quer asked if Mr. Whitbread had 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? What advantage could there be in passing the resolutions moved for on a Friday, that could not be gained if they were not decided on till Monday? 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's narrative was intended to injure the character of Sir R. Strachan, why did he keep it back at all? The noble lord, acting as he did, was not, certainly, correctly right. But he might, in some degree, have been driven into the measure by the popular feeling excited against him. Though, in the review he took of his conduct, he could see error, 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. He concluded with moving an adjournment of the debate till Monday.

Mr. Brand said, that a splendid victory might apologise 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. His conduct was highly unconstitutional. The question was, in fuct, a ques tion of constitutional law, not at all one of a personal application! If the evidence delivered that day had affected that constitutional question, he should have been the most eager to postpone the consideration of it. As the question stood, he confessed it could have little effect on his decision.—Mr. Bathurst did not wish to procrastinate, but he wished it to be, im possible to say that this had been treated like a party question. It was a question of great constitutional importance, in the consi deration of which time was no object.-Mr. Whitbread was will. ing to consent that the debate should be adjourned till Monday, on the express condition that nothing, so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was concerned, should be suffered to interfere, to prevent that business from coming on first on Monday. The Chancellor of the Exchequer acceded to Mr. Whitbread's proposition.The debate on the Earl of Chatham's narrative was accordingly resumed on Monday the 5th of March.

General Crawfurd said, that such an intention as that of poisoning the king's mind against & gallant brother officer, never occurred to Lord Chatham's mind. If the noble earl had incurred blame by putting his narrative in the hands of his majesty, without the privity or consent of his col leagues, he trusted that the house; under all the circumstances of the case, would consider it as a venia! error. Lord Chatham foresaw

that

Mr. Stephen observed, that the motion was founded on the mere abstract fact that the Earl of Chatham did present a paper to his majesty, desiring, at the same time, that it might be kept secret; and that on this foundation it was assumed that the noble lord, a cabinet counsellor, had violated that sacred system, the British constitution. If the principle was laid down, that the mere presenting a paper, and requesting that it might be kept secret, was a violation of the constitution, he must deny that it was any violation of the constitution. In what law or charter, in what dictum, even of any theorist, could it be shewn to have been laid down, that to present a paper to the king, and to require secrecy concerning it, was a violation of the constitution? In the practice of this country, and the progress of its constitution, he ventured to assert, that no such principle had been countenanced; and it was only from our written law, and established precedent, that we could judge upon such a question. He did not stand there to defend the noble lord from the imputation of error. He admitted, with other gentlemen who had already spoken on that occasion, that the noble lord had acted erroneously, and unbecomingly; and that he would have acted in a way more befitting himself, and more properly towards the house, if he had at first declared what had passed. But he could not go the length of saying, that the noble lord had violated the constitution. It was not because a thing had a dangerous tendency, that it was to be visited in the way the present motion suggested. Lux

ury was dangerous to the consti tution. But it would rather be going too far to contend, that, because a man chose to give a voluptuous entertainment, he should be severely censured, as guilty of an offence against the constitution. He could mention other things, which were still more dangerous

party spirit-factious combination. These were infinitely more dangerous than the influence of the crown, of which so much had lately been said. But he was sure gentlemen on the other side would not say that those who were guilty of such dangerous practices, were on that account to have their conduct stigmatized in the manner now contended for. Mr.Stephen thought that there was another question of very material importance, namely, whether, though the motion proposed might at one time or other be thought proper, this was the time? In his opinion the noble lord had been hardly dealt with, in having been made the object of unfounded clamour, unjust preju dice, and unbounded calumny, From what he had read of the evidence, he was satisfied not only that there was no ground for the censure re-echoed by various jour nals against the noble lord, but that he did all that could be done: and that he had even had the merit of saving the army of which he had the command, on perceiv ing that he had already done all that could be effected. He could not admit presumptions to weigh against the noble lord, who cer+ tainly had some hereditary claims to apatient hearing in that house. He had also dispensed with his privilege, and come to the bar of the house to be examined, thereby

clearly

clearly shewing that he had no wish for the concealment of any part of his conduct. The accusers of Lord Chatham turn round on him even when making his defence, and tell him, "We will punish you even for the defence you wish to make. It is a libel." In any court to do so would be deemed an act of injustice. Mr. Stephen had received no favours from the late Mr. Pitt. He was scarcely known to him. There were, however, gentlemen in that house who stood in a very different situation. He called on them to assist him-to see that the son of Lord Chatham, and the brother of Mr. Pitt, should at least have justice done him. He was not one of those who thought that the merits of an illustrious father should excuse the offences, or even the faults of the son. But, at the same time, he would not pluck stones from the monument of the father to bruise the head of the son. The error into which the noble lord had fallen, was, in a great measure, to be pardoned, when he found himself loaded with calumny, though in his anxiety to vindicate himself in the eyes of his royal master, he had forgot the mode and manner. Nor was it to be forgotten, that Lord Chatham was not the first who had thought proper to offer what might be deemed justifications of themselves. Dispatches from the naval officers had been received which could be construed into nothing else. Mr. Stephen concluded with observing, that the resolutions moved for were such as he could not assent to as an honest man. They would, at least, be premature, if they were themselves just, which he did not admit; and

therefore he now moved the previous question.

Mr. Brougham was ready to assent to every commendation that had been bestowed on the general character and conduct of Lord Chatham. True it was, that Lord Chatham had been most grossly calumniated, and basely traduced, by the whole of the press under the controul of the government. Until the commencement of the present inquiry, the impression on the public mind was, that the lamentable disappointment of all the sanguine hopes of the country, from the powerful expedition to the Scheldt, was wholly owing to Lord Chatham. Such was the effect of the base and unprincipled calumnies against Lord Chatham, asserted with confidence, and un.. contradicted by authority. But it was admitted, by his honourable and learned friend [Mr. Stephen] that the conduct of Lord Chatham had been improper, and unbecom ing. There was then but a trifling difference between what was thus admitted, and what was contended for by those who supported the resolutions. It was so minute and unpalpable, that he was surprised it should produce any variance of opinion. Mr. Brougham came next to shew how the conduct of Lord Chatham was a violation of the constitution. There was nothing stated in the resolutions charging any part of the contents of the narrative as a breach of the constitution. It was the privacy with which the affair was conducted, coupled with the request of secrecy, that constituted the viólation of the constitution. It might› be difficult for him, perhaps, to point out any particular act of parliament making such conduct