bread, in the course of an animated speech, in reasoning with ministry on their own grounds, observed that it had been asserted both by lord Castlereagh and Gen. Crawfurd, not only that the North of Germany was ripe for insurrection, but that Buonaparte had lost 50,000 men at the battle of Aspern. Could it then be doubted, if this statement was true, that an army of 40,000 British troops, landed in the North of Germany, would have turned the fortune of the campaign?-Mr. Whitbread took an opportunity of stinging Mr. Canning for his inconsistency in pronouncing lord Chatham guilty for making an official communication to his majesty with a request of secrecy, while he himself had made communications to his majesty which he concealed from his colleagues. He stung him also by contrasting the duplicity of his conduct with the candour and manliness exhibited by lord Castlereagh through the whole progress of the present question. Lord Castlereagh had declared that he did not shrink from responsibility, and had therefore consistently voted for inquiry. Mr. Canning had always pretended that he sought investigation, but voted steady and staunch against inquiry. He badgered him yet farther on another point. How could he commit so flagrant a breach of his public duty as to allow his incompetent colleague (as he conceived him to be) to remain

in office?

five generals of the first respectability, who considered the risk to be encountered too great for the advantages that might possibly accrue, and without consulting the earl of Chatham, the commanderin-chief, or even asking a question of sir Eyre Coote, the second in command, dispatched the expedition without a plan; whilst the superior officers were destitute of that confidence which was the soul of energy, and the only basis on which the hope of success could rest.

It was the common course of an

individual, accused of a breach of privilege, to go out of the house, and leave the question to the discussion of those who had to judge of the charge. He asked his majesty's ministers whether, if they were acquitted by a majority equal to their own number, they would call that a justification? Was it

not a sufficient reason that there were so many others in the house who were, in some measure, bound to support their patrons, without themselves lending their aid, and not only assisting to acquit, but actually approving their own con duct? He would put it to their own honour whether they ought not to retire? The ministerial benches laughed.

Sir Francis Burdett said, the defence made by or for ministers, amounted to no more than this, that because it was an object of vital importance to destroy Antwerp, it was right to undertake it without the necessary information, and without means adequate to its execution.

Among a number of pretences to preposterous management throughout, sir Francis took par

ticular notice of the ignorance of sir Home Popham of the navigation of the Scheldt! To him was intrusted the conduct of the fleet up to Bathz. He attempted to go by the West Scheldt until, by his failure, he found out that he ought to have tried the East Scheldt, &c.-At last they got up to Bathz on the 24th of August. They had now come to the grand point from which in future all their operations were to proceed. A council of war was called. What did they do? They set off home. The commanding officers in both services were ignorant, and ministers both ignorant, imbecile, and presumptuous. Both the military and naval commander ought to be tried by a court-martial for undertaking to direct an enterprize which, they confessed, they knew nothing about. As to ministers, they deserved to be punished much more severely than by a vote of censure. Nothing less than the impeachment of ministers, and trials of the commanders by courts-martial, should satisfy the cruel effusion of the blood of its army.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that, on the 10th of October, ministers had received intel

ligence to their minds satisfactory, that hostilities were on the eve of recommencing between Austria and France. Now had ministers, notwithstanding this intelligence, determined on the abandonment of Walcheren, and hostilities on the continent had actually recommenced, what a torrent of invective would have been poured upon ministers, from the honourable gentlemen opposite, for abandoning, at such a period, a conquest before so dearly bought, and then so critically important? From the report of Dr. Blane too it appeared, that the endemial distemper of Walcheren, uniformly abated in October, and terminated in November.

On a division of the House there appeared,

For the original resolutions of lord Porchester, 227. Against them, 275.

Another division then took place on the amendment of general Crawfurd, approving the conduct of ministers with regard to the policy of the expedition: which was carried, Ayes, 272. Noes, 232.

The last resolution of General Crawfurd, approving the retention of Walcheren, was also carried, Ayes, 255. Noes, 232.

