Sitting of 29 January 1810

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the House should go into a Committee of Supply,
Lord Mahonrose to ask a question of the right honourable gentleman. He said that at a time when the weight of the taxes was so severely felt by the people, it was very important that they should he equally distributed over the country. He had been much struck by observing in the finance accounts of last year, the very small proportion which Scotland contributed to the revenues of the country, though that able financier, Mr. Pitt, when he imposed the income tax, had estimated the taxable revenue of Scotland, to be one-eighth of that of England. Instead however, of proving productive to that account, the produce of the permanent and annual taxes in England amounted to more than thirty-nine millions, while the amount of them in Scotland was little more than three millions. In the total amount of the war taxes the disproportion was equally apparent, for, whilst in England they amounted to twenty millions, they did not in Scotland exceed one million. The total amount of taxes was in England above 59 millions, and in Scotland very little more than 4 millions. The property tax in Scotland produced only about 600,000 l. while in England it produced eleven millions. If the produce of the property tax were to be taken as a criterion of the income of the country the income of Scotland would appear to be about three millions, which was less than the sum paid by that country in taxes. This was also a ground for supposing that there was some great deficiency in the collection of taxes from that part of the country. Lord Mahon concluded by observing, that he did not mean to throw any blame upon ministers, or to charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer with neglect upon a subject which must naturally have excited his attention, and he hoped that the right hon. gent. would explain the circumstance to which he had

213
adverted, in a satisfactory manner. If, however, that should not be the case, perhaps the House would think it right to appoint a Select Committtee to inquire into the subject; and he might, perhaps, give notice of such a motion on a future day.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not think that the circumstance to which the noble lord adverted arose from any neglect in the collection of the taxes in Scotland. The difference between the estimated proportions, he rather thought, arose from the increased prosperity of England, from which the taxes produced much more than was expected. He was sure that in Scotland they did not think themselves favoured in the collection; for he had been called upon to attend to representations of a certain description of persons there, who were of opinion, that the proportionate burthen upon them was heavier than it ought to be.
Lord Mahoncould not conceive how the produce of the Income Tax should be 11 millions in England, and only 600,000 l. in Scotland.
Mr. Hornerthought the House was entitled to have the mistake, if any existed, cleared up. He himself had been struck with the circumstances adverted to by his noble friend; and though he had no official information on the subject, he was informed by good authority, that the deficiency in Scotland arose from a tardiness in the collection. There might, however, be a particular description of persons who might have reason to complain.
The House then went into the Committee.
Sir John Newportsaid, he conceived the present a fit opportunity to offer a few observations to the House on the subject of Supply. In the speech of the lords commissioners, a strong intimation was given, that it was still intended to carry on the war, in Spain and Portugal. The House had been told, that in voting for the Address in answer to that Speech, it was not pledged upon this subject. He decidedly protested against pledging this country, burthened and borne down as the people were with taxes, to carry on a war in a quarter, and upon a scale which, while it must be ruinous to our resources, was utterly hopeless as to any ulterior object; and, if after all the miseries already brought upon the country, by the endeavour to defend Portugal (Spain having been, as he understood, now abandoned),
214
the same course was still to be persevered in, he could see no other result than the accumulation of dangers that must be fatal to this nation. He warned the House against suffering itself to be drawn by little gradations into the support of such a purpose. They had already the authority of a great military officer, the lamented sir John Moore, that Portugal was not defensible; and if that was the case, under the circumstances from which he formed his judgment, how much more hopeless must such a prospect be now, while the armies of France, disengaged from all other objects, and in possession of Spain, could at any time, march such a force into Portugal, as must overwhelm any army this country could send thither! He protested, therefore, against exposing any longer our brave troops to the risk of being out-numbered, subdued, and perhaps cut off before they should be able to escape by re-embarkation in their own ships. He warned his Majesty's ministers against continuing this hopeless contest, in compliance with the whim or fancy of the noble person whose alliance they had lately obtained, and whose brother filled a kind of vice-royalty in Portugal. He pledged himself to oppose such a purpose on every occasion, and he could not even let this opportunity pass without registering his decided opinion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that when any money for that purpose was moved in a committee of supply, the right hon. baronet would have an opportunity, if he thought fit, to move an, Address to his Majesty against its application. There was no pledge whatever given on the part of the House, because the Address was voted, or the present motion carried, to agree to the carrying on the war in Portugal, or for any other purpose.—The motion was then agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee of supply, and resolved that a supply be granted to his Majesty.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. Manningrose to call the attention of the House to a species of misrepresentation of what passed there, contained in the newspapers—a misrepresentation which was certainly highly indecorous. The misrepresentation of which he complained was this:— In the Morning Chronicle newspaper for Friday last two lists of members were published, the one having this title, "A List of the 263 members of parliament who voted against pledging the House of Com-

215
mons to Inquiries, on the first day of the session?" The other having this title, "A List of the members who voted for Inquiry into the late disgraces and disasters." The hon. gent. stated, that his name was in the former list, the title of which, as well as that of the second, was so worded as to convey to his constituents an erroneous and unfair impression of his conduct on the occasions to which they referred. These titles tended to create the impression that he and other gentlemen in similar circumstances were hostile to inquiry altogether; than which nothing could be more erroneous. The hon. gent. then stated, that in these lists the names of the county members were particularly marked—a circumstance, which he could not but consider indecorous. He did not bring this forward at present with a view of making it as a formal complaint the subject of any specific motion, but rather for the purpose of correction and caution, which he was the more anxious for, with respect to the paper in question, as it was that which he himself took in.
Mr. Creeveythought that so far was it from being a breach of privilege to publish the names of members who voted on either side on any important question, that in king William's time, (not the most unfavourable period to freedom and parliamentary privilege in this country), the thing was constantly done by order of the House: and he thought such a practice highly necessary to the people of England, who would thereby be enabled to see who those representatives were who did their duty, and who did not.
Mr. H. Lascellesdid not object to the publishing of lists of names, but to the misrepresentation of gentlemen's motives in a sweeping and general way. For instance, in one of those papers, under the head of gentlemen who voted against Inquiry, his own name was inserted; whereas he had distinctly stated in his speech on that night, that although he voted against, the specific motion then in debate, no man in that House was more anxious for Inquiry than himself; and yet this part of his speech was never given as counteractive to the general statement in the list that he voted against Inquiry.
Mr. Wilberforceobserved that it had been the usual practice to publish the names, and it was a practice which he wished should be continued. But then it ought to be conducted with some accuracy. In this respect he himself had to
216
complain; for of the two lists published respecting the vote on the first night of the session, his name appeared in neither; a circumstance calculated to produce the belief in his constituents, that he had not attended to his duty in that House, though he certainly always did attend, except when prevented by sickness, or some other very imperious cause. He felt this the more, because in the paper in question he was represented as having said, that the attempt to put off the motion for the inquiry into the Walcheren Expedition from Friday till after Monday, was a manœuvre to get rid of it altogether; whereas he had got up, and distinctly disavowed any such meaning, which disavowal, however, was not mentioned. It was the more necessary to be accurate, because the characters of members with their constituents, depended very much upon the representations given of their conduct and speeches in the public papers. The want of accuracy was the more to be regretted, because he knew of no circumstance more calculated to make a man begin to balance in his mind the comparative benefits of publicity and secrecy, than the prevalence of party motives, to such a degree as to produce these misrepresentations. He, himself, certainly had reason to complain. As he belonged to no party nobody took care of him. [A laugh.] But still he had not lost the good opinion of those who sent him there, on account of any false views that might have been published of his conduct or any misrepresentations of his speeches.
Mr. Ponsonbyremarked, that there was one thing rendered obvious by this conversation, which gave him great satisfaction, and that was the particular anxiety which was, at this time, manifested about the opinion of their constituents. That misrepresentation ought to be corrected, there was no doubt, and as little was it to be doubted that, if wilful, it justified the notice of this House: but at the same time, it was proper to remark, that the remedy was not so difficult as some seemed to imagine; for any one had the opportunity of correcting misrepresentation, if not in any other way, at least by mentioning it in the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not know what there was in the present state of affairs that should make it matter of so much exultation to the right hon. gent. that members should be anxious about

