correspondence of the Admiralty, there | no such thing: he only went so far as to was no question on these occasions of breach of trust. But to this charge of breach of trust and violation of official duty, he would reply, that ministers had his majesty's confidence each in their several departments, and that that confidence implied they were to exercise their discretion either in using or withholding, except in consequence of his command or an address, any correspondence in their respective offices. If documents were to be produced on every occasion; if no information was to be communicated but in the manner stated by the hon. gent.; the business of parliament, and of this great, prosperous, and happy country, must stand still.-The right hon. secretary then stated, that as a high criminal charge was preferred against him, he should withdraw, and throw himself upon the judgment of the house. He withdrew accordingly, amidst loud cries of "question, question.' Mr. Windham and Mr. Whitbread contended, that this was not a case when it was necessary for the right hon. secretary to withdraw, and appealed to the authority of the chair. The Speaker said, that he had looked into precedents on this point, and found that the uniform custom on such occasions was for the person accused to withdraw. Mr. Windham lamented, that the circumstance of the right hon. secretary having withdrawn from the house, prevented him from answering as fully the arguments of that right hon. gent. as he should have felt himself bound to do if he had been present. He then proceeded to touch lightly on the different precedents, as they were called, which the right hon. secretary had called in to his aid; and maintained, that not one of them was such as could bear out that right hon. gent. in the inferences which he had drawn from them. From the rarity of those instances which that right hon. gent. could, with the utmost stretch of his ingenuity, suppose to be at all analogous, it was pretty evident that, at least, such was not the general practice of parliament. But, putting all question of authority or precedent aside, the right hon. gent. said, Would it be argued that, in no case whatever, a person who was in an official situation, should make any communication to that house, of what came to his knowledge, in his public capacity as a servant of the crown? The fact was, that his hon. and learned friend who made the motion, said say, that no minister ought to be suffered to read, at his own pleasure, such partial extracts from official documents as might tend to mislead the judgment, and give a wrong turn to the decision of that house. But then, said the right hon. secretary, It is difficult to know where to draw a precise line in such cases.' Even so: admitting that, was it to be said, that for that reason we were to have no line at all? was it to be said, that because, in a case where there was obviously no mischief to be apprehended, a practice something like this was suffered to pass without any formal reprobation on the journals, and with only a slight personal censure; was that a reason why we should allow the practice to prevail unnoticed, to the most unlimited extent that any person in office might think fit? It was one thing to place confidence in his majesty's ministers collectively; or in any one giving information, either when called upon in that house, or when ordered officially to do so by his majesty; but it was another, and a very different line of conduct, for one of his majesty's ministers to ransack the archives of his office, for the purpose of finding out such documents as might be serviceable to him; to pick out what scraps he pleased, and read them when he thought proper, and in what manner he thought proper, with a view to a personal triumph in debate; and afterwards to refuse the house an opportunity of reading those documents and judging for themselves, when they were told, from high authority, that a false colour was given to them by that partial reading. The house owed it to the character of lord Howick, and to the character of Mr. Garlike, to express its disapprobation of such conduct in the present instance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer concurred in every principle and sentiment that had been laid down by his right hon. friend, and did not hesitate to declare, that of all the charges and accusations he had ever heard, none appeared to him to have so little foundation in argument or precedent as that now made against his right hon. friend. His hon. and learned friend had alluded to the profession he had formerly followed, and he would now answer him in the language of that profession, that all his arguments went only to open a nonsuit, and that every step he advanced, the deeper he laboured to involve himself in difficulties. The charge now stated in the resolutions, was not that the dispatch was garbled, but the objection was to the shape in which it appeared, that of an extract. Yet was not every communication made to the house uniformly made in that shape? The same objections would lay to any other extract, even that of a private letter which any member might choose to read as a part of his speech. Mr. Whitbread declared that he lamented the absence of the right hon. secretary on his own account; as he was, owing to that, deprived of the pleasure of witnessing the change in the conduct of his right hon. friend (the chancellor of the exchequer) towards him since the 8th of Feb. when he (Mr. Canning) was entirely deserted, not only by that right hon. and learned gent. but by all his colleagues. The right hon. gent. might have gone away satisfied in some degree with the effect of his own lively speech; that speech, however, he must confess, had made no impression on his mind. tion it as a matter of blame in the noble lord. He might have the leave of his majesty to read it, but it was certainly a case very strongly in point on the present occasion. Mr. Adam.