vated by a knowledge of its contents. It appeared to be a special address from the commander of one part of the expedition, appealing to the judgment of his Majesty, and actually reflecting upon the conduct of his colleague in the command. He really did not know how the house should proceed, in order to get rid of such a paper; but it seemed highly desirable that it should do so. To entertain such a document, would not only be inconsistent with the constitution, but, in his opinion, with common justice. He would be glad to hear from the chair, in what manner it could be disposed of. Mr. Tierney said, that had the paper in question been presented in the ordinary and constitutional mode, through the Secretary of State for the war department, with whom alone Lord Chatham was directed by his instructions to correspond, it would, no doubt, have been communicated to the first Lord of the Admiralty, who would have equally felt it to be his duty to have communicated its contents to Sir Richard Strachan, and have apprized him that he was to be inculpated by the commander in chief of the land part of the armament, for the failure of the expedition. But this secret practice of poisoning the royal breast with doubts and suspicions of his most zealous and approved servants, while it deprived them of the knowledge, and, of course, the means of repelling them, merited, in his opinion, impeachment. Mr. C. W. Wynne did not doubt Lord Chatham's right of giving advice, respecting his department, as a minister. As a commander in chief of the ex

pedition he had no such right; though contrary to all constitutional precedent, he delivered the narrative to his majesty, hiding it from the secretary of state carefully. After a júst eulogium on the conduct of the speaker, he said there was never an occasion, on which the house stood so much in want of his assistance, and called upon him to give his opinion. Mr. Whitbread observed, that the paper was moved for by a private friend of Lord Chatham's, and that it did seem as if it was formed for the purpose, to which it was applied, of throwing blame from Lord Chatham on Sir Richard Strachan and the navy.

General Loft disclaimed any intention on the part of his noble friend, to reflect on the navy. The address referred to, his noble friend was impelled to present, in consequence of an unfortunate letter from Sir Richard Strachan, dated the 27th of August. Mr. R. Dundas said, that it could not be unconstitutional for a minister to deliver a paper to his majesty, or for a peer of the kingdom to go into the royal closet. Mr. Yorke maintained the same doctrine.The Chancellor of the Exchequer contended, that there was no one circumstance connected with that paper, for which there was not an adequate responsibility. If there was any thing culpable in the cha racter or constitution of the paper, Lord Chatham was responsible for it; and he himself, (Mr. Perceval) was ready to declare, that this was the paper called for by the house. Mr. Bathurst was of opinion, that the narrative should be put out of sight, or lie dormant on the table. When Lord Chatham

came to be examined before the committee, let it be put into his hand; and if he identified, the committee could act upon it.

The Speaker rose and said, that he trusted the house would not be surprised at his delay in giving his opinion. On his first opening the narrative before them, and finding the name of Chatham, he was doubtful whether it ought to be received and acknowledged by that house, on account of its not bearing the signature of any of his Majesty's secretaries of state. But, considering by whom it was presented, he waved his doubts until he sent for some papers. On perusing these, he found that Lord North had presented several similar papers, and that he was considered to be prima faciè accountable; a circumstance which, in his opinion, left the house at full liberty to discuss the merits of the narrative. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved, that it should be referred to the committee of the whole house on the expedition to the Scheldt; which was agreed to. The order of the day being then read, for the house going into a committee on the expedition to the Scheldt; they proceeded in the course of inquiry, on which they had entered 2d of February, and which was continued through various adjournments, to the 15th of March. The sittings of the committee, employed in the examination of witnesses, were in number eighteen. The principal subjects, to which the inquiry was directed, were the policy or design and views of the expedition; the manner in which it was conducted; and the evacuation of Walcheren.

The witnesses examined were, Sir David Dundas, K. B. commander in chief of the army; the Eart of Chatham; Lieutenant-General Brownrigg, quarter-master-general of the forces; Major-General Calvert, adjutant-general of the army; Sir Thomas Trigge, lieutenant-general of the ordnancé ; Major-General Macleod, commanding officer of the artillery, on the expedition under the Earl of Chatham; Colonel Fyers, chief engineer to the army in the expedition; Captain Paisley, in the royal engineers; Colonel Gordon, secretary to the commander in chief; Lieutenant-General Sir EyreCoote; the Marquis of Huntley; Lieute nant-General the Earl of Rosslyn; Lieutenant-General Sir John Hope; Major-General Sir William Erskine; Brigadier-General Montresor; Lieutenant-General Don; Brigadier-General Sontag; Lieutenant-Colonel Offney; and Lieutenant-Colonel Pilkington; RearAdmiral Sir Richard Strachan ; Rear-Admiral Lord Gardener; Captain Sir Home Popham; Captain Owen, of his Majesty's ship the Clyde; Captain Jones, of his Majesty's ship the Namur; Peter Praget, Esq.; James Aberdour, Esq.; and Daniel Woodriff, Esq.; captains in his Majesty's navy; Sir Lucas Pepys, physician-general of the forces; Mr. Keates, surgeon-general of the army, with Mr. Robert Keates, his assistant and inspector of hospitals; Mr. Francis Knight, inspector-general of army hospitals; Mr. John Webb, inspector of hospitals; and Mr. William Lidderdale, who had been in charge of the sick in the hospitals of Flushing; Lord Viscount Castlereagh; William Huskisson, Esq.;

and

and Richard Wharton, Esq.; all three members of the house, and attending in their places.