217
the opinions of their constituents; nor did he know why they should be more anxious on that subject at present than at other times. He maintained that nothing had recently passed which shewed any improper disregard of the opinions of their constituents. He then remarked, that the noticing of misrepresentations, of motives, or speeches in this way, placed the House in rather an awkward predicament. If these things were noticed at all, it ought to be as the foundation of a specific motion of complaint to the House. But, however, as one was always disposed to be as lenient as possible on these occasion, and as the hon. gent. who brought forward the subject did not press any specific proceeding, it was not incumbent on him to urge the matter farther. But he could by no means agree with the right hon. gent. who spoke last that no inconvenience would arise from the misrepresentations in newspapers of the speeches or the votes given in that House: nor could he ever assent to such a proposition as that the House was to compromise with newspaper editors or printers, and think there was no inconvenience in misrepresentation, because gentlemen might correct the mistake next day in that House. Was this the mode in which the privileges of that House were to be treated? or was a member, whose speech was misrepresented to the public and to his constituents, to be placed under the necessity of watching the newspapers, for the purpose of correcting such misstatements, and to be at the mercy of a newspaper editor, who might not think fit to notice the correction? Another hon. gent. had said, that in the time of king William, lists of the voters on great questions were published by order of the House. But would the hon. gent. feel there was any analogy between lists published under the authority of the House, and with the accuracy it had the opportunity of giving, to lists published without that authority, and fraught with error and misrepresentation? As the hon. gent. however, had made no motion on the subject, he thought it would have been more consistent with the dignity of the House not to have noticed the circumstance at all.
Mr. Ponsonbyobserved, that he had never said, that there was no inconvenience in misrepresentations. On the contrary, he said, that if wilful, they deserved punishment; but that the difficulty of correcting them was not so great as
218
might at first be imagined. He concluded by remarking, that nothing could be a grosser misrepresentation, than that which the right hon. gent. had made of what he had said.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas sorry that he had stated what fell from the right hon. gent., in a sense not intended, but still maintained, that the mode which he pointed out for correcting misrepresentation, was not that which best became the dignity of the House.
Mr. Whitbreadexpressed his surprise at the offence taken at the remark that members were particularly anxious at this moment about the opinions of their constituents. It had always been imputed to them, that, towards the end of the six years they were more anxious than at any previous period of their existence on that point. As to the particular subject in question, he himself might complain, when he found an editor leaving out his speech altogether, and inserting that of the right hon. gent., which was an answer to it, giving his, however, the next day. There were, unquestionably, misrepresentations; but he maintained, that, from all the papers, an accurate estimate might perfectly well be formed of the speeches and conduct of members of parliament; and as for the speeches of the honourable member for Yorkshire, they would speak for themselves, and, he believed, that they were given in a manner sufficiently accurate to convey, upon the whole, a just impression of his conduct, though he had nobody to take care of him. A more innocent breach of privilege, than that of printing speeches or names, there could not be, if properly executed. But as to the marks, or asterisks, pointing out the members who represented counties, or populous places, this could hardly be called a breach of privilege at all. During the 20 years he had sat in the House, he never saw a misrepresentation, which, on the whole, he did not think had better be let alone, than be made matter of complaint in that House, and this, certainly, was one of the very last cases of misrepresentation that ought to be visited with severity.
Mr. Bankesremarked, that the only proper way of correcting misrepresentation, was by notice or complaint in that House. Members could not enter into controversies with the conductors of newspapers.
The Speakerobserved, that when an

219
irregular conversation about privilege took place, he did not presume to interpose, unless called upon to do so; but there must be limits to these indulgences, and he trusted the House would think it had now arrived at such limits.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—LORD COCHRANE.
Mr. C Williams Wynnrose to complain of a Breach of Privilege. In perusing the Minutes of the Court Martial upon lord Gambier, he observed an official letter from the Admiralty to lord Cochrane, a member of that House, which he considered as an undoubted breach of privilege. Lord Cochrane having intimated, that he intended to oppose the vote of Thanks to lord Gambier, the Admiralty issued directions to his lordship in the letter to which he alluded, to state the grounds on which he meant to make that opposition. This, then, was a letter conveying an official direction to a member of that House to state the grounds by which his conduct in that House was to be governed. This, too, was put upon record, by warrant, upon the minutes of the Court-Martial. He did not know how there could be a more direct violation of the privileges of that House. He concluded by moving, as the ground of his complaint, for the order of the 7th of June, for trying lord Gambier, and for the letter of the 29th of May, addressed by the secretary of the Admiralty to lord Cochrane.
The Chancellor of die Exchequerobserved, that as these papers were moved on the ground of a breach of privilege, it would not be proper to refuse them; especially, as he saw no public ground for withholding them. But, he believed, that the hon. gent. would, when the papers were produced, find it difficult to contend with success, that this was a breach of privilege. He thought, on the contrary, that nothing was more consistent and proper, than that the admiralty, finding that his lordship, who had distinguished himself so much in the attack on the French fleet in Basque roads, intended to oppose the Vote of Thanks to lord Gambier, should desire his lordship to state his reasons for his opposition, in order to ascertain whether those were grounds for any proceedings against lord Gambier. But he would defer his opinion till the papers were produced.—The motion was then agreed to.

MINUTES OF LORD GAMBIER'S TRIAL.
Lord Cochranerose, and addressed the House to the following effect:—Sir; Painful to me as it is, to present myself to the
220
attention of this House, on the present occasion, yet a duty which I owe to my country, demands the sacrifice of my feelings. It is incumbent on me that I should submit to this House the reasons on which I found the motion of which I have given notice, for the Minutes of the Court Martial, held on lord Gambier. It is a document which his Majesty's ministers on a former night, did not seem inclined to grant, although absolutely necessary, in order that every member may be enabled, fairly and impartially, to decide, whether the thanks, now in the contemplation of his Majesty's ministers, are due to lord Gambier, for the part he took, in what has been denominated, by them, a victory in Basque roads. But, as if it were unnecessary that we should judge for ourselves, it has been asserted, by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the merits of this case have been already decided on: that the Court Martial held on the noble lord, has already proclaimed his honourable acquittal; and displayed the zeal, ability, and anxiety he manifested for the welfare of his Majesty's service. But even were all this true, Sir, and were it possible that all those facts could be ascertained, by the mere inspection of the copy of a sentence, still I contend, that the combination would not entitle an officer to the thanks of this House—the proudest honour that is in our power to bestow. We have, Sir, a right, and ought to judge for ourselves; and this we can only do, by carefully examining the Minutes of the Court Martial, before which the noble lord was tried on a very serious charge: a charge not brought against him by an individual, but by the lords commissioners of the admiralty, and grounded on official documents. Upon such documents, Sir, their lordships founded the charge "of neglect, or delay in "taking effectual means to destroy the "enemy;" and we cannot suppose that their lordships brought it without due consideration. However this may be, I submit to the House, that zeal, ability, and anxiety for the welfare of his Majesty's service, and having done nothing wrong, do not entitle any officer to our thanks, which, if bestowed on trifling, or indeed any occasion, except when marked by brilliant achievement, will dwindle into utter contempt, even with those on whom they should be conferred. They are already held lightly in the estimation of the navy, and such I freely confess is my feel-

