- than ordinary were now employed. Surely if this were fo, the fubject well deferved the attention of Parliament. It might feem much that the Admiralty had abandoned that fyftem on which our navy had risen to the unexampled ftate of ftrength and glory, to which it had attained during the laft war; but how much more did it call for inquiry when we found that no alternative was provided, no new fource difcovered, whence we might obtain that fupply which was neceffary, not merely for our honour but for our very existence? But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tierney) had urged it as an argumentum ad hominem against his right hon. Friend, and all other Members of that House who might object that the preparations made against the enemy were not sufficient, that they had acquiefced in the vote for 100,000 feamen, and had thereby precluded themselves from urging that more thould be employed: but to this argument there were many obvious anfwers. If they had given the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty 100,000 feamen, had they not given him as many as he afked? and if he had afked for more, for 120,000, 130,000, 140,000, 150,000, or 200,000 seamen, would they not have been readily voted? Befides, was it not always understood that in time of war the number of feamen actually employed, was not to be limited by the numbers which Parliament had voted? The Admiralty got as many as they could, and voted the number they expected to get. It was not within the province of private Members of Parliament to fit down to confider what number of feamen would be wanted for the public fervice; this was the special duty of the King's Minifters, who poffeffed means of information inacceffible to any but official men, and who were refponfible for providing adequately for the public fafety. It was their duty to fee that a fufficient force was prepared, and it would be a poor excufe indeed if it fhould be found infufficient, to allege that the House of Commons had acquiefced in the estimates which the Government had laid before them. But the hon. Gentleman had reprefented it as an imputation on the character of the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty, to entertain the present question. No man, Mr. W. faid, felt more gratitude than himfelf for the profeflional fervices of the noble Lord: long might he repofe on the laurels he had fo honourably won! But they had no right to compliment away the fafety of their country. To deal fairly with themfelves, might not a man have been a diftinguished naval commander, who might be

not

not fo well suited to the details of office, or what may be termed the civil bufinefs of the navy? Much more, might it not happen, that from impaired health or from other causes, a man the moft juftly diftinguished at one period of his life for naval skill and gallantry, might not at another be fitted for the fedentary labours of a First Lord of the Admiralty ? Let not the Houfe of Commons be prevented from doing its duty by motives of delicacy, or even by feelings of gratitude which are in this cafe juftly due. Let them remember that the conftitution has invefted them with the important office of watching over the conduct of Government, and of providing for the fafety of their country. The papers now called for are neceffary for enabling them to fulfil this important truft. If it appears, faid Mr. W. that my right honourable - Friend's fufpicions are ill founded, if the papers when produced fhall thew that, in the moft perilous circumftances in which we were ever engaged, the Admiralty have provided a force adequate to the amount of the exigency, they will not only vindicate their characters from blame, but they will prove themselves entitled to the future confidence of their country. If it fhall, on the contrary, appear that our naval force is inadequate, it is fit we should know it. Let us look our fituation in the face. We must endeavour in that cafe to act upon the fuggeftion of the gallant Admiral below me (and no man more able than himself to act upon it with effect), and make our fix fhips do the work of twelve. We must double the efficiency of our force by our celerity and vigour in employing it." But," fays the hon. Member, "it has been ufual to lay a ground for motions of this fort in fome national lofs or misfortune, and nothing of this fort is alleged as a juftification of the prefent motion. Wait till then, and the motion will at least be made on stronger grounds." This mode of reafoning might poffibly be admitted in common times; but let it be ever borne in mind that the danger against which we are now providing is of no ordinary fort. A blow is aimed at our very vitals. Surely to act upon the principle of the hon. Gentleman would be to play too deep a game. We contend for too high a stake, and we thall not, I trust, be fuch defperate gameflers, as thus to hazard all that is dear to ourfelves and our pofterity. If the enemy fhould effect a landing on our fhores, I truft they will be met with that de termined valour which has ever characterifed the natives of this happy country; but let us remember that we owe it to our volunteers themfelves, not to expofe them needlefsly to

the

the périls and fufferings of fuch an arduous conteft, if by fufficient naval preparations we can prevent the enemy from landing on our fhores; we owe it therefore to ourselves, to our country, and to the world at large, to exert the utmost of our naval strength. It is for the purpofe of calling forth and maintaining this ftrength in full measure and complete efficiency that the motion of my right hon. Friend is made, and it will therefore receive my warm fupport.

