, in consequence of the notice which he had yesterday given, rose with a degree of pain and embarrassment, which he declared he had never felt before, to make a complaint against one of the members of the United Commons of Great Britain, who, in his opinion, had violated the privileges of the House. He did not mean to enter upon the subject itself, but it was his intention to lay upon the table the document which the hon. baronet, who was the object of the motion, had admitted was published by his authority. For the purpose of saving the time of the House, he had marked certain passages in that document, which, in his opinion, more particularly justified him in the charge which he had preferred against the hon. baronet. (The hon. member then gave in at the table "Cobbett's Weekly Political Register" of Saturday March 24, 1810.)

desired the clerk to proceed to read the Paper complained of. He wished to know whether the hon. member, or any other hon. member was desirous that parts only, or that the whole of the paper should be read?

lamented that he should intrude upon the attention of the House at a time when so important a discussion as that of the Walcheren Inquiry was in its progress. He repeated that he had marked those passages in the paper which appeared to him to be most obnoxious; at the same time, he had not the slightest objection to the whole being read.

Clerk, read the Paper.— The Clerk accordingly began to read sir Francis Burdett's Letter to his Constituents, but had not finished half a dozen sentences, when

spoke to order. He conceived that it would be extremely convenient to postpone the discusson of this subject, in consideration of the important business which stood for that night.

, however, declared, that having proceeded so far, it was beyond the power of any hon. member to terminate the proceeding. A complaint having been made against an hon. member of the House, for a breach of privilege, it was indispensable that the House should know the grounds upon which it was preferred; after which, they would determine what course to pursue. Until that time they could not do otherwise than hear the whole of the Complaint, and also the whole of what the hon. member had to say in his defence. The hon. member against whom the charge was preferred would then withdraw, and the House would enter into the consideration of the steps which it would become them to adopt.

The Clerk proceeded to read the Letter and the Argument; of which the following are copies:

which has been set out at length, commits Mr. Jones, "during the pleasure of the House of Commons." It has been shewn, that a lawful warrant should issue from lawful authority—should assign lawful cause, and should have a lawful conclusion. A Speaker of the House of Commons is no Legal Magistrate—his Warrant assigns libel—is not libel bailable? But it may be pretended, that the Culprit has been tried and condemned—This is a Warrant in execution.—A Warrant in execution by a Speaker of the House of Commons on a sentence of imprisonment! ! ! for a month—or six months—or a year—or seven years—or for a day—or an hour!—Let not the people think that this statement is incorrect, because that the facts stated are nearly incredible. The House of Commons, that does not pretend to a right of committing any person for custody, even one hour—yet insist upon and exercise the power of passing a sentence of imprisonment, during the pleasure of the House! Not to be "delivered by due course of law," nor to "answer any law." For what law is he to answer? for what offence committed? Or, is the alledged offence of so heinous a nature as to preclude the supposed offender from bail? By, what law can he be delivered? To what law can he appeal? What is the term of his confinement?

"During the pleasure of the House of Commons."

Here is an Englishman outlawed; put out of the protection of the King's law by order of the House, of Commons, who are peculiarly bound to protect and defend the Liberty of the Subject.—The House of Commons, which is no Court; which cannot fine; which the law forbids to pass any Judgment; which cannot administer an oath; which cannot take any one step according to law, for the best of all reasons, because the law recognizes no such Court, nor allows it any such power, as passing a definitive sentence.

But, it is truly admirable, how consistently the House of Commons has acted throughout the whole of this Case, always measuring its proceedings by the line of its own discretion, instead of the golden meteyard of the Law—a principle, which if once admitted—admitted! ! if not reprobated, and resisted, the inevitable consequence will be, the total subversion of all Law and Order. For what makes the distinction between a state of Liberty and a state of Slavery, but being guided and protected by known laws common to all, or being subject to variable, arbitrary, and uncertain discretion. "Misera servitus est, ubi jus est vagum, aut incognitum. "Wretched is the slavery of him who lives under uncertain laws!

If the Judges of the Laws of England in the days of lord Holt, thought so justly, and acted so firmly and decidedly in their case, so have we witnessed in our time, how acutely a learned Judge of the Civil Law, sir William Scott, can feel, when even a presumed injurious suspicion is thrown out, though no punishment has been inflicted upon him without trial or a fair defence. And here it is impossible to avoid remarking, how tender-skinned some men are upon being touched themselves! how susceptible their feelings! how tremblingly alive to the slightest annoyance! The learned Civilian felt nothing for poor Jones, sent to jail without trial, without an opportunity of making his defence. His own words will best express his feelings on the occasion alluded to, which was on a charge brought forward in the House of Commons by lord Cochrane, my most worthy colleague, against the Court where the learned Civilian presides; when he said:

"That the accusation was brought forward against the Court where he presided, when there was no possibility of a defence, and thus allowed to impend for many months over the head of the court, which could not demand its trial, and of course could not ward off a most painful and depreciating suspicion; this was a mode of proceeding which could not be sufficiently deprecated, nor too severely reproved. It was placing a man in the situation of a supposed culprit, in whom every guilt was likely to be presumed, and from whose society every innocent man was ready to fly, abandoned by society, cut off, and in a manner excommunicated, he might in the end appear completely guiltless, and prove by his acquittal, that his only misfortune was not being allowed, in time, an opportunity of defence. Notwithstanding the cruelty of this, many men were to be found anxious to bring forward an unfounded accusation, and the world, in general, was but too prone to its reception. He deplored the custom, and deprecated its continuance; and he did so the more earnestly, feeling acutely its injustice in his own case."—And, in these feelings the House of Commons sympathized.

He complains, in the style of the Civil Law of being excommunicated. Mr. Jones remonstrates in the language of the Law of England against being outlawed, without having been found legally guilty of any crime.

The Roman Satirist, when lashing the vices of a corrupt country, particularly upbraids the absence of feeling, generally, exhibited for the sufferings of small men in humble stations. The poor man may lose his goods and all his effects. Should his house be burned to the ground, no one troubles himself about it. But, if misfortune touches the great, then, all partake of the general sorrow:

"Magna Arturii cecidit domus, &c.

"Tunc gemimus casus urbis; tune odimus ignem."

Poor Codrus excites no sympathy:

"But if the palace of Arturius burn,

The nobles change their Clothes, the matrons mourn;

The City PrÆtor will no pleadings hear;

The very name of fire, we hate and fear;

And look aghast, as if the Gauls were here."

From the conviction on my mind of the justness of the sentiments here expressed by the learned Judge; and from as well weighed and fully digested an opinion as my researches enabled me to make, and my reason instructed me to form, I proposed in the House of Commons: "That Mr. Gale Jones should be then discharged."

In opposition to these arguments, it was, in the first place, relied on, That this power of Commitment had been exercised for three hundred years. In support of which assertion, only two instances were adduced. One of Ferrars, a member and servant to the king, before cited; and one Mornington, who beat Mr. Johnson a member, and pleaded ignorance of his being a member of the House of Commons^*. But of what importance are these two Cases? For their own acts, were they ever so numerous, can never be admitted as Precedents to establish their own claims. Sir Thomas Bromley, Chancellor in the reign of Elizabeth, denied that their own acts could be cited as Precedents, when they were insisted on by a Committee of the House as proofs in support of their claim to a privilege of not being liable to be subpœnÆd in Chancery. Sir Thomas Bromley said, that unless those precedents had been confirmed by the the Court of Chancery, they were of no avail†; and all Lawyers know that a legal precedent is established by a decision of all the Judges, on an Argument at Bar. Nothing can be more mischievous or more calculated to mislead, than to use legal terms in a popular sense; and though the word Precedent in popular language means any thing that went before; yet, in a strict legal sense it means a Decision upon Argument, one of which is worth a thousand without.

From Custom or Usage such a claim never can be set up; for a custom to obtain must be reasonable in itself; must have been used from time immemorial; must be pro bono publico—not contrary to law, and never contested.

From Common Law it cannot be derived; because at common law, a man could not be imprisoned in, any case, unless for force or violence—for which his body was subject to imprisonment, as one of the highest executions of the law. And, that it is forbidden by all the Statutes, it is to be hoped has been sufficiently proved. Therefore, unless it can be shewn, that an Order of the House of Commons can contravene all these authorities, there can be no pretence on which this usurpation can be maintained. And to talk of the Law of Parliament as contra-distinguished from and contradictory to the Acts of Parliament!—It is a phantom fitter to be entertained by the fancy of a Bedlamite than by a Lawgiver.

^* 1 Hatsell, 53, 74.

† Ibid. 96.

Notwithstanding the care that has been taken in the progress of this enquiry to keep legal words from being used in a popular sense, and to prevent a confusion of ideas arising therefrom, it will be necessary in this case to adopt the mode which has been invariably pursued, and to define correctly the legal meaning of the term about to be discussed. For, by not attending sufficiently to this distinction, much embarrassment was created during the former discussion of this subject in the House of Commons: few persons having been able to keep sufficiently separate, things, in their nature so essentially different, as the power of Commitment for a legal Contempt, (or abatement of a nuisance), and the passing of a sentence of Imprisonment as a punishment for an offence.

Every one knows that in a popular phrase a man is said to shew contempt for another if he turn upon his heel and do not answer a salute: but, in a legal sense Contempt has one meaning, and one only—that is, obstruction to the proceedings of a Court, which every Court is necessarily competent to remove. "Contempt is a disobedience to the rules and orders of a Court. One may be punished for a contempt in Court, but not out of Court, or a private abuse^*." Whether the Case of the incorporation of St. Albans, which has been accurately stated, and the Arguments of the Judges in Bridgeman versus Holt, are or are not applicable to the case before us, must be left to the candid consideration of the Reader.—It is necessary to observe, that I lay no stress upon the authority of the Judges merely as such, recollecting full well the many opinions of Judges contrary to the Law of the Land and subversive of the Liberty of the Subject. In the case of Ship Money, the judges determined, that the King had a right to levy taxes without consent of the Representatives of the People. In the famous Case of Habeas Corpus, in the King's Bench, afterwards reversed, the Judges determined, that when the King committed, the Subject could have no relief. When Charles the First imprisoned Members of Parliament for their parliamentary conduct, the Judges determined, that the Act of the fourth of Henry the Eighth was a private Act, though made expressly to prevent members from being questioned, in consequence of Mr. Stroud having been questioned in the Court of Stannaries, and fined and imprisoned by that Court, on account of a bill he had introduced into the House of Commons for regulating the Tinners in Cornwall. Therefore, it is not upon the authority, but upon the weight of the arguments above cited, and honest arguments they were, of unfeed Counsel in their own cause, that we rely.

^* See Crook, Eliz. 649.

As for Modern Decisions of such men as De Gray, Mansfield, or Kenyon, they will hardly be worth quoting on either side of the question; and, for an illustration of the conduct of the last mentioned Judge upon this great constitutional question, I beg leave to refer the Reader to the Case of Benjamin Flower, and to the able Argument of Mr. Clifford in that case; to which Argument I embrace this opportunity of acknowledging myself greatly indebted; and so, in my opinion, are the public at large.

In pursuing this Argument, the Reader should carefully keep in mind the marked distinction there is between Privilege and Power. No Privilege of the House of Commons is here denied. But, it may be asked, Upon what ground or pretence they assume a Power to punish? Since they have taken upon themselves to exercise this Power, it is fair to call upon them to shew how they came by it, and when they first claimed it^*.

^*Sir Robert Walpole seems to have entertained the same sentiments, as appears from his Speech in the House of Commons, in the Case of Sir Richard Steele, in 1714: "Why," said he, should the author be answerable in parliament for the things which he wrote in his private capacity? And if he is punishable by law, why is he not left to the law? By this mode of proceeding parliament, which used to be the scourge only of evil ministers, is made by ministers the scourge of the subject. In former reigns, the audacity of corruption extended itself only to judges and juries: the attempt so to degrade parliament was, till the present period, unheard of. The Liberty of the Press is unrestrained; how then shall a part of the legislature dare to punish that as a

The commencement of this Usurpation was when they got rid of the Upper House of Parliament, and cut off the head of the King. They still, it seems, are emboldened to retain an illegal power not pretended to even by the King. But which these local sovereigns over the King, claim as of right. But no wonder, when they have so entirely departed from the ends of their institution—as was offered to be proved by Mr. Madocks, and acknowledged by themselves, in the never-to-be-forgotten morning of the 11th of May, one thousand eight hundred and nine; when, from being the Lower or Inferior (for it is the same sense, one being an English, the other a Latin word), Branch of the Legislature, they have become the proprietors, by burgage tenure, of the whole Representation; and, in that capacity, inflated with their high blown fanciful ideas of majesty, and tricked out in the trappings of royalty, think Privilege and Protection beneath their dignity, assume the Sword of Prerogative, and lord it equally over the King and the People^*.

But, in order that nothing may be wanting, to render truly ludicrous every part of this proceeding, which, inverting the laws of the drama, as well as all other laws, begins with a farce and ends with a Tragedy, the House of Commons imprison Mr. Jones—under the sanction of what law think ye?—THE BILL OF RIGHTS! ! !—Well might Paine call it the Bill of Wrongs; if it could be thus converted into an instrument to oppress and to destroy the Liberties of the People, those Liberties which it was expressly framed, claimed, demanded and insisted upon to protect.

"crime which is not declared to be so by any law, framed by the whole! And why should that House be made the instrument of such a detestable purpose." See Coxe's Walpole, vol. 1, p. 73. See also 6 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. 1269.

^*Upon this memorable Debate, Mr. Ponsonby, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, under the Whig Aministration, observed, "That he could not consent to proceed against individuals, because that had been proved to exist, which had long been as notorious as the Sun at noonday; namely, the Sale of Seats in that "House." See Cobbett's Debates, vol. xiv. p. 519.

And in a Committee of the whole House, on the 1st of June last, upon Mr. Curwen's Reform Bill, the Speaker made use of these expressions: "The question now before us, is no less than this: Whether the Seats in this House shall be henceforth publicly saleable?—A proposition, at the sound of which, our ancestors would have startled with indignation; but a practice, which, in these days, and within these walls, in utter oblivion of every former maxim and feeling of Parliament, has been avowed and justified."

See p. 637 of the same Volume.

Mr. Yorke has discovered a new meaning in the Bill of Rights; and, because the Bill of Rights declares, That a member of parliament cannot be questioned any where out of parliament for words spoken therein, he has sapiently concluded, That the People are prohibited from exercising their understanding, for the purpose of discussing or censuring the conduct of the Gentlemen who sit in that House. These Gentlemen all concurred with him in the Sentence passed on Mr. Jones; though no one agreed with him in his new interpretation of the word "Question," in the Bill of Rights—knowing, as they did, that "questioned," legally, means accused before a tribunal competent to punish; and that the power intended to be counteracted was the King's Prerogative and the arbitrary proceedings of the Court of Star Chamber, which were in the constant habit of questioning and punishing Members, for their conduct in the House, as in the Case of Mr. Strode before mentioned, and of Strickland, Sir John Eliot, Col. Churchill, Holles, Valentine, and many others. And, surely, that cannot be deemed a Privilege of Parliament which is incompatible with the Rights of the People; as the Lords resolved in the Case of Ashby and White: "That declaring Ashby guilty of a Breach of Privilege of the House of Commons is an unprecedented attempt upon the jurisdiction of parliament; and is, in effect, to subject the law of England to the Votes of the House of Commons^*"—And how much more so is this act of imprisoning Mr. Jones!

But the House, it seems, thinks that its dignity is concerned in continuing Mr. Jones in prison. That dignity should consist in punishing is a novel idea. The dignity of any man or body of men is best maintained by their doing their duty, according to their several stations. If dignity consisted in punishing, then would Jack Ketch be the most dignified man in the land ^*. But the Commons do not sit in that house for their dignity, but as Servants of the People; not to exercise Prerogative and Power over them, but to inspect and controul the Public Accounts, to protect Liberty and Property; to complain of exorbitances of Power in any quarter; and to maintain the Laws of the Land. They are the last persons who ought to set an example of encroachment. If they become destroyers of the Liberties of the People, in them, oppression is combined with treachery; they destroy where they are bound to protect. Every reason is as strong against such an act, from them towards the People, as it was against Macbeth in the murder of Duncan.

"He is here in double trust,

"First as I am his subject and his kinsman—

"Both strong against the deed—then as his host

"Who should against his murderer shut the door,

"Not bear the knife myself."

^*6 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. 431.

Having now arrived at a conclusion of the Argument upon this most interesting and important case, one cannot, in taking leave of the subject; in reviewing the whole of the proceeding complained of; in beholding an assembly whose sole business it is to make laws, and to watch over the due execution of the laws already made; one cannot, with such impressions in one's mind, help entertaining a fear, that the Gentlemen of the House of Commons, may in time, unless they revert to the Great Principles of the Constitution, be in danger of incurring the sentence of St. Paul upon the insolent and tyrannical High Priest, Ananias, who had commanded him to be stricken for opening his mouth in his own defence:—"God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: For sittest thou to judge me after the Law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the Law?"

.—"Sir Francis Burdett."

rose to order. The honourable member had complained to the House of a gross breach of its privilege, and, in support of this charge, had caused a publication to be read, which occupied more than an hour and a half of their time. He now thought it but fair, that, out of this mass, the hon. gent. should point out how, and in what manner, the hon. bart. had offended, and what was the course he intended to pursue. It must appear to every one, to be quite impossible for the hon. bart. to be expected to get up and answer a charge founded upon the whole of this publication, in his own defence.

^*Lord Clarendon observes, "That the damage and mischief cannot be expressed, that the Crown and State sustained by the deserved reproach and infamy that attended the Judges by being made use of in this and like acts of power, there being no possibility to preserve the dignity, reverence, and estimation of the laws themselves, but by the integrity and innocency of the judges."

replied, that he could have no objection whatever to point out the passages which struck him as offending against the character and privileges of the House. As he had before stated, he had marked these passages in the paper given in, both in order to save the time of the House and to shew precisely on what particular parts his complaint was founded. He did not think it becoming in him to call on the House to have all this long paper read; but when it appeared the wish of the House that it should be so read, if he had objected, he would, with much justice, have been accused of calling on them to decide upon garbled extracts. He was now ready to adopt any suggestion of the House. He declared, in his place, that he had no personal hostility to the hon. baronet. In bringing forward this motion, he was actuated by much higher motives. As an Englishman, in defence of their glorious privileges—as the representative of as independent and free a body as any in old England, he was induced to undertake to bring forward this affair.—He would now proceed to point out the particular passages which appeared, in his mind, to bear him out in his charge. The first passage that struck him in this light, was the very first in the preamble of the address, containing the following extraordinary language,

"The House of Commons having passed a vote, which amounts to a declaration that an order of theirs is to be of more importance than Magna Charta and the laws of the land, I think it my duty to lay my sentiments thereon before my constituents, whose character as freemen, and even whose personal safety, depend, in a great degree, upon the decision of this question; a question of no less importance than this; whether our liberty be still to be secured by the laws of our forefathers, or be to lay at the absolute mercy of a part of our fellow-subjects, collected together by means which it is not necessary for me to describe."

He appealed to the House if this alone was not sufficient? if it was not, he was sorry for it, but it certainly struck him in that point of view.