221
ing respecting them. I therefore intreat this House to weigh the matter well before they come to a decision, and to consider what they are about, and the consequences of voting indiscriminately and blindfolded, that which was formerly bestowed exclusively on those, who were publicly known to have rendered the highest services to the state. The House ought to be on their guard against giving way to motions, that have such objects; as by these means, ministers might screen themselves from reprobation; and gain for a man, whose parliamentary influence they required, the highest honours they could render, however unworthy the object.—I contend that to give the thanks of the House to an officer who has been tried on heavy charges, who, instead of going into action, continued at a distance not less than seven miles during the whole time, would be doing that for which no precedent could be found. I am clearly of opinion, that the Minutes of the Court Martial, which I am about to move for, are indispensably requisite; not with a view to re-consider the decision of the court; but to give foundation to our opinion respecting a matter on which we are not only entitled, but bound to decide justly; and on which the court martial could not decide for us. Indeed, sir, even in lord Gambier's written defence, we might find his lordship's pretension to our thanks, which would be some satisfaction; for in the sentence pronounced by the court, and offered as a ground, on which to rest our judgment, I protest I can find no claim. I shall go farther, Sir, and, though it is not the object to criminate, by the production of their Minutes, yet, Sir, I shall boldly assert, that the charge of delay will be found, not only to have been proved by the witnesses produced, but admitted also by his lordship's written defence; a delay of four hours elapsed, by the noble lord's own account, even before he took up the position, which he has stated to be the best, for observing the motions of the enemy, and for sending ships to the attack, and five hours afterwards elapsed before any attack was made, which is in direct opposition to the sentence delivered by the court;—if a court it can be called, when it appeared so extraordinary that the president could not give it a name, as he always spoke of it ambiguously; thus, "what may be termed," or, "what may be called the prosecution." Not only do I assert, Sir, that the charge has been admitted by his
222
lordship, and proved by witnesses; but his lordship's written defence, also, will be found to contradict itself in points on which the charge hinged, and in others of material import: that his lordship's official letters contradict that defence, and each other; and that many of the witnesses falsify their own evidence in substantive facts, and contradict themselves when deposing only to the best of their knowledge. In other instances they swear positively to things, of the truth of which they had no knowledge, which I believe is an offence against the law. The fabricated chart, Sir, will then also come under review; that chart produced by the master of the Caledonia to the court, in order to explain the various positions of the British and French fleets, "on and previous to the 12th of April," for the purpose of inducing the members, assembled on "what may be called" the trial of lord Gambier, to believe, that no more of the French ships could have been destroyed than were destroyed, had the British force been sent in at an earlier period; although the fabricator of that chart, after having, on his first examination, sworn that it was a chart of the 12th, swears afterwards that it was meant for the 13th, inasmuch as that "the only vessels marked on the chart for the 12th, were those that had been destroyed;"—those,Sir, that did not exist.—I have one word more to say, respecting the falsity of this vile fabrication, which the master of the Caledonia professes to have copied from the Neptune François. The distance between the shoals are contracted to little more than one-third of the size of the Neptune, from which, as I have already remarked, it is declared to have been taken, in order to shew (for there can be no other reason) that the space for anchorage, as deposed by the masters, without knowledge of the fact, was confined; the water round it shoal, and the passage narrow; and that the British ships must have been within point blank range, "not only of the destructive broadsides of the two ships afloat, but of the upright ones on shore, and of the tremendous batteries of Aix, which, separately or united," according to the testimony given, in support of the assertions of lord Gambier, must have demolished every vessel "locked up in so confined an anchorage." Though at the same time, and for the safety, I suppose, of his Majesty's ships, that might have been sent in, in defiance of "such unwarrantable peril," the vessels aground

223
are removed, by the contriver of the chart, from "the NW part of the Palles shoal, the NW part nearest the deep water flanking the passage," where, he had sworn, they were situated, and which was the fact, to the SE side of the shoal, farthest from the deep water, and beyond the Tonnére, which was not within range; and "where they never could have been approached by our ships for the shot to reach them." This, Sir, is not all: by Stokes's deposition, the Cassard, one of the ships that would have raked us with such terrible effect, is stated, and in truth it was so, to have been about one-third of a mile from Aix, and the Foudroyant, another of them, about three cables' length from her; but, Mr. Stokes, in his chart, has cunningly put them in a corner, between two shoals, and close to both, where, he has sworn, they could not be got at, though he had positively sworn, first, that they could have annoyed us, and next, that he did not know the distance between the shoals. I have already asserted, Sir, that contradictions of facts, on which the charge was founded, are frequent in the defence of lord Gambier; but I have yet to tell this House, that these contradictions, in substantive facts, are, in several, nay, many instances, confirmed, sometimes one way, and sometimes in another, by the same individual witnesses, examined in behalf of "what may be termed" the defence.—For instance: by some of those witnesses it is said, that the Cassard, Foudroyant, and some of the grounded ships, would have fired with complete effect on the British ships, had they been sent earlier to attack them; and; again, that we never could have got near them for the shot to reach.—Assertions that are, in the nature of things, incompatible; as in positive contradiction to each other, and given in support of lord Gambier's statements, that three out of the seven ships aground on the Pallés were never within reach of any of the fleet that might have been sent in to attack them; and, that the other four of the eleven were never in a situation to be assailed, after the fire-ships failed in their main object; although at another time the noble lord declared, that some of those very ships would have raked our ships had they been sent in earlier than they were. I therefore call on the House to insist on the production of the Minutes of the Trial, and I pledge myself to prove, to the conviction of this House, and to my country, all that I have as-
224
serted. I will also prove partiality on the part of the court, and illegal and unjust conduct on the part of the judge advocate, who admitted, and even courted, evidence on one side, which he rejected on the other; and urged inquiry into the conduct of officers, whose conduct the court were not empowered to investigate, in order that he might, by insinuations, (for there could be no other motive,) create an unmerited prejudice against me by shewing that their conduct had been arraigned by me, and so induce them to unite against me, and make common cause with the Commander in Chief, who had stepped forward, as he insinuated, to vindicate their injured characters, and examined his secretary on the subject. One instance may, of the many which I could adduce, well suffice, in relation to the conduct of the learned Judge Advocate: Asked, on a certain occasion, by the President, "Is that evidence?" he answered, I should think it is. And, why, Sir, did he think so? "because it was to affect the evidence of Lord Cochrane; in that point of view he thought it was legal evidence," although I had not even touched on the subject then under consideration. As to the Court, their conduct is too glaring to admit of a doubt, as to the motives by which they were actuated. Conversations between officers, and questions framed upon matter arising out of such conversations: were admitted, notwithstanding, Sir, my testimony had been refused, in an instance, wherein I merely stated, that the opinion I had at the moment delivered to the Court, had formerly been given in the presence of certain officers, and, Sir, I submit to you, and to the learned gentlemen in this House, that such reference was admissible, as it was to establish that, by having said at a former time what I then stated, I was consistent with myself. The Judge Advocate pursued the same course, he received documents as evidence, which could not be authenticated, and on the other side, rejected those that could. Amongst the latter, was captain Woolf's order to supersede me in the inner anchorage; though the secretary who wrote it, arid captain Woolf who received it, were witnesses before the Court; but, had that paper been established, I will tell you, Sir, what it would have proved; it would have proved, that it had been written together with lord Gambier's two letters of recall, on the 13th, although the signal, to the same

225
effect, had been attempted to be denied, and witnesses examined to support assertion against his acts. I shall not detain the House longer, than to pledge myself by every thing that is valuable to man, if these Minutes are granted, to prove, though that is not immediately the intention of calling for them, not only that injustice and partiality on the part of the court has been exercised towards me, not only that the judge advocate, the expounder of the law, pointed his decisions from the course of justice; but, Sir, that the defence is contradicted by itself, contradicted by his lordship's official letters, and by his own witnesses, many of whom, as to substantive facts, are at variance with themselves and each other; and lastly, that the chart of the positions of the enemy's ships on the 12th of April, a most material point, is false, and in every respect a foul fabricacation. This, and all that I have said, I pledge myself to prove to the conviction of the world, if the Minutes of the court are laid before this House. Or, if I fail, then, Sir, let contempt and merited infamy follow me; then Sir, unworthy of the honour, which his Majesty was graciously pleased to confer upon me, I shall resign it back into his hands, and vacate my seat in this House. I do not desire to get off with nominal responsibility, and I wish his Majesty's ministers could give such a pledge for their actions and for their statements.—I now move, Sir, "That there be laid before this House, a copy of the Minutes of the Trial of admiral lord Gambier, held on board his Majesty's ship the Gladiator, in Portsmouth harbour, on the 23rd of July 1809. Also the original Minutes taken day by day by the deputy judge advocate."
Sir Francis Burdettseconded the motion. On the question being put,
Captain Beresfordsaid, he could not content himself with giving a silent vote on the present question. The noble lord who made the motion had, in his opinion, cast a severe reflection on the court and on the witnesses. He knew every member of that Court Martial; and he believed they were officers of as high honour and character as the noble lord. He also knew the witnesses; and he believed them in the highest degree worthy of credit. He himself had been a very strong witness against what had been done by lord Cochrane. (A cry of order!) He begged pardon: he found he had unintentionally transgressed a rule of the
226
House in mentioning the name of a member—it was owing to want of experience of parliament, he had much rather be at sea he could assure them, than speaking in that House. (A laugh.) He had said on the Court Martial what he then repeated; that had lord Gambier acted as the noble lord who made the motion wished him to do, he would have disgraced himself, and our ships would have been on shore. The noble lord had forgot how he formed his charts and log-books in favour of the evidence to be adduced before the Court Martial. He hoped the House would do him the justice to believe that he was actuated by no motive but a sense of public duty; in thus declaring his sentiments and in opposing the motion of the noble lord.
Sir John Ordespoke nearly as follows:—Mr. Speaker, I cannot content myself with giving a silent vote on a question that so materially affects the vital interest of the profession to which I have the honour to belong. Sir, I do not comprehend the object of the noble mover in calling for those Minutes to be produced to this House. Is it the intention to try lord Gambier again, or to put the members of the Court Martial on their defence, who had been appointed to try his lordship? If it is, what, in God's name, would be the situation of officers in the navy? If these are not the objects, what then are they? It has been said, that the Minutes might justify the acquittal of lord Gambier on a charge for life or death, yet that they might shew him not to be entitled to the thanks of this House;—surely, Sir, an. investigation of them for this purpose would savour more of persecution than of justice. Lord Gambier's conduct, in the affair of Basque-road, has already been investigated before two competent tribunals;—first, before the board of admiralty; and, secondly, by a court martial, composed, I will venture to say, although not acquainted with all its members, of as honourable men as any country or any service can boast. To try his lordship after this, or here to try the merits of the court martial, I think would be as unjust as injurious to the service, and consequently I shall give my vote against producing the Minutes, unless some reasons shall be offered in support of the motion very different from any yet submitted, or any that I can anticipate.
General Loftcalled upon the House to consider well what they were about, be-

