upon our own? If the ministers of Spain had every thing in so good a state of defence at Ferrol, it is clear that the ministers of this country must have been deceived in their views when they resolved on the expedition. The House, then, must choose, whether or not they will acquit the hon. general upon a defence, which, if well founded, implies, that the planners of the expedition were deficient ly of a military nature; but the hon. general has made it plain, and such as every man is qualified to decide upon.-In this House, Sir, I have observed, that it is of advantage to men individually to have connexions. It is of advantage often to the public, however, that they should On both sides of the House, men are influenced by them; and a regard to them frequently prevents the full investigation and the unreserved discus-in information. Besides, supposing a sion of a subject. From their connexions and their bias I am perfectly free. One hon. gentleman, after admitting that blame existed somewhere, said, ministers were entirely exculpated by the statement of the hon. general who commanded the expedition. On the other hand, the right hon. secretary, or whatever else he may now be, justified the hon. general in the execution of the plan. This sort of mutual apology and defence may do very well for the parties that are liable to accusation; but when a question is so discussed, truth is utterly lost sight of. Perhaps the next secretary of state may find it convenient to depart from both conclusions, and to adopt a new line of justification. Amidst these opposite statements I feel some embarrassment. Though an old man, I am a young member; yet when a difficulty occurs in the choice of ground, I think it safest to prefer that which I consider to be just and frue. Some gentlemen have expressed their satisfaction with the explanation which the hon. general has given of his conduct; but it is that very explanation which induces me to think that there must be something wrong in the execution of the plan. The principal authority on which the hon. general rested his defence was, the Madrid gazette, and a letter by which it was accompanied. The Spanish minister of marine, it seems, gives a free statement of the preparations that had been made to receive attack, of the excellent posture of defence, of the plan, and of every thing that could exalt his own reputation for vigilance and promptitude. But surely ministers must know too well, from their own experience, that such pompous accounts are not to be taken as exactly true. But consider whither this species of justification, if admitted in favour of the hon. general, would carry us? Will the House acquiesce in the compliments which a Spanish minister chooses to pay himself, when this would be to infer a censure general who actually had not done his duty to have been arraigned of misconduct, could he not, though guilty, have made the same sort of defence? Look at it; weigh it. Who are to be the judges of an officer's conduct? Not the navy, says the hon. general, for they could not see the place. Not the inferior officers, for they were doing something else at the time. Thus the general is the only per son competent to decide on the propriety of his own measures; all other testimony is rejected. It does not appear to me, therefore, that the hon. general has fully justified himself. The right hon. secretary appears to have exculpated himself; but, to clear up all doubts, let the House inquire. I hope the question will be carried, though, if it is, the precedent may prejudice my personal interest in the sequel. If the House refuse to go into a committee of inquiry, with what propriety can they enter into the merits of the borough of Old Sarum and its member? How can they plunge themselves into inquiries and discussions about what is, or what is not a priest, and whether a thirty years quarantine is not sufficient to guard against the infection of his original character? Yet, in recommending this line of conduct to the House, I sacrifice my interest to my duty; as well as I sacrifice my wishes to truth in defending the right hon. secretary of state; a ser vice which he never has done, and I dare say never will do for me. General Gascoyne contended, that there were circumstances in the expedition, which called for inquiry. It had been said, improperly, that the army had been disgraced. An army, he conceived could not be disgraced but by misbehaviour in the face of an enemy. The army, however, had fallen into some sort of disrepute, and an inquiry was called for to restore its credit. Inquiry was necessary to allay the jealousy which had arisen between the naval and military service, and to vindicate the national honour. T Mr. Ellison thought the expedition had failed in such a manner as justified the country in desiring to see the affair investigated. He thought, however, that a military court would be the best mode of inquiring into a subject that involved so many points that could be understood only by military persons. He was of opinion that ministers had cleared themselves from any blame. It was nonsensical to talk of their skulking out of office, and flying from responsibility. Out of office they were responsible for every part of their conduct in it, and he believed they would not shrink from inquiry. Mr. Pitt said: I agree with the hon. gentleman that, when real grounds of suspicion attach to any military operation, a military court is the most proper tribunal; yet I cannot admit, that mere failure, unaccompanied by those circumstances that point out blame somewhere, affords of itself any ground for inquiry Inquiries like those proposed, even inquiries by a military court, impede the service they cherish and perpetuate animosities and divisions. These I do not state as bars to inquiry, but as inconveniences