learned gent.” the line of conduct adopted by the House was owing, he should have had no observation to make; but when it was to go forth to the public that he, a member of Parliament, acted in a parliamentary proceeding as the professed adviser of the Duke of York, he had reason to complain of such an expression, and endeavour if possible to counteract its tendency. He begged the House would excuse his calling their attention to a subject wholly personal; he owned he was actuated by the most serious feelings on this subject. He was anxious in the most solemn manner to repel the imputation which that appellation might cause.—He knew how unpleasant it was to the House to listen to personal observations, but it was important to him that he, whose life had been passed in the discharge of a variety of public duties, should endeavour to preserve the character which he trusted he had acquired without touch or stain. He was not aware that on any occasion he had failed in the discharge of the various obligations which had from time been imposed upon him; whether during his parliamentary life of above twenty-five years, or in the private concerns of his family, exposed as he had been to encreasing pressure, to the res angustæ domi; by which, however, he had never been tempted to deviate from the strict line of political or moral integrity. Although the hon. gent. by whom those charges were originated had intimated that the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate them would accord with his opinion, he had not thought proper to move for such a committee. An hon. gent. opposite had suggested proceeding by a parliamentary commission; with those two exceptions, he did not recollect a dissenting voice against the course ultimately adopted by the House. He appealed to the House whether there had been the least interruption to the most free and unrestrained inquiry. With respect to himself, he was in the judgment of the House, whether he had ever said or done any thing that gave a colour to the appellation of “protessed adviser of the Duke of York.” He hoped that the country would be satisfied that this matter which had been introduced publicly, had been conducted openly, and in a manner that was in the highest degree honourable to the House of Commons.
Mr. Calcraft blamed the noble lord for the censure which he had chosen to pass on the House, and for the assumption which he had chosen to make in stating that his hon. friend, in the charge which he had brought forward, had been supported by himself alone. Had that hon. gent. been so deserted as his noble friend described him to be, he should not have wanted his aid; but having on a former occasion, upon an inquiry into the conduct of the Medical Board, witnessed that hon. gent.’s ability, he should have thought it highly indelicate had he thrusted himself into his councils unasked, and uncalled for. That hon. gent. had evinced the utmost manliness and delicacy in standing on the ground on which he had chosen to stand, single and unsupported. He had rested his character on the event, and the event would justify him; but it was not becoming any member to arrogate to himself peculiar praise on this occasion. The noble lord ought to give credit to others for acting on principles similar to those on which he had himself acted. With respect to the noble lord’s panegyric, he thought he had read it in some publication; if not, perhaps he might yet do so. He could not however but be of opinion, that it would have proceeded with more propriety from any other lips than his own.”
This is a debate full of interest. We will go backwards in our remarks, because Mr. Calcraft’s charge against Lord Folkestone is of a sort to demand immediate comment. What arrogance did his lordship discover? How did he pronounce a panygeric on himself, in stating, that, until within a few days, Mr. Wardle had received no assistance from any member out of the 658, and that all he had now received, out of doors (for such was the manifest meaning), was what little he, Lord Folkestone, had been able to give him? Was it not the well-known truth, and was it not necessary to state that truth, in a manner that it might be imprinted upon the minds of the injured and insulted people? That it was out of doors that his lordship meant is certain, because he says, that Mr. Wardle has had no “agent” to assist him; and then he goes on to say, that Mr. Wardle has not had the assistance of “the services of a Lowten, or a Wilkinson, to arrange his documents, and to marshal his witnesses.”
It is true, notoriously true, and is universally seen and acknowledged, that, since Sir Francis Burdett was disabled by the gout from attending the House, Lord Folkestone has been the only man, who has actually appeared as an assistant of Mr. Wardle.
As to the panegyric that Mr. Calcraft has read, or expects to read, upon the noble lord, in some publication, he may be disappointed, for the conduct of his lordship needs none: nor is there any pen that can do justice to the subject. Mr. Calcraft was safe, here, in one respect; for there was no fear of retaliation on the part of his lordship.
One thing, respecting Lord Folkestone, however, I must state, and that is, when the late ministry (under whom Mr Calcraft had a fat post) came into power, they offered his lordship a place of fifteen hundred pounds a year, of which he declined to accept; though, it will be remembered by most men acquainted with politics, that he all along, except upon particular occasions, continued to support them. There is no man, who knows my Lord Folkestone; who is acquainted with that steady adherence to truth and to principle which is innate in him, and with that modesty which is so prominent a part of his character, with his fidelity to his word and to his friends; there is no man, who is at all acquainted with his character, who will ever believe, that he has, upon this occasion, acted from any other motive than that of a conviction that his duty required him to do what he has done.
Oh, oh! it seems, then, that there were many members ready and willing to assist Mr. Wardle from the first, had they not been convinced, that so great were his own individual powers, he wanted no assistance; and even Mr. Calcraft himielf, would have tendered the use of his abilities, had he not entertained this conviction. Come, this is some comfort. But, if I mistake not, at the first opening of the business, there was only Sir Francis Burdett (who seconded Mr. Wardle’s motion) and my Lord Folkestone, from whom Mr. Wardle received even the smallest degree of countenance. And when, at a later period, the charge about Captain Maling, owing to a mere error in words, appeared to have failed; at this period, if I mistake not, the party, to which Mr. Calcraft belongs, did, in a most formal and solemn manner, disclaim all connection with Mr. Wardle, with respect to these charges, and that one of that party did distinctly say, that he had sent a message to him not to bring forward the charges, adding, that he had been imposed upon by the actors in a foul conspiracy against the Duke. That this was the case the public well knows; and, therefore, this declaration, that there were many members ready and willing to assist him, had they not been convinced that his own abilities rendered their assistance unnecessary, comes a little too late in point of fact, and a little too soon in point of time; because the formal and solemn disclaimer is still fresh in the memory of every man, who is not an idiot.
Now, as to the phrase, which appears to have given so much offence to Mr. Adam, Lord Folkestone says, that he by no means meant it in the way of reproach; and, I must think, that the reader will agree with me, that, when Mr. Adam’s first speech upon the subject is recollected; when it is recollected, what he said about the 20 years that the pecuniary affairs of the Duke had been in his hands, and about the unreserved communication between them; when it is recollected, that he then took upon himself to say, that the charges would prove unfounded; when it is recollected, that he has since held (as he acknowledges) conferences and consultations with the Duke and Colonel Gordon and Mr. Perceval, relative to matters connected with the inquiry; that he has had a witness, if not witnesses, in favour of the Duke, sent to him, who put questions to them, previous to their coming to be examined by the House; that (as he acknowledges) he was apprized of similar previous examinations going on at Mr. Lowten’s office; and, finally, that he was consulted and did advise relative to the time and manner of producing the circumstance of the pretended forgery: when all this is recollected, was there any thing unjust, any thing harsh, any thing overstrained, in Lord Folkestone’s calling Mr. Adam the “professed adviser of the Duke of York?” Besides, observe the occasion on which the phrase was used. It was in reference to the mode of inquiry, and bore, upon the face of it, a proof, that it was not meant to convey to the world an idea, that Mr. Adam had, while a member of the House, while a judge in the case, acted, at the same time, as the advocate of the Duke. There was nothing in the words to convey such a meaning; and, therefore, it does seem strange to me, that Mr. Adam should have felt so sore upon the subject.
I
