FRO

ROM discussions concerning proper objects of honours and rewards, the House of Commons passed to others of a contrary nature; parties strongly suspected and even loudly accused of conduct deserving censure and punishment.

In the House of Commons, Jan. 26, Lord Porchester called the attention of the house to the expedition to the Scheldt. When, at the close of a former night's debate, he gave notice of the motion which he should that night have the honour of submitting to the house, it was his intention, he said, to propose the appointment of a committee to inquire into the conduct of the whole campaign. On reflection, however, he was persuaded it would be much more conducive to the end he had in view, namely, to prove the incapacity and total want of system, that pervaded all the military measures of his majesty's ministers, to separate the different branches of the campaign, and institute a distinct inquiry into each; after which particular investigation, the several results might be more clearly summed up, and a general conclusion drawn, with greater accuracy, justice, and truth. He

should, therefore, in what he had to address to the house, and the motion with which he meant to conclude, confine himself to the sole disastrous expedition to the Scheldt. The objections likely to be made to his motion, would, he supposed, relate to the time and the form in which it should be submitted. His object was, that the inquiry should be conducted by a committee of the whole house. He could not consent to delegate the right of inquiry, on this occasion, to any select or secret com mittee, by whom the course of investigation might be misdirected, or its bounds limited: before whom, possibly, garbled extracts, called documents, might be laid by ministers themselves, in order to produce a partial discussion. He would not expose the case to such a risk. It was in a committee of the whole house alone, that they could have a fair case, because, if necessary, they could examine oral evidence at the bar. As to the objection respecting time, that his motion ought not to be entertained until the papers promised by ministers should be laid before the house, it was a delusive and shallow subterfuge, as his view was simply to establish

the

the tribunal before he should open his case. The only end he had in view, was, to pledge the house to the institution of an inquiry. It was not his wish, at that time, to discuss the merits of the investigation. He did not desire to put ministers on their trial, before they had had full opportunity of preparing their evidence and their defence. Yet, could the country remain in doubt whether such ministers should be tried at all? If we examined any or all of the campaigns which had recently taken place, we should find, in fact, the same character of weakness and fatuity; the same features of tardiness of preparation, ignorance in conduct, imbecility in combination, and, of consequence, failure in result. In the expedition to which this motion referred, the calamities which attended it, were, in fact, to be equalled only by the magnitude of its extensive and expensive preparation. The truth of this position, his lordship proceeded to illustrate. The strongest as well as most obvious objections to the designs and plan, as well as the management of this expedition, were stated, as we have seen, in the debates on the king's speech, in both houses of parliament. These, Lord Porchester urged in a clear and forcible manner, with the addition of farther observations, of which the follow ing acute remark is a specimen: "We had been told, by the minister, that before the troops could be sent to Holland, it was necessary to wait for the arrival of transports from Lisbon. But why were those transports at Lisbon?

For the use of Sir Arthur Wellesley's army, in case it should be defeated, and obliged finally to retreat. So that our ministers combined their plan with such peculiar judgment and felicity of arrangement, that a defeat in Portugal would have prevented the expedition to Holland." But, Lord Porchester asked, why the minister had not a sufficiency of transports ready for any operation that might be deemed necessary? If ministers did not attend to their duty, it was not admissible in them to plead their neglect of duty as a reason for not sending out an expedition, which, if proper to have been sent out at all, ought to have been sent out in due time. He was speaking of the means they had provided for acting on their own plan: not that he approved this; but in order to shew the inefficacy of these means to their own ends. For if it was really meant to assist Austria, by making a diversion in her favour, why chuse a place for an expedition, where there was no possible point of communication with the power to be supported? In that situa tion we had it not in our power to advance a step without meeting with a fortress, which, when captured, we must reduce our force to garrison, before we advanced farther. But Lord Chatham found it impossible to advance at all. What was the main object of this expedition? The French fleet at Antwerp. Did they go at once to Antwerp? No. The expedition sailed for Walcheren on the 28th of July. It was accompanied by heavy cavalry which in fact never

landed,

landed, and other descriptions of force, appropriate to service different from that entered on. On the 28th of August it was decided, by our commander, that Antwerp was not assailable, and that our troops must retreat. How was the long interval employed before it was thought adviseable to come to that decision? Instead of proceeding at once to Antwerp, and leaving some part of our shipping to blockade Flushing; which blockade would have rendered the force in that garrison and all Walcheren quite useless, Flushing was regularly besieged. Thus the force, which must have been kept as it were in a cage, was, by our lying down before Flushing, with double the number, rendered completely effective against us. But this was not all. Before Flushing was reduced, a formidable force was collected at Antwerp: and the fortress, according to the admirable plan, was to be taken by a coup de main, after a month's previous notice! It had been said, that Walcheren had been retained in consequence of a requisition from Austria, in the hope that Buonaparte might thereby be influenced in his negociations with that power. If, however, it was meant to retain Walcheren only as a feint, why proceed to fortify the works of Flushing? Why construct new works elsewhere in Walcheren, and expend a considerable sum on such fortifications? That the retention of Walcheren was a feint, no rational man could believe. The fallacy of the pretence was obvious from the conduct of ministers themselves, in being at the expence of fortifying it. But, supposing it to have been

indeed a feint, it was absurd to imagine that Buonaparte, in order to get possession of that island, or to avoid the delaying for two or three weeks his attack upon it, would be induced to lower his tone, or modify or moderate his terms with Austria.

