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 Stra- chan, 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 ap*proved 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 care. fully. After a just 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 doctrineThe 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 character 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 E2

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. comman der 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 ordnance; 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 Eyre Coote; the Marquis of Huntley; Lientenant-General the Earl of Rosslyn; Lieutenant-General Sir Jolm 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 preceding 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 ocсаsion, presented to his majesty any other narrative, paper, memorandum, or memorial, respecting the expedition to the Scheldt, declined to give any answer to the inquiry. This circumstance excited a strong suspicion, that the noble lord had actually presented to his majesty some such document. 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 denied, that the narrative on the

table was not the only paper of a 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 monarchy, than that favourites had ready access to the ear of their sovereign, and secret opportunities to poison his royal mind, against brave and deserving men, who had no means of defending themselves, inasmuch 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, without asking him to communicate them to his people. If any other document than the narrative already presented, existed, it was to be presumed, that it contained charges; for that narrative contained 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 graciously

E

ously pleased to order, that there be laid before the house, copies of all reports, memoranda, narratives, or papers, submitted at any time to his majesty, by the Earl of Chatham, relative to the late expedition."

Mr. Secretary Ryder admitted the right of the House of Commons to address his majesty; but he was persuaded, that the present motion was wholly without example. For even supposing that such a paper as that described did actually exist, as it had never been communicated to his majesty's ministers, he did not know in what 'office to search for it, nor could he understand what reply they could possibly advise his majesty to make to an address from the House of Commons, under such circumstances. Mr. Ponsonby adverting to the declaration of Mr. Ryder, that he did not know where to look for such a paper, said, he would ask the right honourable gentleman where he looked for the last? And as to Mr. Ryder not understanding what answer ministers could advise his majesty to return to such an address, - did he suppose that his majesty would hesitate to deliver any papers he might have in his possession, of the nature required, for the purpose of submitting them to the House of Commons? Would he say, that his majesty was disposed to wink at the calumniation of a brave officer like Sir Richard Strachan? Such a supposition was as opposite to the integrity, to the virtue, and honour of his majesty, as it was conformable to the dark spirit of low intrigue which influenced the councils of his present ministers. He hoped that the house

would mark its reprobation of a practice so unconstitutional and so base, by voting the address.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that Mr. Whitbread's argument in support of his motion, proceeded on assumptions not true in fact: Ist. that some communication had been made to the king by Lord C. before he had given in the narrative before the house: 2d. that in this previous communication he had calumniated his brother officers. And on these two assumptions the honourable gentleman had stated that the per son of the sovereign had been dragged into discussion, in order to defend his servants: when all that his right honourable friend had said, was, that if the house were to ask his majesty for papers, the nature of which they could not describe, and even the existence of which they could not ascertain, they might, with just as much propriety, demand the production of any other documents whatever.

When the honourable general who moved for the production of the narrative on the table communicated to him, on the 15th inst. his intention of making such a motion, he was apprized of the existence of the document. He knew that it was an official paper, and to be found in one of the offices of his majesty's confidential servants. It had been absolutely denied that the other paper now sought, had any existence in any of the departments of the state. The question now was, whether the house would vote for an address to the crown, to produce a paper, merely for the purpose of ascertaining whether such a paper was in exist