The second passage was in the same letter, where he spoke of the power of committing, exercised by the House, in this way:—

"If they have the absolute power of imprisoning and releasing, why may they not send their prisoners to York jail, as well as to a jail in London? Why not confine men in solitary cells, or load them with chains and bolts? They have not gone these lengths yet; but what is there to restrain them; if they are to be the sole judges of the extent of their own powers, and if they are to exercise those powers without any controul, and without leaving the parties, whom they choose to punish, any mode of appeal, any means of redress?"

The third passage was the concluding part of the Letter.

"The Argument, by which I endeavoured to convince the gentlemen of the House of Commons, that their acts, in the case of Mr. Jones, were illegal, I shall now lay before you, in a more full and connected way than it could possibly be done by the Parliamentary reporters; and, in doing this, I shall do all that now remains in my power towards the correction of this, as I deem it, most enormous abuse of power, and most dangerous of all encroachments upon the rights and liberties of Englishmen."

The other passages which he had marked, were contained in what was called the Argument. The first of these was as follows:—

"Had I not been prevented by indisposition from being present when the House of Commons passed by vote a sentence of imprisonment on Mr. Gale Jones, I should have endeavoured to shew, that, under all the false notion of privilege, they are exercising a power, and committing an act of oppression, ill suited to the character of guardians of public liberty, and destructive of the first and most important object of the constitution, viz. the personal security of the subject."

The next passage, following the mention of numerous authorities against the act of the House in committing Gale Jones, proceeded thus:—

"Founded on such a basis, petrified by such authorities as I shall have occasion to appeal to in the progress of this inquiry, I have little doubt of being able to convince every impartial mind, that the House of Commons, by proceeding to judgment, passing sentence of imprisonment, and issuing a warrant of commitment, has gone beyond its prescribed limits, acted in a manner inconsistent with the ends of its institution, and violated, the fundamental principles of the law and constitution of the land, and this I shall prove by the application of the standard of the law to the proceedings of that House."

The hon. member then read the following passage:—

"By proceeding thus, they may have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in them, a jurisdiction beyond the limits of King, Lords and Commons, while Magna Charta remains unrepealed; and repealed it never can be till England shall have found her grave in the corruption of a House of Commons."—(Loud cries of hear! from the Opposition.)

The next obnoxious passage was that adverting to the Speaker's warrant issued to the keeper of his Majesty's jail of Newgate, and was to this effect:—

"Let this instrument, this thing, sui generis, be contrasted with the description of the properties of a legal warrant. Does it not evidently appear that this piece of unsealed paper, signed by the Speaker, by which an untried subject has been outlawed, bears no feature of legality? and that, from the commencement of this proceeding, in its progress, and to its conclusion, there is not one step that has not been marked in a peculiar manner with disrespect for the laws? a disrespect in which all the parts have been Wonderfully consistent throughout in constituting the most unlawful act the mind of man can possibly conceive."

The hon. gent. now called the attention of the House to a passage, which he thought would of itself substantiate all complaint: it was this:

"But no wonder when they have so entirely departed from the ends of their institution, as was offered to be proved by Mr. Madocks, and acknowledged, by themselves in the never to be forgotten morning of the 11th of May, 1809, when, from being the lower or inferior (for it is the same sense, one being an English, the other a Latin word) branch of the Legislature, they have become the proprietors by burgage tenure of the whole representation, and in that capacity, inflated with their high-flown fanciful ideas of Majesty, and tricked out in the trappings of royalty, think privilege and protection beneath their dignity, assume the sword of prerogative, and lord it equally over the King and the people."

These were the specific passages on which the complaint was founded: on these he stood calling upon that hon. House to vindicate itself from a series of unjust and unjustifiable aspersions, and punish the violation of their privileges in what manner might, to their wisdom, appear most fitting.

stated, that according to the uniform practice of parliament, it was now the time for the member charged to be heard in any thing he had to say in answer to the charge preferred against him.

, in a low tone of voice, said that the hon. member was bound explicitly to point out the nature of the charge. There was to his mind no ground of charge in the extracts which had been read from his Address to his Constituents. The hon. member had thought proper to call the attention of the House to certain passages in that Address upon which he founded his charge, but had not condescended to state what privilege of that House they violated, or how they violated any privilege of parliament. That Address contained all of argument that he knew on the subject, and he could now add nothing to those arguments. The Address was his. The Argument which it contained was his; he was ready to see them subjected to the most rigorous inquiry; but till he should hear from the hon. member something in refutation of his principles, he could not look upon himself as called upon to undertake their defence. He had no hesitation to state that in writing that Address and Argument he had no idea that he was infringing any privilege of that House. Was it to be supposed that the simple act of arguing on the powers of the Commons was a crime? Would not the House endure even an abstract doubt of their powers? This doubt was the entire of the charge hitherto adduced; if a stronger one lay behind, it must be brought forward before he could be expected to meet it by an answer. He was willing to abide by the fact and argument of that paper; he would stand the issue, but if it were the pleasure of the House that he should now withdraw, he was ready to withdraw." (Cries of No, No, from the House.)

again stated the usage of parliament. A charge being made against a member, he might meet it as he pleased. He might deny, admit, justify, or excuse is. This was the uniform practice; and it was equally the uniform practice for the member thereafter to withdraw. Following preceding cases, it would then be for the hon. gent., bringing forward the charge, to offer a proposition declaratory of his opinion of the subject-matter, which it was for the House to deal with, as their judgment directed; either to adopt, amend, or negative it. If the House, therefore, would not, in the present instance, choose to depart from the unchanged, and what he hoped would be their unchangeable practice, they would order the hon. baronet to withdraw.

Sir Francis Burdett accordingly withdrew.

rose to offer a few observations on the point of order, when he was stopped by

, who informed the hon. member that there was ho question before the House.

objected to the course pursued, and said, in point of fact there was no complaint made against the hon. baronet (Loud cries of Chair! Chair!)

, to set the noble lord right, had to inform him, that what had yet been done, was conformably to the established rules and unbroken practice of parliament.

then rose to submit the Resolutions which he meant to found upon the document which he had given in, and which had been read at the table. In stating the grounds upon which he felt it his duty to bring this subject under the consideration of the House, it was his intention not to trespass at any length, upon its time or attention.

, on this, called the hon. gent. to order. If the hon. member was to make a speech at all, he should have made it before his hon. friend had withdrawn. When the hon. member had called the attention of the House to certain passages, in the publication then before the House, which he charged as objectionable, he should at that time have shewn how these passages were in breach, of the privileges of that House. It was such an explanation on the part of that hon. gentleman, which he had in a former instance called for, as it was his decided opinion, that any speech he had to make ought to have been spoken before the hon. baronet had withdrawn. Undoubtedly the hon. member was not called upon to bring forward his Resolutions in the same way. He was himself fully aware, that the practice of that House required the hon. baronet to withdraw before any specific motion, founded on the grounds of charge, should be submitted to the House. But he begged gentlemen to consider the embarrassing situation in which his hon. friend was placed, by having withdrawn before he had an opportunity of hearing the statement of the hon. gent. as to the manner in which the passages specified were considered by the hon. member as violations of the privileges of that House.

looked upon the course proposed by the hon. mover to be perfectly consistent with the uniform and established practice of that House. The hon. member was then about to submit the proposition which he had felt it necessary to bring forward respecting the parts of the production which made the foundation of his complaint to the House. He apprehended, therefore, that it was perfectly competent to that hon. member to proceed now to state the reasons upon which he grounded the motion he was about to submit, and which he conceived sufficient to justify him in bringing the complaint under the consideration of the House. Unless he had inadvertently omitted some step in the progress of the proceeding, it was his opinion that the course proposed to be pursued was strictly in order.

coincided in the doctrine so clearly laid down from the chair. The individual who thought it his duty to bring forward a charge, was bound to make a complaint in the first instance to the House, and then to lay the particular grounds of his charge upon the table, in a specific shape. In the case under consideration; the whole of the document upon which the charge was founded had been read by the clerk at the table; and the hon. member bringing forward the charge, had besides even pointed out, and read in his place, the particular passages which he conceived to amount to a violation of the privileges of that House. The hon. baronet had therefore had an opportunity to prove, if he could, that the passages so specified did not violate the privileges of that House; he had the opportunity to shew how far they contained the sentiments of a person who entertained a respect for the character, the dignity, the privileges of that House; how far they were innocent in themselves, or justifiable upon any grounds. The hon. gent., therefore, who brought forward this question, was very properly, when interrupted by the noble lord, proceeding to state the grounds upon which he considered the passages he had pointed out, as violations of the privileges of that House. Upon the principle of reasoning adopted by the noble lord, the hon. baronet should not only be permitted to hear the grounds upon which the hon. mover brought forward his Resolutions, but all the arguments which should be made use of in the whole course of the discussion. Upon the reason of the thing, he would admit, that an individual under an accusation ought to be allowed to hear all that might be urged in support of the charge against him. But upon very good and sufficient reasons, that House had thought proper to adopt a different course in its proceedings, and to act uniformly upon the principle which dictated it. If the hon. baronet were therefore to be allowed to hear the speech of the hon. gent, he would have an equal right to hear the whole discussion; and as both were inconsistent with the uniform practice of that House, he was determined to support the course that had been pointed out by the Chair.

offered himself unwillingly to the House, particularly as he differed from the opinion of the Chair as to the propriety of the course proposed to be pursued. But whatever reluctance he might feel on the occasion he was in duty bound to state the conscientious impressions which existed on his mind. There were but one or two precedents of cases, similar to that under consideration, that he could call to mind, as having occurred since he had the honour of a seat in that House, both of which were in strict conformity with the course he pointed out in the present instance. One of these precedents was the case of the right hon. gent. himself (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) last year. In that case, an hon. member (Mr. Madocks) whom he was happy to see in his place and who would correct him if he should make any mistake, or inadvertent misrepresentation, had submitted a brief complaint to the House. Exception was taken to the proposition for proceeding with the charge at that time, and consequently some days delay took place, after which the hon. member brought forward his charge again, which he prefaced with an argument of considerable length, shewing the grounds upon which he founded his accusation. The right hon. gent. was then heard at length in his defence, as also a noble lord (Castlereagh) who was implicated with him in the transaction which gave rise to the charge (respecting the seat of Mr. Dick, then recently vacated). Both the hon. members had had the advantage of hearing the speech of his hon. friend, and after they had made their defence and withdrawn, all that remained for his hon. friend to do was to submit his motion to the House. The other was, that of the lord advocate of Scotland some years since, when an hon. friend of his Mr. Whitbread explained the ground of his accusation in a long speech, reserving his motion only till that noble lord had made a long speech in his own justification, and withdrawn. The same course, according to all the information which he had been able to collect, ought to be pursued in the present case; and it was upon the thorough conviction of the propriety of that course, according to the reason of the thing, that he had ventured to suggest it. The right hon. gent. seemed to have greatly misunderstood the views he had upon this question. An hon. member had produced a pamphlet, the work of another hon. member, and read some passages from that pamphlet, which he made the ground of a charge of breach of the privileges of that House against the author. How such passages were a violation of the privileges of that House had not been shewn; and unless that could be shewn, and if the writer remained still of the same opinion as when he wrote the pamphlet, he contended that his hon. friend could not know on what ground he was charged, or in what manner to defend himself, particularly as he had stated that, in writing it, he did not conceive that he was infringing any privilege of that House. If the hon. baronet had changed his opinion, he might undoubtedly retract, or qualify, or even excuse his conduct; but without knowing in what way his sentiments, as expressed in his work, were considered a violation of the privileges of that House, it was actually impossible for him to know what defence to make. He could not suppose it to be the object of the right hon. gent. to entrap the hon. baronet into the embarrassment in which the proceeding proposed must unquestionably involve him. It was a fallacious argument of the right hon. gent. to say, that if the hon. baronet was to hear the speech of the hon. gent., he would equally be entitled to hear the whole discussion. When an hon. member called the attention of the House to a grave and serious matter of charge, it was but fair that the accused member should have an opportunity to hear the grounds upon which the charge was brought forward; and after defending himself in his place, he might then very properly be required to withdraw without hearing any part of the subsequent discussion. The reason of the case, therefore, bore him out in the course he recommended; and he must contend that the honourable baronet was intitled to the fair advantage of hearing the grounds upon which the honourable member had made the complaint and charge against him.

felt himself bound in duty to the House to bring to the recollection of gentlemen, that in cases of complaints against members, there were two sorts of proceedings resorted to by the House, which might perhaps account for the difference of opinion on this question. One of these proceedings was, when a complaint was founded upon a written paper, or other document. When that was the case, the paper on which the complaint was founded was given in at the table, after which the member, the object of the charge, was heard in his defence from his place, and then required to withdraw. The House, upon that, uniformly proceeded to discuss the merits of the charge, and after mature deliberation and according to the particular merits of the case came to a final decision upon it. The other course was that which was followed when a member could have no notice of the charge against him; in which case the member bringing forward the charge was bound to clear the grounds of his motion, and state the nature of the charge. To this description of cases he conceived the case of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, already alluded to by the noble lord, to belong. In that instance the charge was founded on a letter which had been written, by that noble lord, in his official character, to an individual in Scotland. The grounds of the charge were fully stated, and that noble lord was heard at length in his defence. The House would recollect the comments, which, after that noble lord had withdrawn, had been made on the species of defence to which he had resorted. The noble lord, in that defence, which appered to many hon. members full and satisfactory, had made some allusions to the peculiar laws and institutions of Scotland; and it must be fresh in the recollection of several gentlemen, how these allusions had been commented upon, and the comments made to bear upon the question under discussion. He took it to be the right of a member under accusation, to have due notice of the charge against him, but not of the arguments in support of it. If an hon. member was entitled to hear all the arguments in support of the charge before he should withdraw, then he should not withdraw till the House should have passed its vote upon the subject, a doctrine which could not for a moment be entertained. The course of proceedings laid down in the Text Books, directed that in case of a charge founded on a written document, that document should be given in, and that the member under accusation, after being heard in his defence, should then be required to withdraw. But in cases where the complaint should not he founded on any written document, the accused party had a right to hear the grounds of the charge stated before he should be put upon his defence previous to his withdrawing. He had felt it to be his duty to put the House in possession of these circumstances, as to the uniform and established course of proceeding in all matters of complaints, against individual members.

then rose to state the grounds of his charge, and declared that in doing so he should be very short. Many reasons, he observed, induced him to be brief on this occasion. The principal one was, the little habit he was in of addressing that House. The task he had undertaken was painful and difficult, but however painful or difficult it was, he felt himself called upon to bring forward the question. The letter of the document was, however, so clear, the real question lay within such a small compass, that it would require but little abilities to put it in a form for the decision of the House. Really, from what had fallen from the noble lord opposite, one would have supposed, that he (Mr. Lethbridge) had written a long speech on the subject, the copy of which he had dropped from his pocket, and was found by the noble lord, who thought to embarrass him by calling for a speech no longer in his power to make. He had, however, no object but to state briefly the two resolutions which he meant to propose. These, he trusted, would be adopted by the House. They must, if that House wished to save its own character, and that of old England, He spoke from the bottom of his heart. He wished the hon. baronet to hear him (a laugh, and hear! hear!). He should repeat his wish that the hon. baronet had not been precluded by the forms of the House from hearing what he had to say. He felt no hostility to that hon. baronet; he had much higher motives for his conduct on this occasion. He was convinced that if the House had any regard for its character, it would put a stop to such proceedings as they had witnessed of late. He had heard things stated in that House, which had made the hair on his head stand on end. (a laugh.) He could assure the House that the feelings of horror with which he heard it stated, that, "in the opinion of the public the reputation of that House had not a leg to stand upon," had produced that effect upon him. He trusted that such proceedings would be effectually put a stop to, and with that view he should propose the following resolutions for the adoption of the House. 1st. ''Resolved that the Letter signed Francis Burdett, and the further Argument, which was published in the paper called Cobbett's Weekly Register, on the 24th of this instant, is a libellous and scandalous paper, reflecting upon the just rights and privileges of this House,—2d. Resolved, That sir Francis Burdett, who suffered the above articles to be printed with his name, and by his authority, has been guilty of a violation of the privileges of this House."

, in rising to second the motion, said that it would not be necessary for him to use many words. He begged to call the attention of the House to the case of Mr. Hall, in the year 1558. In that case, the House had voted a publication to which its attention had been called not only slanderous to the character, but derogatory from the dignity and honour of that House. Mr. Hall was afterwards, on being found to have been the author of the paper, appointed a day to be heard in his defence in the Committee of Privileges, after which he was sequestered, and the House proceeded to a discussion as to his punishment, which was voted unanimously. He was satisfied that there were many other precedents which could be produced, but he had referred to the earliest he could find, to shew that the House had been at all times justly and greatly jealous of such violations of its privileges; and he trusted that it would not be less so in the year 1810 than it had been in the year 1558. If the House should not vote this production a slanderous and libellous paper, derogatory from the character and honour of the House, it would not shew a proper regard to its own dignity. He should have thought that no doubt could exist that the motion of his hon. friend would have been agreed to, if it had not been for the significant cheers from the gentlemen opposite. Before, however, they should come to a decision on this question, they were bound to consider well the nature of the paper under consideration, the subject to which it referred, and the circumstances, under which it had been produced. They were bound to weigh well the consequences of not adopting the motion of his hon. friend. How could they hesitate, when they recollected the spirit and the advocates of jacobinism which existed in the country; whose numbers, whether in leaders or disciples, were but few, but whose object it was to dispute and bring into discredit the authority of that House? If this spirit should not be checked in time, it would not only take away the dignity, the character, and the authority of that House, but destroy the very existence of it as a branch of the legislature.

observed, that neither the hon. mover, nor the seconder of the resolutions, had a deeper respect, or a warmer attachment to the privileges of the House of Commons than he, humble as he was, entertained. All his conduct, since he had been a member of that House, had shewn, that he had never offered the slightest disrespect to the character, nor in the smallest degree interfered with the privileges of that House. But the motion before the House appeared to be one which required the gravest deliberation, in order that they should come to a solemn, just, and useful decision. The paper read by the clerk was a long one, and though the hon. gent. had pointed out some particular passages as the grounds of his complaint, still it would be difficult, in case of so long a paper, to decide whether the particular passages would support the charge, without the opportunity of considering all the parts of it. How much more difficult then would it be in case of a paper, professing to be a legal argument, founded on the known laws of the land! He trusted that he should not be thought indifferent to the privileges of that House, if he moved an adjournment of the discussion upon this motion. All the members of that House had devoted their minds to the consideration of the question respecting the Expedition to Walcheren, the discussion of which was still pending. No hon. gent. with the exception perhaps of the hon. mover and seconder, had given such attention to the question immediately before the House, as to be able to lay his hand upon his heart, and say that he was prepared to give a fair and dispassionate vote upon it. Whatever might be the ultimate decision of the House, it would have more weight with the public and be entitled to greater respect from every quarter, the more consideration should be given to the question. Upon these grounds he should move, That the discussion be adjourned to this day se'nnight.

