HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



51 



vated by a knowledge of its con- 

 tents. It appeared to be a special 

 address from the commander of 

 one part of the expedition, appeal- 

 ing to the judgment of his ma- 

 jesty, and actually reflecting upon 

 the conduct of his colleague in 

 the command. He really did not 

 know how the House should pro- 

 ceed, in order to get rid of sucii a 

 paper ; but it seemed highly de- 

 sirable that it should do so. To 

 entertain such a document, would 

 not only be inconsistent with the 

 constitution, but, in his opinion, 

 with common justice. He would 

 be glad to hear from the cliair, in 

 what manner it could be disposed 

 of.^Mr. Tierney said, that had 

 the paper in question been pre- 

 sented in the ordinary and consti- 

 tutional mode, through the secre- 

 tary of state for the war depart- 

 ment, with whom alone lord Chat- 

 liani was directed by his instruc- 

 tions to correspond, it would, no 

 doubt, have been communicated 

 to, the first lord of the admiralty, 

 who would have equally felt it to 

 be his duty to have communicated 

 its contents to sir Richard Stra- 

 chan, and have apprized him that 

 he was to be inculpated by the 

 cpramander in chief of the land 

 part of the armament, for the 

 failure of the expedition. But this 

 secret practice of poisoning the 

 royal breast with doubts and sus- 

 picions of his most zealous and ap- 

 proved servants, while it deprived 

 them of the knowledge, and, of 

 course, the means of repelling 

 tb^jnv, merited, in his opinion, im- 

 peachment, — Mr, C. W. Wynne 

 did not doubt lord Chathann's 

 tight of giving advice, respecting 

 his department, as a minister. As 

 a commander in chief of the ex- 



pedition he had no such right ; 

 though, contrary to all constitu- 

 tional precedent, he delivered the 

 narrative to his majesty, hiding it 

 from the secretary of state care- 

 fully. After a just eulogium on 

 the conduct of the speaker, he 

 said there was never an occasion, 

 on which the house stood so much 

 in want of his assistance, and called 

 upon him to give his opinion. — Mr. 

 Whitbread observed, that the 

 paper was moved for by a private 

 friend of lord Chatham's, and that 

 it did seem as if it was formed for 

 the purpose, to which it was ap- 

 plied, of throwing blame from 

 lord Chatham on sir Ilichard 

 Strachan and the navy. 



General Loft disclaimed any 

 intention on the part of his noble 

 friend, to reflect on the navy. 

 The address referred to, his noble 

 friend was impelled to present, in 

 consequence of an unfortunate 

 letter from sir Richard Strachan, 

 dated the 27th of August. — Mr. 

 R. Dundas said, that it could not 

 be unconstitutional for a minister 

 to deliver a paper to his majesty, 

 or for a peer of the kingdom to go 

 into his royal closet. — Mr. Yorke 

 maintained the same doctrine. — 

 The chancellor of the Exchequer 

 contended, that there was no one 

 circumstance connected with that 

 paper, for which there was not an 

 adequate responsibility. If there 

 was any thing culpable in the cha- 

 racter or constitution of the paper, 

 lord Chatham was responsible for 

 it; and he himself (Mr. Perce- 

 val) was ready to declare, that this 

 was the paper called for by the 

 House.-^Mr. Bathurst was of opi- 

 nion, that the niarrative should bs 

 put out of sight, or lie dormant on 

 the table. When lord Chatham 

 E 2 



