66 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1810. 



Mr. Stephen observed, that the 

 motion was founded on the mere 

 abstract fact that the earl of 

 Cliatham did present a paper to 

 his majesty, desiring, at the same 

 time, tiiat it might be kept secret ; 

 and that on this foundation it was 

 assumed that the noble lord, a 

 cabinet councillor, had violated 

 that sacred system, the British 

 constitution. If the principle was 

 laid down, that the mere present- 

 ing a paper, and. requesting that 

 it might be kept secret, was a vio- 

 lation 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 shown to 

 have been laid down, that to pre- 

 sent 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 "e could judge upon such a 

 question. He did not stand there 

 to defend the noble lord from the 

 imputation of error. He admit- 

 ted, with other gentlemen wiio 

 had already spoken on that occa- 

 sion, that the noble lord had acted 

 erroneously, and unbecominjjly ; 

 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 consti- 

 tution. It was not because a 

 thing had a dangerous tendency,' 

 that it was to be visited in the 

 way the present motion suggested .^ 



Luxury was dangerous to the con- 

 p'tivUiion. But it would rather be 

 going too far to contend, that, 

 because a man chose to give a vo- 

 luptuous entertainment, he should 

 be severely censured, as guilty of 

 an offenceagainstthe constitution. 

 He could mention other things, 

 which were still more dangerous 

 — party spirit — factious combina- 

 tion. 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 con- 

 duct stigmatized in the manner 

 now contendetl for. Mr. Stephen 

 thought that there was another 

 question of very material import- 

 ance, namely, whether, though the 

 motion proposed might at one time 

 or other be thougtit proper, this 

 was the time? In his opinion, the 

 noble lord had been hardly dealt 

 with, in hiiving been made the ob- 

 ject of unfounded clamour, unjust 

 prejudice, and unbounded ca- 

 lumny. 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 

 journals 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 6f which 

 he iiad the command, on perceiv- 

 ing that he had already done all 

 that could be effected. He could' 

 not r.dmit presumptions to weigh 

 against the noble lord, who cer- 

 tainly had some hereditary claims 

 to a patient hearing in that House. 

 He had also dispensed with his 

 privilege, and come to the bar of 

 the -House to be examined, there-* 