227
fore they assented to the noble lord's motion; for nothing could more injuriously affect the discipline both of the army and navy than that parliament should take into its hands the revision of the proceedings of Courts Martial.
Mr. Lyttletonagreed with the hon. general, that the House ought not to take upon itself the revision of such sentences on light grounds; but still the proceedings Courts Martial were liable to revision in in the House, as the court of dernier resort. This doctrine was laid down in Mr. Adye's book on Courts Martial; and there was an instance of such revision in 1744, when the sentence of a Court Martial on capt. Norris was decided by this House to be partial, arbitrary, and unjust. Besides, there might be in the Minutes of the evidence abundance of matter to justify the House in withholding the high honour of their thanks, though no actual blame may have been incurred by the noble admiral.
Mr. Marryatobserved, that it had been argued by ministers, and he thought justly, on two late occasions, that the House ought not to come to any vote till they had the papers before them, as this would be a kind of censure, and without documents. The very same arguments applied to this case; and it appeared to him equally necessary that the Minutes should be produced, before they could come to a Vote of Thanks. This also he conceived equally necessary to the character of lord Gambier himself, and to his deriving any satisfaction from a Vote of Thanks.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he did not rise to negative, but to amend the motion of the noble lord. As to the question which was to follow, namely, the Vote of Thanks to lord Gambier, it might be necessary to produce the Sentence of the Court Martial, but there was no occasion for the Minutes. In the two instances cited by the hon. gent. who had just sat down, of ministers having asked the House to wait for information, there was a very material difference from the present question; and it did not require the acuteness and distinctness of judgment so peculiar to that hon. gent. to point it out. In the case of last night, a subject was before the House which they could each of them easily determine on his own knowledge; but in this case, an investigation had already taken place, before a tribunal competent to the subject; and certainly the House would not think of calling for the Minutes, in order to question the conduct of
228
the individual who had been acquitted, though they might, if it was thought necessary, do so with respect to the court itself. The noble lord had stated that the House should be cautious how they countenanced such a proceeding as a Vote of Thanks to lord Gambier, because ministers might be able to shelter themselves from blame, for appointing an officer from parliamentary interest. He, for his own part, did not know of any parliamentary interest possessed by lord Gambier. If, however, any thing could shew that ministers were not guided by parliamentary interest, in their appointments of officers, he thought he might fairly instance the appointment of the noble lord himself. The noble lord had complained that there was no prosecutor on this court martial. If the noble lord had thought any prosecutor necessary in it, he should himself have been that person, since it was in consequence of his declaration, that the admiralty had thought it due, in justice to the character of lord Gambier, to institute a court martial, to inquire into the conduct, which the noble lord who made the motion, had so obliquely censured by the letter, which he had written, expressing his intention to oppose the Vote of Thanks, and in that referring to the log books of the fleet. Under all these circumstances, he hoped and trusted, that the House would, when a Vote of Thanks should be moved to an officer who had achieved a great service to his country, distinguish his merits by agreeing to that motion. He concluded, by moving as an amendment, that the word "Minutes" in the original motion be left out, and the word "Sentence" be inserted in its stead.
Sir F. Burdettobserved, that the preceding speakers had saved him the trouble of proving the right of the House to interfere with the sentence of a court martial. The question therefore now related solely to the propriety of such an interference in the present case. If to prove the propriety of such an interference he would wish to cite an extreme case it would be the present. The noble lord had pledged his character in the most explicit manner, that, in the Minutes were produced, he would prove that the court martial had acted partially, and that lord Gambier was not deserving the thanks that were intended to be moved in his favour; and he thought it it was impossible to believe the noble lord would do so, without being able to fulfil what he had promised. The right

229
hon. gent. opposite had said, that the House should be contented with the Sentence; that, however, was what the noble lord complained of, and it seemed, there were things connected with it which could only be properly explained by the Minutes. In looking cursorily over the Minutes this morning, he thought there were some things which appeared to be against lord Gambier. The right hon. gent. had taunted his noble colleague with not having been the prosecutor of lord Gambier; but his noble colleague certainly did not deserve to be so treated. He had no wish to bring him to a court martial. He felt and thought that lord Gambier had not done all he might have done; and when he found that he was to be rewarded by a vote of thanks, he thought it but justice to his own character to oppose such a motion; and with a candour which did him honour, he gave ministers notice of his intention. The noble lord, his colleague, had said, that lord Gambier had delayed sending in ships to support him. Lord Gambier himself allowed, that a lapse of time had taken place. If there was any distinction between the charge and the admission, lord Gambier's was the strongest. A lapse of time, he feared, was a lapse of victory. It was a lapse of a tide. The old proverb said, that "time and tide waited for no man." Lord Gambier thought they would; but he found himself mistaken. The noble lord his colleague, was appointed to conduct the attack; appointed by the admiralty for that purpose, and his orders should have been obeyed as the commander in chief. Lord Gambier's principal concern seemed to have been to preserve the fleet. If lord Nelson, at the battle of the Nile, or in that glorious action in which he lost his life, had acted on this principle, he would never have been crowned with the laurels he so bravely won, nor would the thanks of that House, and the honours of his sovereign, have so eminently and gloriously distinguished him. Lord Gambier's plan seemed to be a desire to preserve his Majesty's fleet; that of his noble colleague was to destroy that of the enemy. He had never heard that the articles of war held out an instruction to preserve the fleet. The general view of gallant officers was to obtain victory.—As to lord Gambier, he never heard he had pretended to have done any important or signal service on this occasion: his only merit seemed to consist in what he had omitted
230
to do. That omission might, indeed, have been wise and prudent; but could never be the object of a vote of thanks. Ministers had, however, convicted themselves; they had advised his Majesty to honour his noble colleague with a red ribbon, and to agree to the amendment of the right hon. gent. and to vote the thanks of that House to lord Gambier, would be in fact to strip him of all its value. How came ministers to appoint the noble lord, and aprove so highly of all he had done. If they gave a vote of thanks to lord Gambier, they would do injustice to his noble colleague. In the Minutes it appeared that his noble colleague made a signal for assistance at five o'clock in the morning, and none was given till two in the afternoon. The shoals and batteries had not been removed; they remained the same as in the morning; and if there was any danger in them, it was not greater in the morning than it was in the afternoon. Our ships were as likely to suffer from them at the one time as the other. Under these circumstances he thought it necessary the Minutes should be produced. It had been done in the case of colonel Cawthorne, which was of infinitely less importance to the public. He should conceive therefore he did not do his duty if he did not support the motion made by his noble colleague.
Mr. Yorkesaid, the question was not as to the right of the House to call for the Minutes, but whether it was necessary to do sounder the circumstances of the case. This was not, as the hon. bart. had represented it, a case where the noble lord came forward, and stated reasons, as consisting with his own knowledge, for withholding the vote of thanks from lord Gambier; but, on the contrary, one where, in consequence of insinuations thrown out by the noble lord, a court martial had already been held on lord Gambier, and he had been honourably acquitted; the charge, or rather insinuation, thrown out against him being totally unfounded. He regretted the noble lord should esteem it a part of his duty to adopt the part he had taken after the decision of that court martial, on which all the evidence was wholly at variance with his ideas. He regretted that a gallant officer, who, undoubtedly, had rendered great service to his country, should have esteemed it necessary to set up his own opinion and experience against the opinion and experience of so many others. The hon. bart. was

