HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



69 



his colleagues, that would certainly 

 be an offence towards then™, but 

 no violation of tlie constitution. 

 Could not lord Ciiatham, after 

 the termination of the expedition 

 on which he had been employed, 

 constitutionally give in writing 

 that statement of his proceedings, 

 which he might verbally commu- 

 nicate to his sovereign ? It had 

 been said, that the part expunged 

 contained serious charges against 

 the gallant admiral who command- 

 ed the naval part of the conjoint 

 force. If that were so, it would 

 be an immoral and criminal act, 

 but not a violation of the consti- 

 tution. Nor was this point ad- 

 verted to in the resolutions. The 

 constitution, Mr. Bankes observed, 

 was an old work. There were 

 many editions of it ; and every 

 one had its own reading. He 

 should tremble for the conse- 

 quences, if once a majority in the 

 House of Commons, on the first 

 view of such a case as that under 

 consideration, sliould take upon 

 itself capriciously to declare what 

 was the law of the constitution. 

 The constitution had powers to 

 guard it from invasion. The re- 

 sponsibility of ministers for the 

 advice they gave to their sove- 

 reign, was one of those powers. 

 But for advice not acted upon, 

 there could be no responsibility, 

 because there was no practical re- 

 sult, and, consequently, no guard 

 provided. His majesty's ministers 

 were responsible, whether the ad- 

 vice came from secret advisers, 

 from the king, or from themselves. 

 Mr. Bankes did not wisli to shelter 

 himself under the previous ques- 

 tion, but would be ready to meet 

 the resolutions with a direct nega- 

 tive. He proceeded to contend, 

 that the narrative, in its amended 



form, contained no charges against 

 the admiral or navy, and that it 

 Iiad been amended at a time when 

 lord Chatham had no idea that 

 he should be examined before 

 that House. 



Earl Temple was surprised at 

 the constitutional ideas of Mr. 

 Bankes. It had been triumph- 

 antly asked, what principle of the 

 constitution had been violated by 

 lord Cliatham's conduct ? Was it, 

 then, nothing, that he had assumed 

 to himself the office of giving 

 clandestine evidence, in his own 

 cause, and for his own defence ; 

 or that he had put himself into 

 the situation to poison the royal 

 ear against the affection, the loy- 

 alty, and the fame of his faithful 

 people ? As to the considerations 

 due to the talents and virtues of 

 the great earl of Chatham, and the 

 late Mr. Pitt, when it was consi- 

 dered, in what the merits of that 

 admirable father, and lamented 

 brother consisted, he was sur- 

 prised, that the House should be 

 forced to look on that picture and 

 on this. It was the similarity, not 

 of name, but of principles, that 

 was re(]uired to sust^iin the cha- 

 racters of men. — Mr. Johnstone, 

 after hearing the speeches of his 

 learned friend, Mr. Stephen, and 

 of Mr. Bankes, was converted to 

 the opinion, that the conduct of 

 lord Chatham had not been more 

 unconstitutitmal than the conduct 

 of the late duke of Portland, and 

 Mr. C;mnin^, in the secret advice 

 given by them, respecting their 

 colleague, lord Castlereagh. His 

 idea of the affair was, iliat lord 

 Chatham had acted improperly, 

 not as a cabinet councillor, but as 

 a general of the army, and he wish- 

 ed that some resolution sliould be 

 adopted, toprevent therecurrence 