did not mean to oppose the adjournment of the question, but expressed a wish that the right hon. gent. should not persist in moving for so long an adjournment. He should think that the House would proceed with the discussion on the earliest day, that it could be able to become acquainted with the nature of the charges sufficiently to come to a just decision. This was due as well to the intrinsic importance of the question itself as to the feelings of the individual concerned. The House would recollect, that the hon. baronet had been ordered to withdraw, and for himself he did not know what effect, that might have with respect to the propriety of the hon. baronet's being present at the discussion of questions which might intervene, before the decision on the present question. He was not aware of the practice of the House on Such occasions, and threw the observation out with a view to getting information. If the individual could return to his place during the adjournment of this discussion, it might be a question, whether it would be right that a person under a charge for a breach of the privileges of that House should continue to enjoy these privileges, and exercise the rights belonging to its members. Upon that point he should be glad to receive information. But, at all events, he should think it would be desirable not to adjourn the discussion over to-morrow or Thursday at farthest. The House must be aware that this was a question respecting its own privileges, and that such questions always took precedence of any other subject. He suggested, therefore, to the right hon. gent. the propriety of limiting his motion for the adjournment to to-morrow, in order that whatever might be the decision of the House, it should be come to as soon as possible. If the right hon. gent. should not amend his motion, as he suggested, by substituting to morrow for this day se'nnight, he should move an amendment to that effect. Some delay he thought necessary because of the length of the paper; but every hon. gent. must know, that they could have sufficient opportunity to make themselves acquainted with the contents of the paper, so as to be prepared for the discussion before they should meet to morrow. The right hon. gent. concluded by moving as an amendment, That the debate be adjourned to to-morrow.

contended that his right hon friend, in moving the question of adjournment, had no object in view but to enable the House to come to a fair and just decision, when they should be in full possession of the whole contents of the paper. Considering the length of the paper that had been read, and the importance which might attach to the comparison of the different passages, in order to judge fairly of the whole, he thought a longer adjournment than that proposed by the last speaker absolutely necessary. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that there was at this moment a most important discussion pending, on a subject relating personally to himself, but highly interesting to the public. It was not his intention to impute to the right hon. gent. any design to bring in any other question to interfere with the progress of that in which he was so deeply concerned. He could not suppose it was that right hon. gentleman's wish to give precedence to another question with any view to distract the attention of that House, and the feelings of the public from a subject which had occupied so much of both. Many hon. members were anxious to deliver their sentiments on that subject; and his right hon. friend was even in possession of the House for the purpose of stating his opinion upon it. When they considered that the present debate, produced no doubt by accident alone, had been protracted to so late an hour, as well as the short period that must naturally intervene between the termination of the debate of this night, and the time of their meeting to-morrow, gentlemen would be convinced of the impossibility that members could come down to-morrow properly prepared for the discussion of this question; so important not alone to the hon. baronet, but to the interests of the House. For himself, he could say, that he was not prepared at present to go into that discussion, neither could he be prepared by to-morrow. All that was asked for was, that they might go into the discussion on the earliest day after they should be prepared to resume it with effect. That could not be the case to-morrow. The debate on the Expedition could not be expected to terminate that night; or, if it should, would conclude at so late an hour as to render it impossible for gentlemen to make themselves sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances of the case then under consideration. He should, therefore, as the debate on the Expedition could not possibly terminate before Thursday morning, propose to his right hon. friend to take Friday instead of this day se'nnight, as the day to which the debate should be adjourned. The hon. member. concluded by moving an amendment to that effect.

considered the question so important to the House and the hon. baronet, that, though he should not himself have moved the adjournment of the discussion, he yet was glad that it had been moved in order that he and other hon. members might be enabled to coma down better prepared for the discussion. From the attention he had paid to the subject, more perhaps than other members, he was convinced that when gentlemen considered it maturely, they would not regret that the more distant day had been preferred for the adjournment. The question respecting the privileges of that House, had been discussed by more and higher authorities than any other, perhaps, that could be made the subject of investigation. The more, therefore, that gentlemen consulted these authorities, the greater necessity they would feel for attentive and deliberate consideration. On that ground he trusted that the House would agree to the more distant day. He begged gentlemen would not take up the question as lightly as had been done by some of the members who had already spoken; and trusted that it would be regarded with much more serious consideration than appeared to have been bestowed upon it by the hon. mover and seconder of the Resolutions, It would be necessary for gentleman to consider drily what were the privileges of that House, without referring to any expressions, Which might have been used in a former debate, or resorting to the stale and exploded and senseless topic of the existence of a jacobin spirit in this country. The manner in which the question had been treated by the hon. mover and seconder, made him apprehensive that they had taken up the subject very lightly indeed. Far different, he trusted, would be the degree of consideration bestowed upon it by the House, not alone because it was of near and anxious interest to the hon. baronet, but because it was of the last importance to the best and most vital interests of that House. He thought it his duty to say thus much in consequence of the sentiments, which had been thrown out in the short speeches of the two hon. gentlemen opposite, and was determined to vote for the adjournment to the more distant day.

declared that the speech of the noble lord had furnished him with an unanswerable argument against the adjournment to the more distant day, if even he had been previously disposed to vote for it. It had been said by the noble lord that this was a question of much difficulty, but for his part he could not see in what the difficulty of the case consisted. If any legal doubt existed as to the constitutional exercise of the privilege of that House, involved in the present proceeding, that was a reason why no time should be lost in getting rid of that doubt. It was to be recollected that an individual was at present in custody in consequence of the exercise of that privilege; and if it could be possible that the confinement was contrary to law, no time should be lost in settling a point which would release a fellow subject from an unconstitutional restraint. He felt a strong wish that his right hon. friend might have an opportunity of having the earliest decision upon a question interesting to his feelings and character; but he was not therefore to be insensible to the situation of another individual of his fellow subjects now in confinement, whose release might depend upon the decision of the debate proposed to be adjourned. Had it not been stated in the paper of the hon. baronet, that the warrant of the Speaker for committing the individual to whom he alluded was illegal? If any doubt existed as to its legality, the question ought to be set at rest as early as possible.—If the warrant should prove to be illegal, then the person in custody must necessarily be released; whereas on the contrary, if it should be established to be legal, in that case there could be no doubt that the statement of the hon. baronet was a breach of the privileges of that House; but in either case, it was desirable to come to a speedy decision, and therefore he should vote for the more moderate adjournment. It had often been imputed to his right hon. friend, that he preferred proceeding upon questions, relating to the dignities of that House, than upon questions personally interesting to himself; for the present case he could not see what was to be gained or lost by a delay of a few hours, and therefore should vote for the adjournment to to-morrow.

would say but a few words, though the new question would authorise him to speak again. When the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Whitbread) had broadly imputed to him a motive in wishing for a delay of 24 hours in the previously pending discussion, he could not sit silent under the imputation. If he had wished for delay, he might have applied for it at the commencement of the discussion, on the ground that some of the papers necessary to form a judgment upon the case had not been delivered to members, and others were not yet on their table. An application for further delay, founded upon such a statement, no hon. member could, he was persuaded, resist. He had no such wish, but was as desirous as any hon. member that the discussion should proceed; and, if it was to be interrupted by the discussion of the question then under consideration, was that interruption to be imputed to him? Had he advised the hon. baronet to publish that statement which was the foundation of the charge against him? Had he recommended to that hon. bart. to publish that statement on Saturday last, so as to give rise at this particular time to the complaint that occasioned this delay? Had he any concern in the mode in which the question had been brought under the consideration of the House? All that the noble lord had said on the principle of the law of the case, had, as had been ably stated by his hon. friend, made against his own argument, and Was a sufficient ground for avoiding all unnecessary delay. The question was one of the most grave nature, and of the last importance to the character, the dignity, the honour, and the independence of that House. The longer they suffered the decision upon it td be delayed, the longer they would submit to be trampled upon; and the more they would betray their own dignity, feelings, and independence. The law of the case had been discussed and decided upon in a full House lately almost unanimously. He said, almost unanimously, because though the House was full, only fourteen voted with the hon. baronet, and many of them had voted on the ground that the previous confinement of the individual was a sufficient punishment for his offence. The consideration, however, that one individual was in custody, and another under accusation, was a reason for restricting the adjournment to the shortest possible period.

felt that every member must regret that this question had been forced upon the consideration of the House. He thought that whatever opinion might be entertained as to the character of the publication in question, the difference of one or two days could not be of much consequence. He thought the adjournment should extend to the more distant day—first, because many might perhaps think upon a careful examination of the context of this long paper, that it might suggest matter of extenuation, if not of justification—and, secondly, because it was of importance that the question already pending should be previously disposed of. He had read the publication, and thought that in very plain language, it impeached the legality of the exercise of a privilege which was strictly conformable to the practice of that House. For his own part, he thought the privileges of that House as much a part of the law of the land as that unwritten common law which was universally recognized in our courts of law; but on the grounds he had before stated, he should vote for the adjournment to Friday.

expressed his surprise that the right hon. gent. opposite, who had been so long an active member of the House, should have felt any difficulty in deciding whether the hon. baronet could take a share in the other proceedings of the House. He conceived that the point was settled that members in his situation were only excluded on the particular question. He then referred to the cases of Mr. Steele, Mr. Esdale, and Major Scott, to shew that adjournments for several days had frequently taken place on questions similar to the present. He must contend that it was actually impossible for gentlemen to be prepared for the discussion to-morrow. He was one of those who had voted on the former question, and might, perhaps, be better prepared for this discussion than others. But when he considered that only 160 members had been present at that discussion, and looked round him now, and perceived that nearly 400 were present, he could not conceive how those who had heard no part of the former discussion could be prepared so early to enter into this. In his opinion, therefore, he thought that, if they consulted the dignity of the House, they should consent to the adjournment to Friday.

observed, that an interval of five days had taken place in the cases of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State.

The House then divided on the question, whether the adjournment should be till Friday or till to-morrow:—

moved the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate upon the policy and conduct of the Expedition to the Scheldt. On the order of the day being read, the right hon. gent. resumed his argument (in reply to lord Castlereagh,) and began by expressing his surprise that the noble lord had stated the great object of the Expedition to be the creating a diversion in favour of Austria, and that the destruction of the arsenal at Antwerp was only a secondary object. He had been the more surprized to hear this, when he recollected the instructions to lord Chatham, which stated in effect that the particular object of the Expedition was the destruction of the arsenal at Antwerp. His lordship could hardly now, therefore, be permitted to say that this was an object secondary to the chief one, of giving assistance to Austria. The noble lord had said that lie had called for the military opinions not to determine as to the expediency or inexpediency of the Expedition; but, to assist him and his colleagues in making up their minds as to the best means of carrying it into execution. Did the noble lord mean to say, that he asked for these military opinions in order to judge whether he should Send out the Expedition or not? He understood from his gesture, that he had called for them with that view. Then why had the noble lord decided in opposition to these opinions? But the noble lord contended that he was not to be bound by such opinions, and illustrated this position by saying, that though one might receive an opinion from a lawyer, that the title deeds of an estate were bad, one would probably next morning, purchase the estate. But though the noble lord had sent out an Expedition in opposition to the opinions of general officers whom he had consulted, he was much too prudent to buy an estate against the opinion of counsel that the title deeds were bad. The noble lord had argued that government was not bound by the opinions of military officers. True—they might act on their own responsibility—but then they were bound to use their discretion with common sense; and though they were not bound by military opinions, yet if they did think it right to act in opposition to them, they made themselves thereby more deeply responsible. All the written opinions which the noble lord had called for, were clearly adverse to the Expedition, so that he had nothing to produce in his favour, or to set against those authorities which tended so strongly to discourage the undertaking.

The noble lord had been pleased to impute blame to his noble friend for closing his evidence without producing general Brownrigg, or examining that officer upon the subject; but his noble friend had several times called for general Brownrigg, who had excused himself as often on the ground of indisposition. But the noble lord himself had produced that general as a witness, and what was the justification drawn from his evidence? Why, he had said, that if the expedition had arrived at Santvliet, on the 3d of August, it might have succeeded in the ulterior objects. But this he founded on no naval or military authority, but confessed, that it was merely an inference of his own from casual conversations with military and naval officers, and founded wholly upon conjecture. The noble lord himself however did not concur in the testimony of general Brewnrigg, which he considered so important; for the noble lord did not think those favourable prospects stated by the general, confined to the 3d of August, and said he could not specify at what period the Expedition might not have succeeded: an assertion which implicated those who had the management of its execution. If he could not contemplate the time when the object became impracticable, he must deem its failure owing to the want of judgment and enterprize in those who conducted it. His lordship had been at Deal at the sailing of that armament, and was able to give an answer to the general from his own knowledge, that it was impossible to carry it all to the place intended by so early a day as the general named. The last division was not telegraphed to sail till that very 3d of August, on which day they ought, according to general Brownrigg, to have been at Santvliet, in order to afford any reasonable hope of success. If the noble lord, as he said, was not answerable for unforeseen accidents preventing, ulterior operations, yet he was responsible for framing an Expedition without thinking of any adverse accident. Human history hardly furnished an example of the planner of a great Expedition, taking every thing for granted in his favour, and wholly overlooking every thing which might prove adverse.

But the noble lord had favoured the House with long citations from the case of sir John Mordaunt's Expedition against Rochefort, in which he more than insinuated a comparison between that operation and the Expedition to the Scheldt. Lord Chatham, the great lord Chatham, was in that case the war minister, and failed. The noble lord had in the late instance been the war minister, and also failed. There was, however, some little difference between the two men. Lord Chatham stood at least as high in the opinion and had as much of the confidence of the country as the noble lord. Lord Chatham had pretensions to the confidence of the people—which the noble lord would be scarcely hardy enough to think himself entitled to. Lord Chatham as a war Minister, had been rather more successful than the noble lord, and with respect to talents there might be those, who thought, that lord Chatham would not suffer by a comparison even with the noble lord. But to what end had the noble lord cited the solitary instance of lord Chatham's failure? Why select that isolated and only instance? Why not look for some of the many instances in which he had succeeded? though it was to be admitted, that the comparison of a case of failure with any measure of the noble lord's, was the best way to make the comparison itself more apt, and thus perhaps it was intended to be argued.

Sir John Mordaunt was sent against Rochefort, and failed—Antwerp is circumstanced like Rochefort, therefore the noble lord sent an Expedition to Antwerp, and failed likewise. But there was some difference in the amount of force employed in both. Lord Chatham, in the Expedition against Rochefort, did not send out above 8 or 10,000 men. He did not risk a whole army; he did not expose the last army of England to inevitable destruction.

In the course of the commentaries of the noble lord upon the evidence, he stated, that that of general Brownrigg was the most material that appeared, and that it placed the merits of the Expedition in a clearer point of view, than the testimony of any other witness. Let them now refer to that evidence. The noble lord would not dispute the authenticity of the papers drawn up by general Brownrigg, in his official capacity as quarter master general. The noble lord would admit the authenticity of the paper submitted by general Brownrigg to the lieutenant-generals of the army at Bathz, on the 27th of August. Here Mr. Ponsonby read at length the Journal of the Army, and compared different passages with the evidence of general Brownrigg; which officer had affirmed, that if the army had reached Santvliet by the 3d of August, the ulterior objects of the Expedition need not have been abandoned; but it appeared from the papers before them, that on that very day they had received intelligence, that the enemy's fleet were distinctly seen lying at Antwerp. On the 4th of August, the ships had got up between the citadel and the town. It appeared too, that such was the information of the British generals, that they did not know in what part of the town the naval arsenals were situated—neither was it then known that those arsenals were protected by the guns from the citadel. On the 8th of August, the day before that, on which it had been said, that the army might have reached Antwerp, and opened a fire upon it—on that day intelligence was received of a considerable increase of force, viz, 2,000 French and upwards of 1,000 Dutch troops, being in Antwerp, ten squadrons at Bergen-op-Zoom, and great numbers moving in every direction, so that were the accounts but partially, or even half of them, true, had they proceeded, as had been supposed, from Santvliet on the 3d, on their subsequent arrival at Antwerp, instead of finding it in the defenceless state that it was expected to have been found in, they would have found it strong, and formidably defended. The noble lord had spoken of the equality of the enemy's troops, which we would then have to contend with, and added that he would not fear to commit an inferior number of British soldiers to an undertaking of the kind, not fearing but that their thirst for military glory, and talent for military achievement, would bring them triumphant over superior numbers; but did the noble lord forget what undisciplined troops might effect while under the cover of town walls, fortresses and batteries, even against veteran troops? Did the noble lord forget the striking instances of this determined resolution, afforded in the course of the Spanish resistance against the French? In the field, the armies of Spain were unable to make any effectual contest, but under the walls of Saragossa and Gerona, the mere peasantry were for a time, and no inconsiderable time, invincible.

But to return to the Journal. On the 10th of August information was received that the King of Holland had reached Bergen-op-Zoom, and that there was near Antwerp and in the neighbouring cantonments, an army amounting to 96,000 men, all, or the greater part of whom were said to be French; yet the noble lord had told them, notwithstanding those facts, and this confirmation of them, that there was no force, at that time, at Antwerp, or in the vicinity. But what said the Army Journal of the 14th of August?—That the commander in chief had received communications from two most confidential quarters, confirming the truth of all the preceding intelligence received from the 3d down to the 14th, respecting the force of the enemy and the strength of Antwerp. On the 18th and 19th, they got accounts of the state of Lillo and Liefkenshoeik. But the noble lord might say all this was information given to the commanders, but we the government had had different information, and upon that we acted. To recur, then, to the noble lord's own information. And here, in the first place, it was to be remarked, that the persons giving the information were not military—in the next place it was to be observed that the citadel of Antwerp, which was said to be so weak, and concerning which the government pretended to have had so much information, that there was, in their own secret intelligence, proof that they could not know the state of that citadel; none but military men being allowed to go into the citadel—with so much care and caution was it looked to by the French. Then what was the information with respect to Lillo and Liefkenshoeik? With respect to the former, fort Lillo appeared by the noble lord's information to be in a strong state of defence, with guns mounted and palisades. The other fort, Liefkenshoeik, is opposite to it. Of the two the scite of Lillo appeared to be the most elevated. The informant did not believe it to be bomb proof. Here the noble lord's own spy had told him that Lillo was in a strong state of defence. But there was other information; from which it appeared, that on the 1st of August troops were marching to Antwerp from all quarters, though none had at that date arrived there. It appeared also, that on the 5th of August the garrison of Antwerp consisted of 5,000 men, being conscripts, douaniers and volunteers. On the 5th and 6th troops from Calais and Boulogne were marching to Cadsand and Breskins. On the 9th and 10th there were at Breda and Bergen-op-Zoom, from 5,000 to 6,000 Dutch troops, and on the 11th, at Breda, Bergen-op-Zoom, Antwerp and its vicinity, and Cadsand, there were 26,000 troops, exclusive of the garrison of Flushing. The head-quarters were at Roxerthal, and the army was commanded by the King of Holland in person. Now all this, it was to be recollected, came from the noble lord's own spy. His own spy told him that there were 26,000 troops in Antwerp, and the vicinity, on the 11th of August, and those 26,000 exclusive of the garrison of Flushing. This was the species of encouraging information which the noble lord had received from his own spy. Not a single officer or engineer who had given his opinion upon the remote practicability of the Expedition, who did not found his opinion upon the most qualified provision of every thing turning out favourable; and indeed the noble lord seemed inclined to limit the provision still more by arguing, that the Expedition must have been successful, if it had no obstacle to contend with, either as to the elements, the climate, or the enemy.

With regard to the naval part of the Expedition, the noble lord at the head of the admiralty seemed to be as provident of the noble lord himself. His opinion given in the secret information respecting the navigation of the Scheldt, had been formed with the same care and attention that distinguished all the other proceedings of his lordship. It stated, that the passage from the Downs to Bathz might be effected in forty-eight hours, but upon the condition of the most favourable circumstances; and that to effect this passage with expedition and safety, it was necesary that there should be a pilot in every line of battle ship and frigate; the other mode of securing the safe passage of the ships was, that of having the channel buoyed; now, with respect to the buoys, there was not one, and as to the number of pilots, there was but one for the whole fleet.

