move the present First Lord of the Admiralty, but for an inquiry by which he would be enabled to justify his conduct. Mr. Sturges Bourne faid, that bis right hon. Friend had moved for papers in order to enable Lord St. Vincent to clear his public character and conduct to the country, and yet Minifters had refufed to accede to three of his right hon. Friend's motions, on the exprefs ground, that if they were carried an inquiry muft receffarily take place. Could it have been expected that any enemy of Lord St. Vincent would have faid more? Because if the motions were agreed to, evidence must be called to the bar, to fhew reasons why Lord St. Vincent had not done now what had been done on a former occafion. The right hon, Gentleman (Mr. Tierney) had accufed his right hon. Friend (Mr. Pitt) of making statements which were dangerous to the interefts of the country; but had not his right hon. Friend with refpect to the militia, the army of referve, and the volunteers, proved himself the fincere friend of his country, instead of faying any thing which might endanger her interefts? With refpect to the duck-yards, the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had ftated that the deficiency of artificers only amount to 58; he did not mean to difpute the information of the right hon. Gentleman, but he had been told that the deficiency amounted to 1100 below a war establishment. He should be highly fatisfied if the statement of the right hon. Gentleman thould prove to be correct, but the difference on this fubject called for inquiry. He very much feared that at the period when the peace was made, the number of shipwrights and artificers in the dock yards were reduced 400 below a peace establishment, and this too at a time when a large number of fhips were in want of repairs. Relpecting the thips, he fhould like to know whether any new thips had been laid down, and whether the thips which had been laid down for years were now going on with. It had been faid, in oppofition to the propofal for building fhips in merchants' yards, that an action had been brought against the builder of the Ajax, for not performing his contract, but that was furely no reafon why thips thould be built no where whatever. áhe motions of his hon. Friend did not go to the difpofition of our force, but to comparative statements, which were neceffary to the elucidation of the fubject. Whether gun-brigs ought to be employed on the enemy's coaft, or on our own, he would not pretend to decide, bu: that male no difference. as to the amount of our force; and when the House were in

P ffeffion of information, it would be for them to decide whether our force had been properly applied or not. He agreed perfectly with refpect to the ability of Lord St. Vincent as a commander, although he might difagree with refpect to the conduct of that noble Lord in other departments. They had only now to confider acts of omission, but perhaps at a future time they might have to confider acts of commiffion, and particularly relating to matters of effential importance, refpecting the perfonal liberty of the fubject. (A loud cry of hear! hear!)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained as to the number of fhipwrights, in which he conceived he had been mif- . taken by the hon. Gentleman. The number at the conclu fion of the late war was 3372; the number at prefent, from the accounts up to the ft of March of this year, is 3314; confequently it would be feen there was a deficiency of 58 only.

Mr. Sturges Bourne faid, that he alluded to artificers in general, and probably the difference on this fubje&t was the bett refutation of the right hon. Gentleman's ftatement.

Sir Wm. Elford addreffed the Speaker as follows: Sir, I thought it not improbable, as I on a former occafion stated to the Houfe, that fome of the motions brought forward by the righ hon. Gentleman this day, might have afforded me an opportunity of reprefenting certain tacts relative to the conduct of the Admiralty, which now I have heard the motions read, I am aware I cannot do confiftently with the rules of the Houfe, and I must therefore take another opportunity of doing it; and I fhould not therefore at prefent, have offered myself to your notice but for the purpose of making one or two thort obfervations on what has fallen from fome Gentlemen during the debate, and particularly from the right hon. Gentleman who firft oppofed this motion. I cannot exprefs the degree of aftonishment with which I heard that hon. Gentleman ftate, that out of doors no difcontents whatever prevailed against the conduct of the Board of Admiralty; becaufe, Sir, the converfe of that affertion is so notoriously true, that I believe it will be difficult to meet with ten men who will deny it, and difficult to conceive who have been the hon. Gentleman's companions and informers. Sir, thofe difconten's have arisen from the harfhnefs and injuftice with which numbers of perfons holding civil offices under them, have been difplaced from thofe fituations on flight and frivolous pretences, and from the rafhnefs, violence, and intemper

ance

ance with which numbers of honourable and respectable officers in the navy have been treated on various occafions. Sir, another obfervation of the right hon. Gentleman I must beg alfo to notice, not lefs éxtraordinary than the former, which is, that it is a fpecies of prefumption in the right hon. Gentleman near me, to put his knowledge in competition on profeffional fubjects with the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty, which he appears to do, when he suggests other modes of defence than those the noble Lord has had recourse to, or a greater extent of thofe than he has thought fufficient. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not mean to prefs this argument, as he does not fee to what refult it leads. Does he mean gravely to fay, that on great political questions involving profeffional topics, no Member ought to give an opinion but those who are of the profeffion referred to? And does he not fee that fuch a regulation would nearly put an extinguisher upon debate and difcuffion? But, Sir, fuppofing his argument good for any thing, has he forgotten that on the fubject of the military defence of the country, fome fuggestions have been offered by the right hon. Gentleman which Government were glad to adopt? And yet thofe fuggeftions were offered before the zeal and activity that right hon. Gentleman has difplayed in the county of Kent, had rendered him fo much verfed in military fubjects as he now is. Does not the hon. Gentleman's memory alfo furnish him with fome recollection of what paffed during the difcuffion of the two great measures of the laft feffion? I mean the defence and the finance bills; on which occafions various fuggeftions and amendments were offered by that right hon. Gentleman, which were at first received in the fame contemptuous manner as that now produced; which were combated, argued, and determined against; which were again and again combated, and at last adopted-and does it not occur to the hon. Gentleman that fomething like that may again occur on the prefent occafion? Sir, another hon. Gentleman opposite to me, has given the Houfe a high eulogium on the great character of the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty, in which, as far as it relates to his naval exploits, no man ever has been or can be more inclined to accede than myself; but I am not therefore bound to give that mark of approbation to his civil adminiftration, of which I think it wholly undeferving. It has been urged that the clamour against the Admiralty has been raised by those whose malpractices have been detected and punished, and the hon. Gentleman states,