Mr. Sheridan-It was my intention, Sir, to wait until I fhould hear the opinions of profeffional men on this subject, but the observations which have been made by the hon. Member who has just fat down, urge me to obtrude myself on your notice thus prematurely, and contrary to my original intention. The hon. Gentleman has, in my mind, ufed obfervations the most unwarrantable on parliamentary grounds I have ever heard in this Houfe. He has ftated, that he has never had converfation with any naval officer whofe opinion has not been decidedly in contradiction to the system upon which the naval affairs of the country have been for fome time back conducted; that is to fay, fince the gallant Admiral, who now prefides at the head of the Admiralty Board, was appointed to that high station; and this information fo obtained, he offers to the Houfe as a juftification for the cenfure which the advocates for the motion before the House would attach to the character of the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman ventures to tell the House, that upon grounds fuch as thefe, there is a fufficient reafon for the inquiry, and for granting the papers required; but from whom has the hon. Gentleman obtained the intelligence, and heard the fentiments to which he thinks the House ought to attach fo much importance? From officers, no doubt, who are afhore and unemployed; from those who have not the best opportunity of judging, and whofe judgment for many reafons is not entitled to the first attention: but not from fuch officers as thofe whom the Houfe has heard this night; not from fuch as the gallant Admiral who preceded the hon. Gentleman to whom I am now alluding, and who has attracted my notice by statements which I am inclined to think he has collected from perfons fuch as I have defcribed, from thofe whofe accounts of the condition of the navy naturally receive a colouring from their own fituation. Thus the hon. Gentleman would perfuade us to found our verdict on an occafion fo important as that now before us, upon evidence drawn from fuch fources, upon fecond-hand affertions, VOL. II. 1803-4.

ia

in a word upon mere hearfay. The honourable Gentleman is no doubt a confcientious man, he certainly fo confiders and defcribes himself, and we cannot give him any credit at all if we do not believe him to be fo; and I would appeal to his confcientiousness whether he does think that any court of juftice, and this Houfe is now called upon to act in that capacity, would pronounce fentence in any cafe upon evidence of the nature of that upon which he feems to rely? I say that there is no court that would attend to, much lefs believe fuch affertions. If the hon. Gentleman has any charge to urge against the noble Lord against whom the motion before the Houfe appears to be pointed, I fay, let the evidence be brought forward; but don't let accufations be infinuated or fent abroad, unfupported by any witnelles whatever, unjustified by any fact, and excufed only by a loose statement that fuch and fuch officers, whom no one ventures to name, are much in the habit of fpeaking ill of the conduct of the Admiralty, and of the character of its principal director. The hon. Gentleman, however, has told us, that he entertains a very fincere refpect for this noble Lord; and really here I must remark, that I never heard of any public character for whom men are more forward to profefs refpect, nor one that is fo much respected, and yet fo much afperfed. The grounds of the refpect are, however, notorious, while thofe of the afperfion are not even pretended to rest upon any thing more than hearfay evidence, which is furely not fufficient to induce this Houfe to acquiefce in a motion that has no other object in view, than to c: nvey an 'imputation upon one of the most gallant and meritorious characters this country has ever produced. For fuch a purpose I will never give my vote. I will not therefore confent to the grant of a fingle flip of paper, however plaufible the pretence for demanding it, that may lead to an inquiry for which there exifts no neceflity whatever; to enter into which would imply a fufpicion for which there is not the fhadow of excufe, and import an accufation for which there is not the flighteft ground. I would afk the right hon. Mover of this propolition, what are the reafons, for he certainly has not flated any, which have provoked him to alter his fentiments with respect to the noble Lord who was the fubject of fuch warm panegyric, upon the first acceffion of the prefent Minifters to office? and who, L would be curious to know, does the right hon. Gentleman think more adequate to the high ftation he fills; whom, would he recommend to fucceed him? If the right hon. Gen

tleman

tleman did pronounce the fplendid panegyric to which I have alluded upon this noble Lord, upon light grounds, he was certainly very cenfurable, for he was, as it were, giving a falfe character, and that of a great public fervant; but it was well known that thofe grounds were not light-they refted upon the highest public fervices, and were fupported by the warm and unanimous applaufes of the country. Why then has the right hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Genileman who spoke laft, changed their opinions? Why have they altered their fentiments of the noble Lord? Has any thing occurred fince to induce or jufti'y the change? I challenge thein to take the moft minute retrospect of the conduct of that noble Lord fince his appointment to the prefidency of the Admiralty: I call upon them to retrace all his fteps, and to point out one reafon why he has forfeited their confidence; I mean fuch a reafon as this Houfe would recognife as fufficient to justify the propofed inquiry. What facts have they in their power to produce? I am fatisfied they have none, and therefore I will refift the propofition; and this is the first inftance in which it has happened that I have felt it my duty. to oppofe a motion for inquiry. Indeed, on every fuch motion heretofore that I recollect, particularly during the adminiftration of the right hon. Gentleman by whom the prefent motion was fubmitted to the Houfe, ample grounds were laid to demand inquiry; but in this inftance I am of opinion that the demand is unfupported, not merely by common fenfe, but common decency. I do not intend to attribute improper motives to the right hon. Mover; but I beg to ask him, what good can he accomplish by the production of papers refpecting the fate of our navy in a former war? What are his views? Does he mean to inftitute a comparifon between Lord St. Vincent and Lord Spencer; to afcertain which of the two is better qualified to manage our naval concerns? I cannot fee the purpose of fuch a contrast. It cannot tend to any good object. Indeed I am confident that if a ftranger were to obferve the whole of this proceeding, he would not hesitate to pronounce that it could be only actuated by factious and party motives. This I am the more Arongly inclined to believe from the ftatements of the gallant officer (Sir Edward Pellew), which were quite a fatisfactory reply to all the arguments that have been advanced this evening, and a full refutation of the calumnies that have been for fome time back propagated relative to the condition of our navy. In that speech, which applied as forcibly to the heart