-Sir; it is now my privilege to rise in reply; and considering the manner in which this subject has been treated by gentlemen on the other side of the house, and particularly by the right hon. gent. who has left the house, I have no doubt but that I shall be heard with attention.—I have to regret, from the very bottom of my heart, that the right hon. gent. has thought it proper to retire before he heard my answer to some of his statements, because I detest the idea of saying behind a man's back, that which affects himself personally. But he is the cause of this, and not me. I must desire his friends who remain to report to him, and to state the positive contradiction which I am about to give to a matter which he stated respecting myself. Which I shall do, I can assure you, Lord Castlereagh said, the arguments sir, much as I feel the injury of his misreurged by his two right hon. friends were presentation, in language perfectly parliaso extremely forcible and convincing, that mentary. Sir, I must begin with this, behe should only say a very few words. He cause I am determined to set myself right, then went over his former argument, that not only from the misrepresentation of the his right hon. friend had refused the mo- fact, but from being supposed capable of tion of the 8th of Feb. for those papers, having accused another of a transgression because he had been charged with which I had myself committed. The right reading them for a purpose which he dis- hon. gent. was pleased to say, that I had claimed; and the noble lord thought if myself, on a former occasion, transgressed the motion was agreed to, it would so bind the usage which I now contend for in the the house up, that it would be next to im- motion I have now made. The right hon. possible to read any information to the gent. chose to introduce this with a despihouse. He should therefore support the cable witticism. "A pension during pleaamendment, and vote for the order of the sure (he said) oh, no, it was not, it was the day. profit, not the pleasure, that the learned gent. who made this motion, looked to.” Sir, I challenge him, or any other man, to cite an instance, in my life, that could serve to justify any unworthy insinuation on that score, or that can warrant a charge on my independence. That right hon. gent. may look to profit and power, and insinuate against others, what he feels in himself. But I will not permit him to charge me with such motives of action. But, to return to the subject, sir, the representation which has been made by the right hon. gent. respecting my conduct about lord Cullen's pension, is not supported by the fact. A fact which passed in the presence of the house and of which I have the most perfect recollection. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, in moving the finance committee, threw out most injuriously, some reflections Mr. Sturges Bourne was sorry, that in all arguments of this kind a great deal of party spirit and party animosity was too often introduced. In the instance he was about to introduce, he declared he did not mean to impute any blame to the noble lord for having done. as he did; but as so much stress had been laid on reading extracts of dispatches by the other side of the house, he could not help mentioning a case of that nature which happened not a year ago. At that time a change of ministry having recently taken place, lord Howick, in the absence of ministers, who were then in the country attending their elections, had produced, and read to the house, an extract from an official document, made on the subject of a private interview between his sovereign and himself. He repeated that he did not men against the late ministers for pensions granted in Scotland. I was ill at the time, and did not hear him. But lord Howick communicated it to me, saying, the only unpleasant thing was a pension said to be granted to a judge during pleasure; and wished me, as probably acquainted with the transaction, from my connection with that part of the country, to give an account of it. In consequence of that, I moved for the pension warrants to be laid on the table. In making that motion, I stated, certainly, though I say it of myself, in a manner to create no irritation or debate, the circumstances which gave rise to the proposed pension; and, in doing so, it was a necessary part of my narrative to state, that a noble duke, now at the head of his majesty's government, proposed to obtain that pension for the learned judge. A noble lord, nearly connected with the duke of Portland, who was present at the statement, without leaving the house, rose and said, that he was authorised to deny that the duke of Portland had ever had any intention to grant a pension to that learned judge. He had, indeed, once thought of obtaining a small pension to the lady of the judge, but that he had abandoned. I had occasion to rise in reply, and to vindicate the truth of my original assertion, which was positively contradicted by the noble marquis (lord Titchfield); and not thinking it sufficient, and it would not have been sufficient, to set my assertion against the other, I read from a note of the learned judge, written after an interview with the duke of Portland, a statement, that he had seen the duke, had made him master of all the circumstances, and that his grace desired to see me on the subject of his (the learned judge's) pension. This is the real state of the case, it passed in the presence of you, sir, and the house, and I defy it to be contradicted. I ask, then, sir, if this bears any, the least resemblance, to what was stated by the right hon. gent. and whether he has not completely misrepresented the fact? I ask if this reading a private note, is like a minister reading public dispatches—if reading it to induce the house to grant a paper or warrant, is like a minister reading dispatches, to influence the vote of this house, and to make a part of his own defence, and which he does not lay upon the table? But, sir, I did not even do what I here suppose. I did not read any note or letter; in the first instance, I read it in answer to an allegation, made in contradiction to my statement, to VOL. X. prove the fact to be as I stated it, and which did prove it to be so. But the right hon. gent. is not only so much mistaken in his fact, that it cannot aid; but he has shewn in the statement of it, such a determination to misrepresent, that I cannot hesitate now to say, that there is good reason to believe, from his haying misrepresented this fact, that he did garble the documents which he read on the 3rd of Feb. So that, this is not only a case which does not aid his defence, but it is a case in which he has been guilty of absolute misrepresentation, and which affords the strongest reason to conclude, that his conduct has been that which it has been charged to have been, when he read the dispatches. I trust, sir, that by this statement, I have clearly destroyed the authority of the case derived from my own conduct.