He now came to that period in the Expedition when the army was assembled at Bathz; and first, he would beg the attention of the House while he read to them, at greater length than he could have wished, the paper addressed by general Brownrigg to the general officers at Bathz. It began by stating, that:—

"The armament having arrived at the point from whence further arrangements are to be made for carrying into effect, the ulterior object of the Expedition; and various important considerations combining to call for an immediate determination.—How far that object can be obtained with the means in our power, it becomes necessary to detail these means, and to advert to circumstances which have ensued from the commencement of the undertaking.

"And first it may be premised, that according to the original plan of operations, it was intended that a division of the army should be landed on Cadsand, and by that means secure to our fleet an entrance into the West Scheldt, and prevent succours being thrown into Flushing; thus effectually blockading the fortress by sea, while the army which disembarked on the North side of Walcheren, completed the investment on the land side. The landing on Cadsand became impracticable from the tempestuous state of the weather, the force of the enemy, and from a deficiency in means to debark at once a body of troops capable of contending with the numbers there was every reason to suppose would be prepared to dispute a landing."

Here then it appeared what the force of the enemy was, together with our comparative inefficiency to contend with their increasing numbers. The state of Cadsand was here distinctly laid down, and it would be recollected, that general Brownrigg, in his evidence, fully acquitted lord Huntley of not having acted right, and distinctly stated, that in similar circumstances he himself would have acted in the same way. Where then lay the fault but with the planners? It was evident, beyond contradiction, that all the blame was imputable to ministers, who had sent out a force not adequate to the purpose for which it was designed. He then goes on to say that—

"These circumstances, which it was not possible to controul, gave the enemy the opportunity of largely augmenting his garrison of Flushing, which, together with the nature of the ground on which the attack was to be carried on, rendered still more difficult from the extensive powers of inundation in the enemy's hands, protracted the reduction of the place to fifteen days from the period of our appearing before it; notwithstanding the unremitting exertions of the navy and troops engaged in the operation. With these uncontroulable obstacles to contend with, the prospect soon vanished of being able by a rapid and simultaneous effort, to carry the object of the Expedition to its ultimate extent, and which could alone insure the complete success of the enterprize. The enemy having for some days enjoyed an uninterrupted communication with Cadsand, and having by this means more than doubled his force, led to the necessity of adding to the besiegers corps a large portion of the force destined to proceed by the West Scheldt to the more distant points of attack; and rendered that force unavailable for that object, until we became possessed of Flushing. Having thus stated the actual circumstances under which the armament has arrived in its present situation; we must next consider what we have yet to accomplish, and the force likely to be opposed to us. The strength of the enemy, by concurring intelligence, appears to be nearly as follows: In Bergen-op-Zoom 6,000; Breda 2,000; cantoned between Bergen-op-Zoom and Antwerp 15,000; in Antwerp 11,000; on the left bank of the Scheldt 3,000; in Tholen 500; total 35,500."

And thus we had it in evidence that the enemy's force at that time appeared from concurring intelligence to amount to 35,500 men. Thus too the recorded opinions of general Brownrigg were in direct hostility with the professions and defence of the noble lord. Bat, would the noble lord insinuate that general Brownrigg had deceived the lieutenant-generals upon that occasion? He (Mr. Ponsonby) would not here ask whether his account was or was not exaggerated. General Brownrigg had since, it was true, in his evidence upon the inquiry reduced that force to 30,000; but had there been but 20,000, they would in such circumstances, be as formidable as fifty. The success upon Antwerp depended, according to general Brownrigg, upon celerity of movement—that celerity upon effective co-operation on the part of the navy, and that co-operation on the reduction of the forts of Lillo and Liefken-shoeik. Upon the 1st of August however it appeared, that the enemy's fleet was above the boom at Lillo, and the general opinion was, that that boom could not be forced. But the statement went on to say that,

"Our total numbers, including artillery, cavalry, and infantry, amounts to about 30,000 effective; of which 6,000 are left in Walcheren, and 2,000 must necessarily be left in South Beveland, giving a disposable force of only 22,000 men for the siege of Antwerp, and the other operations connected with it."

So that 22,000, to say nothing of the casualties of sickness, were the whole amount of British troops disposable to advance to the siege of Antwerp, and to contend with 35,500 men. The House would observe, however, the mode of carrying on the siege as recommended in the following passage:—

"In proceeding to the siege of Antwerp, it would no doubt be a leading object in the plan of operations, to accommodate it as far as possible to obtain the co-operation of our naval means, without which, the enterprize would be clogged with the difficulty of transporting by land from the point of debarkation, through an enemy's country, all the ordnance, stores, and entrenching tools, necessary to undertake the siege of a considerable place, and to provide the means of subsistence for which we could not well command the resources of the country beyond the reach of our arms; and it would be a considerable increase of these difficulties to collect if they can be had, or to transport if they be prepared, the Vast quantities of platforms, fascines, and gabions required for such a siege. The plan by which only the co-operation of our naval force can be obtained would be by the reduction of Lillo and Liefkenshoeik, and the complete investment of Antwerp on both banks of the river."

From this it appeared, that nothing less than the complete investment of Antwerp could be effectual. Such was the language of the general who had talked of reducing Antwerp by bombardment. One would almost be led to doubt upon referring to this paper, that the writer of it was the same gentleman who had given his evidence at their bar. But the noble lord had said, the Expedition had not been fairly tried. In what respect? Did he mean to say that the mode of execution had defeated the plan? Were the generals wrong in retreating? Would the noble lord have had them, even after general Brownrigg's paper of the 26th of August, have gone forward; or if he admitted that nothing could have been done after that period, he called upon the noble lord to state, what error in the execution was the cause that nothing had been done before it? Why not openly state to his Majesty—to that House, where and how his plans had been abused, or discomfited?—And if the noble lord felt that such was the fact, why did he not move a censure upon those men who had refused inquiry into the causes of the failure of that Expedition? But with respect to the diversion in favour of Austria—Austria required no such exertion upon our parts, neither as to number nor as to place. He could not help adverting here to the manner of expression, to the general tone, in which the noble lord had last night conducted his defence. The noble lord seemed to feel as if he had performed some great service to the country, and was in other parts of his speech as gay, airy, and blithsome, as if he was enjoying some pleasant entertainment; and that too while he was answering the representatives of his insulted and injured country for the many thousands of his countrymen whom his wild fantastic experiments in expeditions had buried in a foreign grave. Men, no doubt, differed very much; but he did not think that any other man in the empire so circumstanced, could have spoken upon the subject without real agony of mind.

But the noble lord could be calm, could be gay, and even feel at his ease, though he had undertaken this most disastrous Expedition, in opposition to the spirit of all the opinions of the military men he had consulted. Sir H. Popham in vain pressed for dispatch, and threatened the noble lord at the head of the admiralty with the dreadful consequences of delay, in having to contend with the most serious of obstacles—the elements; but the noble lord knew better. That noble lord replied to such representation, "Go on, sir Home—only go, and I dare say you will do very well."(A laugh.) Another ground of justification as stated by the noble lord, was the expediency of raising the character of the army—to raise higher the military character of the country. Did the noble lord find that character so fallen and degraded, that it became expedient to throw away the lives of a great army in order to restore it? This was indeed a compliment to our military means! but if that Expedition had found their character high, had it by its own virtue or its unhappy result worked that character up higher? Where had we met the enemy upon equal terms and not been conquerors? But were we a herd of the veriest cowards that ever crawled upon the earth, common humanity should have prevented him from embarking such a cruel experiment. Nelson, and the fights of Aboukir and Copenhagen had been irreverently introduced by the noble lord in his justification. Why! what similarity was there between that Hero and the commander in chief of the late Expedition, whom the noble lord selected for celerity, sagacity and dispatch? The noble lord thought he was upon a rock; he called for acquittal from the justice of the House. He (Mr. Ponsonby) called also upon the justice of the House. He asked them if they would say that the noble lord was not responsible for the failure? But the noble lord had indeed reason to calculate liberally upon the lenity of the House, They had often been deaf to the calls of justice and pardoned his offences, only to repeat the exercise of their forgiveness. He was either wrong or he was right—if right, why that latent intrigue, amongst his colleagues, in which even his nearest connections and associates took a part. Why did they all agree that he was incompetent to the situation which he held? Why did they agree that he should stay in office till the termination of the Expedition, which he himself had planned—then to be turned out, whether, that Expedition failed or succeeded? He (Mr. P.) believed that they were anxious to send out the Expedition, in order to send out the noble lord. They were so anxious to get rid of him, that they suffered him to plan what they were conscious must fail, but which failure would relieve them from the noble lord. The House, then, would pause, and retrace the mischievous effects of their own misjudged lenity towards the noble lord, and the set of men who have been so long abusing it. This conduct of that House was one of the most powerful causes of the late calamitous Expedition. They had now to suffer the consequences of their weak indulgence to the incorrigible fatuity of a set of men, who thought that because they were tolerated they were approved. Unfeeling from habit, bold from ignorance, and confident from impunity, they grew more hardy as they became more criminal. Let the House assert its dignity, by wresting from them the means of doing mischief. They had heard of libellers within and without those walls—let the House be but true to itself, and to the country, and such conduct would be the most satisfactory answer to all such charges.

rose and addressed the House as follows:— Previous to entering upon the immediate consideration of the Expedition to the Scheldt, I shall, with the leave of the House, take a review of the general policy by which his Majesty's ministers must have been governed at the time they determined upon that measure.

This would have been a necessary preliminary discussion at all events, but it has become particularly so, as much difference of opinion has prevailed in this House and in the country, upon a point of such very material importance.

Objections of a pecuniary nature have been stated to any other employment of our forces at the period when the Expedition was sent to the Scheldt, but there are, in my opinion, many considerations which must then have rendered operations in any part of Europe but that which was chosen for their theatre, decidedly out of the question.

Early in the spring of 1809, Austria was meditating war with France, and we were actively engaged in support of the Spanish cause against the same power. It behoved us then to combine, as far as it was possible to do so, a co-operation with Austria without relaxing our efforts in favour of Spain, and with as much attention to our immediate national interests, as might be compatible with the furtherance of those of our allies, and with the success, as far as we could promote it, of the common cause of Europe.

When I mention national interests, I certainly do not mean to deny that our first and best interest must ever consist in promoting, to the utmost extent of our power, the success of those nations which may be at any time engaged in active hostility against the common enemy. But whilst a government is acting upon this broad and enlightened system, it is its bounden duty to attempt the acquisition of such separate national objects as may be attainable without prejudice to the great and general line of policy, which an able statesman will ever make his predominant consideration.

Austria, in her communications to this government, made two distinct propositions:—The one to land an army in the gulf of the Adriatic, in order to co-operate with the archduke John, at that time commanding on the side of Italy, and if that should be considered as not practicable, at least to keep all the troops in Sicily which, then were there, for the purpose of creating a diversion in Italy, either by occasional descents, should opportunity offer, or by detaining, through the menacing attitude of that offensive position, a part of the enemy's force in the kingdom of Naples.

The second proposition of Austria was, to send a corps of moderate size to the north of Germany, for the purpose of supporting, and still farther increasing the insurrections against, the newly established governments which had already appeared in those countries, and by that means creating a great diversion in her favour.

Let us now examine the measures thus proposed by Austria, and other operations which have been suggested in this country as preferable to that which his Majesty's, ministers adopted.

The landing an army in the Adriatic Gulf has always appeared tome a measure particularly objectionable, even if your ally, for whom it might be undertaken, were in great force in that quarter, and enjoying a decided superiority over the enemy.—The great and leading objection consists, I think, in this consideration; namely, if the allied army should be forced only to a temporary retreat, the British would suffer incalculable Inconvenience from the interception of all communication with their fleet, and their great depot, and from their being thrown entirely upon their ally for subsistence, and every requisite for the army, in an unproductive country, ill calculated to furnish supplies for the extent of force which, under such Circumstances, would be pressing upon its resources.

This observation applies to an operation in that point at any time; but in this particular case there was another insuperable objection. The army intended for active operations could not possibly be ready before the middle or latter end of July, as appears by the papers on the table; because the basis upon which alone it could be formed, were those troops which had been employed under sir John Moore in Spain: and with all the exertion which the government, the commander in chief, and every officer concerned, could make, the regiments that had suffered so much in their retreat to Corunna, and in the glorious battle fought there, could not possibly be ready to take the field again before the period above mentioned. Our means of recruiting are well known to be very limited—our great resource for expeditious completion of deficiencies, and augmentation of our force, namely, volunteering from the militia, was resorted to, and no means left unemployed, but still the utmost energy and activity in every department could not produce a sufficient army of any size sooner than the period at which our troops were embarked in July.

If we had dispatched so large an armament to the Adriatic Gulf at so late a period, (and sooner we could not have done so) considering the length of the voyage, and difficulty of parts of the navigation, there was no chance of our arriving at Trieste till long after the archduke John had retired into Hungary; and to descend in a small corps at Trieste would have been madness.

In every point of view considered, this Adriatic operation could never have been seriously entertained a single moment by any person capable of appreciating such subjects.

The invasion of Italy comes next under our consideration—The sending a large army to that country, most always be, to a great degree, objectionable on account of its distance from England; however, I am ready to admit, that a combination of certain circumstances might render such an operation advisable, but it most undoubtedly was not so in the present instance. Before you determine upon sending, an army to act decidedly in that quarter, the Austrians must be prepared to in vade the north of Italy with Such means, and under such circumstances, as would justify your forming sanguine hopes of success. In this case, a large force disembarking in the kingdom of Naples might undoubtedly co-operate to Very great advantage; but when you consider that Austria began the late war with France totally unconnected with any other continental power, and that the opening of her campaign evidently proved that the leading principles by Which it was governed were fundamentally erroneous, and tending to destroy all hopes of the accession of Russia to her cause, even if such hopes had ever been entertained, the government of this country would have acted very unwisely to place that confidence in her ultimate success, which could alone render the sending an army to Italy an advisable measure.

France contending against Austria, the latter wholly unsupported by any continental power, made the issue at least quite uncertain. Had Russia acted heartily in the field with Austria, we should have been justified in looking to ultimate success in the great struggle then pending, and completely justified in committing ourselves to any extent in support of so formidable a combination against the common enemy; but even in that case, the operation in Italy is not the one I should prefer, though a very material objection under this supposition would certainly have been removed.

Under the existing circumstances of the case, the objections of the length of voyage and consequent late arrival, would equally have applied to this operation as to that in the Adriatic; and though our I communication would always have been; secure, yet we should just have landed in Italy and re embarked without having effected any diversion of consequence to our allies, and without the chance of obtaining any national object whatever. The Austrian armistice, and the time which the enemy had had to bring forward great additional means, would have enabled him to turn against us a considerable superiority of force, without Weakening himself too much on the Danube, before we could have made any considerable progress in offensive operations, and the definitive treaty of peace would have left us no alternative, but that of retreat.

In Sicily we wisely kept what force was already there; we could not withdraw it to act in Spain without subjecting Sicily to a successful attack by the French troops then in Italy. The retention of our force in that island, had certainly the effect which Austria looked to when she urged us not to withdraw it, namely, of keeping a French corps in the kingdom of Naples.

The second suggestion of Austria, to send a force to the north of Germany, was liable to many very serious objections.

Nothing could have justified you in fomenting and extending, by your countenance and support, insurrections which you did not see the best prospect of bringing to a favourable issue. Such a prospect did certainly not arise from the extent of confidence which you could repose in the successful termination of the contest between Austria and France, nor was the force which Austria proposed to you to send to Germany, under any circumstances, equal to the object.

Having fixed upon a secure landing place for a large armament between the Ems and the Elbe, where your re-embarkation, in case of retreat, might have been protected by an entrenched position, which would equally have served for your first great depot; you certainly might, in that case, have made use of the Weser, as your centre line of operation, with great advantage, re-establishing the fortress of Hameln as your principal advanced depot, and enrolling and arming all the disbanded soldiery of Hanover and Hesse, &c. who would soon have formed a very considerable body of excellent troops.

The detail and ulterior extent of your operations must, of course, have depended upon circumstances. But if you had had an army of about 40,000 British troops to support those insurrections, there would have been little or no doubt of success, provided always, which was indispensably necessary to the happy issue of such a project you could have had that confidence in the Austrian campaign, which the junction of Russia could alone have entitled you to entertain; and provided you could have been sure of the active cooperation of Prussia, to guard you against the incursions of the Danes from the North; upon which I think you might have reckoned, if Russia had joined Austria.

The disembarkation of your army at Stralsund, with a view to carrying on operations in the countries of Hanover and Hesse, would, under any circumstances, have been unadvisable the distance from England is so great there is no water communication leading towards the intended theatre of your operations; and the intervention of the Prussian territory between you and your principal point of communication, would have placed you in too great a dependance upon a power, whom you had not the means of positively controlling.

The minor operation, as proposed by Austria, would have been, in every view, highly injudicious. And the more extensive one would only have been justifiable under the circumstances to which I have above alluded, of an extensive combination against the French, &c. &c. because, in no other case could you have entertained any well-grounded prospect of permanently re-establishing the original German governments; which, of course, was the only object that your support of the insurrections could have had in view.

To give rise to such insurrections, or to encourage them, and extend them by your countenance, unless with as great a certainty of bringing them to a favourable issue as any human effort can afford, is wholly inadmissible. To resort to such measures merely for the purpose of creating a diversion, with every probability of being obliged to abandon the inhabitants of a country either excited by you, in the first instance, or to whose risings you have been a party by giving them protection, thus becoming the means of subjecting a loyal and brave people to the vindictive rage of offended rulers, is atrocious policy. It is what every honest man must sincerely deprecate, and I trust the fair fame of Britain will never be sullied by the adoption of such a Machiavelian system.

When I remarked, that in order to justify your committing yourself decidedly in operations of the nature that I have described, you should have reason for more confidence in the success of your ally, than the government of this country was entitled to entertain, whilst Austria was last engaged against France; I was very far from meaning to establish so ungenerous, so contracted, so paltry, and so impolitic a principle, as that when your ally is the weakest, and consequently wants your assistance the most, it is then that such assistance, upon cold prudential calculations, should be withheld. It is one thing, however, to be actually engaged, in the field, either in immediate connection or in co-operation with an ally; and another, to determine how far you can be justified in committing yourselves before that alliance is formed. Should circumstances have borne you out, in making common cause with an ally, to the utmost extent of that term, then, of course, you mast share with him every danger of the war, as long as it is possible for you to persevere; otherwise you would be a degraded nation, and your alliance would not be worth having. But the paramount duty of a government, primarily to protect and foster the interests of the particular country over which it presides, imposes the indispensable obligation, previously to contracting an alliance which is immediately to be followed up by hostile operations, to weigh very maturely the degree of confidence which all the circumstances of the case justify in the ultimate issue of those operations, and upon this consideration to determine the extent to which the means intrusted to the care of that government ought to be committed.

Another employment of our force, suggested in this country, was in aid of the Spaniards on the peninsula. Now the addition of any reinforcements of consequence to our army in Portugal, considering the dearth of subsistence there, could have produced no other effect, but that of creating the utmost embarrassment in point of provisions, thus suspending our active operations in that quarter, and completely paralysed our exertions.