231
wrong in supposing that the noble lord was charged with the enterprise; whereas, on the second day, Captain Bligh, and the other captains of the line of battle ships, were those who performed the service. He was surprised the worthy baronet should say that the noble lord went to that attack unsupported, and that having the command that day, he made a signal which should have been honoured, but was not. That signal was only a communication to the commander in chief, as to which he was to form his judgment, and most of the officers in the fleet agreed it would have been a most extraordinary thing if he had acted upon it.
Mr. C. W. Wynndid not deny that there might be cases in which the House might feel itself called on to interfere, even in cases of court-martial. Here, however, all the evidence was on one side, and opposed to it the solitary opinion of the noble lord. Had the noble lord stood uncontradicted, he might have called on the House to interfere; but this was not a case of that kind. The blame here seemed to be in the admiralty ever directing the court martial. They ought to have known that there was no charge; for when they applied to the noble lord for his charge, if he had any, he referred them to the Log books which it was their duty already to have perused, and which, therefore, they must by that time have been prepared to say, instead of inferring blame, warranted them in bestowing thanks. He was sorry to see the thanks of that House bestowed with too little consideration, so as greatly to lower the value of that distinguished honour. He should hardly have thought this a case in which they ought to have been granted, were it not that their now withholding them might seem to countenance the present charge.
Mr. Wilberforcethought if the House wanted any additional inducement to vote their thanks to the noble lord, they had them in the words of the sentence of the court martial. The present motion was peculiarly important, as it went to throw a gross stigma on the characters of the whole of the members of the court martial, as if they were totally ignorant of their professsion, and forgetful of their own reputation and of the cause of truth and justice. All the evidence, however, was one way. If the sentence had been conceived in dry or doubtful terms, then the House might have called for the Mi-
232
nutes. That, however, was not the case; and all that remained for the House to suppose was, that the noble lord (Cochrane) thought differently from every person else at the time of the court martial, and that he did so still. Lord Gambier had formerly shewn that he could dare when he ought to dare, having been the first to break the line on the glorious first of June; and now he had shewn that he was no less capable of performing important service without exposing to unnecessary risk the ships or subjects of his Majesty.
Lord Newarksaw no just ground for the present motion. It carried with it a serious matter of charge against the members of the court martial, and almost every witness who had been examined, and that, too, on a subject in which the noble lord would not find one man in the profession to agree with him.
Sir C. Hamiltonsaid, if his information was correct, the fault that more damage had not been done to the enemy's fleet, lay with the noble lord (Cochrane) himself; and if the Minutes of the court martial were produced, he should engage to bring evidence to that effect before the House. If the noble lord had followed the advice of a senior officer, in reserving some of his fire ships, he would have been able to destroy all the ships of the enemy. When with the explosion ship the noble lord gave the signal, those who observed his orders did not succeed: and those who did not observe the signal, but were more deliberate in their proceedings, were successful. Those officers who disobeyed the order to fire the ships had been promoted, and those who obeyed the order had not been promoted.
Mr. Crokersaid, that he had endeavourde to follow the noble lord in his speech, but could not bring him to any one point. The noble lord would have done no more than his duty, if he had been in possession of those circumstances which he had detailed this night, in making them the subject of proceedings against Lord Gambier. What, however, had been the conduct of the noble lord? On the contrary, instead of making a direct charge, he had merely contented himself with referring the admiralty board to the log-book of his own ship for information. The board of admiralty therefore in acceding to the wish of the noble lord, for an enquiry into his conduct with respect to the attack on Basque Roads, had done

233
him no more than an act of justice.—No man was more disposed than he was to respect the noble lord (Cochrane) for his private virtues and public conduct, but he could not think that the House was bound to throw a slur upon the sentence of the court-martial, by calling for their Minutes in compliment to the opinion of the noble lord who had called for them. Was the House aware of the merits and services of many of the members of the court martial? Was not sir R. Curtis an old and meritorious officer, who had served his country before the noble lord was born? Was not sir John Duckworth another gallant officer? Was not admiral Young an officer of high and distinguished character? Were not admiral Campbell (a member of that House) and all the other admirals and captains of the court-martial, men of high and deserved professional repute? The opinions of these officers, with all his partiality to his noble friend, he felt himself bound to prefer to those of his noble friend. Yet the noble lord wished the united opinions of so large a body of the officers of the navy to pass for nothing, and that the House of Commons should receive his as the only just opinion. He was sorry to be obliged to say that the noble lord had constrained him to declare, that, having put his character against the majority of his profession, he was bound to adhere to the majority in preference to the noble lord, however highly he estimated his talents, and to vote against his motion.
Mr. Whitbreadthought the noble lord did wrong in returning any answer to the application of the Admiralty. He ought to have told them that, as a member of the House of Commons, he had no answer whatever to make: and if they had thought the logs inconclusive, why did they not manfully come down and try the question in that House. The hon. gentleman talked of the injustice of trying an officer in that House. Must not the merits of every officer be inquired into when it is proposed to confer on him a Vote of Thanks? Was he not then on his trial? Was not this a species of trial to which every officer, before he could receive the high honour of the thanks of parliament necessarily must by exposed? But, after a court-martial, which ought never to have taken place, had declared lord Gambier to be honourably acquitted, did it follow, as a matter of necessity that they must grant him the thanks of
234
that House? He presumed that by no means followed. Then what was the situation to which the House was reduced? The noble lord had committed himself more than he had ever heard man do in that House to prove his statements respecting the conduct of lord Gambier. And now another member had come forward, and said that the noble lord himself (Cochrane) had not properly executed the duty entrusted to him, and that if he had done so, he might have done far more injury to the enemy's ships.ߞThe hon. bart. (Hamilton) had said, that, at the time when he (lord Cochrane) was in the command, and made signals to the vessels employed under him, some of them obeyed and others disobeyed the instructions they received, and that those who disobeyed were ultimately successful, while those who obeyed at the moment failed. The worthy baronet also added, that those who disobeyed the signal given them were promoted, while those who obeyed it were not. What must become of the subordination necessary for the support of our navy, if our officers were to be informed that it could be possible, in any one instance, that those who obeyed the instructions of their superior officer were to be passed by, while those who disobeyed his signals might expect to be promoted? From the disagreeable situation in which the House was now placed, on both sides, he thought they must unavoidably have the Minutes.
Mr. Ponsonbycould not agree to vote for the motion of the noble lord, and for this reason, because the adoption of it would be a violation of one of the most sacred and fundamental principles of the jurisprudence of England. My lord Gambier had been tried by a competent jurisdiction, and acquitted. He could therefore scarcely imagine any thing more dangerous to the lives, property, and liberties of Englishmen, than that a man should be tried a second time for the same imputed offence. Could a man who, for any offence, had been put on his trial in another place, and acquitted, be again tried for the same offence? Certainly not. If a man was accused of the highest crime the law takes cognizance of, viz. conspiring with others to murder the King, and should be acquitted; if it should turn out afterwards that other circumstances than had been adduced on the trial could be proved, was it to be endured that he should be again tried? He could not be