-Let us see now, sir, how his other case stands he tells us that Mr. Pitt, when charged by Mr. Fox, did the same thing, and for some purpose he states, that I have represented Mr. Pitt's character in glowing colours, and have not, I suppose he means, spoken in the same terms of Mr. Fox. Sir, I spoke of Mr. Pitt, as I felt on the occasion to which I was referring, and speaking of a great man, who is no more, with whom I never had any political connection, but constant political difference, I think I did right to speak of his character and conduct as I felt it; the occasion being one of strict adherence to constitutional ground. But sir, with Mr. Fox, I not only always acted, but I lived with him in habits of the closest intimacy and friendship. I feel, in praising Mr. Fox, the sort of indelicacy that belongs to praising publicly, a person closely connected and belonging as it were to oneself. It is not that I do not hold the character of that great man and most illustrious senator, above all those of his time; it is not that I do not daily lament his loss; but that it is unnecessary and almost unfit, that I should detail those sentiments to the house. But, sir, with respect to the case cited to justify the act of the right hon. secretary, which my motion calls in question, I deny that it has the least influence in justifying his conduct. The right hon. secretary did on the 3rd of Feb., take from his box a great many dispatches on different subjects, and read them to the house in part, put them back into the box, and thus influenced the decision of the house, by them, and refused to let the house have them as evidence or documents, to exa3 N tutional argument for secrecy. He must refuse the papers, and the only ground he had for inducing the house to agree with him was, to state parts of those very papers which he refused. Sir, the manner in which the right hon. gent. has attacked me in defending himself makes it necessary for me to state the truth.-[A laugh from the government benches.]Sir, if I have committed a lapsus lingua in the hurry of speaking, it argues no folly in the person speaking, whatever folly may be attached to those who raise the laugh, Sir, I have in my motions and in my opening stated nothing but truth, but I stated it in temperate and civil language. and I have put no coarse expression in the motion. But the vindictive spirit of the defence, and my being falsely accused of a vindictive spirit, entities me to say now with truth, that he did garble the dispatches which he read, and that having assigned false causes for his attack on Co tion on the ground of confidence, but was obliged to have recourse to garble the dispatches, which he read to this house. The gentlemen on the other side say, that the cases I quoted do not bear me out, and that as no motion was made on them, that mine whether he stated correctly, what was contained in them. But what was the case which he cited? Mr. Fox accused Mr. Pitt of not having had pacific dispositions; Mr. Pitt, in reply, says, I had pacific dispositions, and to prove it, he takes from his pocket a dispatch nine years old, and reads it to satisfy Mr. Fox, who had made a personal charge against Mr. Pitt's inclinations to peace, which Mr. Fox says, he is sorry he had not made public earlier. Now is this in the least like the case in question? Mr P. was not required to lay the paper on the table; Mr. P. was not influencing the decisions of the house by the paper; but he was satisfying an individual objection to the pacific character of his admi-I said nothing vindictive or personal, nistration, and to confirm his assertion, he read the dispatch of nine years old, and he read it throughout; how can this be compared with the conduct to which my motion refers? Does this drive me from the principle stated by Mr. Pitt in 1792? quite the reverse, it leaves his conduct and the principle I contend for quite untouch-penhagen, he could not refuse informaed. Why did not the right hon. gent. follow it why, because his previous misconduct and misrepresentation had made it quite impossible for him to rest on constitutional ground, and to comply with the usages of parliament. He had published a declaration, in which he made his maproves there was nothing irregular jesty tell all Europe, that the affair of done, and that Mr. Fox, being a political Copenhagen was justified by the secret enemy of lord Melville, his reprimand is article of the treaty of Tilsit-so it stands no authority Sir, I deny the accuracy of in the first declaration-in the second de- this reasoning-the cases to be found are claration respecting Russia, the talk of se- but two-they are slight transgressions, cret arrangements at Tilsit, as justifying compared to that which I am now centheir measure-but in his majesty's speech suring, and the mere notice was thought they drop these justifications entirely, and sufficient to check them But what was they call it a painful-(not a just-the the conduct to which my motions refer? usual expression)—but a painful and ne- -A secretary of state for three hours tocessary measure. It was incumbent upon gether, taking from his box state paper them to answer all this in parliament; they after state paper, reading them partially, had publicly declared the ground on commenting upon them, and replacing which they had attacked Copenhagen, and them in his box, and thereby influencing they had declared false ground-they could debate and decision-refusing, and prenot have recourse to Mr. Pitt's consti- vailing on the house to refuse, information tutional defence in 1792-he had made no by these very statements, on which he false declarations to embarrass him, there- rested his case. Was this like the transfore when he refused papers he desired action in 1725? The duke of Newcastle the house to confide in him, that there stated but a short passage, and that was were secrets of state, the disclosure of objected to, as contrary to parliamentary which would injure the public-that he re- usage.