from our large veffels, on account of their drawing too much water to be able to pursue them in shore. Mr. Wilberforce began by declaring that he had given way with pleasure to the three gallant officers who had preceded him. They were indeed eminently entitled to the attention of the Houfe, not only from their profeffional knowledge and experience, but from the fervices alfo which they had rendered to their country. The House must, no doubt, be peculiarly defirous, as he himself was, of hearing the fentiments of Gentlemen of this defcription. Nevertheless he confeffed, that when he first rofe, it had been to vindicate his own claim as a Member of Parliament, (a claim which the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Tierney, feemed to deny to all but profeffional men,) to form his opinion and deliver his fentiments on the important queftion which had been fubmitted to them by his right hon. Friend. Surely it was the duty of Parliament, and of every individual Member as a part of the whole, to keep a conftant watch over all the public concerns of the country; and especially over the conduct of executive Government. And the naval department, as that in which our fafety was efpecially involved, was peculiarly entitled to our attention. Indeed if naval men only were to difcufs naval queftions, the right hon. Member himself had fcarcely been long enough in office to entitle him to take a fhare in the debate. But in truth the fubject was one on which it behoved every man who was interested for the welfare of his country, to form and declare his opinion with feriousness and franknefs; and he could not but condemn the levity of tone and manner, which pervaded the speech of the hon. Gentleman, ill fuited as it appeared to him to the gravity of the question itself, and much more ill fuited to the critical and ferious fituation of the country. But paffing from the manner of the right hon. Gentleman's Speech to its fubftance, Mr. Wilberforce could not think that he had urged any folid arguments against the motion of his right hon. Friend. What was that motion, and what were the grounds on which it was built? He hoped it was no improper deference to affirm, that it was entitled to the more confideration on account of the quarter from which it came. We were in a fituation perilous beyond all former example in our history. France, after all her conquefts, was threatening us with the whole undierted force of her immenfe population. She was accumulating preparations for invafion on a fcale a fcale of gigantic magnitude, along the whole of her extended coaft. In these circumstances it was stated by his right hon. Friend, that from the best information he could obtain, our naval force, the particular claffes of which he had diftinctly specified, was much fmaller than at former periods of far lefs serious alarm; that in particular we were deficient in that peculiar defcription of naval force which was particularly fuited to the fort of attack we had reason to expect, and that at length, when its importance had been feen and an attempt had been made to fupply this deficiency, it was in a degree utterly inadequate to the occasion, and with a flownefs which, confidering that we were told by Minifters that the attack might be at any time expected, wast utterly unaccountable. On these points therefore, information was defired, that we might know whether adequate preparations had been made, adequate both in extent, in kind, and in promptitude against the threatened danger. Could it be denied that if the number of our fhips of war of different kinds was fmaller than at former periods, it was a circumstance which at least deserved the attention of Parliament and required the explanation of Government? Again, his right hon. Friend, looking forward to the poffible pro traction of the prefent war, or at least to the means of our future security, had been justly alarmed to find that we were utterly neglecting the means of increafing or even maintaining our navy, and therefore wifhed that the House should call for fuch information as would elucidate this moft important point. Now what were the objections which had been urged against complying with the motions of his right hon. Friend? It had not been stated that information might be conveyed to the enemy. Indeed no diftin&t danger had even been alleged to be likely to refult. First, the right hon. Gentleman had objected that affenting to these motions must infallibly lead to an inquiry into the conduct of the First. Lord of the Admiralty. In the first place, granting that this were fo, is it then to be oppofed as a bar in the way of our proceeding in the discharge of a most important and neceffaty duty? For his own part, he was perfuaded that an inquiry into the whole of our naval fyftem might have fome effects by no means unfavourable. Surely an inquiry of this fort might be carried on without disclosing to the public any thing which it was improper to divulge. Were there not fuch inftitutions as fecret Committees familiar in the practice of the House? Surely our excellent Conftitution had not left us deftitute of the means of executing our function of looking into the conduct of Government, without difclofing fecrets, the publication of which might be injurious. Surely we were not reduced to the wretched alternative of fuffering abufes to prevail because they could not be investigated and corrected without a mischievous expofure of them to our enemies and to the world. But let it be remembered the motion is not for an inquiry, but for information; and the conceffion which the right hon. Gentleman himself has made may well be turned against himself, that if he grants the information defired, there will appear fuch ftrong prefumptive ground to fufpect the Admiralty of negligence and fupinenefs, that there is no courfe left for them, but to withhold the information altogether. This is furely to confefs that there is at least a ftrong prima facie appearance of blame. Some of the papers were indeed to be granted, but what they were, he could not well collect from the language and ftill lefs from the argument of the hon. Gentleman. Surely if it was right at all to entertain the fubject, it was right to investigate it thoroughly. If Government tells us the comparative numbers of fome claffes of our naval force at this and a former period, why not of all? Otherwise we shall have an imperfect, and therefore a falfe notion of our flate and preparations. Again, if