235
tried again; the principles of the constitution forbad it. If that were the only reason which he had to induce him to object to the production of the Minutes, he should give his vote against the motion, but in his opinion the motion was highly objectionable as it went further as went wholly to subvert the discipline of the navy. What was the object of the noble lord's motion? Why this, that lord Gambier having been tried and acquitted by a competent jurisdiction, the noble lord came to parliament, and required that his opinion should be taken as sufficient authority for reversing the verdict which the court had given in favour of the noble lord. If this mode of proceeding was to be tolerated, how could any naval officer be safe who might have been tried and acquitted? The noble lord had said, that this House had the power of punishing judges who did not act properly. It was true the House had that power, as had been shewn in some cases, in the case of the Ship Money, and others, wherein it had been proved that they had acted in direct violation of the law. In the present case there was not any allegation of the kind—there was no charge against the judges; the House was desired upon the single opinion of one of the witnesses examined before them, to reverse their decree. It was scarcely to be conceived, that twelve members of a Court Martial would set their hands to a sentence of acquittal such as the one alluded to, who were ignorant of the evidence. They had not merely pronounced him not guilty, but described him as a meritorious officer in the Sentence. He trusted the House would not be disposed to think that any grounds were laid for agreeing to the motion.
Lord Cochranethen addressed the House in reply, as follows;—Mr. Speaker; Some remarks that have fallen from gentlemen on both sides of the House, call upon me for explanation.—And first the hon. gent. below me, has asserted, that it was my bounden duty to have brought forward, myself, charges against lord Gambier, if I thought his conduct censurable.—I must tell that hon. gent., that I adopted the mode that, under such circumstances it was my duty to adopt. I did not presume to frame charges founded on my own opinion, of the transactions that had passed in Basque roads.—I did not deliver charges: but when I found that a vote of thanks was to be pressed on this House,
236
I felt myself called upon to refer their lordships to the log books and minutes of signals, where they would find reasons, why a vote of thanks should not be granted to the commander in chief, and their lordships found them, in these official documents, which are received, as evidence, in all courts of law. These, Sir, I had no power to falsify, and to these I referred, not with a wish maliciously to criminate, but to save this House, and my country, from what I felt would be a disgrace. As this book has been used (Guerney's Minutes) I shall, if permitted, read the opinion of the lords commissioners of the Admiralty, founded, I suppose, on mature deliberation. "And whereas by the log books and minutes of signals of the Caledonia, Imperieuse, and other ships employed on that service, it appears to us, that the said admiral lord Gambier, on the 12th day of the said month of April, the enemy's ships being then on shore, and the signal having been made that they could be destroyed, did, for a considerable time, neglect or delay taking effectual measures for destroying them: We therefore in compliance with his lordship's request, and in consequence of what appears in the said log books and minutes of signals, think fit that a Court Martial shall be assembled for the purpose of examining into his lordship's conduct, and trying him for the same." Such was the charge brought against his lordship by the board of admiralty, after investigating the log books of the Caledonia and of the fleet. No individual had the power to mislead their lordships; and this I submit to the House was the fair and honourable mode to proceed. It was regular, and not liable to be affected by prejudice or my opinions.—I had another reason for this line of conduct; I did not chase to oppress my mind with responsibility: I believe admiral Byng was called to an account not by an individual but by his country. I trust, Sir, this explanation will be satisfactory to the House, and to the hon. gent. who chose to reprobate my conduct. I have now a word or two to say to the naval member opposite, who has spoken of forming logs for the purpose of evidence. When he throws out insinuations, or rather accusations such as these, it would be but honourable in him, and justice demands that he should state the difference, which was detected in these logs. Lord Gambier, who was pretty much alive to detect errors, did point out

237
"that in one, the signal made, was that half the fleet could destroy" the enemy, and in the other, that it stood, "part of the fleet can destroy the enemy." What Sir, is the mighty difference between part and the half, a part may be either more or less, or exactly the half of the fleet. Is this the error which the hon. gent. has spoken of, or is it the circumstance of my hailing the Indefatigable which is not noticed in one, but inserted in the other. That, Sir, was a personal act of my own; the words spoken had nothing to do with the transactions usually inserted in the log books of ships. Those who were on board can vouch for the correctness of the fact. As to the chart, I must address a few words more to the same gentleman, and state to this House, and pledge myself to prove if the Minutes are granted, that my chart is correct and is corroborated as to every point for which it was produced by the testimony of the master of the Caledonia, who after falsifying his own chart swears that the French ships lay, exactly, as I placed them. And here, Sir, I shall give a specimen of the evidence of those ingenious gentlemen the inventors of the fabricated chart, which was introduced for three reasons, to shew the confined state of the anchorage, the point blank shot of the batteries of Aix, and that no more of the enemy's ships could have been got at, than those that were destroyed. In all these points, I pledge myself to prove the chart produced by the master of the Caledonia false, by the mouths of its fabricators themselves, and here is their evidence. First as to the space in the anchorage. Mr. Fairfax, on being asked, "Is it much confined and the waters round it shoal?"—A. "The space is much confined."—2." "Is the navigation of Aix roads difficult for large ships as far as you know?"—A. "Very much so."—2 "Did you know previous to the 12th of April, of any anchorage above the Boyart-shoal and near the Palles shoal, for line of battle ships out of range of the enemy's shells?"—"A. I knew of no anchorage."—2."Have you acquired a knowledge of any such since?"—A. "I have not."—2. "Were you in the road of Aix, after the British ships were placed for the purpose of attacking the enemy?"—A. "No." So much for this gentleman's knowledge of that to which he positively swears.—Now, Sir; let us see Mr. Stokes's evidence on this head. "He does not know the distance between the sands
238
from his own soundings," yet he positively swears that "the space for anchorage is much confined, and the water round it shoal, that it is difficult for large ships, and that the channel is very narrow."—Why, Sir, even by his fabricated chart, which he says he copied from the Neptune François, the channel is a mile wide, and neither bank or shoal between where our fleet lay and the Cassard and Foudroyant, which he has very injurously contrived to put in a corner, a mile distant from Aix, though in his evidence he swears they were only one third of the distance, and here is his deposition.—"The Cassard and Foudroyant both lay afloat, the Cassard one third of a mile from Aix, the Foudroyant three cables length astern of her."—The reason, Sir, for making a corner between two shoals, and putting them in it, was to prevent the possibility of getting under their sterns and between them and the ships on shore, which, Mr. Stokes has sworn, "lay on the Western part of the Palles shoal, the three decker on the north west edge of the Palles shoal, with her broadside flanking the passage, the N. W. part nearest to the deep water," although in his fabricated chart he has transported them from the N. W. part nearest to the deep water, to the S. E. side farthest from the deep water beyond the Tonnere, where he says they "never could have been got at for the shot to reach." This chart, it is affirmed by Mr. Stokes, is taken from the Neptune, but the space is contracted to about one third of its size. For what reason, Sir, could this be done, but to induce a belief of the "unwarrantable peril," to which his Majesty's ships would have been exposed. Mr. Stokes confessed on his examination his ignorance of the distance between the sounds, and yet presumed to deliver to the court a chart, not, of the scale of the Neptune Francois, of which, it professed to be a copy. And to crown all, Sir, after having sworn that it was a chart, of the positions of the enemy's ships, on, and previous to the 12th April, he, on a subsequent day, when asked by the president, who observed that "the Ocean was not marked on the 12th, she was marked on the 13th," afterwards positively swears that the only ships marked on this foul fabrication, "are the ships that were destroyed." Yet inadvertently several officers have spoken to this chart as correct, and some have even deposed, that