necessarily resulting from it, and to be weighed against the advantage proposed. Inquiry, therefore, cannot with prudence be entered into, but when presumptions are so strong as to require, for the interest and honour of the nation, that they should be cleared up. It has been stated, that doubts, surmises, reports have gone abroad and agitated men's minds on the subject of the expedition. Whatever doubts gentlemen may have come into the House with, their doubts must be removed by the manly statement of the hon. general. Among civil men, at least, that statement ought to be conclusive. With respect to the planning of the expedition, so far from its being unwise, most of the arguments on the other side proceeded on the idea that the object was The good effects that would have resulted from it are extolled to magnify the failure. Eleven sail of the line, a great naval arsenal, the capture or destruction of these would have been a great and glorious achievement? But then ministers are said to have wanted information. But, certainly, enough of information had been received to justify an experiment. If, however, the mere circumstance of the expedition having failed is a presumption against the officer who conducted it; if it be said that the object should have succeeded, surely it is a conclusion that exceeds all the rapidity even of military movements, to infer that the ministers who planned the expedition were deficient in prudence and destitute of information. The fact is, that the information we possessed was such as to satisfy, not merely us, but also that reflecting and judicious officer who conducted it, and who, by his justification of himself this day, must add to the good opinion which was previously entertained of his sense and understanding. There was information enough to satisfy, of the utility of the plan, a noble lord who has distinguished himself in every branch of service. Lord St. Vincent gave his suffrage in favour of the plan. If, then, an expedition that confessedly would have been so beneficial was embraced on good grounds; if it was relinquished when there was no chance of succeeding without more than an adequate risk, can it be said that ministers skulk from responsibility, because they do agree in thinking that there are no fair presumptions against them? Whatever responsibility attached to us in office, will follow us to a private station; and we are ready to meet any inquiry which the House may judge it proper to institute. With regard to the inquiry proposed, as it proceeds upon no grounds of suspicion, and as it would be attended with great inconvenience to the public interest, I feel myself bound to vote against it. Mr. Grey said:-I cannot agree that the right hon. secretary and the planners of the expedition, are completely exculpated. Neither can I agree that the hon. general has removed every imputation to which his conduct may have been liable. Above all, I protest against the doctrine of those who represent any place better fitted than the House of Commons for the prosecution of such an inquiry. It has been the practice of the House to conduct inquiries into every branch of administration, and with the greatest benefit to the public. But if the objection now be merely on account of the superior advantages of a court of inquiry, there has been time enough given for making the choice; and if a court of inquiry had taken place, perhaps the present motion might not have been made. In the situation in which the matter now stands, the House, I conceive, would fail in its duty to the public in refusing an inquiry. I am unwilling to give any opinion upon the propriety of the original design; but I am sure, from reviewing the circumstances of the failure, that blame must exist somewhere. From every thing I have heard of the hon. general who commanded, joined to some degree of personal acquaintance with him, I cannot allow myself to suppose that the honour and interest of the country would suffer in his hands. Yet I do think that, in the expedition to Ferrol, the honour and interest of the nation have suffered; and therefore, for his sake, as well as for that of the public, I shall support the motion. sider the most effectual means of promul gating the Statutes of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Agreed to. Proceedings in the Commons on the High Price of Provisions.] Feb. 23. Mr. Bankes reported, that the committee on the High Price of Provisions had come to the following Resolutions: "1. That that part of the united kingdom called Great Britain be divided into twelve districts; and that premiums, not exceeding in the whole the sum of 12,000l. be offered for the cultivation of potatoes, by proprie tors and occupiers of land, not being cottagers. 2. That the following premiums be granted in each district, viz, to the person who shall, in the present year, cultivate on land, now in his occupation, which has not been used as potatoe or hop ground, or yielding any arable crop during the last seven years, the greatest number of statute acres of potatoes, producing, on an average, not less than 200 bushels per acre (each bushel weighing not less than 60 lbs.) The number of acres, not being less than 30, 300l. For the next greatest Committee appointed to consider of promulgating the Statutes.] Feb. 27. Mr. Abbot said, he rose to move for the appointment of a committee to consider of the means for more effectually promulgat-number, not being less than 20 acres 2001. ing the Statutes; and he wished to submit to that committee whether some farther extension might not be given to the circulation of acts of parliament; and in order to this, he meant to suggest the expediency of conveying to the resident justices of the peace, an additional number of such public acts. His only difficulty when he first mentioned the subject, was, the