Lord Porchester having gone through the principal points, as they occurred, and appeared to be to him connected with the policy or progress of this expedition, proceeded to consider the choice which ministers had thought proper to make of a commander to direct its operations. Although he was much more conversant with the gaieties of London, or the business of office, than with the annals of military experience or glory, yet he did not complain of the appointment of such an officer to the command of such an expedition. He was, in fact, the most appropriate person that could have been chosen. Abortive and impracti cable as the plan was, he should have, thought it a pity that the character of an intelligent and experienced officer should have been exposed to sacrifice, by rendering him responsible for the success of a measure, which it would have been impossible for such a man to comprehend or execute. Such an expedition could, in fact, be understood by ministers alone, and one of themselves alone, was fitted to command it. Many other proofs of neglect and inattention, with regard to the conduct of the expedition, had been mentioned to Lord Porchester. Among many others, he had been told that transports, with artificers, and materials for the construction or repair of fortifications, were actu

ally

ally sent out to Walcheren, even after the order for its evacuation had reached the island.* He had also heard of the sick and woundcd soldiers being most severely distressed for want. of bedding, clothing, and even necessary provisions and medicines. All these things might not be true, but yet they rested on the statement of such authorities as to form an additional argument for inquiry. Indeed the arguments for inquiry were so numerous and irresistible, that unless the house acceded to them, they could not hope to have credit with the country for acting under the influence of reason or argument. Lord Porchester concluded with moving, "That a committee be appointed to inquire to the policy and the conduct of the late expedition to the Scheldt."

Mr. Windham Quin, in seconding the motion, reviewed the conduct of the expedition, which appeared to him to be remarkable only for ignorance, imbecility and mismanagement. He was particuJarly struck on a perusal of the papers on the table, with the defisiency of means to carry into effect the attack upon Cadsand, there having been provided no more hoats than would be sufficient to land 600 troops, at a time when 2000 troops were drawn up on the beach. It appeared that there had been transports provided by the wise planners of the expedition, without boats, and soldiers sent without provisions. The consequence was, that though batteries had been opened on the 5th of August, the enemy had been

able, without molestation, to throw a body of three or 4000 men into Flushing, across the Scheldt, before the communication with Cadsand was cut off.

Mr. Croker, with regard to the delay of the expedition, observed, that his majesty had not incited Austria to hostilities-that he was even unwilling that Austria should precipitate herself into a war with France, and cautioned her against taking such a step, without rational grounds of hope for a successful issue. It would, therefore, have been imprudent and impolitic to have wasted our resources in preparations for supporting Austria, in the case of an event which it was hoped would not take place. Lord Porchester had complained of many circumstances besides delay, connected with the expedition. Might not those circumstances be satisfactorily explained by the papers which were yet to be produced? Mr. Quin had complained of a want of boats to land a sufficient force on Cadsand. Mr. Croker had no hesitation in contradicting the honourable gentleman on that point. The statement of the honourable gentleman was unfounded in fact: and that single circumstance was sufficient to prove the propriety of waiting till all the documents should be produced. means of knowing more on the subject of the expedition than the honourable gentleman. Mr. Croker wished the house distinctly to understand that he did not oppose inquiry, but only wished to defer it till they should be in possession of those papers which alone could,

He had

enable

enable them to decide whether an inquiry would be necessary. He concluded with moving the previous question.

Mr. Bathurst said, that he had voted for the address in answer to the king's speech, but not against the inquiry; and he had opposed the amendment proposed, because it not only courted inquiry, but anticipated the result. The house owed it to the country that inquiry of some kind should take place; and it could not take place in any other way than either in a select committee, or a committee of the whole house. The papers remaining to be produced might state what was thought proper, with respect to the number of boats, or the means of debarkation on Cadsand. But admiralty returns would not satisfy him. He must have viva voce evidence on this, and every other important point connected with the expedition. It was impossible for any papers to shew that a sufficient number of boats had been provided. It was alike impossible for papers to shew what the probability was, that Antwerp, on a coup de main, would be found in a different state from that in which it afterward appeared to be. He wished to know what were the probabilities of the success of the expedition; upon what grounds it was expected that the expedition would arrive in a given time at a given point. These were subjects which no papers could explain, and which could be learned only from viva voce examination.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer besought the house not to be led astray by any supposition, that, in agreeing to the previous question, it would decide on the point

The

of inquiry or no inquiry. vote of that night would only decide whether the inquiry should be then voted, or not till after the documents should be produced. To shew that ministers were anxious that the questions depend. ing on them might be agitated as early as possible, he stated, that while the office clerks were em. ployed in copying some of them, others were actually in the course of being printed. He hoped not only to be able to bring them before the house on Monday, but to put into the hands of each meinber a printed copy. It was hardly decent not to wait twenty-four hours for the promised information: to decide, knowing nothing about the merits of the case: to say we know better than you, though we know nothing at all about the matter: to tell the sovereign, in effect, though you have promised us satisfactory information, we have anticipated that the information you have promised cannot be satisfactory.

Mr. Windham said, that, in his opinion, the vote ought to be carried by acclamation. The information on which to ground opinion, at least inquiry, was already before parliament and the country. It was not that the expedition failed, but that it could not succeed, that the house and the country had to complain of. It would be a reproach for ever to the character of parliament, if it suffered its attention to be diverted for one single day from taking steps of inquiry, by any delusive hope held out from the production of papers. By the way, those papers, had ministers been sincere in their professions, should have been deli