239
it was impossible to pass under the stern of the Foudroyant, between her and the bank, although, she was seven miles from them, and the bank, from nine, to thirteen feet, under water. I trust, Sir, this is sufficient, all this I can prove to the world by the testimony given by the witnesses themselves. Another naval member opposite has offered to prove a fact which, he must, do me the justice to own, is not within his own knowledge—That I was to blame for the failure of the fire ships; and he states, first, that the explosion vessel was a signal to the fire ships, and next, that she was improperly exploded. Now, Sir, this gives me an opportunity to remark again on the conduct of the court. How rigorous, as to the law on one side, and how lax on the other. Lord Gambier, too, has asserted that, which the hon. gent. has undertaken to prove, but his lordship did not prove it, and I will tell the House why he did not prove it, because the explosion vessel was no signal to the fire ships. Orders written out by me, were delivered by lord Gambier in the cabin of the Caledonia, directing quite the contrary—Ordering them to use their discretion as to the time when they were to be kindled, and had the state of the weather rendered it practicable to couple them together, the senior officer of each division of four, was to shew a lanthorn, or a false fire, to direct, whether the long or short fusees were to be kindled.—And an acknowledgment of the delivery of these orders will be found in lord Gambier's official letter, I think of the 10th of May. The court, however, refused to receive this document which I offered to them, because they said it was not relevant to the charge, although the court had not only suffered lord Gambier to make the assertion, but had themselves examined several witnesses to the point. So far, Sir, from the explosion having been a signal for the fire ships to kindle, the fire ships were, by their written orders, to go in, in three divisions, each half a mile apart, and the explosion vessels half a mile a head of them. Thus much for the signal, and for the impartiality of the court. Now, Sir, as to the place in which the vessel exploded; and Mr. Fairfax, one of the fabricators of the chart, is the only person examined to this point; he, Sir, notwithstanding that he has sworn that she blew up within two cables length of the Lyra, has a remark a little unfortunate, on a chart or in a
240
letter, I do not remember which, in the Naval Chronicle (I think of July:) "the French frigate (F.) cut or slipped before the fire ships got to where they were set fire to;" the fact is, Sir, the explosion vessel blew up close to her.— I submit to this House—many of the members are military men, and all are capable to judge of the fact, whether one hundred barrels of powder, covered with shells, and at least a thousand grenades, would not have destroyed the Lyra, if exploded, within two cables length. The court, indeed, asked Mr. Fairfax "where he was when she blew up," and he answered, "In the Lyra."—In the Lyra, Sir, was his answer; the court did not put a question on the Minutes, Was you on deck in the Lyra? If I could make use of notes which I had taken, I might submit also to this House, whether a man who was below, at the explosion of the first part of 100 barrels of powder, could get on deck to see the second part exploded. Lord Gambier's defence was full of accusations against me. Evidences were examined to prove these, though they did not relate in any way to the charge, and I was not suffered to ask one single question to refute them, or to be present when the defence was read. Sir, I was even sent out of Court, and denied the privilege of hearing it, although when an evidence on the late trial of a member of this House, I was sent for.—If, Sir, there were no other reasons for the production of the Minutes which I have called for, but that I am now put upon my defence: that accusations are made, which, in justice to my feelings, and my character, I must refute, I humbly submit to this House, that injustice to me they ought now to be produced, and I trust, Sir that for reasons more important to the country they will not be refused; that this House will not shut their eyes and go blindfold to the vote. If so, the country must—will not follow their example. Sir, I shall not detain the House longer than to re-assert all that I have pledged myself to prove, and stake every thing that is valuable to man on the issue. If the Minutes are granted, I shall expose such a scene, as will, perhaps, make my country tremble for its safety. I intreat the House well to consider, that there is a tribunal to which it is answerable, that of posterity, which will try all our actions, and judge impartially.
Mr. Tierneythought it would be wrong for that House to disturb the past acts of

241
justice. He could not persuade himself to suspect any degree of partiality in the tribunal which tried lord Gambier. But the question was not as to the noble lord's innocence, but as to his claim to a most distinguishing reward. The honours of the House were high things—dear and valuable; but dear only because they implied merit—valuable only because even that merit must be rare. Honours, too frequently bestowed, lost their value, and became signs of nothing but the weakness which lavished them, or the worthlessness on which they were to be thrown away. In this case there was no apparent service to be traced which was worthy of their thanks. He would vote for the Minutes, but in his vote he begged to be understood, as merely calling for matter to enable him to shape his opinion. He could mean no slight to lord Gambier. He respected his lordship's character. He had some opportunities of hearing him spoken of, and it was always in a high strain of praise and estimation. But he had never understood that lord Gambier took any share of the merit of the achievement to himself. He had not approached the French fleet nearer than seven miles. Ministers had praised lord Gambier for his discretion: he hoped they had not intended this as an instance in their enumeration of its proofs. It became the House to be cautious of being prodigal of the honours which were entrusted to their distribution. The noble lord near him (lord Cochrane) ought to be heard; his judgment and character, his signal gallantry and signal honours, deserved the serious attention of the House. Even his feelings, led, as they were perhaps, astray by an excess of strength and sensibility, deserved all the attention which could be paid to them.
Mr. Lyttletonfelt himself called on to explain his former opinion. He had reminded the House of a precedent for the revision of courts martial; but in stating this fact he merely wished to bring a new authority in support of the privileges of that assembly. He conceived that the sentence of a naval court was not in the full sense of the word, definitive. In the military law, an appeal lay from a court martial to his Majesty's courts at Westminster: he concluded that there must be found a similar check on a court of naval officers. In voting for the motion he pledged himself to nothing; he had not yet found materials for his opinion, and he was satisfied to pause till he had found them.
The question was now called for; and, upon a division, there appeared—

For the Amendment

171

Against it

19

Majority against lord Cochrane's Motion

152

VOTE OF THANKS TO LORD GAMBIER.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,in pursuance of his notice, rose to propose a Vote of Thanks to lord Gambier for his eminent services in destroying the French fleet in the Basque roads. In doing this he conceived it would be unnecessary for him to take up much of the time of the House in detailing the services which the noble lord had performed, as from the nature of the debate just concluded, they were in possession of every information they could desire. He might fairly anticipate that the House having judged it inexpedient to produce the Minutes of the court martial, would not be anxious to listen to any arguments in support of the motion which he was about to submit. It had, however, been stated by some gentlemen, that the nature of the service was not such as to justify the House to vote its thanks to the noble lord. But when the nature of that service was known and considered, it was impossible that the House could come to any other conclusion than a Vote of Thanks. The conduct of lord Gambier on that occasion was so eminent that even those who were most disposed to object to thanks being voted on ordinary occasions, and who grounded themselves on precedent, would not find any for withholding them from commanders in chief when with the force placed under them they achieved any great service. The Sentence even of the court-martial was itself a proof that the service was performed in such a manner as to deserve thanks; he had not merely superintended the enterprise, but had, as the Sentence affirmed, conducted it with a proper regard to the interest of the state, and with peculiar zeal for the good of the service. The execution of the service deserved, therefore, peculiar notice, and he would shortly detain the House by stating some of the circumstances attending the accomplishment of it. The French fleet had escaped from Brest on the 23d of March; they were seen by admiral Stopford, who had at that time three sail of the line, and some small frigates going into Basque roads. The French fleet consisted of eight sail of the line, and several frigates. Admiral Stopford gave the sig-

