the defence of the right honourable gentleman who had just sat down. One honourable gentleman, after admitting blame to exist some where, said that ministers were exculpated by the statement of the honourable general who general who commanded the expedition. On the other hand, the right honourable secretary justified the general in the execution of the plan. This sort of mutual apology and defence might suit the parties liable to accusation, but, when a question was so discussed, truth was lost. Some gentlemen had been satisfied with the honourable general's explanation ofhis conduct; but this very explanation induced him to think that something was wrong in the execution of the plan. The principal authority of the honourable general's defence was the Madrid gazette, and the letter accompanying it. A free statement was there given of the preparations to receive attack, and the excellent position of every thing that could exalt his own reputation; but surely ministers well know that such pompous accounts are not to be relied on as true. But consider whither this species of justification would carry us. Would the house acquiesce in the compliments which a Spanish minister pays himself, when this would infer a censure on our own? If the ministers of Spain had every thing in so good a state of defence at Ferrol, the ministers of this country must have been deceived when they resolved on the expedition. The house then must choose whether they would acquit the honourable gentleman upon a defence, which, if well founded, implies that the planners of the expedition were deficient in information. And supposing a general who had not done his duty to have been arraigned of misconduct, could he not, though guilty, have made the same kind of defence? Who were to judge of an officer's conduct? Not the navy, says the honourable general, for they could not see the place. Not the inferior othcers, for they were doing something else at the time. Thus the general is the only competent person to decide on the merits of his own measures. Therefore he had not fully justified himself. He hoped the question would be carried, though the precedent might prejudice his personal interest in the sequel. If the house refused a committee of inquiry, how could they plunge themselves into inquiries and discussions concerning the essence of priesthood, and whether thirty years quarantine was not enough to guard against the infection of its original character? But here again he sacrificed his inter est to his duty, as he had done his wishes to truth, in defending the right honourable secretary-a service he never had done, and he ventured to say never would do, for him. Lord Belgrave opposed the mo tion. Sir James Pulteney said; in explanation, it had been affirmed that he relied on foreign gazettes for his information concerning the enemy's force. This was not the fact. He stated to the house his idea of the enemy's strength, and the grounds. on which he founded the opinion, which he had communicated to the right honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Dundas). He had mentioned the enemy's account in their gazettes only to show that their force was not less than had been calculated; and he still thought that their acknowledgment of more men than he stated was a strong strong proof that the grounds on which he proceeded were true. It had been said that his explanation rested solely upon his own assertions. He should only remark, he had unreservedly stated the grounds on which he went, and the opinions which were given, and which could not be materially controverted. The corps under his command consisted of 12,000 men, after receiving the reinforcement. They landed with about 10,000. Colonel Gascoigne contended that the expedition to Ferrol called for inquiry. It had been said that the army was disgraced. The inquiry was therefore necessary to restore its credit; and the army itself desired it, to allay the jealousies which had arisen between the naval and military services. General Norton said a few words. Mr. Ellison supported the motion for the inquiry. He thought a military court would be best for examining a subject best under stood by military persons. In the navy, a ship could not be lost without an inquiry into the conduct of the commander. This had been of great use, and ought to authorise inquiries into military failures. He thought ministers had cleared themselves from blame. The chancellor of the exchequer rose; he agreed, that when blame was justly supposed to exist somewhere in military operations, a military court was most proper for public investigation. But though he admitted that every thing equivocal ought to be cleared up, yet he could not admit that mere failure afforded any ground for inquiry. It had been stated that doubts and reports had gone abroad on the subject of the expe dition. These must be removed by the candid and distinct statement of the honourable gentleman who commanded it. With respect to the plan of the expedition, so far from its being presumed unwise, most of the arguments on the other side proceeded on the idea that the object was a fit one. The good effects that would have resulted from it were extolled, to magnify the failure. The capture or destruction of eleven sail of the line, and of a great naval arsenal, would have been a glorious achievement.