ally sent out to Walcheren, even after the order for its evacuation had reached the island.* He had also heard of the sick and wounded soldiers being most severely distressed for want of bedding, clothing, and even necessary provisions and medicines. All these things might not be true, but yet they rested on the statement of such authorities as to form an additional argument for inquiry. Indeed the arguments for inquiry were so numerous and irresistible, that unless the House acceded to them, they could not hope to have credit with the country for acting under the influence of reason or argument. Lord Porchester concluded with moving, "That a committee be appointed to inquire into the policy and the conduct of the late expedition to the Scheldt." Mr. Windham Quin, in seconding the motion, reviewed the conduct of the expedition, which ap, peared to him to be remarkable only for ignorance, imbecility and mismanagement. He was particularly struck on a perusal of the papers on the table, with the deficiency of means to carry into effect the attack upon Cadsand, there having been provided no more boats than would be sufficient to land 600 troops, at a time when 2,000 troops were drawn up on the beach. It appeared that there had been transports provided by the wise planners of the expedition, without boats, and soldiers sent without provisions. The consequence was, that though batteries had been opened on the 5th of August, the enemy had been able, without molestation, to throw a body of three or 4,000 men into Flushing, across the Scheldt, before the communication with Cadsand was cut off. Mr. Croker, with regard to the delay of the expedition, observed, that his majesty had not incited Austria to hostilities-that he was even unwilling that Austria should precipitate herself into a war with France, and cautioned her against taking such a step, without rational grounds of hope for a successful issue. It would, therefore, have been imprudent and impolitic to have wasted our resources in preparations for supporting Austria, in the case of an event which it was hoped would not take place. Lord Porchester had complained of many circumstances besides delay, connected with the expedition. Might not those circumstances be satisfactorily explained by the papers which were yet to be produced? Mr. Quin had complained of a want of boats to land a sufficient force on Cadsand. Mr. Croker had no hesitation in contradicting the honourable gentleman on that point. The statement of the honourable gentleman was unfounded in fact and that single circumstance was sufficient to prove the propriety of waiting till all the documents should be produced. He had means of knowing more on the subject of the expedition than the honourable gentleman. Mr. Croker wished the House distinctly to understand that he did not oppose inquiry, but only wished to defer it till they should be in possession of those papers which alone could * Vol. LI. [1809] Hist. Eur. p. 225. enable them to decide whether an inquiry would be necessary. He concluded with moving the previous question. Mr. Bathurst said, that he had voted for the address in answer to the king's speech, but not against the inquiry; and he had opposed the amendment proposed, because it not only courted inquiry, but anticipated the result. The House owed it to the country that inquiry of some kind should take place; and it could not take place in any other way than either in a select committee, or a committee of the whole House. The papers remaining to be produced might state what was thought proper, with respect to the number of boats, or the means of debarkation on Cadsand. But admiralty returns would not satisfy him. He must have viva voce evidence on this, and every other important point connected with the expedition. It was impossible for any papers to shew that a sufficient number of boats had been provided. It was alike impossible for papers to show what the probability was, that Antwerp, on a coup de main, would be found in a different state from that in which it afterwardsappeared to be. He wished to know what were the probabilities of the success of the expedition; upon what grounds it was expected that the expedition would arrive in a given time at a given point. These were subjects which no papers could explain, and which could be learned only from viva voce examination. The chancellor of the Exchequer besought the House not to be led astray by any supposition, that, in agreeing to the previous question, it would decide on the point of inquiry or no inquiry. The vote of that night would only decide whether the inquiry should be then voted, or not till after the documents should be produced. To shew that ministers were anxious that the questions depending on them might be agitated as early as possible, he stated, that while the office clerks were employed in copying some of them, others were actually in the course of being printed. He hoped not only to be able to bring them before the House on Monday, but to put into the hands of each member a printed copy. It was hardly decent not to wait twenty-four hours for the promised information: to decide, knowing nothing about the merits of the case: to say we know better than you, though we know nothing at all about the matter; to tell the sovereign, in effect, though you have promised us satisfactory information, we have anticipated that the information you have promised cannot be satisfactory. Mr. Windham said, that, in his opinion, the vote ought to be carried by acclamation. The information on which to ground opinion, at least inquiry, was already before parliament and the country. It was not that the expedition failed, but that it could not succeed, that the House and thecountry had to complain of. It would be a reproach for ever to the character of parliament, if it suffered its attention to be diverted for one single day from taking steps of inquiry, by any delusive hope held out from the production of papers. By the way, those papers, had ministers been sincere in their professions, should have been deli vered the first day the House as sembled. They who could foresee nothing else, must at least have foreseen that parliament was to be assembled. Mr. Ponsonby observed, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had been pleased to tell the House, that the question they were now called on to decide, was, merely whether it should proceed to the institution of an inquiry on Friday next, or on the succeeding Monday. That, however, was not the question. It was far more important-it was, whether the House should that night do its duty to the people of Great Britain and Ireland, or wave it altogether, through deferential indulgence to ministers. Mr. Stephen thought an inquiry proper and necessary, to satisfy the country; but as the papers would be produced, he should vote for postponing the inquiry for that time. It had been argued, by Mr. Windham, that because the motion only implied that there was ground for putting ministers on their trial, there was no need to wait for the promised papers. What evil could arise from a delay of two days, of such magnitude, as could justify the House in precipitating a vote without hearing such evidence as was offered for their consideration? If not material to the question whether inquiry was proper, it might at least assist them in deciding as to the mode and extent of the inquiry. He could not admit the mere failure of the expedition to the Scheldt, or the ill success of our arms in the peninsula, to be sufficient ground for inferring criminal misconduct, or incapacity on the part of