64 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1810. 



qner asked if Mr. Whilbread had 

 not raised considerable prejudices 

 against the individual whose con- 

 duct he had so fully discussed, by 

 contrasting the evidence given by 

 him on the 22nd 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 advan- 

 tage 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 im- 

 puted 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, cor- 

 rectly 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 resolu- 

 tions. He did not wish to evade 

 the subject. He merely-wished to 

 give the House a fair opportunity 

 of reviewing the whole of the evi- 

 dence. He had no objection to 

 state what line of conduct he in- 

 tended to pursue on Monday. He 

 should move the previous question. 

 He concluded with moving an ad- 

 journment of the debate till Mon- 

 day. 



Mr. Brand said, that a splendid 

 victory might apologise for a ge- 

 neral'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 con- 

 duct was highly unconstitutional. 

 The question was, in fact, 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 consi- 

 deration of it. As the question 

 stood, he confessed it could have 

 little effect on his decision. — Mr. 

 Bathurst did not wish to procras- 

 tinate, 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 constitu- 

 tional 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 no- 

 thing, 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 chan- 

 cellor of the Exchequer acceded 

 to Mr. Whitbread's proposition. — 

 The debate on the earl of Chat- 

 ham's narrative was accordingly 

 resumed on Monday the 5th of 

 March. 



General Crawfurd said, that 

 such an intention as that of poi- 

 soning the king's mind against a 

 gallant brother officer, never oc- 

 curred 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 thatthe House, 

 under all the circumstances of the 

 case, would consider it as a venial 

 error. Lord Chatham foresaw 