There is, indeed, another point on the peninsula from whence, under certain circumstances, we might have operated with very great advantage. If we could have landed an army at Cadiz, it would have had all the resources of Cadiz itself, of the fine province of Andalusia, and the fertile banks of the Guadiana for its supplies, equipment, provisions, means of transport, &c. This army would then have taken its line by Cordova, through the Sierra Morena upon Madrid, and connected that operation with the advance of the army from Portugal, by an intermediate corps proceeding through Seville and Merida. Such an operation, especially considering that at that time the enemy could net reinforce his armies in Spain, would probably have terminated in the complete expulsion of the French from that kingdom, and, of course, would have been most essentially beneficial to the common cause. But in order to have made this practicable, the Spaniards must have given us temporary possession of Cadiz, as our chief depôt, and as our point of retreat in case of failure. To this they would never consent, and our government, acting always upon those great and liberal views of enlightened policy, which have invariably led them to avoid increasing, by an act of theirs, that political jealousy, which has always formed an essential feature of the Spanish nation, and the augmentation of which towards us would seal the annihilation of their last hopes of success, determined not to take possession of Cadiz excepting by their consent; the impossibility of obtaining this obliged us to renounce a plan, to which otherwise we might have resorted with so much advantage; we wisely concluded, that without the actual possession of Cadiz, such an operation was not to be undertaken.

As to any descent upon the coast of France, no attack which you could have made would have held out a prospect of national advantages in the least degree comparable with those which would have resulted from success in the operation you did undertake: and such a descent would have created no diversion in favour of Austria, at least none of any importance. In France, properly so called, the enemy would much sooner have had an opportunity of collecting superior means to oppose you; because, under no circumstances however urgent, could the ruler of that country leave it without a considerable number of regular troops, which might have been soon collected and formed into an army; and the gens d'armes and national guards are very numerous.

Every operation therefore but that which was determined upon was positively objectionable, in some way or other; and the Expedition to the Scheldt, at the same time that it held out the best prospect of attaining objects of the utmost possible magnitude to this country, was the only diversion, little as it might be, which you could make in favour of Austria, unless you acted with a great degree of political shortsightedness, and with a degree of criminality that would for ever have disgraced the government of this great and enlightened, and I will say, with all our defects, of this virtuous country.

Let it not be said that we collected a large armament and then looked around for its object, determined to send it somewhere, and if we could not find an eligible destination, to choose a bad one rather than let our force remain idle. If you can suppose any person to be serious in talking thus, you must suppose him at the same dime ignorant of the best interests of his country; otherwise he would be able to appreciate how materially those interests must have been promoted by the complete success of the Expedition now under consideration.

The Austrian propositions have been urged, as if they ought to have been binding upon this country; but, though you would upon all occasions be desirous of course to meet the wishes of your ally, yet you are not obliged to surrender yourself to him at discretion: he may propose what it is unadvisable to adopt, and yon must exercise your own judgment. From long experience of the Austrian councils, I cannot say that I think them more entitled to blind confidence than those of other powers.

I must protest too against the admission of the doctrine, that the plans of ministers are necessarily to be tried by contrasting them with the speculations of others. The variety of those speculations is at once sufficient to prove the absurdity of resorting to such a medium of probation. Upon what principle too can the opposition set up their opinions as incontrovertible? No set of human beings have any right to arrogate to themselves infallibility. That is an attribute which belongs not to mortals: but suppose it were otherwise, why are the opponents of a government more entitled to claim that advantage than the government itself? At first sight the presumption is in favour of every government, from the superior means of information which they must possess, and which are so essential to forming a just opinion upon their measures.

The project of France is certainly to form an immense naval armament in the Scheldt. The basin now forming, at Antwerp is to contain fifty sail of the line. By means of the extensive inland navigation, which France, in the present subjugated state of Europe, completely commands, timber and other materials for ship building can be collected in any quantity at Antwerp, and artificers to any number; therefore I see no limits to the creation of what naval means our enemy chooses in the Scheldt.

Those means would always be available against this country, excepting about two months in the year, when the Scheldt might be frozen. At that period however twenty sail of the line might always be stationed in Flushing harbour, ready to act at any moment.

Look at this immense naval establishment with immediate reference to the invasion of England.

It has always been considered by those best able to form a judgment upon such subjects, that to enable the Boulogne Flotilla, containing, when in order, about 100,000 troops, to pass the channel in security, the presence of a large fleet would be necessary, partly to draw off our ships of war, and partly to afford an immediate escort.

With this view the enemy has contemplated plans of assembling large fleets in the Atlantic, and after deceiving us with respect to their destination, to run them up the Channel. This would at all times have been very precarious: but from the Scheldt he will be able to combine a formidable invasion with the greatest facility. He can send from thence a very large fleet for the purpose of assisting the operations of the Boulogne Flotilla, and another large fleet to act in conjunction with the fleet of Holland, perhaps too with the fleets of the Baltic, in escorting and protecting a considerable army embarked on board transports (of which he will be able to collect as many as he can possibly want) across the German Ocean, to descend upon the eastern coast, whilst attacks are carried on at the same time, from the other parts of the inordinately extended dominions of France, against the south-west quarter of this country, and against Ireland.

This great combination against you might take place at any part of the year, excepting when the Scheldt was frozen; and even then, to watch the twenty sail of the line which the enemy might always have lying at single anchor in Flushing harbour, you would be obliged to keep one fleet of that size at Yarmouth, and another of equal size in the Downs (very bad and dangerous roadsteads,) both of which fleets might eventually find themselves to leeward. For this you have the authority of that excellent officer, Commodore Owen.

And what sized fleets you must have in that quarter, effectually to watch the enemy's armaments to the east of England.

when his projected establishments in the Scheldt are brought to maturity, it is not difficult to foresee. It is also I believe very decidedly the opinion of your most intelligent naval officers, that, allowing your maritime preparations to be carried to the greatest possible, extent, and giving your navy the utmost credit for their characteristic heroism, and their proved intelligence and invincibility, naval security against invasion, depending as it always must so much upon the elements, never can be certain.

I am quite aware of the improbability of just and accurate combinations taking place in operations of invasion across the sea, and from points so distant, however able may have been the previous arrangements. But where the consequences of success on the part of the enemy are so dreadful, it behoves us to provide against all possibilities: and whether such combinations were accurately executed or not, the attack would be of the greatest magnitude, and most formidable.

That Buonaparté will undertake the invasion of this country, one day or other, I am perfectly persuaded, and that perhaps at no very distant period. It is his chief and favourite project. It is the last act, without which the great drama would be incomplete. I certainly believe that he has never entertained a serious intention of carrying that project into execution at any time previous to the present period. He must always have seen, that his only chance of success (however vain I trust it will prove) depended upon his undertaking the operation with an immense force: such a force he never could risk sending out of his country, whilst the greater powers of the Continent were ready to attack France so weakened, and, in case of failure, perhaps so shaken by internal commotion. But this great obstacle is now removed. All the continent is at the foot of France; and there being no longer any check upon the invasion of England but the simple apprehension of failure, no man of common understanding can suppose that Buonaparté will not make use, for that purpose, of the means in his hands, extensive beyond all example, as soon as his preparations can be brought to maturity. In the mean time, perhaps, he may make a desultory attack upon Ireland. But for the success of his great plan, he will look to the employment of the most formidable means, and to some such combination as I have stated.

With these consideration before our eyes, and I am sure I have not been guilty of the smallest exaggeration of the enemy's power or his projects; with invasion, certain invasion, of the most formidable description, approaching, the success of which would be attended with every horrible calamity that could possibly befall this great and prosperous and happy country: the destruction of all its power and consequence, of every species of property, of all domestic comfort, of all personal security; the desolation of our dwellings, the dispersion of our families, the annihilation of our liberties and our whole political existence: this independent nation, which now justly exults in a glorious superiority, this last refuge of the persecuted and fugitive virtue and liberty of the earth, turned into one general camp, and groaning under the iron rod of military despotism: a most licentious and savage soldiery domineering with brutal sway. Every class of the community deprived of whatever makes existence desirable, and the whole become French conscripts. With these considerations, I say, present to our minds, must not every man in the country, down to the lowest and most insignificant individual it possesses, have the strongest personal interest in averting or greatly diminishing the force of the attack? and must not a government be more than justified, must it not be entitled to applause and gratitude, for strenuously endeavouring to lessen the chance which the enemy may have of accomplishing his fatal project? This applies immediately to the conduct of our government in determining to undertake the Expedition to the Scheldt; for, next to Boulogne, I am perfectly persuaded, that the enemy has not, in the whole immense extent of his dominions, a point of such great importance with respect to the invasion of this country as that against which our arms were lately directed.

If, by the destruction of the naval establishment at Antwerp, we could have retarded the progress of the enemy's preparations in that quarter, even for a year or two, it would have been extremely essential with a view to gaining time; and if we could have retained possession of the island of Walcheren, it would have been of the highest possible importance.—I do not know therefore any object so closely interwoven with the dearest interests of England, as that which the Expedition now under consideration was intendeds and calculated to attain; and it was at the same time the only diversion in favour of Austria which it was possible for us then to make.

I must beg to be understood, that when dwelling upon the very great importance of neutralizing the enemy's establishments in the Scheldt, with immediate reference to invasion, I do not mean to say, that the successful invasion of the British empire necessarily follows, though we have not succeeded in the accomplishment of an object which would have given us so much additional strength. That this invasion will be attempted, and in the most formidable manner, I am convinced. But though our preparations to repel the attack must be considerably greater than if we could have retained Walcheren, yet I am persuaded, from the deepest meditation upon this most interesting subject for many years, that we have it in our power to provide such means of resistance, as, if judiciously applied, would place us in complete security, and enable us to bid defiance to France and all Europe combined in a united determination to effect our destruction.

If we profit, as we may do, of the powers of resistance which we possess, and which can be called into action without any particular pressure upon, or much inconvenience to the country, (but what pressure, or what inconvenience could be considered as too great to obtain the inestimable blessing of security against successful invasion!) we shall still have ample time wholly to avert the impending danger. If we allow those powers to lie dormant, the enemy will establish himself amongst us; and though I am sure the heart of every Briton would throw out defiance to its last beat, yet the country must be convulsed, desolated, and torn to pieces, so that this generation could never hope to see order and tranquillity restored, or again to experience a moment of comfort or satisfaction.

Having proved, I think, beyond the possibility of contradiction, that general policy clearly pointed out the attack upon the enemy's establishments in the Scheldt, as the best operation which the government could possibly undertake under all the circumstances of the moment, we must now consider the expediency of the measure, and examine how far that bore out the ministers in attempting what policy so forcibly dictated.—The distinction between policy and expediency is, I think, very clear: the one involving all those general considerations which I have enumerated; the other depending upon the practicability of the operation in contemplation.

Before I come to the detail of the operation, I shall make some observations upon the intelligence which was received by the government, and that which appears upon the quarter master general's journal, as also upon the opinions delivered previously to the sailing of the Expedition and subsequently at the bar of this House.—In doing this, I shall certainly not tire the House by reading passages from the voluminous mass of evidence upon the table, or referring more than I can possibly help to extracts which I have made myself from those documents. If I should happen to be inaccurate in any dates or numbers or in any quotations, I beg that the noble lord, and the honourable gentlemen on the other side, will take the trouble to set me right. It is under their correction, and that of the House, I am now speaking.

Previous to the month of June, the ministers had received such intelligence from the continent, through different confidential resources, as gave them good reason to conclude, that the works of Antwerp were in a defective state, and the garrison very inadequate; that these works had not undergone any improvement, since the year 1794; that those of Flushing had been very little improved: and that the country, in general, was bare of troops, the enemy having drawn almost all his disposable force into Germany, where at that time, as is well known, he was engaged in a severe contest with, Austria. Some articles of this previous intelligence rated the enemy's force higher than it proved to be; but his Majesty's government shewed that they well knew how to appreciate the information they received, and detect its inaccuracies and exaggerations. This appears by the facts as they turned out, and in the intelligence procured by the army on the spot. Therefore, notwithstanding the exaggerations to which I have alluded, the government was justified in considering the country which they looked to as the future theatre of our operations destitute of the means of any considerable defence.

Towards the end of May, the government having now begun seriously to project the destruction of the enemy's naval means and establishments in the Scheldt, and the taking possession of the island of Walcheren, the secretary of state for the war department applied to the Commander in Chief for his opinion relative to the practicability of such an operation.

Certainly the Commander in Chief, considering his consummate knowledge of the military science in every branch, and his long and extensive experience, was as able to form a just opinion upon such a subject as any person whatever. But though the secretary of state laid before him all the intelligence of which he was then in possession, and which was quite sufficient for the government, strongly impressed as they were with the extreme magnitude of the objects in contemplation, seriously to meditate such an expedition, yet this intelligence was not of that accurate and precise nature, and, upon the whole, not so distinctly and decidedly favourable to the easy accomplishment of the projected plan, as would justify the Commander in Chief in giving an official opinion, for which he might become responsible, founded implicitly upon such grounds. He, therefore, looked only at the difficulties of the operation, pre-supposing Antwerp to be in a complete state of defence, in which it might have been placed during the time that the enemy had been in possession, and competently garrisoned; the country too furnished with the proper means of defence, and, in general, such preparations for resistance made, as, unless we had very good reason to know the contrary, we must naturally conclude to be the case.

These were the only grounds upon which the Commander in Chief, in his official capacity, could, at that time, give an official written opinion. But, it must be observed, that though he does state the difficulties of the enterprise to be, in his mind, very great, yet he never goes, the length of saying that he considers them as insurmountable.

Amongst the opinions of the Commander in Chief's staff, that which it is attempted to make most prominent, is col. Gordon's; when I say attempted, I do not mean any improper insinuation; the noble lord and those gentlemen who sit near him, have a great case to make out, and they naturally wish to put those opinions most forward, which are most in favour of that case. I must observe, that there are parts of colonel Gordon's opinion which I do not well comprehend: he says, that, whether the enterprize should be successful or not, a great part of the naval and military means of this country must be put to imminent hazard. How colonel Gordon could make it out, that if we were successful a great part of our naval and military means would probably be destroyed by the enemy, I really cannot comprehend, unless he supposes that the commanders of the army and navy would have acted in so stupid a manner, as to allow their return from Antwerp, after success, to be intercepted. The term, desperate enterprize too, which he applies to this undertaking, is much stronger than circumstances warrant. I certainly have a very high esteem and respect for colonel Gordon; he is an extremely clever, intelligent man, of indefatigable zeal and industry, arid eminently conversant in the details of his profession. But, however extensive may be his theory, he has had but little, if any, experience of actual service upon a great scale, the extreme value of which in forming an officer for command, or to enable him to give a just opinion upon a great military operation, is best known to those who possess the most. Many difficulties and many impediments appear, insurmountable to the officer of little actual service, and, as it were, appal his judgment, which the more experienced sees at once the means of overcoming.

If I were entrusted with the command of an army, I should undoubtedly be much obliged to colonel Gordon if he would favour me with his sentiments upon my intended operations; I should always receive them, however, with the abatement, and deduction which his want of experience of actual service upon an extended scale must naturally occasion. I trust he will excuse these observations, but as his opinion upon the subject in question is made so very prominent, and as it were decisive of the merits of the case, it is necessary for me to give my reasons for not admitting it to that extent.

Of the other opinions given by the Commander in Chief's staff, some are more, some are less favourable to the Expedition; but in none does the tone of condemnation, or even of dissuasion come nearly so high as in that of colonel Gordon.

These communications were made to the secretary of state on the 2d of June; subsequently to which period, his Majesty's government procured much further intelligence of so encouraging a nature, and apparently so accurate, as induced them to determine upon carrying the projected Expedition into execution, notwithstanding the communications which they had received, as above stated, from the head-quarters; because they felt persuaded, that if the Commander in Chief and his staff bad been in possession at the time their opinions were asked of the intelligence which the government subsequently received, those opinions would have worn a very different complexion.

The government has been blamed by the other side of the House, for not again resorting to the opinions of the Commander in Chief and his staff, after having received the intelligence upon which they finally determined to act; but nothing can be more unjust than this accusation. It was easy for the goverment to determine, being already in possession of the opinions of those officers, what variations in them the more precise and more favourable intelligence must necessarily make; and it would have been very unfair of ministers to attempt to throw the final encouragement or rejection of the Expedition from themselves upon the Commander in Chief; he could be officially no party to it, he could have little share of the credit arising from success, and it would have been an unworthy proceeding to endeavour to load him with any part of the responsibility.—I must here strongly protest against the doctrine, that a government is under the necessity of justifying any expedition that may be undertaken by written military opinions to that effect, or by proving that a certainty of success existed before they engaged in the operation. All military combinations consist of possibilities and probabilities; you can reduce nothing to a certainty, but the siege of a place which presents no great natural obstacle; and that too is always subject to the contingency of the operations of the siege being properly protected against the enemy. If governments were therefore to wait till success was reduced to mathematical certainty, no operation of war would ever be undertaken at all.

Is it too for the government, or for a commander in chief to go to every general officer of an expedition, and ask his opinion with respect to the probability of success? Was this ever the practice of any government? or was it ever a condition imposed upon any commander in chief? Certainly not; and I trust the noble lord and his honourable friends will, upon reflection, be convinced how impossible it would be, under such restrictions, to carry on the military department of the government with advantage to the state, or to command armies with that energy and promptitude so necessary to their success. You would constantly be floating in indecision, amongst a variety of opinions that it would be impossible to reconcile, till the moment for action was gone by.

I do not mean to say, that a government should not consult upon military operations officers in whose ability and experience they may have confidence, or that the commander of an army should not do the same. But it is contrary to all practice and policy that opinions so de livered are to be binding on either; and the less formal and the more familiar your consultations, the more likely are they to be useful; because, when you require persons formally to commit themselves, you may depend upon it they will generally make use of the utmost reserve, and not communicate one half of what they think and feel upon the subject referred to them.

The intelligence subsequent to the 2d of June stated, that Antwerp was left with scarcely any garrison; that the greatest part of the corps of artificers, usually employed in the dockyards, had gone to the Danube. That the works were in a very defective state, two small breaches in the rampart, the ditch fordable in two places, and generally much encumbered; the outworks in complete decay; no covered way; generally speaking no preparation against an attack in any part of the Scheldt, and throughout the whole country no force capable of making much resistance. There could not therefore be a more favourable opportunity for carrying our arms into that quarter.

If it had been possible to dispatch the Expedition earlier, it certainly would have been much better; but by the papers on the table it evidently appears that we could not do so; and the government was positively informed, by a person extremely competent to speak to this point, that the state of the wind and weather in July and August was usually favourable to the progress of an armament up the Scheldt; the same person after wards stated to the Secret Committee, that he never remembered such adverse weather at that season, as we met with upon our arrival off the mouth of that river.—The intelligence which Government received previous to the sailing of the Expedition, was completely corroborated by that subsequently obtained by the army in the progress of their service, with as few exceptions as ever arise upon similar occasions.

Without fatiguing the House with long details upon this subject, I shall confine myself to the leading features, as they stand recorded upon the quarter-master-general's journal.—Upon our arrival in the Scheldt, there was certainly a total want of preparation on the part of the enemy, as appeared by the little obstruction we met with in going up that river, and by their not having even begun any batteries between Lillo and Antwerp, previous to the month of August; nor were those batteries finished till about the 26th or 27th of that month.