Mr. Yorke, February the 1st, gave notice that when the inquiry should be gone into, he would proceed to enforce the standing order of the House for the exclusion of strangers. This he did, not from any wish to keep their proceedings from publicity in due time, but with a view to guard against the possibility of any misrepresentation or misunderstanding out of doors before the minutes should be published.* The House having resolved itself into a committee on the expedition to the Scheldt next day, Mr. Yorke, according to his notice, moved the standing order for the exclusion of strangers, which was of course enforced. On the subject of this standing order, one of those settled at the commencement of every session of parliament, a motion was made, February the 6th, by

Mr. Sheridan. There was nothing in what he should propose that savoured of party motive or political bias. His sole object was, to impress on that House the vital necessity of meriting by its conduct, at that critical period more than ever, the confidence of the people. A House of Commons that regarded its own character, and respected the opinion of its constituents and the public, should not resist the feelings of the public at a period like the present. What was there in the investigation in which the House was now engaged that called for secrecy, disclaimed in a recent inquiry which might have pleaded for that delicacy? Would the House grant to an accused ministry that protection which concealment could afford, on a question of great political im

portance, after having refused it to the son of their king, in an inquiry where the House was compelled to put aside the veil which the imperfections of humanity had thrown over the frailties of domestic life? He was willing to believe that ministers did not wish to screen their conduct by any such expedient, and he was sure, from the independent political career of Mr. Yorke, whohad enforced the order, that he would have disdained to be their instrument for any such purpose; and he was at a loss to conjecture what could have induced the honourable gentleman to press that order at that most perilous crisis.He begged leave to ask what was the sanctity of this supposed standing order? In the first place, he contended, that it was no standing order at all. It was passed at the opening of the session upon question. It might have been rejected when proposed, and of course was liable to revision and repeal on any subsequent occasion. It was a mistaken idea to suppose that that order empowered any member to call upon strangers to withdraw. The order, which Mr. Sheridan read, said, "That any stranger appearing in the House shall be taken into custody by the serjeant." The power and authority rested with the serjeant-at-arms alone. And how was he to enforce it?

If, in proceeding to obey the order, the serjeant should find two or three hundred persons collected in the gallery, it would be impossible for him to take them all into custody, and therefore he must shut them up in the gallery whilst he went to collect his posse comitatus. In the mean time the de

bate goes on. The strangers are in possession of all that has passed; and thus, by its very operation, the object of that standing order was defeated. But if that order claimed such particular reverence, it should be remembered, that there were many others which any other member could move to have enforced-instances of these Mr.Sheridan mentioned. There was also, he observed, another order which held it to be the privilege of members to pass strangers through the House into the gallery, except while the House was sitting. Here then were two orders wholly irreconcileable, unless it was intended that members should introduce their friends for the purpose of being committed to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms. Was it not, then, a duty to reconcile such orders to themselves, and to common sense? It was not his intention to move for the repeal of the order, or to maintain that there never could arise an occasion when strangers ought to be excluded; but he did wish the order to be so modified, that it should not depend on the caprice or pleasure of any individual member, but be fair ly submitted to the decision of the House. When strangers were introduced by members they should be allowed to continue, except when the question was such that it was not proper to be discussed before strangers. When the character of the king's son was to be investigated, not a syllable had 'been heard of the exclusion of strangers; but when the conduct and character of ministers were to be inquired into, then it appeared to be a subject too tender and delicate for public inspection in that House. Mr. Sheridan thought that

there never was a period in our history in which it was more necessary for parliament to conciliate the public; therefore he moved, "That a committee of privileges be appointed to meet to-morrow, in the Speaker's chamber, to consider the order of the 25th of January last."

Mr. Windham wished to know in what manner the daily publishing the debates was advantageous to the country. He asked what was the value to their constituents of knowing what was passing in that house? Supposing they should never know, it was only the difference between a representative government and a democracy. Till the last thirty years, or a few years farther back, it was not even permitted to publish the debates of that House. So lately as the times of Dr. Johnson the debates were never published but under fictitious names. He had heard that proprietors of papers had talked of the injustice of closed doors. This was to consider the admission of strangers into the gallery as a privilege. But though he might, perhaps, think it useful to let this practice continue, after having so long prevailed, he did not allow it to be a privilege. Were that the case, we should come into a state of democracy: a state like that of Athens. If admission into the galleries had been winked at, this was no reason that it should be continued on all occasions, and that persons should make a trade of what they obtained from the galleries: among which persons were to be found persons of all descriptions: bankrupts, lottery-office keepers, stockbrokers, footmen, and decayed tradesmen. He did not wish to establish such a power