➡ Ministers are said to have wanted information. They had enough to justify an experiment which could be made without risk, and whose success would have pro duced so much solid advantage. If however it be thought, as it was stated, that the failure of the expedition was a fair presumption against the officer who conducted it-if it be said that the object could and would have succeeded surely it was unjust to infer that the ministers who planned the expedition were deficient in prudence, and without information, in its adoption. The fact was, however, that the informa tion satisfied not only ministers, but also the judicious officer who conducted it; and who, by his justi fication of himself, had enhanced the just opinion of his understand ing. The information was sufficient to satisfy a noble lord who had distinguished himself in every branch of service-lord St. Vincent gave his suffrage for the plan. If, then, an expedition of this kind was undertaken on good grounds, and was relinquished when there was no chance of succeeding without more than ade quate risk, how did ministers skulk from from responsibility when there were no fair presumptions against them? The honourable gentleman talked of a non-descript character; but if so, it was because his abilities, though more than equal to the task, declined the description. Whatever responsibility attached to administration would follow them in a private station, and they were ready to meet any inquiry which the house might institute. As the inquiry now proposed would be attended with great inconvenience to the public interest, he felt himself bound to vote against it. Mr. Grey said that he disagreed in some respects with almost every gentleman who had spoken on the subject. Above all, he protested against the doctrine of those who represented any place better fitted than the house of commons for an inquiry, either naval or military, civil or judicial. The house, he thought, would fail in its duty to the public by refusing an inquiry. He was unwilling to give any opinion upon the propriety of the original design, but he was convinced censure was due somewhere. He thought that the honour and interest of the nation had suffered in the expedition to Ferrol; and, therefore, for the sake of the public and also of the honourable general, he should support the motion for inquiry. during the late lord Chatham's administration a naval and military expedition against Rochfort failed; and, though the general had the sanction of the general officers, a court of inquiry, and afterwards a court martial, was held." But what were the objects of ministers in the equipment of the expedition? According to the honourable general, it was not only Ferrol. It was to distract the operations of France, and to assist the emperor of Germany. But what is the fact? In last September, ministers, who had obtained a disposable force by disbanding the militia, obtained further means of increasing it. Even before the return of the chief consul from Egypt, how did they employ it? After the fatal expedition to Holland, what assistance did they give the emperor? After they had rejected overtures of negotiation, they allowed that government which they refused to hear, to be consolidated by its own exertions. After they had pronounced it bankrupt in resources, we find (in April) the French armies crossing the Rhine, and taking general Kray's magazines. In June they crossed the Alps, and gained the decisive battle of Marengo. Where were the armies that ministers had raised and equipped at such an expense during that critical moment? But when ministers knew not whither to direct the force entrusted to them, they pitched upon Ferrol as an object of their exertions. As to the policy of the expedition, he doubted whether Spain was not an active and efficient foe. If there was a design of marching troops against Portugal, the attack on Ferrol was calculated rather to irritate Spain into a concurrence with the views of the French. It was admitted that 15,000 men were employed under the honourable general. They landed with out opposition, and they made a precipitate retreat without effect. ing their purpose. In the circumstances under which the army retreated, it was clear, that either the intelligence of ministers had been erroneous, or the object ought to have been accomplished. What that intelligence was, the house ought to know. The right honourable gentleman said, that the plan was approved by lord St. Vincent; but was the opinion of that eminent personage pronounced upon a knowledge of the whole plan, and the information upon which it was grounded? Were ministers ignorant of the state of Ferrol, its strength, situation, and the number of troops it contained? And we ought to know whether the Spaniards had increased their force in expectation of an attack, or that attack was resisted by the ordinary means of the place. If an extraordinary number of troops had been collected, that would have been a defence; but nothing of this was alleged. But it is contended that it was safe to send 15,000 men to examine the state of Ferrol, and to attack it, if practicable!