that

that the noble Lord had a more formidable phalanx of jobbers, contractors, &c. to oppofe than even the Spanish line afforded. Sir, that there have been malpractices in the departments of the navy, as there have been in other departments, is, I fear, not to be doubted, and it is impoffible not to applaud the noble Lord for his endeavours to abolish them. But, Sir, thefe evils have been rather ftudioufly magnified, and flight and trivial offences molt oftentatiously punished; and, Sir, when nothing will reconcile men's minds to a fyftem of extraordinary fevere punishment, but a thorough conviction that the fource is pure and uncontaminated, and that those who inflict it are actuated only by a fincere love of justice-[The Speaker reminded Sir William that he was deviating from the queftion]-Sir, I feel that I am tranfgreffing against thofe rules which I began by prefcribing to myself, and I must take another opportunity of itating what I have to communicate to the Houfe; at prefent I thall only add, that I give my hearty concurrence to the motion.

Mr. Tyrwhitt Jones-Sir, after having endeavoured to catch your eye once or twice, if it would not have borne the appearance of impatience, I fhould mott certainly have interrupted the hon. Baronet (Sir Wm. Elford), in his lecture on morality, which, he being fo completely out of order, you have fo properly done. This motion, Sir, and its defence are both equally extraordinary; I do not know which furprises me moft; but I must begin with the hon. Admiral (Berkeley). First, he fays, "there has been no exertion on the part of the Admiralty." To that obfervation I fay, lock to the state of the marine, refer to the lift of fhips (in full force) as prefented by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Tierney). Then the hon. Admiral fays, if he has any fault to find with the motion it is "that it does not go far enough." But if it does not, the right hon. Mover fays he has many more stronger ones in petto. But, Sir, what a proceeding this is! A motion for the production of papers by a Member who, while Minifter for feventeen long years, refufed all inquiry and all papers. I once did, after pretty ftrong perfeverance and probing him to the quick, get a bundle from him; [This alluded to the papers on the famous El Arith treaty so often moved for by Mr. T. Jones,] and now he of all men in the world, comes forward to afk for documents without condefcending to advance an argument himfelf (and the further his hon. Friends go the weaker their arguments become) to fubftantiate any thing like a claim to their production. The

-truth

truth is, the right hon. Gentleman has not a leg to ftand upon. Indeed, Sir, it is quite marvellous how this proceeding ftands. It is not my wish to fling ridicule on it more than it deferves, but that is almoit impoffible, and it has been fuggefted by an hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheridan), that it must have been brought forward for a bet. Now, Sir, I think that cannot be the reafon. It ftrikes me from the late proceedings of Gentlemen oppofite, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pitt) is in the exact predicament of a celebrated female (Mrs. Lee), who has lately figured away with great notoriety. The right hon. Gentleman has had a dream like her. She dreamt of marble palaces, alabafter vafes, &c. &c. He of co-operation, coalitions, fraternal hugs, loaves and filhes, &c. and at last, after fome importunity, like her, he could stand it no longer, and has flung away the CAMPHIRE-BAG, and said welcome pleasure! welcome oppofition! welcome co-operations! welcome coalitions! (Here an inceffant roar from the whole Houfe.) Above all, what a curious thing it is to fee the panegyrift of Lord St. Vincent in 1801 become his accufer in 1804; in fact, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman feems to have affumed the character of public accufer. Furthermore, Sir, what foundation is there for this motion? Is there any petition on the subject on your table? Is there any thing like a muimur in the kingdom? Is there any the .flightest proceeding to ground this motion upon? No, Sir, I will tell you on what it proceeds. I do not mean to charge the right hon. Member with connection, or correfpondence, or any relative fituation with contractors; but, Sir, the fix naval reports have raised a clamour in which a reprefentation or rather mifreprefentation has been made to him which has prompted him to bring it forward, and on which he, I have no doubt, thinks himself juftified. But the attack is the fame, it is on the First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord St. Vincent, who deferves it not. He is one of the most meritorious men in England, and deferves fuch treatment the least, both on account of his great naval as well as civil fervices, and his grand attempt to remove most horrible abuses: and, Sir, while speaking particularly of him I thall take the liberty of faying as I think, that great credit is due to the Minif ters generally. And now I challenge the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pitt), I challenge his coadjutors, his co operators, his coalitionists, all, to prove that his Majefty's Minifters have done what they ought not to have done, or left undone what they ought to have done (a cry of hear! hear! from the

Oppofition