That the works of Antwerp were in a very defective state is to me quite evident, from the circumstance of the ditch being only cleared out on the 10th of August, and water not let in till the 14th. No inundation was formed in the neighbourhood of Liefkenshoeik till the 18th, and it is not till the 22d that sir John Hope reports the enemy to be busily employed in repairing that fort, which of course implies previous deficiency. Flushing itself, too, was by no means in such a state of defence and preparation as it might have been; for, on the front which we attacked there was no glacis, and you could see the foot of the rampart of the body of the place from a considerable distance.

General Sontag, commandant of Middleburg, an officer of great intelligence and experience; col. Mosheim, commandant of Flushing; and capt. Puget, of the royal navy, naval commissioner of Flushing, all understood from several very respectable people, who were in constant communication with Antwerp, that that place was in a very defective state, both as to works and garrison, when our Expedition arrived in the Scheldt, and that if we had appeared before it in force there would have been no doubt of its surrender.

The absence of troops was, generally speaking, as great as the government had been led to expect.

From 3 to 4,000 troops, is the highest number stated by the journal ever to have been, at one time, in garrison at Antwerp. In the report of the secret Committee, 5,000 are said to have been there on the 5th of August, including, however, raw conscripts, volunteers, and armed customhouse officers. The rest of the garrison of Antwerp, which was stated at last to amount to 11,000 men in all, was said to be composed of the ships' crews and the artificers. The intelligence of the 8th, transmitted by sir W. Erskine, and that of the 9th, transmitted by sir John Hope, are nearly verbatim the same, therefore we may consider them together. The numbers therein stated are evidently much exaggerated; for instance, it is said, that the enemy's fleet could furnish 11,000 men for the defence of Antwerp; now can any rational man suppose that possible? In the uncertainty of an attack upon their ships by our naval means, could they have left them so bare of defence? It must be observed, that they had only 10 sail of the line afloat. They could never, I think, land more than their marines, until they had carried their ships so high above Antwerp as to place them entirely out of our reach. The report, too, that the French would have 40,000 troops in the field against us in ten days, exclusive of the garrisons of Antwerp and Bergen-op-Zoom, was so absurd as to throw discredit upon the whole intelligence. To the last, they never had near that number, including all garrisons, and every description of force. [Vide Quarter-Master-General's Journal.] With regard to the artificers, which this article rates at 5 or 6,000 men, armed and trained for the defence of Antwerp, there are different accounts. The intelligence before the secret Committee states that these artificers had gone to the Danube; and general Sontag, whilst commanding at Middleburg, received, from respectable authority, a corroboration of this report; therefore, as there is so much contradiction upon that point, the most you can possibly allow is half of the number of artificers who are stated in the intelligence of the 8th to be at Antwerp. On the 10th, 25,000 French troops of the line were reported to be at Antwerp and in that neighbourhood; but this was evidently not true; because even to the last there was no such number, as appears by the statement laid before the lieutenant generals on the 27th of August.—The garrisons of Lillo and Liefkenshoeik were represented to consist, the former of 1,000 men, the latter 500: but sir John Hope, who transmitted this report, says, he did not believe they were so strong.

The result of all the intelligence received by the army as laid before the council of war on the 27th of August, at Bathz, was, 4,000 men Bergen-op-Zoom, 2,000 Breda, 11,000 Antwerp, (including seamen and artificers,) 500 Tholen, 3,000 on the left bank of the Scheldt, 15,000 to oppose us in the field; Total 35,500.

From which number the quarter-master-general in his evidence, observes, you may reasonably deduct about 5,000 allowing for mistatements and exaggerations; and sir J. Hope, who long commanded the advanced corps, says, that he considered some parts of the intelligence which he received as erroneous and some exaggerated.

As to the article in the report of the secret Committee which states the enemy's force at 26,000 men on the 11th of August, at Breda, Bergen-op-Zoom, Antwerp, &c. and on the left bank of the Scheldt, but exclusive of Flushing, this was probably erroneous, because, up to the 27th, it appears there were only 30,000 men in all.

The quarter-master-general is certainly justified in making a deduction from the gross amount of force; because every body who has had experience in those matters knows how difficult it is to obtain accurate reports in the field of the enemy's numbers, and how subject the informants generally are to misstatement; nor could any person, be so competent to form a judgment upon what parts were to be credited and what rejected of the intelligence contained in the journal as the quarter-master-general, through whom the whole passed, and who had daily opportunities of collating and duly appreciating the various accounts received.

The only part of the government intelgence which appears not to have been corroborated by that subsequently received at the army, was relative to the enemy's force at Cadsand. This certainly seems to have proved greater than was expected; not however, the first day of our arrival. But very soon afterwards troops, who had made one or two inarches on their way to the Danube changed their direction, and arrived in that island. It was these troops who got over to Flushing, and increased that garrison from about 3,500 men, at which the government intelligence had rated it, to about 8,000.

But even supposing the information to have been inaccurate in that particular, I cannot impute blame to the government, when the extreme difficulty is considered of procuring perfectly exact intelligence in almost any case.—When the late lord Chatham, one of the greatest ministers the world ever saw, sent out the expedition to Rochefort, the intelligence upon which he proceeded purported, amongst other things, that the ditch was dry, and it was found to be wet.

The composition of the enemy's force as well as their numbers must be taken into consideration, in order to form a just estimate of his means of resistance. Now certainly, with the exception of the 8,000 men in Flushing, (1,200 of whom only were armed burghers, the rest good troops,) it does not appear that there were in all to oppose us above two or three effective French regiments of the line; there were also some regular Dutch regiments, and the rest of the force was made up of depôt battalions, which, as everybody knows, are composed of the most unserviceable part of the regiments they belong to; of raw conscripts, some parts of the crews of the ships; some artificers and armed custom-house officers; in short, a description of force altogether not in the least formidable to any regular troops, much less to British.

Whatever trifling variations may have appeared between the intelligence received by government and that received by the army, one thing is very certain, namely, that at the latest period the enemy had not collected more than about 30,000 men, including all their garrisons and posts of every description, reckoning too in that number such parts of the crews as were available for the defence of Antwerp, and the artificers in that place; and it never can be argued that the enemy might have had at some periods of the operation a greater force than this, because it must be conceded at least that he certainly never would have withdrawn any troops from the points of our attack.

There is no going into a reasoning upon what the enemy might or ought to have done as soon as he determined to make the Scheldt a naval station. Taking things as we found them, it is evident that he had been extremely neglectful of most means of defence. Such was the representation made to government which combined with the many important considerations that I have before alluded to, determined them to send the Expedition to the Scheldt; and undoubtedly nothing that occurred during its progress at all militated against the greatest probability of success, if the originally projected plan could have been carried into execution.

Before we proceed to examine the intended operation, I must beg leave, to make a few observations upon the opinions of sir John Hope and sir William Erskine, which are considered by the noble lord who opened this debate, and and by the right hon. gent. who spoke last, as decisive against the practicability of the undertaking.

No man living can have a higher respect and consideration for that most distinguished and excellent officer, sir John Hope, than I unfeignedly entertain. But I am persuaded, that if he had considered the operation against Antwerp more in detail, his opinion would not have been so unfavourable.

Sir John Hope seems to have thought Antwerp a more formidable place than there is any reason to suppose it was. Having adopted that opinion, not commanding the army himself, and not being in possession of all the information received at the head quarters and by the government, it was not likely that he should turn his thoughts to the details of the different attacks which might be undertaken. If he had done so, I have no doubt that his energetic mind, acting upon his extensive military knowledge and experience, would have suggested to him the great probability of success in the enterprise. But sir John Hope says distinctly, that he thinks you might have landed at Sandfleet and proceeded to Antwerp, if you had been in a situation to do so before the army became unserviceable from sickness, and he no where says that a regular siege was indispensable; only that he thinks Antwerp could at no time have been taken without bringing heavy artillery before it, and opening trenches. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that heavy artillery and trenches necessarily imply a regular siege in all its forms, as I shall very plainly shew when we come to the particulars of the intended operation.

Sir William Erskine does certainly seem to have formed a very erroneous conception indeed of the manner in which we should have been under the necessity of conducting our operations in, the Upper Scheldt, and rates much higher than he could possibly be justified by circumstances in doing the resistance we might expect.

Before I proceed any further I must beg leave to say, that I have a very sincere personal friendship and regard for sir W. Erskine, both on his own account, and on that of his gallant father, under whom I served much, and with whose friendship I was particularly honoured, and I give him ample credit for a great deal of cleverness. But here we come to a fair discussion of our military opinions, as if we were met in a council of war, where difference is of course admissible, it being intended to find in the collision of sentiments a true result.

The opening three parallels against Antwerp, as if it were Lisle or Valenciennes, I must own, seems to me to be quite out of the question. Sir William Erskine allows twenty days for the preparations, and twenty-one days open trenches before the town of Antwerp, though the garrison was of such a description that it could not possibly venture to make a sally, or even to occupy the outworks if there had been any in a state of defence, (which I very much doubt,) and though it appears that there was no covered way, nor a glacis in proper preservation. The citadel of Antwerp, which is much stronger than the town, was taken in the year 1746, by count Clermont, after five days open trenches.

Sir William Erskine says it would have required twenty days open trenches to take Lillo; whereas, in the year 1747 it was taken in four days by Marshal Loe-wendhal, though the attack was carried on by zig-zag upon a dyke, and only one battery employed, consisting of four cannon, two mortars, and three howitzers. We should of course have proceeded in the same manner; and why we should be twenty days in accomplishing what was effected in four days in the year 1747 I cannot understand.

In examining the plan of attack as projected by our government, I shall contine myself strictly to the circumstances as they arose, because to them that plan in its execution must necessarily have been adapted. I beg therefore that what I am going to say may be rigidly tried by those circumstances, and by the detailed intelligence of which the House is in possession.

The noble lord termed all views of operations beyond what actually took place, visionary and idle speculations; but I must beg to observe, that whatever is founded upon the certain data of accurate intelligence, of circumstances that did arise, and of the evidence of able and scientific professional men employed upon the Expedition, by no means deserves that character.

The plan projected by government consisted of two purts—the reduction of the island of Walcheren, including the fortress of Flushing; and the destruction of the enemy's naval establishments in the Scheldt, together with as large a proportion of the fleet as might be possible.

The force intended for these objects was separated into two distinct corps, the one intended for the descent upon Walcheren, the other to proceed at once up the West Scheldt, excepting one division of it under sir John Hope, which was to go round to the East Scheldt, and land upon the north of South Beveland, for the purpose of taking possession of that island in such a manner as to prevent the enemy from withdrawing any part of its resources.

As the two operations were so closely connected; as the first point of attack lay upon your way to the second; and as it was necessary to reduce Walcheren and Flushing for the security of your retreat, it became a matter of indispensable prudence to allot such a force for the first object as would prevent a possibility of check or failure, in case the enemy should prove stronger than you had reason to suppose; therefore 13,000 men were placed under the command of sir Eyre Coote for the attack of Walcheren, though it was clearly foreseen that if the enemy should prove no stronger in that point than was reported, viz. from 3,000 to 4,000men, full half of this corps might safely be employed in the Upper Scheldt, still leaving a sufficient force for the siege of Flushing.

The right wing of the army, which was destined to go immediately through the Weiling channel up the West Scheldt, was preceded by lord Huntley's division as the advanced guard; part of this division was to destroy the batteries of Cad-sand, which commanded the navigation of the Weiling channel, and part to make a diversion to the West of Flushing in order to favour the operations against Walcheren.

It has been objected, by the noble lord and by the right bon. Gent. who spoke last, that the general disposition of the army, and the instructions given to lord Huntley, were subversive of that celerity n the execution of the ulterior operations upon which their success, it is argued, so much depended, and that they militated against the main principle of carrying as much force as possible to the upper Scheldt.

In the disposition of the army previous; to sailing, it is said, "so soon as the investment of Flushing is completed, &c. South Beveland in possession, and the destruction of the batteries on the south-side of it effected, the navigation of the West Scheldt will be opened in such a manner as to enable the armament to proceed to its ultimate object;" and in lord Huntley's instructions he is directed" to make a diversion with part of his corps to the westward of Flushing, and also to occupy Cadsand, as long as Flushing holds out."

It is urged then, that if the progress of the armament up the West Scheldt was to depend upon the completion of the investment of Flushing, and that if lord Huntley's division, which was to form a part of the corps destined to land at Sandfleet, was to retain possession of Cadsand till Flushing surrendered, the assertion, that the landing at Sandfleet of the whole of the troops intended for that service, might have been possible upon the first, second, and third of August, is quite inaccurate, and instead of a rapid operation up the Scheldt, it must necessarily become a slow one.

The division of lord Huntley's corps is likewise objected to, and his being instructed to make a regular report to lord Chatham of his proceedings at Cadsand, as necessarily occasioning delay.

And it is further remarked, that you cannot recollect from the written dispositions laid before the House by the quarter-master-general, that any part of sir Eyre Coote's corps was to be withdrawn from Walcheren before the fall of Flushing.

The previous dispositions could in prudence only have been made in contemplation of the possibility of finding the enemy much stronger upon the island of Walcheren than was expected; therefore, so large a corps was destined for that service in the first instance, and a diversion combined with the operations of that corps by apart of the force under lord Huntley, This was taking every precaution against failure or check; and as to the occupation of Cadsand during the siege of Flushing, it was not possible to determine till you arrived there whether that would or would riot be necessary.

If, upon arrival in the mouth of the Scheldt we should find that the enemy were not strong in Walcheren, and that it would not be necessary to occupy Cadsand during the siege of Flushing by any thing more than a detachment from the Walcheren corps and the marines of the fleet, if at all, then of course the original disposition would be varied from accordingly, and a large part of sir Eyre Coote's force as well as all lord Huntley's taken at once up the Scheldt.

With respect to lord Huntley's reporting to lord Chatham, that would have been attended with no delay whatever, because the principal landing upon the island of Walcheren was intended to be made on the south-west side, in Zoutland Bay, and the commander in chief would of course be on board a ship of war in the mouth of the Scheldt, consequently very distant from Cadsand.

I must here remark upon the unjust and ill-founded accusations against lord Chatham for having gone upon the Expedition to the Scheldt without previously conceiving or digesting any plan of operations, that there is now before the House, delivered in by the quarter-master general, bearing date July 1809, a general Disposition for the proceedings of the army under lord Chatham's command; such alone as make out previous to sailing.

This Disposition involves all the main points and considerations. The last paragraph very justly and distinctly states, that it is an outline, founded upon the best information which could then be obtained, liable of course to such future alterations as more correct intelligence, more accurate knowledge of the enemy's positions and force, and the occurrence of such circumstances as might arise in the progress of the execution, should render necessary.

What more can be done upon similar occasions? Even if you are actually inarching to the attack of an enemy's position, you can seldom do more than make a general previous arrangement, which must be varied on the spot according to Circumstances.—I trust, therefore, that the conduct of the commander of the Expedition to the Scheldt will no longer be represented as improvident, when it is so evident that such representations are entirely Without foundation

It has been supposed that the reduction of Flushing was not essential, and that the armament might have proceeded up the Scheldt only masking that place; but the possession of Flushing was considered by the navy as indispensable to the safety of that part of the fleet which was committed in the Upper Scheldt, therefore it became necessary to form the siege.

All the naval authorities concur in opinion, that the armament, wind and weather favourable, might have reached Sandfleet in four days from the Downs, including the destruction of the batteries of Cadsand by the advanced guard, and marking the navigation of the Scheldt by means of a squadron of pilotage which was to have preceded the fleet, and which would have performed the operation of sufficiently buoying the channel without retarding the progress of the Expedition. As the channel was to be thus marked, very few pilots would have been necessary.

The commander in chief proceeding with the advanced division of the army, would of course always have found himself at hand to adapt his measures to circumstances as they arose.—The intention was, as I have before observed, to proceed at once into the Weiling channel with that part of the armament destined for the Upper Scheldt. If the wind and weather would have permitted your doing so, lord Huntley would have had plenty of boats to effect a landing with sufficient force on Cadsand. The batteries there would have been immediately destroyed, as well as any naval means the enemy might have collected for the purpose of passing over reinforcements to Flushing. I am perfectly persuaded that nothing but the want of means to land a sufficient force at once would have prevented that excellent officer, lord Huntley, whose intelligence, whose vigour, and intrepidity are so Well known to the whole army, from executing in the most perfect manner the service allotted to him.

In the above supposition of a favourable state of wind and weather, upon which you had every reason to reckon, the landing upon the island of Walcheren would have taken place in Zoutland bay, at the same time with that upon Cadsand.

The communication between Cadsand and Flushing being completely intercepted, and the island of Walcheren of course left to its own particular strength, namely, from 3 to 4,000 men as originally stated in the government intelligence, the commander in chief would have seen that he could safely take from sir Eyre Coote's force at least 6,000 men; these, already embarked in ships of war, he would at once have determined to employ in the ulterior operation; and if it were judged necessary to occupy Cadsand until Flushing should fall, (which, however, seems doubtful,) he would have ordered a part of sir Eyre Coote's troops jointly with the marines of the fleet to perform that service, thus setting the whole of lord Huntley's division at liberty.

It must not be objected, that the enemy might afterwards have come in superior force, driven you out of Cadsand, and reestablished the batteries there.

In the first place, when they saw our armament advancing up the Scheldt, of course their whole attention would be drawn to those points of attack where alone they could hope to make any effectual resistance; and as to the Welling passage, I do not apprehend that it was of such very material importance to us after we had gone through; but, whether that were the case or not, it would certainly take some time to re-establish the batteries which we had destroyed, and furnish them with ordnance of a proper calibre which must be brought from a distance. With respect to their throwing over troops from Cadsand to Flushing, they would first have to collect fresh naval means for that purpose, and I should conceive that having passed into the Scheldt we must always have had it in our power to intercept that communication. These considerations lead me to suppose, that we should probably not have found it necessary to retain possession of Cadsand, even during the siege of Flushing. This, however, must have depended upon circumstances, and could only be decided on the spot. Cadsand taken, and half of the Walcheren corps withdrawn, or more probably not landed there at all, the Expedition would have proceeded towards Sandfleet.

The next difficulty, about which so much has been said on the other side of the House, are the batteries on South Beveland. It is argued, that the battery of Borslen and that of Warden were not in possession of sir John Hope's corps till the 1st of August, and the fort of Batz not till the morning of the 2d, therefore the first division of the army could not possibly have arrived at Sandfleet on the 1st of August, as its progress must necessarily be impeded by those obstructions. But really to talk of the Borslen and Warden batteries as obstructions, is quite ridiculous, for 2 or 300 men of the advanced corps would have taken them in an hour or two; and though sir John Hope says, that with the means he had, viz. no artillery heavier than 6 pounders, the fort of Batz might, if well defended, have held out for some days, yet with the means our advanced corps possessed it must have fallen directly. Sir John Hope observes, that against the necessary means, alluding of course to a few heavy guns and some howitzers, Batz could not have held out more than a few hours. In point of fact, it surrendered as soon as it was summoned. I consider, therefore, that even if the armament had gone up the Scheldt previous to the occupation of South Beveland by sir John Hope, the batteries upon that island would have been no obstruction to its progress.