243
nal that the enemy had escaped, and proceeded to blockade them with his small force, until he was joined by four sail more. The Rochefort squadron, consisting of three ships of the line, having joined the Brest fleet, continued to be blockaded by those seven sail, until the 11th or 12th of April, when lord Gambier having arrived, made those arrangements for the attack, which was began by the Mediator, capt. Wooldridge. There were some circumstances which he must mention with respect to this gallant officer, which the House would be glad to hear, as they reflected the greatest credit upon his gallantry. As the Mediator bore down to her station, the fuze was set on fire. At length the crew were dismissed; and the Captain, with the first lieutenant and a gunner, alone remained on board. They remained not merely till they were in danger, but till they were actually blown up! The captain and his lieutenant escaped with their lives; the gunner was killed—a most noble instance of the most daring and heroic bravery. The attack, having been thus commenced on the night of the 13th successively, was followed up the next day by the noble lord (Cochrane) with peculiar gallantry; the consequence was, that no less than three sail of the line and a fifty gun ship were completely destroyed. The House therefore would not be disposed, he trusted, to refuse its thanks for eminent services when performed under such great peril arid risk whilst the enemy were possessed of the protection of their own batteries, and other advantages which in harbour they could bring into play for the security of their own vessels. It was an enterprise of great and peculiar hazard and difficulty. The result had been highly injurious to the enemy, and had the effect of not only disabling, but of removing the enemy's whole squadron from the possibility of being for a considerable time available for the purposes of the naval campaign. Was not that an object of great magnitude? The fleet no doubt was destined to perform some great operation, which this service had rendered them not only incapable of accomplishing, but had entirely annihilated their whole force. Of this service in which lord Gambier had been employed, and had so successfully executed, the utmost attention had been paid to the interests of the state: not more than 20 lives had been lost, and not more than 30 or forty wounded. The right hon. gent. concluded with moving
244
the following Resolutions. 1."That the thanks of this House be given to admiral the right hon. lord Gambier, for the zeal, judgment, ability, and anxious attention to the welfare of his Majesty's service, which marked his lordship's conduct as commander in chief of the fleet in Basque roads, by which the French fleet, which had taken refuge under the protection of their own batteries, were driven on shore and disabled, and a considerable part of them destroyed on the 11th and 12th of April 1809. 2. That the thanks of this House be given to rear-admiral the hon. Robert Stopford, captain sir Harry Burrard Neale, bart., captain of the fleet, and to the several captains and officers of the fleet under the command of admiral lord Gambier, for their gallant and highly meritorious conduct on that glorious occasion, particularly marked by the brilliant and unexampled success of the difficult and perilous mode of attack by fire-ships, conducted under the immediate direction of capt. lord Cochrane. 3. That this House doth highly approve of and acknowledge the services of the seamen and royal marines on board the ships under the command of admiral lord Gambier, in the late glorious and successful attack on the French fleet in Basque roads, and that the captains and commanders of the several ships do signify the same to their respective crews, and do thank them for their meritorious and gallant conduct."
On the question being put on the first Resolution,
Lord Cochranewarned the House, that even its verdict was not conclusive upon character; that, there was another tribunal to which even that House was amenable, and that the public would exercise a judgment, if the House would not exercise one. He still required to know what part of lord Gambier's exploit deserved the thanks, or what had been his exploit. He lay at a distance; he never brought his fleet into the place of action, or of danger; and yet he was for this supineness to receive the highest honours of the country. The ground of ministers was childish and frivilous; that in truth where the subordinates deserved praise, the superiors must receive it. Was admiral Parker thanked for his bravery at Copenhagen? But the public would take the question into its own hands. The public would read the Minutes, though the House might not; the public would judge from the facts, though the House

245
might not; the public would not submit to have their eyes bound, because the House chose to keep theirs shut. Let a single reason for the thanks be adduced, and he was ready to vote for them. He could not condescend to call those arguments, which had already been obtruded on the House, reasons.
Sir John Orde.Mr. Speaker; I rise to declare my opinion, that admiral lord Gambler is as fully entitled to the thanks of this House as any commander in chief could be for the performance of a service such as that we now deliberate upon; and therefore, as thanks to his lordship have been proposed, I shall vote for them. Sir, I entertained this opinion of lord Gambier's conduct in the service alluded to before the prorogation of Parliament, and their lordships of the admiralty appeared to do the same. I could not, therefore, but much regret the cause which prevented the proposition for thanks being submitted to parliament when first intended, as at that time the service was fresh in the recollection of the community.
Sir Francis Burdettdesired to know whether the service of lord Gambier was worthy of the thanks of parliament, admitting it to have all the value that could be attributed to it, by any thing but the unblushing and profuse spirit of ministerial favouritism. He would ask whether, on the other hand, there was not the full and decided testimony of a man adequate to give his judgment, and of whose admirable valour and good fortune the House and the nation had but one opinion. He felt that in making these remarks, he might be treading on perilous ground. He was probably bringing upon himself some charitable remarks, particularly those of a gentleman, whose charity was of a very peculiar nature. But he was careless about such remarks; he deprecated that person's charity; he would not shun, he would rather solicit his hostility. Had there been any thing said to make out a reason for the vote which was demanded of them on that night? Where was the evidence of intrepidity or skill, of that boldness which bursts its way through all obstacles; of that genius before which obstacles vanished? For all this they were only insulted with a dry catalogue of negatives, and an account that the noble, admiral inspected the action at a distance of seven miles. The question had been treated lightly; but levity was unbe-
246
coming the grave matter for their deliberation. The subject was of great importance; and it merited to be most seriously considered.
Mr. Windhamhaving doubts on the vote which he should give, would wish to state what they were, but still more strongly what they were not. He was adverse to the revisal of the decisions of courts-martial; but the Vote of Thanks forced him to put himself to the trouble of thinking a little. He thought a motion for papers on such a subject was unnecessary; the thanks of that House did not deserve to be lavished on any man, unless his service was of that rank which forced itself into universal report, and universal admiration. It was not to be evolved in some obscure process of official chemistry; not to be drawn out from under bundles of obscure records; not to be elicited by any keen, cunning, recondite, subtilizing process, beyond the practice or perception of the general mass of mankind. To be praised it must be known; to be matter of thanks it must be matter of publicity. He then adverted to the instance of sir Home Popham, in which he accused the conduct of the admiralty, as taking away its effect from the sentence of a court-martial, by conferring situations of confidence on him, subsequently to his having received a reprimand. Lord Gambier never came into the action. This was admitted by all the evidence, yet this should not throw a stain upon him. It was not his place. The aspersion thrown upon him for sparing the lives of his men was idle. It was the highest praise of the first military characters that they saved blood. Great commanders hated the unnecessary waste of human lives. They were careful of their men, and it was their proudest boast that they accomplished their victories without the unnecessary expenditure of a single soldier. But in voting thanks it was time to pause. Their old rewards were become worthless. It had been said, that nothing was left but the peerage, and even the most lavish disposal of that high honour; they gave it away by two steps at once. This was the natural process where there was no distinct scale of merit and reward; but it was time to stop. They had in their hands the great provision for national virtue; they had the honours of the country intrusted to them, and it became them, as legislators, not to suffer its streams to be idly diverted, nor

247
to be prodigally and profusely poured forth, to slake the thirst of undeserving ambition; still panting, still insatiable.
A division then took place, and the numbers were,

For the Motion

161

Against it

39

Majority

—122

The other Resolutions were then passed nem. con.

GENERAL ORDERS RESPECTING THE BATTLE OF TALAVERA.—
Earl Grey,referring to what had been said by the earl of Liverpool, on Friday night, respecting the impression made by the receipt of intelligence of the Battle of Talavera, and the General Orders issued upon that occasion; wished to be informed, who the Military advisers of his Majesty were; the noble earl made use of that term, in stating by whose advice those General Orders were issued.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the term military advisers, applied to the Commander in Chief and his Staff, but he did not mean to state, that it was solely by their

211
advice that the General Orders, referred to, were issued; but, on the contrary, he stated that his Majesty's ministers were responsible for that measure, it having been adopted with their concurrence.
Earl Greythought the statement of the noble earl not sufficiently satisfactory, as it did not explain by whose advice the General Orders were issued. If those orders were merely the act of his Majesty's ministers, then the impression, which the noble earl talked of, was merely that which they themselves had created.
The Earl of Liverpoolcontended that it was not a proper question to ask, at whose suggestion any measure was adopted. He had already stated, that his Majesty's ministers were responsible for the Orders alluded to. His Majesty's military advisers would not, of course, direct the adoption of any measure without the permission of his Majesty's government, nor would the latter adopt any military measure without the concurrence of the former.
Earl Greyobserved, that he must then be satisfied with understanding that his Majesty's military advisers and his Majesty's ministers had both agreed in issuing the General Orders.
The conversation here dropped.

EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT.
The Earl of Liverpoolpresented a number of Papers, consisting of Military Correspondence, &c. relative to this Expedition, and observed, that the greater part of the Papers would be ready for delivery on Wednesday.
The Marquis of Lansdowne,referring to the notice he had given on a former day for Thursday next, for a motion of inquiry respecting the Campaign, said, that the House of Commons having since determined to institute an inquiry, and which he was bound to suppose would be a strict and effectual inquiry into the causes and consequences of the calamitous Expedition to the Scheldt, and it having been suggested to him, that as the result of that Inquiry might be to bring the authors of those calamities, whoever they were, judicially before that House, it would not be proper to adopt any proceeding which might tend to prejudge a question on which they might be afterwards called upon judicially to decide; he therefore moved to discharge the order for the attendance of their lordships on Thursday, reserving to himself the right of again bringing forward the question at a future period, if circumstances should render it necessary. At the same
212
time, as it was requisite they should have every possible information before them, he wished to give notice of his intention to move on Monday for some further Papers in addition to those produced by ministers.