addressing himself to Mr. Ley, the clerk, begged to say a few words to the House.

begged to inform the House, in point of order, that if a difference of opinion arose on the subject of who should be called to the chair, it could not be discussed in that incomplete state in which the House then was.

said, he did not know how else to conduct himself, a gentleman being about to take the chair without any question put to the House.

said, if one gentleman should be called to the chair of the Committee, and another should be proposed from some other quarter, it would then become his duty to take the chair of the House.

then called on Mr. Lushington to take the chair; and

called on Mr. Davits Giddy.

immediately returned to the chair, and said, that now was the time to propose who should he chairman of the Committee.

said it had been the uniform practice of the House, of late years, to have the office of Chairman of the Committees of Supply and of Ways and Means filled by one individual, who continued during the course of the session, and accordingly a salary was annexed to the performance of that duty. He believed there was not an instance to the contrary on the journals. He also contended, that when the House was about to resolve into a Committee of Supply, not into a Committee of Ways and Means, was the proper time for agitating who that chairman should be. This question had, however, he submitted, been already settled, when Mr. Lushington was, on a former day, called to the chair of the Committee of Supply. No change in such an appointment ever took place in the course of one session. If this House did not observe a uniform practice in this respect, it would become an every day discussion. He accordingly moved that Mr. Lushington be called to the chair.

said, if in what the right hon. gent. had stated to have happened, the convenience and dignity of the House had been as much attended to, as he had no doubt its rules had been consulted, the House would have heard nothing from him at present on the subject. The sole reason he had for objecting to the hon. gent. proposed was, that, however respectable in every other particular, he did not possess those qualifications to be looked for in a Chairman of the Committee of Supply, or of Ways and Means. Experience was the qualification principally required. The first chairman he recollected was Mr. Gilbert, a gentleman of great experience; the next was Mr. Hobart, an old member, and also a gentleman of great experience; the next was Mr. Hobhouse, whose recal to the chair would be attended with great advantage to the House; to him succeeded Mr. Alexander, who had held the same office in the parliament of Ireland; and the last was the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Wharton,) now promoted to what was esteemed a higher office and who, when in the Chair of the Committee, had acquitted himself with great propriety. He asked, what were the qualifications requisite for such a situation? They were not those of a debater. It was not quickness or fluency that was required; but such an experience arising from a number of years acquaintance with that House, as should enable a person to come to the Chair of the Committee, not to learn the business, but to practise what he had learned; so that he might be able to command attention, and to exercise becoming authority. The Speaker himself, he apprehended, was not taken at random from among the members of that House to fill the high station he had so many years honourably filled. He was not a child of the minister of the day; but was selected inconsequence of his having long applied himself to a knowledge of the business of parliament, which it was thought he might exercise to the advantage of the country, and that those expectations had not been disappointed, that House and the country could now hear witness. Did the hon. gent. proposed by ministers possess any of these advantages? Suppose a dispute on a point of order were to arise in the Committee of Ways and Means between two members of 20, 30, or 40 years standing, what authority would the decision of the hon. gent. carry along with it? He agreed that it was natural for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose for the situation one of his own friends; but, at the same time, he should consider who was fit for the office, rather than for whom the office was fit. He should have been disposed to call Mr. Hobhouse again to the chair; but there were reasons against it. He had resigned, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not consult him, net considering him as his political friend. Impartiality was to his mind necessary, if it could be had; and as, in a manner, the deputy of the Speaker, it would be desirable that some part of his impartiality should be extended to the Chair of the Committee. This, however, was not to be expected from gentlemen who uniformly voted with ministers; and in proposing his hon. friend he knew that he pointed out a man who would exercise the strictest impartiality to all parties. He concluded by proposing Mr. Davies Giddy.

expressed his extreme sur- prize at the proposition of his hon. friend, of which he had not received the most distant intimation. He assured the House that, in occasionally acting during the last session for his hon. friend, who then filled the Chair of the Committee, he had no view to the filling of that situation himself. He should feel aukward were he placed in that situation by gentlemen acting in hostility to ministers. He wished they would name some person else; and begged that he might be understood as no party to what was past.

thought it was not long experience, but a sort of technical knowledge which was required for the situation. He was satisfied the hon. gent. (Lushington) was fully qualified for it.

was sorry an hon. gent. (Mr. Hobhouse) could not be prevailed on to return to the Chair of the Committees. As the other hon. gent. also chose to decline it, he begged of his hon. friend not to press his amendment.

after vindicating himself from the charge of attempting to take the House by surprize, agreed to withdraw the amendment, when the House resolved into the Committee, and Mr. Lushington was called to the chair.

before he moved the order of the day, rose to give notice, that on Monday he would move for certain papers, which he thought were necessary to render those already before the House complete. In those before them two or three objects were named as those proposed to be obtained by the Expedition; while one part of the force was to be stationed as a garrison in Walcheren, the other was to proceed to accomplish such of the ulterior objects of the Expedition as might appear practicable. But could it be thought, that when the Expedition sailed, that no plan, no instructions, save those in the general orders, were given? From the papers before them it appeared, that a very few days after the noble lord opposite had stated that in consequence of the seasonable fall of Flushing every obstacle to the accomplishment of the ulterior objects of the Expedition was removed, the whole of those objects were abandoned. Could it be thought that the general had received no instructions in the interval to influence his conduct? He was of opinion that such communications must have existed, and as they were not produced, he must consider those papers before the House as defective and incomplete; he should therefore give notice, that on Monday he would move, That certain papers relating to the late Expedition to the Scheldt be laid before the House.