Having arrived in the Upper Scheldt, I conclude that lord Chatham would have determined upon attacking Liefkenshoeik and Lillo, whilst that part of the army destined to act immediately against Antwerp was disembarking at Sandfleet. I am borne out in this conclusion by the general Disposition made out by lord Chatham previous to the sailing of the expedition, which Disposition lies now on the table.

Liefkenshoeik is not near so strong as Lillo, nor has it any casemates; therefore as the latter, in 1747, fell in four days, it is fair to presume that the former would have been taken in three.

After leaving about 5 or 600 men in Liefkenshoeik the same corps would have attacked Lillo; and allowing four days for the reduction of that fort, and three days over for landing and other delays, I think there is no doubt of our being in possession of those two places in ten days from our first arrival off Batz.

Two thousand troops, and a body of seamen, with ship guns, some howitzers, and vigorous naval co-operation, would, I think, have been completely sufficient for this service. If however any reinforcement should be required, it would have been close at hand.

It cannot be urged against this calculation of time, that when Lillo fell in four days it was closely invested, and that now it would not have been so: Liefkenshoeik being taken first, the communication between the left bank of the Scheldt and Lillo would become intercepted before the attack of that place began; and with respect to reinforcements from Antwerp, as our army would have been proceeding at the same time to the attack of that city, of course no man could have been spared from its defence, more especially as at best its garrison was so inadequate.

Whilst this operation was going on against Liefkenshoeik and Lillo, the disembarkation of the army would have taken place near Sandfleet; and, judging from circumstances as they were actually found, by which alone all military operations must be governed, and founding myself upon the spirit of lord Chatham's general Disposition for the attack of the enemy's establishments in the Scheldt, to which I have before alluded, as also upon the evidence of the quarter-master general of the army, and the commanding officers of the artillery and engineers, I presume that the operation from Sand fleet would have been conducted in the following manner.

In the first place we must enumerate the force which we should have had in the Upper Scheldt, supposing the armament to have proceeded according to the originally projected plan of operations, and that we had gone at once up the Weiling channel.

As the army was embarked in the most effective state possible, I suppose you might have reckoned upon 36,000 troops in the field; 6,000 of these, or at most seven, would have been left for the reduction of Flushing: 2,000 at most, and probably I think not so many, upon South Beveland; 2,000 employed in the reduction of Liefkenshoeik and Lillo, half of which would probably have been sufficient to garrison those places after they were captured. Lillo being attacked, 5,000 would have been found ample to oppose Bergen-op-Zoom, &c. which would have left above 20,000 men to proceed directly against Antwerp, with a considerable corps of seamen. Whatever credit is given to the enemy for the number of seamen they might have employed on shore, we must of course take credit to ourselves for at least triple that number, our naval means were so very superior to theirs.

If upon landing at Sandfleet the intelligence had proved favourable to such an undertaking, the assault of Antwerp would have been attempted. The army was provided with scaling ladders, and every thing necessary for such an operation. I do not mean to dwell upon this as by any means certain; but the intelligence which government were in possession of justified their looking to such an event as possible, and if we had arrived at Sandfleet at as early a period as we might have done if the armament could have been carried at once through the Weiling channel, namely the 1st, 2d, and 3d of August, I think if by no means improbable. There is every reason to suppose, that at that period the works of Antwerp were in a very defective state, the ditch much encumbered, the garrison extremely weak, and being composed of such a motley crew as artificers, armed excise officers, parts of the ships crews, one or two depôt battalions, and scarcely any thing like troops, it could of course not have that solidity, and discipline, and unity of action, and prompt obedience, which are indispensably necessary to the defence of a place upon such occasions. The works of Antwerp are very extensive, and being much out of repair, and with a garrison so weak as it was at that time and so composed, it is not probable they could have been defended against our assault.

However, looking to the certain reduction of Antwerp by another mode, we should naturally not have attempted the assault, unless circumstances made it quite advisable to do so. But we should have resorted to a species of attack, which, though consisting of approaches and heavy batteries, falls short of a regular siege in form, and is a more active and rapid operation.

We had with us thirty mortars and howitzers, and twelve twenty-four pounders upon travelling carriages, with plenty of ammunition, abundance of engineering tools and stores, and every material requisite for constructing batteries and carrying on operations of this description.

The landing of the army at Sandfleet might have been completed in three days at most; the disembarkation of the heavy artillery would have commenced on the fourth day; and have been completed on the fifth; the chief engineer would have proceeded with the advanced corps of the army to the neighbourhood of Antwerp upon the second day of the disembarkation: that advanced corps having disembarked on the first day, and moved a certain distance into the country; or it might perhaps have been the third day before he got near enough to reconnoitre the place; two days would have been quite sufficient for this purpose. In the mean time the army would have been taking up the necessary positions for covering the approaches against Antwerp, and for preventing any reinforcements entering that place from the right bank of, the Scheldt; and all the tools and materials belonging to the engineering department would have been bringing forward.

Eight thousand men, with the seamen, would have been ample for carrying on tire approaches, and at least 12,000 would have remained to cover them, acting in close connection with the corps opposed towards Bergen-op-Zoom.

The place of disembarkation at Sandfleet would be much secured by the occupation of Lillo; and I have no doubt that it would have been found possible to employ half of the 2,000 men, destined for South Beveland, for the service of convoys from Sand fleet if that were necessary.

On the sixth day the engineer would have broken ground, and by the ninth evening, he would have batteries ready for thirty pieces of bombarding artillery, within 5 or 600 yards of the town; by which time the commanding officer of artillery, would have that number up, and ready to place in battery; so that the bombardment might have begun upon the morning of the tenth day from the commencement of the disembarkation at Sand fleet, and by this same day Liefkenshoeik and Lillo would have been in our possession; of course the Upper Scheldt opened to the co-operation and enterprize of the navy.

The effect of this combination being evidently the certain capture of Antwerp, I think it probable that the garrison would then have withdrawn to the citadel, and that the town would have been delivered into our hands. But I conclude we should not have delayed one single moment carrying on further approaches from the line upon which our first batteries were established.

In five days more we might have worked on so as to have established our twelve four-and-twenty pounders in breaching battery upon the crest of the glacis, supported by two enfilading batteries composed of guns from the ships.

The effect of the establishment of these batteries, combined with five days of such a. severe bombardment, even without naval co-operation, but more especially with it, must have produced the surrender of Antwerp, the garrison having previously withdrawn to the citadel.

Thus, at all events, on the fifteenth day after the disembarkation of the first division of the army at Sandfleet, you would have been certain of getting possession of the town.

When the citadel of Antwerp was taken, after five days open trenches, in 1746, it surrendered, though defended by a competent garrison of regular troops, as soon as breaching batteries were established, before they had fired a single shot; and when Valenciennes, that excellent fortress of the first order, defended with, the greatest perseverance and energy, was taken by the duke of York, in 1793, after a most vigorous and ably-conducted siege, we had not begun to batter in breach. There are various other instances of a similar description. You may fairly conclude, therefore, that a pi ace like Antwerp would not have held out any longer, for even if you set quite out of the question the influence of 60,000 inhabitants upon such a motley and insufficient garrison, which however experience will not justify you in doing, by forming breaching batteries you would have established a sufficient military reason for withdrawing the garrison to the citadel.

A few days possession of the town would have been quite sufficient for the destruction of the enemy's naval arsenal, and the nine or ten sail of the line that, were on the slips.

The objection that, because the naval arsenal was commanded by the guns of the citadel, the destruction of it would have been impossible without the previous capture of the latter, I must say appears to me quite unfounded.

The naval arsenal and docks absolutely form part of the town, many of the houses having been pulled down to make room for a part of that establishment, and it is separated only from the buildings of the town by a common brick wall, for the purpose of securing it against depredations; the whole, too, of this naval arsenal, &c. is combustible, the ships and their slips of course so.

Can any person suppose, therefore, that our troops and sailors in two or three nights, assisted by the fire of bur mortars and howitzers in the day time, would not have completely burnt the whole establishment, slips, &c.?

The enemy could only oppose to you the fire of such guns of the citadel as bore upon the arsenal, which fire in the night must have been very uncertain, and the different buildings and piles of timber, &c. would have afforded those employed upon this service much cover and protection. As to sallying from the citadel, they never dare have done that, when we had so very superior a force immediately at hand ready to follow them into the place, I do not mean to say that this destruction could have been effected without loss; but, that it would have been the consequence of our remaining three days in possession of the town of Antwerp, I have not the most distant doubt.

As the citadel of Antwerp fell in 1746 after five days open trenches, I do not see any reason why we might not have taken it, if we had arrrived before Antwerp at an early period, which there was every reasonable probability of our doing. The capture of the citadel would have rendered the destruction of the fleet afloat nearly certain; which, however, might possibly have been effected without.

It has been attempted to confine the probability of success in the attainment of the ultimate object, to the disembarkation of the armament at Sandfleet, on the 1st, 2d and 3d of August; and it is argued, that as this was the soonest possible period at which that disembarkation could have taken place, it was unwise, and unjustifiable to engage in an enterprize to the success of which extreme celerity was so indispensable, that if you did not arrive on the earliest possible day, supposing every circumstance to favour you from the time of your departure, failure was the necessary Consequence.

How could you be justified, says the noble lord, and the right hon. gent. who just spoke, in forming hopes of such mathematical precision in the execution of your plan, when you had the uncertainty of the elements to contend with, and an intricate navigation to perform?

Now, in the first place, you had every reason to suppose, from the best information which could be obtained on the subject, that the wind and weather at that season would have favoured you, and you have the best naval authorities for the practicability of carrying the whole armament from the Downs to Sandfleet in four days.

But I beg leave to take greater latitude, and to insist that your success by no means depended upon your disembarkation at that very early period. All the intelligence received at the army of the enemy's force and preparation, bears me out in asserting, that even if you had not established your breaching batteries upon the glacis at Antwerp before the latter end of August, your operations could not have been interrupted, and the place must have fallen.

What force had the enemy at last in the field to oppose us? Was it, in point of number or composition, at all able to have done so with effect? and must not much of it have been defeated and dispersed, before it could have collected into one body, if we had landed in any reasonable time? But even supposing all assembled to meet us that was represented to be in the field on the 27th of August, looking at its numbers and composition, would not two divisions of our army have been quite sufficient for its complete defeat and dispersion? There were very few troops of the line, even to the last; two or three French regiments of that description, and a few Dutch; the rest of the force was made up of depot battalions, volunteers, national guards, raw conscripts, &c. I trust, therefore, it will be no longer argued, that unless we had arrived at a very early period in August success would have been impossible. So far from that being the case, I must repeat, that it is my decided conviction, if we had not established ourselves upon the glacis at Antwerp till the end of August, nothing could have prevented our doing so then, and the success of the enterprise would have been certain, even if Antwerp had not, contrary to all rational supposition, surrendered itself upon the commencement of our bombardment combined with naval co-operation.

The vicinity of a number of fortresses is objected against the probability of success in our operations against Antwerp, and against the safety of our retreat.—But the fortresses themselves could be no impediment—that must have arisen alone from their garrisons. All that could be drawn from the more distant ones had of course arrived before the 27th of August. The garrison of Breda had it attempted to approach our army whilst engaged in the attack of Antwerp, would have been trampled into the dust; and the garrison of Bergen-op-Zoom, taking its numbers at the highest they ever were, certainly dare not commit itself four miles from the place; for if defeated in the field, as they undoubtedly would have been, we should have followed them into their fortress, and taken Bergen-op-Zoom as well as Antwerp.

If a garrison ventures any distance from its fortress, and sustains a complete defeat, it is either liable to be cut off; in Which case the place of course is left in a defenceless state; or the enemy, by a close pursuit, and by absolutely mixing with the fugitives, enters the town with them. Judging then from every thing we have before us, if the wind and weather had permitted the execution of the originally projected plan of operation, I see nothing to have prevented our success, and nothing to have endangered our retreat.

When the commanding officers of artillery and engineers stated in their evidence, that they reckoned upon no enemy to obstruct them in getting forward their artillery and stores, they meant only that they expected to receive that complete degree of security and protection, which a covering army is always supposed to afford upon such occasions.

Our approaches would have been carried on without any possibility of interruption from the garrison, that being of such a description as not to admit of its risking to occupy the outworks, or the covered way if there had been one; and of course, it never could have sallied from the gates, certain as it must have been of complete defeat, and consequently apprehensive that we should have followed it into the place.

In the whole of this operation I have not taken credit for any advantage of ground, which however is said to be favourable to our approaches; nor of those large stone suburbs which could not have been effectually destroyed, and which by affording us much shelter and protection would have greatly facilitated our attack. Look to the evidence of general Brownrigg, who possesses more local knowledge of Antwerp and its vicinity than any other evidence, from having been deputy quarter-master-general to our army in 1794, and at one time whilst in that situation cantoned in the suburbs of Antwerp. It is peculiarly the business of the quarter-master-general of an army and his deputy, to make themselves accurately acquainted with all the details of the country in which the army acts.

I have supposed no favourable circumstance whatever, excepting what is positively proved, namely the absence of a sufficient force to obstruct our proceedings; and it is of course understood that the front of the place against which our approaches, Would have been directed could not be inundated. The ground there is much higher than the level of the river, and the inundation of it would have been impracticable. If we had arrived in the neighbourhood of Antwerp before the 10th of August, which is certainly allowing much for delays and unforeseen obstacles, we should have found the ditch not yet prepared to receive the water, because it appears they had not cleared it till the 10th; and even after that period, by getting possession of the sluice at the Breda gate, we might probably have laid dry the part upon the front which we attacked. However I have put these chances also out of the question, and I have allowed for as much impediment from unforeseen circumstances as the least sanguine person could possibly calculate upon.

I have given up all possibilities and all probabilities, and I have confined myself to what I am borne out, by the circumstances which actually did occur, in considering as certain, as far as it is possible for any operation whatever to be so pronounced. The whole of my observations upon the method of conducting this enterprise to a favourable issue, are founded upon the plan originally projected, and upon the general Disposition made out by the commander in chief of the Expedition, and upon the evident adaptation of those to the circumstances as they arose. Trying what I have said by these circumstances, and by the intelligence received, which is now before the House, I will defy any person to disprove the very great probability of success. Therefore I consider the expediency of the project completely established, and that the government were thoroughly justified in adopting those measures which, upon thorough reflection, the general policy of the moment so clearly dictated.

It will here be asked, no doubt, if the whole of this operation was so very practicable, what occasioned its failure? I answer, a state of wind and weather roost unusual at that season having prevented any of the armament from going up the Weiling Channel, as originally projected, excepting a part of Lord Huntley's division, and necessitated the taking the rest of the armament into the Roompot.

Lord Huntley, in consequence of this, arrived off Cadsand without means sufficient to land his troops; he therefore had it not in his power to destroy the batteries there. The communication between Cadsand and Flushing not being cut off, the enemy found means to throw over such reinforcements, as made that garrison amount to 8,000 men: this occasioned the employment of the whole of sir Eyre Coote's force against Flushing, and very much protracted the siege. And the Slough Passage, through which it was attempted, as a last resource, to carry the armament into the West Scheldt, was found to be impracticable for that purpose, without a delay which must be destructive of all hopes of success. Therefore, notwithstanding the utmost exertions, it certainly does not appear, that from the moment the armament went into the Roompot, there were scarcely the most distant hopes of success beyond the capture of Flushing; and what faint hopes there might have been were completely extinguished by the sickness which attacked the army in South Beveland. This rendered all further exertions impossible.

The project of disembarking the cavalry and the field artillery in the Slough Passage upon South Beveland, and marching the army along that island to Batz, there to re-embark and pass over to Sandfleet, the ordnance transports, flotilla, &c. going at the same time through the Slough into the West Scheldt, and up that river to Batz, was completely impracticable with a view to effect any useful purpose. The ordnance transports, having all our heavy artillery and stores on board, did not reach Batz till the 24th or 25th of August; and you have the opinions of lord Roslyn, Sir John Hope, general Brownrigg, and general Macleod, against such a method of proceeding.

Viewing the circumstances then in every possible point of view, and after the most elaborate investigation of the subject, I do not in the least hesitate to state my decided opinion that no man living at the head of that army could, under all the circumstances of the case, have done more than was done by lord Chatham.—He seems to have made every arrangement that the nature of the service would admit of his making previous to his departure, and subsequently to have done his utmost to ensure final success.

Upon general Brownrigg's excellent evidence it has been observed, that in some respects he is at variance with his own journal, and inaccuracy is attributed to him. But these observations are completely unfounded, and arise partly from misconception on the part of those who make them, and partly from a natural desire to diminish the force of an evidence which makes so much against the case that they wish to establish.—General Brownrigg is one of the most honourable, and most respectable, men living; of remarkably good judgment and abilities; and an excellent officer, of much experience. I have been with him often upon service, and as well as his great personal gallantry, I always admired his particular coolness and readiness in the field. His energy too is very superior and his activity indefatigable. He was much in the confidence of the immortal sir Ralph Abercrombie, who had the highest opinion of him as an officer, which he has often expressed to me in the strongest terms.—Gen. Brownrigg's management, under the immediate direction of the duke of York, of the Commander in Chief's office in England, during the first eight years of his royal highness's command of the army, the admirable regulations, and just, impartial conduct of which were so much admired last year, did as great credit to his feelings, to his capacity, and unremitting zeal and assiduity, as to those of his royal master—I beg pardon of the House for this intrusion, but I really could not pass over the slightest insinuation against gen. Brownrigg without saying of him what I know; though I am quite aware that such insinuation arose solely out of an argument upon the evidence, without the smallest intention of any thing personal.

I now come to a part of the subject that it is impossible to advert to without the most poignant regret, I mean the sickness which visited our brave troops to so calamitous an extent. No man of any feeling but his heart must bleed in contemplation of such scenes of misery: no person can more sincerely deplore them than I do—no man can feel for a soldier's sufferings more acutely—nor did I ever, or ever should I think any exertion or sacrifice of my own too great to avert them. At the same time, though impressed with these sentiments to the utmost possible extent, I must strenuously repel all accusations against his Majesty's, government on this subject.

It appears in evidence before the House, that when the army sailed from this country it had an ample provision of medicines, and medical stores of all sorts, for six months; so that if half the troops had fallen ill the very day of landing, there would have been sufficient medicines of all kinds, including bark, for at least five weeks.

Every regimental hospital was complete in stores and hospital bedding; besides which, there were 3,000 sets of hospital bedding for the general hospital, and great quantities in the quarter-master-general's store, from in whence supplies might be drawn when necessary.—There was a full establishment of medical officers attendant upon the army; and hospitals established in England for the reception of 5,500 sick and wounded men—orders were also given for sending home the sick and wounded as expeditiously as it was possible to do so.—The distance being so short, and the communication so easy, it was of course concluded, that any additional supplies might be forwarded before they could possibly be required.

If the original plan had been carried into execution, the sickness of the army would not have been nearly so great. The country near Antwerp, which in that case would have become the principal theatre of our operations, is extremely healthy. The only part of our force then which would have been exposed to the effects of the unhealthy season of Zealand, was that part destined to occupy Walcheren.

As soon as the necessity was known in this country, the utmost exertion was made by the government, and the Commander in Chief at home, to supply the wants of the army in every way. The first letter upon this subject was received by the secretary of state for the war department upon the second of September; and upon the fifth it was reported to him, that all the medicines required in that letter, as well as the medicines, and stores, and medical comforts, were ready and ordered off.

