154 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1809. 



lord. He should therefore vote 

 for the resolutions proposed by his 

 noble friend. 



Mr. Graitan liked the candid 

 manner in which lord Chad made 

 his statement. His defence, such 

 as it was, was frank and well- 

 judged, for there was throughout 

 a decent respect for constitutional 

 principles. But, then, what had 

 the noble lord confessed ? That 

 he had evaded a great principle of 

 the constitution; but that he had 

 not so evaded it with a view to 

 attack the constitution, but with a 

 view to accommodate a friend — 

 an offence in either case. But in 

 either the motives were so widely 

 different as strongly to mark a dis- 

 tinction between offences in both. 

 The attack on the constitution 

 was direct ; but then it did not as 

 it stood seem to be one of a series. 

 There did not appear to be any 

 evidence of a system. It stood 

 alone. And it did appear to him 

 that the noble viscount, at the 

 time when he was guilty of that 

 offence was not aware of its 

 extent. But still the offence 

 called for the animadversion of 

 that house. It had been said, 

 that government had a right to 

 use its patronage in its own sup- 

 port.— Then why not all patron- 

 age, civil, military, and ecclesias- 

 tic? — And for what was any go- 

 vernment to be allowed the right 

 of calling forth all its patronage 

 on this specious principle of self- 

 defence? Why, to model the 

 parliament to the government.— 

 All this was to be done in order 

 to new-model the parliament. 

 The house had in a late instance 

 shown a laudable jealousy of cor- 

 rupt practices. How could they 

 now reconcile that jealousy with 



a connivance at this principle ?— 

 A writership might have been 

 given to facilitate a return to par- 

 liament. Though Lord C. had 

 denied any intention of attacking 

 the freedom of parliament, he had 

 not denied that offence. And Mr. 

 Grattan thought it was not pos- 

 sible that the house could refuse 

 to infix upon such a transaction 

 the reprobation due to it. 



Mr. Ponsonby said, that lord 

 C. in proposing to dispose of the 

 writership in the manner stated in 

 the evidence, had not been simply 

 guilty of an abuse of his patron- 

 age as a servant of the crown ; 

 he had been guilty of a violation 

 of the East India acts to a pecu- 

 liar degree, by doing that, which 

 it was the object of that act to 

 prevent, in applying India patron- 

 age for purposes of parliamentary 

 influence. His conduct was not 

 only an offence, but a perversion 

 of the duties of an office created for 

 the purpose of preventing such per- 

 version. Sir F. Burdett, after some 

 prefatory matter about the late- 

 ness of the hour, and the general 

 gravity of Mr. Bankes (who had 

 just spoken, he thought with ludi- 

 crous intention) said, with re- 

 spect to the question before the 

 house, that he could not see any ob- 

 jections to the resolutions proposed 

 by Lord A. Hamilton. Though 

 the fact stated in the second re- 

 solution was not exactly made 

 out by the evidence, that resolu- 

 tion might be easily amended, 

 because the truth was, that the 

 negotiation had failed in conse- 

 quence of the inferior agents not 

 having been able to accomplish 

 what they had undertaken. Did 

 Lord C. perceive, on reflection, the 

 impropriety of his conduct, and 



stop 