it be right to afcertain that our naval force is now fufficient, furely it is alfo right to examine in to themeans that are used for maintaining it, and for bringing forward new thips as our old ones fhall be worn out. But why, fays the hon. Gentleman, bring forward this motion when fuch perfect fatisfaction prevails throughout the country, and particularly among the whole naval fervice? On the latter point, Mr. Wilberforce declared that he muft fay the refult of his experience was very different. It was for every man to form his judgment as well as he could, by availing himself of all the fources of information to which he could obtain accefs. He felt it his duty to declare, speaking with the fame folemnity as if he were delivering his fentiments in a court of justice, that the naval men in general with whom he had converfed, condemned the fyftem purfued by the prefent Board of Admiralty, and were highly dif fatisfied with its general conduct. He could refer to an au thority which he knew his hon. Friends below him would highly refpect, an authority of high profeffional rank, of eminent knowledge, and lorg experience, by which he was warranted to affirm that our prefent preparations were by no means means adequate to the prefent exigency, or fuch as they might eafily have been made, or might even still be rendered. But why, faid the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tierney), all this work about three and twenty gun brigs, that Musketo fleet, as it had been termed by a gallant officer below him? How unfair a representation was this of his right hon. Friend's argument? Had he confined his attention to this particular clafs of force? He had indeed made it one object of his notice, as being that particular fpecies of force which we were likely to want in our prefent circumstances, and which the Admiralty themselves had, by ordering them, admitted to be useful, though they were not by that order to be provided either in fufficient number or with the requifite difpatch. But while his right hon. Friend had thus fhewn that this perhaps comparatively speaking less important part of our naval preparations did not escape his notice, he had yet attended, both for the prefent period and for future times, with proportionably greater earnestness to that more important part of our naval force, our fhips of the line and frigates. But the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tierney) feemed almoft to refent altogether as an impertinent intrufion his right hon. Friend's beftowing a thought or faying a word upon our naval affairs. He would permit him to amufe himself with the volunteers; there he would even allow him fome merit; but what had he to do with naval queftions? But furely his right hon. Friend acted on this occafion in a manner worthy of his diftinguished talents and his former character. He had indeed exerted himself to the utmost by his wisdom and experience to fuggeft, by his eloquence to enforce, and by his perfonal efforts allo to carry into actual effect, fuch measures as might render the volunteers most efficient for the defence of their country. But while he was thus endeavouring to provide the means of defeating the enemy if he fhould effect a landing, he was not lefs vigilant in his endeavours to prevent that landing from being effected. While he endeavoured to render the land force adequate to its object, he did not forget that the naval fervice was justly the favourite fervice of this country, or neg lect thofe better means of defence with which Providence had fo amply provided us. This was to act with the circumfpection as well as the patriotifm of a real ftatefman. But this, Mr. Wilberforce faid, naturally led him to comment on another part of the right hon. Gentleman's fpeech, wherein he had endeavoured to vindicate the Admiralty in having defifted from the ufual practice of building fhips of war in the merchants' merchants' yards; and the hon. Member had even thrown out that the remarks his right hon. Friend had made on the fubject, fmelt of contraction. What was there, Mr. Wilberforce afked, in the temper, the character, the practice of his right hon. Friend, which could lead the hon. Member to fuppofe that he had been put forward to make his motion by fome difcontented contractor? He was perfuaded the hon. Gentleman would retract an infinuation fo fo little fuited to the refpectability of his own fituation, or that of his right hon. Friend. But the fubject itself was of the moft ferious importance. It had for many years been the established practice of the navy to build the greater part of our fhips in the private yards, the King's yards being fully employed in repairing them. But it was faid that the fhips built in the merchants' yards were bad ones, a fource of profufion and of jobs. On this he muft afk, were not the bargains made by public competition? might not, and ought not the contractors to be bound under high penalties to furnith proper materials and good workmanship? A gallant Admiral had specified two bad fhips which had been built in private yards. Could he not have mentioned alfo, if he had been willing, bad fhips which had been built in the King's yards? It was in them, let it be remembered, that all the abuses had been ftated to prevail, which the Admiralty claimed fo much credit for correcting. But did Gentlem bear in mind, that more than three fourths of all our fhips of the line had been commonly built in private yards? The King's yards were neceffarily more occupied in repairing fhips during war than during peace, and might therefore be supposed likely to be able during peace to fpare more of their force for building. Yet in the seven years of peace between 1783 and 1789, of which he happened to have an account, 20 fail of the line were built in the private yards, and only 8 in the King's yards. Surely, however, it might have been expected, that when the ancient eftablished mode of maintaining the naval ftrength of the country was abandoned; when we were no longer to look to the merchants' yards, whence our chief fupply had hitherto been obtained, that at least we fhould find fome proportionably greater exertion in the King's yards to make up for that deficiency: but this was not even alleged. Nay, the matter affumed a far more serious fhape, if the gallant Admiral oppofite to him was correct in affirming, that of the ufual complement of artificers in the King's yards, fomewhat above 3,000, near 8co fewer hands than |