hon. friend said, he trusted the House would see it to be their duty to pass it by, and agree to the previous question. This was what he could not agree in. If any thing of weight should be adduced, he should then have an opportunity of altering his opinion; but to this doctrine he could not at present agree. He did not wish to procrastinate, but he wished it should be impossible to say, that this had been treated like a party question, seeing it was so much beyond it, being one of great constitutional importance, in the consideration of which time was no object. He was desirous that no person should have it in his power to say, he had been taken by surprise.

stated, that he understood it had been adjusted in his absence, that his motion was to proceed that night. He thought himself justified in bringing it forward to night, without the evidence being before the House, as it would be sufficient for him simply to refer to a few lines of the minutes lying on the table. It was somewhat strange in the right hon. gent. to ask the discussion to be postponed till Monday, and at the same time to state, that he would then move the previous question. He was willing to consent, however, that the debate should be adjourned till Monday, on this express condition, which gentlemen would think he acted not injudiciously in stipulating for, that nothing, so far as the right hon. gent. was concerned, should be suffered to interfere to prevent this business coming on first on Monday.

expressed his opinion that the noble earl would be found not to have acted in any respect unbecoming his character.

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