HISTORY OF EUROPE. 71 



fiersonal regard he entertained for 

 ord Chatham, expressed his sur- 

 prise and astonishment, that gen- 

 tlemen of such knowledge, ability, 

 and experience, as Mr. Stephen 

 and Mr. Bankes, should ask, where 

 is the charter— where the statute 

 — where the written decree, vio- 

 lated by the proceeding of the 

 earl of Chatham? When the great 

 body of the municipal law ol the 

 country, the common law of Eng- 

 land, was technically character- 

 ized as unwritten, did a lawyer 

 ask that question ? When the 

 great and most valuable part of 

 the law of parliament and of the 

 constitution, had never been in- 

 serted in any charter, statute, or 

 written decree, did an old and ex- 

 perienced member of parliament 

 ask that question ? It was from 

 the practice of parliament, from 

 the usage of our ancestors, con- 

 firmed and perfected, by the in- 

 valuable usage of modern times, 

 that we were to derive the law of 

 parliament, and of the constitu- 

 tion. The practice of the consti- 

 tution formed the law of the con- 

 stitution. From the history of the 

 countr}', even the least settled and 

 most uninformed periods of our 

 annals, Mr. Adam showed, that it 

 was a clear and well ascertained 

 principle of the constitution, that 

 to give bad counsel to the king, 

 was in itself and by itself most 

 criminal against the state ; prose- 

 cutable and punishable, according 

 to the practice and usage of par- 

 liament. If it wereotherwi.se, he 

 asked, how could we come at any 

 guilty adviser without coupling an 

 act with theadvice? Heexamined 

 the doctrine of the hon. gentle- 

 men, by the analogy of the law of 

 high treason. Did the laws of 



treason require that the intention 

 of the traitor should be carried 

 into effect, in order to constitute 

 that heinous crime? As to the 

 allegation of Mr. Bankes, that a 

 cabinet council was unknown to 

 the constitution, Mr. Adam ob- 

 served, that the king had, at all 

 times, selected certain persons of 

 the privy council, in whom he 

 more particularly confided, and by 

 whose advice he more particularly 

 acted. That selection in the reign 

 of Charles II. was nick-named 

 "The Cabal." Now-a-days it 

 was called a Cabinet Council. But 

 in reality, it was a selection of the 

 privy council, who was at all limes 

 known to the law and the consti- 

 tution. That the conduct of lord 

 Chatham was against the practical 

 constitution of the country, Mr. 

 Adam proceeded to prove from 

 history, and great legal authori- 

 ties. He pointed out also the evil 

 effects in practice, attending such 

 a course as the delivery of the 

 narrative by the earl of Chatham 

 — on the most conscientious con- 

 viction, that he had delivered the 

 true doctrine of the constitution, 

 he felt himself bound to vote in 

 the terms of the second resolution, 

 " That the earl of Chatham, by 

 private communication to iiis ma- 

 jesty, &c." 



The SoliciiorGeneral observed, 

 that the main ingredient, in the 

 alleged criminality of lord Chat- 

 ham, was the secrecy requested. 

 But this was only temporary. 

 And what one object could that 

 kind of temporary secrecy answer? 

 His lordship had, of bis own free 

 motion, made that secret paper 

 public. Mr. Ponsonby contended, 

 that the proceeding of lord Chat- 

 ham was most unconstitutional; 



