I shall, hereafter, endeavour to give a fair view of Mr. Adam’s case, who, at present, certainly does not stand so well with the public as I could most sincerely wish; and I cannot refrain from observing now, that, we must be involved with such people, by slow degrees, as Mr. Adam appears to have been; we must be exposed to the solicitations of the all powerful; we must experience their importunities and feel the weight of influence, pressing from so many quarters, before we can say, that we should not have acted as Mr. Adam has acted. All that he says, respecting his general character and conduct, is, I am convinced, perfectly true. It was integrity, and not sycophancy, that recommended Mr. Adam to the selection of the Duke of York, because the repair of dilapidated affairs wanted integrity; but, it does not follow, that, because I choose such a man to husband my means, on the one hand, I should not profligately waste them on the other; or, that I should be at all the more scrupulous in the way of providing for my pleasures.
But, it is now time to come to the complaint contained in Lord Folkestone’s speech.
And, is it not true, that the mode of proceeding, pointed out by Mr. Wardle, the maker of the charges, was not adopted? Is it not true, that this is quite novel in the history of parliament? Was not the mode Mr. Wardle proposed overruled? Did not the House refuse him that mode, which he wished to be adopted? Is not all this well known to the people, and ought not the people to hold it in everlasting remembrance? Mr. Wardle, we are told by Mr. Perceval, did not object to the setting aside of his proposed mode of inquiry; there was no division of the House upon the question. Very true; but, did not Mr. Wardle clearly see, what must have been the result of such an objection, or such a division? As it has happened, the mode which has been adopted is more advantageous to the public, than the mode proposed by Mr. Wardle would have been; and, I must confess, that, morally certain that what has come out, would come out, I was glad to see the examination at bar determined on. But, still, Mr. Wardle’s mode was overruled; and this being something, as Lord Folkestone says, unprecedented in the history of the parliament, it was, and is, just ground of complaint, on the part of Mr. Wardle, who, it cannot be denied, did meet, at the very outset, with a hostile reception. What other construction can possibly be put upon the outcry about “a jacobin conspiracy,” and “the libellousness of the press?” Mr. Wardle comes and says; “I accuse the Duke of York of this and of that.” What is the answer? why, that there has long existed a conspiracy, of which the public writers form a part, to write and talk down the Duke of York, the army, the church, and the monarchical branch of the constitution. This was the answer to Mr. Wardle, from the servants of the King and their supporters; and, from the other side, in a few days after, it was flatly stated, that Mr. Wardle had been imposed upon by a foul conspiracy. Was not this giving him a hostile reception?
Then, as to pushing him on; and leaving no time for search, or for reflection; is it not fresh in the recollection of the public; is it not written in the reports of the debates, that he was pushed on? And that, when Mr. Wardle complained of this, and wished for a day or two to look about him and to think, was it not represented as unjust, and was he not asked: “Is it to be endured, that charges like these shall hang, from day to day, suspended over the head of a son of the crown?” When Lord Folkestone, upon one occasion, stated the exhausted condition of Mr. Wardle himself, was he not silenced by the cry of “Go on, go on?” To say, as Mr. Perceval does, in answer to Lord Folkestone, that there have been no divisions in the House, upon any of these points; good Lord! what is it! what does that circumstance make against the fact?
The other complaint of Lord Folkestone is, that Mr. Wardle had proceeded with the threat of infamy contingently attached to him, and that this threat had neither been withdrawn nor modified up to the present moment.
In answer to this Mr. Perceval says, that: “All that was meant, or had been said, was, not that infamy must attach either to Mr. Wardle or the Duke; but that, if the accusation were false, and a conspiracy should be found to exist, infamy would attach to the conspirators, and that if the gentlemen who brought forward the accusations, should be found to have too easily lent themselves to an unprincipled conspiracy, they would not, by their conduct, have added to their own credit.”
Oh, dear me! Lack-a-day! Here are an abundance of very nice qualifications, not one word of which was to be seen, in any one of the reports of the famous debate, the ever-memorable debate, the everlastingly-to-be-esteemed and preserved debate, of Friday the 27th day of January in the year 1809. In the report of that debate, there appeared these words, as uttered by Mr. Canning, the King’s secretary of state for foreign affairs: “The hon. gent. (Mr. Wardle) surely must be aware, that having undertaken the responsible task of submitting to a British House of Commons such a serious accusation, whatever may be the result of its deliberation; in whatever view the House shall consider the transactions which he has disclosed, whether they be refuted or substantiated, infamy must attach somewhere, either upon the ACCUSED or the ACCUSER.”
These were the words, and these words, Lord Folkestone now, in the face of the House, after Mr. Perceval’s speech, asserts to have been used, and no one contradicts him; therefore, we must conclude, that the reports of the several newspapers, which all agree as to these words in particular, were correct. That, by ACCUSER, Mr. Canning might mean the “conspiracy” is certain; but, taking in the former part, the “responsible” part of the sentence, there is room to believe that he might, and did, mean Mr. Wardle; and, by the ACCUSED, it is utterly impossible, that he could mean any other person than the Duke of York.
Mr. Perceval, when, in the close of this part of his speech, he complains of Lord Folkestone’s saying, that the inquiry had manifestly suffered from the fear of people capable of giving information, that their doing so might offend the government; when Mr. Perceval thus complains, and says, that such a statement is calculated to create unfounded suspicions in the country, he appears to have forgotten, that his lordship has spoken of a fact; that he had stated, that he himself had applied to a person to give up certain papers; that this person was unwilling to give them up; “that the jet of his objection was, that, as the defence of the Duke had been taken up as a ministerial measure, he was apprehensive that he would incur their displeasure, and the displeasure of those immediately under them, which would probably operate to the ruin of himself and family.” To this his lordship added: I do assure the House, that this is not the only instance where similar apprehensions have prevented persons in possession of strong testimony, from coming forward, particularly officers in the army, and where information was withheld from the manner in which the thing had been taken up by the King’s servants in that House.” And, is not this very natural? Was there any need of the positive fact, stated by Lord Folkestone, to make the country believe this? Is there one man amongst us, who would not have anticipated what Lord Folkestone expressed? When the ministers and their friends began, when they received the charges, with denouncing as conspirators all those who had wrote and talked against the Duke of York, was it not to be expected, that all those persons, who were, in any way, dependent upon the government, would, if they possessed information upon the subject, take special care not to let it be known? And would not this, in a particular manner, apply to officers in the army, whose sole means of preserving their rank in life, and even of obtaining