-Was this a fair experiment? In this war, so profuse in every thing, the bloodshed was a trifle if the slain did not exceed thousands; as in expense nothing less than millions was noticed. It was said that the expedition was not fitted out for Ferrol. What then was the inference, but that all the money intended for the support of the emperor was thrown away? It was also affirmed, in justification of the plan, that it was attendBut how did this agree with the honourable ge ed with no risk. neral's statement?" that the naval station off Ferrol was so insecure, that, had the wind shifted, the reembarkation might have been rendered impossible; and thus, had the Spaniards been in force, the army might have been cut off, or been compelled to capitulate for its return." Let the house reflect that our past successes and former spirit might justly be ascribed to vigilant controul and strict inquiry. Had the present motion been more general, ministers would have been obliged to explain their whole plan, and could not have defended one particular operation by making it dependent on a consideration of the whole subject. Nevertheless he approved the limitation of the motion, which combined so many arguments for inquiry, that he trusted the house would see the necessity of concurring in it. Lord Temple was of opinion that no blame belonged to ministers, though blame rested somewhere. The house had heard but one side of the question, and therefore he should vote for the inquiry. Mr. Dent supported the motion. General Norton said, he conceived that the honourable general was justified by the opinions of the other generals on the spot with him. Mr. Pierrepoint did not know where the blame attached; but he had heard the honourable general spoken of in the highest terms, both for skill and courage. General Loftus opposed the motion. Sir James Pulteney said, that the loss had been stated at 100 men, but only sixteen men had been killed. 130 were the whole of both killed and wounded. Mr. Mr. Sturt contended for the inquiry, on the principle that the number of the English far exceeded that of the enemy. The question being called for, the house divided. For the inquiry 75. Against it 14-Majority 69. On the 20th of March lord Clifton (earl of Darnley) rejoiced that he was at last permitted to submit to the house the important motion of which, he had so often given notice. Before he stated the reasons, which he hoped would induce them to accede to it, he thought proper to mention those which occasioned its delay. It would be recollected that he once deferred his motion, without solicitation; at that period he thought it would have been impolitic, and could have been productive of no good. The removal of that objection was indeed a source of joy; and never did an event occasion more to a people. If a sentiment was ever universal throughout the British nation, it was grief at the indisposition af their sovereign, and delight at his recovery; fully had it proved that he was considered as the father of his subjects, and that he reigned in their hearts. The other grounds of delay were of a different kind. He yielded to the solicitations of ministers, and the unequivocal sense which their lordships declared, though he perceived no reason himself why an inquiry should not be instituted, A.change had taken place in the national councils; but the objects of his motion were such, that the complete formation of the new ministry was not necessary to the discussion of it: he wished an investigation respecting the conduct of the war, the state of our finances, our relations with foreign powers, and the presence of either the old ministers or the new would have been quite sufficient when those points were examined. Indeed he could not persuade himself that any real difference existed between them; their persons were not, but their principles were, the same: the chief actor had withdrawn behind the scene, but he played still the part of prompter; and those whom he had substituted in his stead spoke and acted as he directed. To the general character of the late appointments there certainly were a few exceptions: no one cherished a higher esteem for the abilities of earl Spencer than himself: under his auspices we had triumphed in every part of the world; and the British flag had been raised to a pitch of unexampled glory. He could not, therefore, be supposed to undervalue his merits, when he asserted that his lordship's successor was still better qualified to preside over the admiralty: with equal diligence, assiduity, and zeal, he possessed many advantages from his knowledge of maritime affairs; still better must he be able to judge of the manner in which fleets must be equipped, of the quarter to which they must be sent, and of the person who should be chosen to command there. The first reason for this solemn inquiry was, the conduct of the war: its events were fresh in the recollection of the house; and he had more than once solicited attention to them. Though he had approved the principles on which it had been undertaken, he could not approve the manner in which it had been pursued, and expressed that disapprobation to their lordships. He had stated his senti ments on the expeditions to the West |