House of Commons, Feb. 23. Mr. Whitbread rose to make a motion, of which he had given notice, respecting the Earl of Chatham's narrative. As many more members were now present than there were in the house when Lord Chatham's examination, before the committee, closed, on the preced ing evening, he would state some circumstances which occurred at that period. Those honourable members, who were present last night, would recollect that Lord Chatham had been questioned on the narrative, which he had thought proper to present to his Majesty; and that the noble lord, after being repeatedly asked, whether he had, on any former occasion, presented to his majesty any other narrative, paper, memorandum, or memorial, respecting the expedition to the Scheldt, de clined to give any answer to the inquiry. This circumstance ex cited a strong suspicion, that the noble lord had actually presented to his majesty some such docus ment. Lord Chatham, as a peer of the realm, could not be pressed, by the committee, with a question which he did not choose to answer. But the house might address his majesty, for the production of such a paper if it existed.-Lord Chatham, in his dispatches, had expressed his most unqualified approbation of the conduct of the navy. But in the noble lord's narrative, he had thrown imputations on the navy, calculated to put the two services at issue.

As the noble lord had not de nied, that the narrative on the

of a

table was not the only paper singular description, which he had presented to his majesty, it was reasonable to assume, that before the construction of that document, some other report had been made by Lord Chatham to the king on the subject. Taking this for granted, the house, in justice to the navy, and in maintenance of the principles of the constitution, should determine to address his Majesty, for the production of that prior document. The most termined democrats never brought a stronger charge against any mo narchy, than that favourites had ready access to the ear of their so vereign, and secret opportunities to poison his royal mind, against brave and deserving men, who had no means of defending themselves, in asmuch as minions had always ready access to the sovereign,when they had not. It was impossible that the house should allow any feelings so insidiously created, to exist in his majesty's bosom, with out asking him to communicate them to his people. If any other document than the narrative ab ready presented, existed, it was to be presumed, that it contained charges; for that narrative cont tained imputations, only short of charges. As the noble lord had refused to answer the questions put to him yesterday evening, the House of Commons were called upon to adopt the precedent of the gallant general, and to address his Majesty, for the purpose of endeavouring to obtain any further document, if any such existed. Mr. Whitbread concluded with moving, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, praying that he would be graci E 3

ously

LA

The Attorney General, standing on the same ground that had been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, contended strenuously, that no paper should be moved for that did not exist in any public office of the state. Indeed no paper, he observed, had been specifically called for, or stated to exist. The motion was founded wholly on an assumption, or supposition. The Solicitor General, too, asked, whether it was demanded, that the minister should rummage the king's escrutoire, in search for any communications that might be found there, respecting the expedition to the Scheldt? Was it to be contended, that if a private letter, upon a public subject, were addressed to the sovereign, that letter was to be laid before that house, if it had any allusion to the matter of the present motion? Such arguments were not to be endured.

Mr. Caming said, that as soon as Lord Chatham accepted the command of the late expedition, he became as responsible for his conduct as any other officer in the army, or as any man in the ranks., He had no right to cut out for

himself a royal road to an audience of the king. He was, no doubt, responsible to the king, but only through the regular and ordinary channel. As one of the cabinet, he was responsible, equally with the rest of his colleagues in office, for the wisdom or policy of the expedition, to the country and to parliament; but, as commander of the expedition, he was responsible to the king, through his se cretary of state. If the other paper, which had been read, had taken the course of going through the medium of the secretary of stato into the king's band, he should most certainly have thought that the papers now moved for did not exist. But when he considered, that the narrative on the table. had first got into the king's hand, and was then made official; and that the same adviser had, perhaps, thought it proper not to make the other, papers, if they did exist, official, his conviction was pretty strong, that they were not such as ought to have been made official. He did not, however, think that those papers could properly be withheld on the ground of their not being official,

Mr. Whitbread spoke again at considerable length, and re-stated the principal arguments in support of his motion, To the defence of ministers, respecting the case of Lord Chatham, by Mr. R. Ward, he applied the story of a lawyer at a coffee-house, maintaining very eagerly, that there was no distinction between the words also and likewise; when a wag denied his assertion, addressing him thus,

Mr. Dunning is a lawyer, Sire and you also, but not likewise." Lord Chatham had presented a narrative,