-Lord Melville read but a passage, quired not a base and servile, but an ho- and that was immediately objected tonourable and constitutional confidence. but it was objected to by his political eneBut the conduct of the right hon. gent.my, Mr. Fox. I ask, in answer, was it jusby his previous unfounded justification had deprived him of all right to confidence, and of all means of using it-that consti it tified by his political friend Mr. Pitt?No, never-It therefore remains a reprobated and an unjustified transgression. I am accused, sir, by the hon. gent. who spoke | some among them are guilty of the greatlast, with having myself committed a most violent offence against order, by having introduced a question with reference to a former debate, at the distance of a month. Sir, I have done no such thing. Your attention to the orders of this house would have checked me if I had done so. My motion is founded upon what appears on the journals of the 8th of Feb. On that day a motion was made, and the question being put, "That an humble address be presented to his maj. that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this house a copy of the dispatch from lord visc. Howick to Mr. Garlike, dated London Dec. 3, 1806, an extract from which was read by Mr. secretary Canning in his place in this house on Wednesday last, and the Answer of Mr. Garlike thereto," it passed in the Regative. Resolved, that an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this house copy of the Note delivered by Mr. Rist to lord viscount Howick, relative to the Order in Council of January 7, 1807, and the Answer thereto, extracts from which were read by Mr. Secretary Canning in his place in this house on Wednesday last. Ordered, That the said address be presented to his majesty by ⚫ such members of this house as are of his majesty's most honourable privy council,' These entries are unparalleled in the history of parliament. I will venture to say, that it is the first time that any such entry appears; they establish, if allowed to stand unobserved upon, that a secretary of state read parts of dispatches, and did not deliver them in-they do not appear to be before us, in either of the legitimate modes by which we get state papers; they have not been laid, by the command of the king, and one set of them is refused to be addressed for by this house on the 8th. They are produced, since on the motion of the secretary of state himself, on the 26th, and he who had before refused them, for reasons of state safety, now moved for their production for self defence. Where then is his ground for charging me with a disorderly proceeding? But, sir, the gentleman is equally unfortunate in his precedent, which has produced so much solemnity; indeed I am astonished, how he and those connected with him should have the boldness to allude to that transaction, considering that est violation of the constitution that ever was committed, by their conduct on that occasion. I mean the reference to the conduct of lord Grey on the change of administration, who is charged with having done what I charged the right hon. secretary to have done, by stating the minute of cabinet which took place at the change of administration. Has the hon. gent. and those near him, forgot that there is a news-paper called the Morning Post, that that minute had been previously published in that newspaper in a garbled state; who furnished that garbled minute to the Morning Post? perhaps the right hon. secretary can tell this, and if he can, shall we hesitate to be convinced that he is himself the reader of garbled extracts. But, sir, lord Grey stated here, that he acted by the permission of the king. What he stated (for he read nothing) was by his majesty's permission to counteract a newspaper misrepresentation, and not to influence decision; to set himself and his colleagues right in the eyes of this house; and it seems most extraordinary that a case thus circumstanced should be cited, as having any bearing on this case, when papers were read for hours together without any authority to read them, in order to influence debate and decision.-Now, sir, I insist that the conduct. of the right honourable secretary, which I call in question, is against the usage of parliament-that this is proved by its never appearing to have been the practice of the house, and by its being checked. each time on the occasions on which it was done. As to modern practice, whatever it may be, I care not, because, I deny that that justifies the practice, or defeats the ancient usage, founded on the principles that formed the common law of the country, the practice of the house, and the acquiescence of the people; and, I contend that my doctrine is confirmed and established by the entries of the 8th of Feb. which I have read to the house, being the only entries of the sort to be found on your journals. Had it been otherwise, there must have been hundreds of the same sort. It is to check this practice that I have moved these resolutions, the wording of which the right hon. secretary has chosen to criticize. As to his insignificant grammatical observations, I certainly shall not waste the time of the house by entering on them. But as to their substance and object, my meaning |