government. When a country is at perfect freedom of choice, either to abstain or to prosecute military enterprize, ill success might indeed furnish a reasonable presumption of misconduct in their authors or conductors. But England was in a situation similar to that of a town besieged by a powerful army, which the garrison was too feeble to encounter in the open field. In this case the best means of defence might be, frequent sallies, to delay the enemy's ultimate success, and take the chance of contingencies, which might bring final relief, though there was no hope, by such sallies, of raising the siege. Our continental efforts against our too powerful enemy, were of this kind. Mr. Stephen concluded, with some lively strictures on the eagerness of gentlemen on the opposite side of the House to turn the failure of the expedition to their own political purpose of getting into power, by the dismissal of their opponents. The public, he said, was led to expect a redress of grievances, and punishment of delinquents. But those gentlemen had the more substantial game in view, of obtaining possession of the government: and this was the true cause of their impatience. They reminded him of the squire of the valorous knight of La Mancha. The knight, like the people of England in the present case, was intent on generous purposes, though with mistaken views. But the squire had always his eye to the main chance; and, as soon as an adventure was achieved by his master, he conceived, like the right honourable gentleman, that his end was attained, and said, “I do beseech you, sir, give me immediately that same government." Sir Samuel Romilly said, this was the first time in his life that he had heard the doctrine that we should be certain of criminality before we proceeded to inquiry. A great calamity had befallen the country; could there be any serious doubt as to the necessity of inquiring into the cause or causes? It had been said, by his learned friend, that the object of the motion was to turn out the present ministers. How could inquiry turn out ministers, unless the result of the inquiry should shew them to be criminal? If, on the contrary the inquiry should prove that no blame was imputable to them, they would only be more firmly established in their places. If it was of very little consequence whether inquiry should be voted that night, or Monday, why did ministers think it worth while to make a serious opposition. Was there an in. dividual present not convinced that it was the intention of ministers, if they could by any means, to evade inquiry altogether? If, in fact, it were a question of only twenty-four hours, it were better to vote for inquiry now, than delay such a vote for even twentyfour hours. The House was then on its trial before the world, and should lose no time in acquitting itself in the eyes of the country. -General Grosvenor felt the most anxious wish to support the mo tion of the noble lord. He owed it to the commander-in-chief, lord Chatham-he owed it to the army, officers and men he owed it also to himself, as having had a com mand in that army, to declare that he could not gratify the whole army more than by voting for the speediest and most effectual inquiry.-Sir Home Popham said, that the same motives induced him, in the strongest and most explicit manner, to press the House to go into the minutest inquiry into the conduct of the fleet. He was perfectly convinced that such a course would be very congenial to the feelings of the whole, and particularly those of the gallant admiral who commanded it; whose whole life had been a tissue of the most active and enterprising services; whose achievements had been equalled by few, excelled by none. Mr. Wilberforce wished to obtain the point of inquiry now, that very evening, for he had been too long in parliament not to know, that, if deferred till Monday, it would never be obtained at all. Mr. Canning said, that it would be better to postpone any direct motion for inquiry until the House should be in possession of the promised papers. This was a deference due to the government. But, whatever the contents of these papers might be, they would' not supersede the necessity of an inquiry of some kind. Inquiry could not be avoided. It must take place sooner or later. Inconveniences, however, would lie in the mode of inquiry, that would. result from the adoption of the motion. If it should appear, from the papers to be laid on the table, that blame was imputable to the commanders of the expedition, an investigation at the bar of the House would certainly not be the *Upwards of thirty years, most advisable or constitutional way, to ascertain what portion of misconduct fell to each. No inquiry before the House, or any selection from it, could embrace the misconduct, supposing any imputable to them, of the commanders of the expedition. The case, how ever, was different with regard to the share that ministers had in the transaction; and he put in his claim to a full share of the responsibility, which the ministry, that set it forward, might have incurred. He would give his vote against the motion of the noble lord, but not in the hope of defeating inquiry, which could not be avoided. Several other members spoke on the opposites sides of the question, But the main arguments, pro and con, have been already, perhaps, too often stated. Mr. Tierney excited a laugh at the chancellor of the Exchequer. It had been frequently asserted, he said, that the object of the motion was to turn out ministers. And it was whimsical enough, that the prime minister himself had stated that as an objection to the motion. Mr. Eyre, a very honourable gentleman, raised a laugh against himself. He said, that on the present occasion, he would not vote on the side of administration. But as to their general conduct, he was convinced that they possessed great merit, though the nature of that merit was not sufficiently understood by the country. On a division of the House there appeared for Lord Porchester's motion 195. Against it 186. A committee of the whole House, to enquire into the causes of the failure of the expedition to the Scheldt, was then fixed for Friday next. House of Commons, February 2. Lord Porchester, before he moved the order of the day, rose to give notice, that on Monday he should move for certain papers relating to the late expedition to the Scheldt, which, he thought, were necessary to render those already before the House complete. In the papers before them, two or three objects were named, as those of the expedition; while one part of the force was to be stationed as a garrison, the other was to proceed to accomplish such of the ulterior objects of the expedition, as might appear practicable. From the papers before them, it appeared, that a very few days after every obstacle, to the accomplishment of the ulterior objects had been removed (as stated by lord C.) by the seasonable fall of Flushing, the whole of those objects were abandoned. Could it be thought, that the general had received no instructions in the interval to direct his conduct. He was of opinion, that such communications must have existed. And, as they were not produced, he must consider the papers that had been laid by ministers before the House, as incomplete and defective. Pursuant to this notice, lord Porchester, House of Commons, February 5. moved, that an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to give orders, "that there be laid before the House copies of all the instructions given to lord Chatham, and sir Richard Strachan, and the officers employed in the expedition to the Scheldt," agreed |