took the earliest opportunity of promoting the inquiry. When that subject was adverted to before he was unfortunately absent, and nothing had been said till then that could justify him in coming forward with that information it might be in his power to give. He was then prepared to state, that the War office did not contain all that was necessary to give the noble lord the information he required. It was impossible for persons employed on such a service to act wholly from documents, and all the information that could be derived from documents would not proceed from the war department; it would be his duty hereafter to state where such information might be found. The inquiry, it would appear at the outset, naturally divided itself into two branches, and he wished to know to which the House first proposed to direct their attention. With respect to the policy of the Expedition, but a comparatively small portion of information could be derived from papers that might be laid before the House. Those considerations which influenced his Majesty's government would have some weight with them when deciding on the policy of the measure into which they were about to inquire. He would have to consider if the country was so circumstanced that such an effort might be made without too much impairing our resources. The presumable expence was also to be considered, and whether the calculations had been exceeded. The situation in which we stood with our allies was also to be remembered, though that consideration, with respect to Austria, might be too delicate a subject to be openly discussed; but of that his Majesty's ministers were the most competent judges. The House was probably not aware of the great extent of evidence necessary to enable them to decide on the policy, and to judge of the grounds on which the late Expedition was undertaken. He should feel it to be his duty to call for such documents and such evidence as might be required, as the inquiry proceeded. He supposed from the evidence the noble lord had summoned, that it was his intention first to proceed to the execution of the Expedition. If that were the case, and if the policy or expediency of the measure were not at first brought before the House, he should feel it to be his duty to move at the same period of the inquiry for information on that subject. It would be presumption in him to lay before the House the case of the commanders or of ministers. He was glad the noble lord could not find the plan and the instructions he expected in the papers before the House. The grounds of the instructions on which the army were to act, were contained under the Sign Manual, and were of a general nature. They did not pretend to travel far into the detail of what was to regulate the conduct of the general. On the face of the admiralty instructions it would be seen they went more into the detail. The reason was, the admiralty being a professional Board were capable of instructing their officers how to act, which ministers could not do when sending out a general officer with a military force. It would be travelling further into the subject than he at present proposed doing, were he to go at large into the generally understood principle on which it was undertaken; but at some period of the inquiry he should state to the House the nature of the service, the course taken in the execution of it, and the consideration whence his approbation proceeded, when he slated that that which had interfered with the ulterior objects of the Expedition had been removed by the fall of Flushing. The ulterior objects were undoubtedly Antwerp, and the shipping, arsenals, magazines, &c. in its vicinity. He should state his opinion of what had been done, and be ready to hold the officer from blame who had commanded the armament if it should appear he had done his duty. He wished to ask the noble lord if he intended first to call evidence as to the policy or the execution? He had no wish to express on the subject. He wished entirely to conform to that mode of inquiry which the House in its wisdom should consider the best. He wished for the fullest inquiry to be made into his conduct, that it might be seen how far his influence had been exerted in advising the Expedition.

said, that as it might not be possible to separate the policy from the execution he proposed to go by time. Beginning with the subjects connected with the documents of the earliest date, he thought they might commence with the policy, proceed with the conduct, and close with the evacuation of Walcheren.

thought the orders of the commander in chief to the officers under him appeared wanting. The production of the military journal of the staff officers he thought might supply the deficiency.

gave notice that he should on Monday move for certain papers relating to the Expedition; which had been omitted in the returns laid on the table. These papers would serve to make the whole complete, in order to a proper understanding of the question so far as related to the share which the admiralty board had in the Expedition.

wished to know if the commander in chief of the Expedition had been instructed to proceed immediately to Antwerp, or if it was part of his orders to besiege Flushing first?

knew of no instructions but those given under the sign manual.

thought any papers that it might be necessary for them to have produced could be moved for in the Committee.

was of opinion they might be referred to a Secret Committee, who could decide what papers ought to be produced. He then gave notice that on Monday he would move for the appointment of such a Committee.

said, he thought those who had the sense of the House in their favour had a right to determine in what manner the inquiry should be carried on. He was for appointing a Committee that night that no time might be lost.

was anxious to give the Inquiry the greatest possible effect. He had formerly suggested the propriety of referring the military evidences to other tribunals, and he gave it as his opinion that it would have been better so to have done. He would state, in a very few words, what he thought it would be most becoming the House to inquire into. There were three points to which he thought their attention should be directed. The first was the policy of the Expedition. This was the most extended question, since it comprehended the situation in which Great Britain was placed with the other powers of Europe. For this he felt himself in the highest degree responsible. The military and naval proceedings, though he viewed them with the most favourable eye, he could not think himself responsible for. He did not consider himself at all answerable for the evacuation of Walcheren at the same time, while saying this, he most distinctly desired to be understood as not giving an opinion either the one way or the other. It might be that the House would be of opinion, that blame attached itself no where; but if it should appear that blame did attach somewhere, if he were too active in eliciting discoveries to the prejudice of others, it might appear that he wished to throw the blame off himself by placing the misconduct of others in a most luminous point of view. He would therefore punctually give his attendance throughout the inquiry, and give every explanation of his own conduct; but it was his intention to avoid as much as possible taking an active part, where he was not personally concerned.

now moved the standing order for exclusion of strangers, which was of course enforced, and the Gallery cleared.*