The noble lord who began this debate has deprecated the delays which, he says, arose from too scrupulous an attention to the forms of office under circumstances of such urgency; but the noble lord does not recollect that these offices are all within a short distance of each other, and that the necessary forms therefore might be gone through in a few hours. I perfectly agree in opinion that forms of office may be much too dilatory and multiplied. But certain forms are indispensable to avoid confusion, which must always be subversive of dispatch; and, at all events, till existing forms are altered they must be observed.

In point of fact, no inconvenience was ever experienced from want of medicines or medical comforts; no actual want ever existed. This you have from sir Eyre Coote in evidence; and he states that his urgent representations to the government on these subjects arose from an anxious desire to obviate that inconvenience. A convincing proof too that our supplies of bark were never exhausted is, that no application was at any time made to the navy for any part of their supply, which was ample.—There does appear indeed to have been a delay in forwarding one package of l,000lbs. of bark from this country. Whence that delay arose is not made out; but one thing is very certain, that there was never any want of bark in our hospitals.—The most ample supplies of bedding were sent out as expeditiously as possible, in addition to the great provision originally made; and it stands in evidence before the House, that at no time the sick with the army exceeded the number of hospital beds.

The sickness was much beyond what could have been calculated upon by those most experienced in the effects of that climate. This appears upon the quarter master general's journal. From a sickness so rapidly increasing, and so unexpectedly extensive, confusion must have been occasioned at first. Immediately entering upon active operations without previous possession of the country, you cannot at once have all your hospitals perfectly arranged; nay, even when they are so, and you have a great many more men wounded in a battle than you had reason to expect, much temporary inconvenience occurs. There is some analogy between this circumstance and the sudden manner in which the sickness attacked our troops in Zealand. I can readily conceive, therefore, that though our supplies of bedding with the army were fully sufficient, it might have been some time before the hospitals could be properly furnished.

Medical men were certainly at times much wanted. The original number sent out, however, was a full proportion of such a force, and very large augmentations of that number were subsequently made; in short, as many were sent out as could possibly be procured—that likewise stands in evidence before the House, But the dearth of medical assistance upon such calamitous occasions is by no means a new case. It frequently happens in the West Indies, when the epidemics incident to that climate rage with violence.

The surgeon-general of the forces, and the inspector-general of hospitals with lord Chatham's army, have stated in evidence, that if the necessary precautions had been taken, the effects might have been considerably palliated though the disorder itself could not have been prevented; and that if they had been consulted in time they shooed have suggested those precautions. Now really it has never been usual for the government of a country to impart to the medical department the destination of an expedition, excepting in cases of extreme necessity. If an expedition were going to a great distance, then such necessity might perhaps arise. But in the present instance that was not the case, and such communications, unless absolutely called for, are certainly sets of imprudence. I am far from meaning to dispute that our present surgeon-general, Mr. Keate, is a man of strict integrity and well deserving of confidence, but unnecessary disclosures' are always to be avoided.

In point of fact, ample supplies of all medicines, stores, &c. either accompanied the army, or were sent out in time; and with regard to precautions, as the sickness did not begin till about four weeks after our first landing, there was full time to have taken them, had they been suggested. How came the medical department, the moment the destination of the troops was notorious, not to suggest those precautions? Was it their business to wait till regularly consulted upon the subject? Certainly not. It lay entirely within their province; and whilst these palliations must have occurred forcibly to them, the government at home and the Commander in Chief abroad could not be aware of them. Any thing necessary for this purpose could very soon have been sent to so short a distance; even 40,000 flannel waistcoats, had they been wanted, might have been made up in London upon an emergency in a week, and they would have arrived at Walcheren in a fortnight from the day they were ordered. That the necessary precautions, therefore, alluded to by the surgeon-general; Mr. Keate, and the inspector-general, Mr. Webb, were not taken, neither the government nor the commander in chief of the Expedition are in the least to blame.

I must not omit to observe, that it was expected by the government that the chief part of the army would have returned, after completing the service upon which it was sent, by the end of August, or beginning of September at latest.

Captain Puget, naval commissioner of Flushing, states, that he saw several of the sick in the hospitals there lying in their great coats on the floor, not having beds to lie upon: and that according to the reports of some officers many of them were without medicines for four days. He also describes the hospitals themselves to have been very bad.—Now, no hospitals were chosen till regularly inspected by medical officers; the roofs of some of them had been damaged by the bombardment, but it appears that they were repaired as soon as possible.—At times the hospitals were certainly much crowded, which is accounted for in evidence by the rapid influx of the sick. The large naval store house at Flushing, where capt. Puget saw some of the men whom he took to be sick, was not an hospital but a barrack, which at that time was of course unknown to him.—Colonel Offney, who was acting as quarter-master general in Flushing, and who often went into the hospitals there, states in evidence, that he never saw any sick who were not furnished at least with straw and blankets; that these were only the slightest cases; and that they were all provided with beds as soon as it was possible to get them from the stores.

With respect to some of the troops being without medicines for four days, it is clearly proved, that this was owing to the regimental surgeon of colonel Cochrane's battalion not making timely application for the necessary supply.

It is stated, that some ships which brought home the sick were too much crowded, and without medical attendance, or any proper assistance. If this was so it certainly was a very unpardonable neglect; but none of these circumstances necessarily imply an inculpation of the government, or the commander in chief of the Expedition. They can only be answerable for general arrangements and General directions; and if defects in the details are discovered, the blame must fall upon those who were specifically charged with their execution.

I cannot quit this subject without again most sincerely lamenting that such a calamity should have befallen us; but it is impossible, I think, after this investigation, to lay any part of it at the door of the government or the commander of the army. They appear to have done every thing that depended upon them to alleviate the sufferings of our brave troops, and this House and the country will, I trust, now do them justice.

I must beg leave to state a circumstance not immediately connected with the present discussion, but which materially concerns lord Chatham individually. It has been reported, that he came home in a line-of-battle ship, which ought to have been employed in conveying some of the sick from Flushing. If it had been so, he certainly would have been very reprehensible; but it appears in papers upon the table, that, previous to lord Chatham's sailing from Flushing, a positive order was given by the commander in chief of the fleet not to admit one sick man on board a ship of war for fear of the Contagion; therefore this charge is completely unfounded, though certainly not more so than all the rest of the obloquy which has been so profusely heaped upon that noble lord.

The next point in this case is, the retention of the island of Walcheren.—Whether we succeeded in the destruction of the enemy's fleet in the Scheldt, and his naval establishments at Antwerp, or not, but particularly in the latter supposition, it behoved us to retain the island of Walcheren as long as it were possible to do so.—The extreme importance of that station, for the purpose of neutralizing the enemy's naval establishments in the Scheldt, has already been too clearly demonstrated to require any further observation. No man, I think, can doubt, after a mature investigation of the subject, that the island of Walcheren, with reference to the the invasion of this country, is next to Boulogne the most important post the enemy possesses—Impressed with this conviction, the retention or evacuation of that island was one of the most serious questions upon which the government of this country could possibly deliberate. A determination of such magnitude, involving so many weighty considerations, could not be taken without the most mature reflection.

Sir Eyre Coote's letters representing the sickly state of that part of the army which occupied Walcheren, are dated the 31st of August, and the 14th and 17th of September. The two first, it is true, describe the sickness as alarming: but that of the 17th is by much the strongest, and the only one which could possibly justify government in entertaining thoughts of relinquishing a post, so extremely essential to the vital interests of the nation.—This letter of the 17th was not sent from Walcheren. I conclude, on that day, because it contains an enclosure, dated the 18th, and it was not received here till the 20th or 21st.

From that period till the usual termination of the sickly season, viz. the middle or latter end of October (according to the authority of sir John Pringle, and of the most intelligent inhabitants of Zealand), there was literally not time to remove the sick, to destroy the basin of Flushing, and finally to evacuate the island. In point of fact, our preparations for that evacuation were made in the beginning of November, and they could not be completed till the 23d of December.

On the 13th of September too, just when sir Eyre Coote was making the representations to which I have before alluded, the commander in chief of the fleet, sir Richard Strachan, wrote a letter to the government, urging them in the most earnest manner not to abandon a naval station of such importance, till he should have an opportunity of personal communication with them; and he did not return to England till the 6th of October.

With such a letter from their naval commander, an eye-witness to those reasons which could alone determine the government to abandon Walcheren, and feeling as they must the extraordinary value of the possession, would not they have been highly blameable if they had hastily decided upon its relinquishment?

Most deeply as every person must deplore the dire effects which were experienced from that climate, (and no man can deplore them more seriously than I do,) I must remark, that you do not abandon all your unhealthy colonies because they are unhealthy; otherwise, you should withdraw at once from your possessions in the West Indies. This you cannot do, however you may feel for the mortality occasioned by the destructive epidemics in that quarter. During the administration of one of the greatest ministers we ever had, the late Mr. pitt, we held St. Domingo long as a military station, under the pressure of similar calamities; and when Gibraltar was infected with a sort of plague, was it for that reason abandoned? On the contrary, did not the governor, general Fox, immdiately repair to his post; and were not reinforcements sent out without a moment's delay, lest the Spaniards should take advantage of the reduced state of our garrison? Let me ask, too, has it ever been established as a principle, that we should not conquer and retain important posts, because their climate is occasionally unwholesome? Until that principle is established, as one by which the government is to be regulated, let it not be argued that there is a difference between not abandoning possessions which you have long retained, and seizing upon, others with a view to retention, and forming upon this argument an accusation against ministers for attempting to retain Walcheren.—In the year 1794 we had troops stationed a considerable time in the province of Zealand.—In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, this country retained the island of Walcheren, during a period of 30 years. The climate then was of course the same as now. And it has frequently been in the contemplation of different governments of this country, to acquire, permanent possession of that island: the plan has been from time to time laid aside, riot on account of the climate, but purely from military reasons: now, on this occasion those reasons were in our favour.

Had we not abandoned Walcheren, it might have been very easily defended; we should have strengthened and perfected the works of Flushing, and made proper casemates for the troops; we should have erected two strong forts of regular construction and profile, to protect the anchorage: these forts would have been connected with Flushing by a line also of regular construction and profile; the whole covered by a very deep and broad wet ditch. Such arrangements, combined with the means of inundation in your power, and considering that you are masters of the sea, would have rendered that situation impregnable. You would have had some strong forts, likewise of regular construction and profile, with casemates for the troops, and bomb-proof magazines, so placed as to prevent the enemy from collecting vessels in the interior of the Slough Passage, the extremities of Which would be watched by your naval means; and the Slough is seldom or ever frozen in such a manner as to be available for military purposes. The enemy's attack of Walcheren, therefore, would have been nearly, if not quite, reduced to an invasion of that island upon the northern or north-western side; against which our naval station in the Roompot would have been a great protection: where, with Flushing harbour for the ships to come into occasionally, we could, I conclude, always have kept a fleet.

The best barracks would have been constructed for the troops; we should also have had floating barracks, in which a considerable part of the garrison might always have been kept during the unhealthy season; and it is well known, that no man afloat was attacked by the fever. We should likewise have had floating hospitals: and whenever the sick amounted to any considerable number, they would have been immediately sent to England. And the whole garrison might have been frequently relieved from this country.

The effects of the climate might thus have been in a great measure obviated; and when the fortifications which I have described were completed, the amount of force stationary on the island of Walcheren need not have been considerable, because if the enemy effected a landing in superior numbers, you could at once retire to your works and bid him defiance; his communication would probably soon be cut off by our naval means, and our troops could be reinforced from England to any extent. The enemy therefore would certainly not succeed in taking Flushing, or in annoying the anchorage in its neighbourhood, and most probably would lose every man he had landed upon Walcheren.

It appears then evident, that if the ministers had determined upon evacuating Walcheren, in consequence of sir Eyre Coote's letter of the 17th of September, received here about the 21st, the removal of the sick, the demolition of the enemy's naval establishments there (a point of very essential importance), and the final evacuation could not have taken place, till long after the period of the usual and almost invariable termination of the sickness; and really, under that impression, they would have been unjustifiable as a government, if they had not endeavoured to retain a possession of such extreme importance as long as it was practicable to do so; more especially as they were fully entitled to expect, that the sickness would cease in about three weeks from the receipt of that letter which it is contended ought to have governed their determination.

I do not hesitate to say, that the permanent attainment of such an object as Flushing, would amply have compensated the efforts of a whole campaign however long and arduous. At the same time, when, contrary to all reasonable expectation, the government found so extensive and calamitous a sickness continuing beyond the period of its customary duration, I am ready to admit, that they are not to blame for viewing it as an imperious and paramount necessity, and for sacrificing to that consideration a political object so closely interwoven with the vital interests of the state. I contend, however, that it was not only very natural for them to be slow in coming to such a decision, but if they had done so till driven to it by the irresistible necessity which forced upon them such a disastrous alternative, they might justly have been accused of lightly sacrificing the best interests of their country; and they would not only have deserved all the censure now attempted to be passed upon them, but impeachment would not have been more than adequate to the offence.

The expence of the Expedition to the Scheldt has also been much dwelt upon. The least calculation made by the public upon that point has amounted to five or six millions; whereas it appears, by papers on the table, that the extraordinary expence, deducting of course what the naval means employed and the troops would have cost if they had remained at home, and considering that most of the transports could not at any rate have been paid off, according to their old agreements, till later in the year, did not amount to more than one million.

The failure has been talked of as complete, which is entirely erroneous. An extent of sickness totally unexpected, and which those most experienced in that climate could not possibly calculate upon, alone occasioned the abandonment of a conquest, the permanent possession of which would have been cheaply purchased at the whole cost which the most exaggerated statements have represented as that of the Expedition to the Scheldt; and the having destroyed the naval establishments at Flushing, so as to make that^* port of little or no use to the enemy for nearly two years, is a service undoubtedly of great importance.

^*Vide Evidence of lieut. gen. Don and lieut. col. Pilkington, who was the engineer employed in the demolition of the basin, &c, See vol. 15, Appendix.

I do not dwell much upon the diversion in favour of Austria, because, though the only one we could make, it was not of considerable magnitude. However, Austria herself thought it essential, as appears in the correspondence of that government; and the presence of so large an army in an enemy's territory, carrying on an attack against one of his principal naval and commercial establishments, must always occasion great embarrassment.

I think there can now be no doubt respecting the general policy by which his Majesty's government was actuated, in determining to direct the efforts of this country to the Scheldt; the expediency of that measure too is completely established, not upon any loose reasoning, but upon fair inference from the evidence and papers now upon the table of the House. It is very clearly proved too, that the utmost attention was paid to the wants of the army by the government, and the commander in chief of the Expedition. That the sickness was an inevitable calamity with which they cannot be charged; and that the attempt to retain as long as possible the island of Walcheren, was not only justifiable, but an indispensable obligation. I trust therefore that the Resolutions of censure proposed by the noble lord will not for a moment be entertained. They are wholly unmerited, and if they were to pass, would tend to shackle the exertions of every government in a manner the most prejudicial to the Interests of the country. But that cannot be, until all regard for those interests, and all liberality and justice shall have, fled from the British House of, Commons.

I have now only to observe, that I heartily concur, in the motion approving the conduct of the army and navy. To the Resolutions of fact I shall propose the previous question, because they are, unnecessary; and to the Resolutions of censure a decided negative; and I shall beg leave to conclude with moving Resolutions of an opposite tendency.

expressed his anxiety to decide upon this question solely upon its own merits, unprejudiced by party views. In every view he could give the question, it was impossible for him not to have wished that our assistance was not fully applied to Spain. The reason stated with respect to the want of bullion, he could scarcely believe, when he considered this country's great commercial advantages. Still, from the evidence before him, he must say, that in the Expedition to the Scheldt the means were adequate to the end, and the end useful. It was the best diversion this country could make with the least risk. With such impressions he could not vote for censuring his Majesty's ministers.

said, that he had attended the whole of the investigation, had heard all the evidence, and had read the whole mass of papers which had been produced. Exercising the best judgment he could form upon the subject, he had no doubt of the propriety of sending a British army to the continent, in order to make a diversion in favour of our allies. After the glorious attempt which Austria had made to oppose the tyranny of France, and when the fate of the war appeared so nearly poised at the ever memorable battle or Aspern, he thought the ministers of this country would have deserved the highest degree of blame if they had neglected to bring forward the whole strength and resources of the empire, in aid of Austria. The noble lord (Porchester) had said, that the time and season were ill-chosen; but it must be recollected that it came out in the evidence, that there was no material part of the army of this country in a situation for effective service before the period at which the Expedition was undertaken. If a corps had been sent to the North of Germany instead of Walcheren, that corps would neither have been sufficient to cope singly with the force which the enemy could bring to bear against it, nor to protect any insurrection Which could be then formed. It would be also entirely deprived of the co-operation of our navy, which was a description of force that was of all others the most terrible to the enemy. The objects of the Expedition were two-fold: the first related to British objects only, and the second to a diversion in favour of Austria. Now as far as related to British objects alone, he thought it must be acknowledged that the capture of a fortified town, with a garrison of 9,000 men, and the destruction of the basin of Flushing, were events of some importance. It was also his firm opinion, that the ulterior objects of the Expedition would have been obtained if it had not been for the very extraordinary state of the wind and weather, which not only detained the Expedition so long in our own ports, but retarded its progress on the enemy's coast. Although there had been military opinions that this Expedition was doubtful and hazardous, yet it mast be recollected that such opinions had been given of other expeditions which had completely succeeded. When the admiral who commanded off Basque Roads was asked his opinion about attacking the French fleet with fire-ships, he replied, "that although it was a most horrible mode of warfare, and the attempt was dangerous and almost desperate, it might possibly succeed." Notwithstanding this opinion, the attempt was made, and it succeeded. He believed, although opinions in almost the same words had been delivered respecting the attack of Antwerp, yet it would have succeeded if it were not for untoward circumstances, which, it was unlikely would occur, and it was impossible to controul. He could not but believe that the Expedition had an important effect as a diversion in favour of Austria. It was well remembered that at one time Buonaparté considered Austria entirely conquered, and called upon the Hungarian nation to elect a king for them selves. From the admirable and heroic General Orders issued by the emperor of Austria, it appeared that Buonaparté, in the beginning of the negotiation, proposed such terms as would have shaken the very foundation of the Austrian monarchy. Very soon, however, after he had heard of our Expedition landing in Walcheren, he lowered his tone, and offered the emperor of Austria such terms as he conceived he might with honour accept. Much blame also had been thrown on ministers for not evacuating Walcheren sooner than they did, but if they had withdrawn the British forces from the continent while the fate of Austria remained in doubt, they would have been justly exposed to the severest censures. Viewing the subject in this light, he could not agree in the propositions of the noble lord, and should consequently support the Amendment.

condemned the vanity and presumption of certain high born persons in forcing themselves into situations which they were not qualified to fill. However he lamented the failure of the Expedition, he was not for an entire change of ministers, yet he contended that it was necessary some change should take place in the administration. He had not any objection to the marquis Wellesley; but without some partial change the country was endangered; he thought the House ought to come to some Resolution, to shew that ministers were responsible.

rose, amidst a loud cry of Adjourn, and observed, that as he did not suppose the other question (meaning that relative to sir F. Burdett) would occupy much time to-morrow, he would therefore move that the present debate should, be postponed to the same day; which was agreed to.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at three o'clock.