expense which might attend this alteration. In 1797, he found that not more than 1100 public acts were printed, of which the expense was above 7,000l. a year; and that but few of these were circulated beyond London; whereas above 4,000 copies would be wanted for distribution to the courts of justice, cities, and towns corporate, and acting justices of the peace. He had no notion of the wisdom of that sort of public economy which tended to impede the circulation of the acts that were expected to be carried into execution. He hoped, that the public acts would be circulated upon one simple principle, throughout Great Britain and Ireland; since nothing would tend more to that identity of habits and manners, so necessary to the identity of interests, throughout every part of the united kingdom. He then moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to con 10 acres, 100l.; 7 acres, 70l.; 6 acres, 60!. 4 acres, 401.;3 acres, 30%.'; to the next ten greatest number, not being less than 2 acres each, 201. each making 2001. 3. That premiums to the amount of 13,000! be offered for the encouragement of the culture of potatoes, by cottagers in Eng. land and Wales, to be distributed in sums not exceeding 201. for each district or di vision, in which magistrates act at their petty sessions in their several counties, and that such day labourer, artificer, or manufacturer, being a cottager in each of the said districts or divisions, who shallraise on land in his occupation, in the present year, the largest average crop of potatoes per perch. In not less than 12 perches of land, 107. ; to the second largest cropon ditto 61. To the third largest crop on ditto 41. 4. That a sum, not exceeding 3,000l. be granted for encouraging the cultivation of potatoes, by cottagers, in that part of the united kingdom called Scotland, in such sums, and under such conditions, as may be approved by the board of agriculture. 5. That a sum, not exceeding 2,000l. be granted to the board of agriculture, for the purpose of being distributed by them, in honorary premiums, to such owners or occupiers of land as shall allot the greatest quantities of land among cottagers this year, to be planted, with potatoes, in portions of not more than three-fourths, nor less than one fourth of a statute rood." March 2. The House resolved itself into a committee on the said report. Mr. Ryder having moved the first resolution, Mr. Buxton contended, that the present high price of potatoes was a sufficient bounty of itself. That all bounties were injurious, and that it was always best to allow that crop to be cultivated which would prove most profitable. By this measure the landed interest must suffer severely, as there would soon be not an acre of pasture land in the kingdom. Almost every farmer was bound, under a severe penalty, not to break up the meadows on his farm; but the conditions of every lease might now be violated with impunity. Mr. Wilberforce said, that the intention of the committee was not to take away from the pasture land, but to apply to the growth of potatoes land that was not now productive. The hon. gentleman had appealed to the landed interest; but they certainly had no interest in keeping up the price of provisions; on the contrary, it must be the object of all men, in all situations, to increase the quantity of provisions for public consumption, and thereby to reduce the price. The question was, whether, by adopting this resolution, they should take the most probable means of procuring for the public a great supply of provisions, which otherwise they would not have? The whole expense would not exceed 30,000l.; and if it was at all operative, it must produce a considerable quantity of food, and materially reduce the price of other articles of life. There was, however, one part of the plan of the committee, on which there could not be two opinions; and that was, the encouragement which it was proposed to give to cottagers. Mr. Buxton said, the board of agriculture had proceeded upon speculation, which he did not think the legislature ought to encourage. His objection to the resolution was, that it proposed a bounty upon one particular article of food, to the prejudice of the growth of corn in general. Mr. Horne Tooke said :-I am one who might be very little expected to talk upon agricultural subjects, particularly on an occasion in which I am neither compelled nor called upon to make an harangue; I am, however, not afraid of exposing myself in what I have to say. I fear that the committees on the high price of provisions have, with the best intentions in the world strayed out of the way. Had I been a member of the last parliament, when the poisoning act (for I can call the Brown Bread act by no other name) passed, I should have exerted every means in my power to have prevented it. This first union parliament has well begun its proceedings by repealing that act. The premium now proposed can do nothing but mischief. Besides the injustice of making the landholder pay the premium out of his own estate, the misery must extend to the whole country, unless the whole scheme of keeping down the price of provisions be changed. Necessity has raised them to their present price. It is vain for you to struggle against necessity! You cannot keep down the price of provisions unless you keep down the national debt. It is by an artificial struggle to keep down the price of provisions that you cannot keep it down. If you will suffer the price of all commodities to rise to their natural level, and do every thing for the country by doing nothing at all, you will save millions of lives, and millions of acts of parliament. You have proceeded so far, that, instead of keeping down the prices of provisions, you have raised then. The strangest man may strike out something for the general good. I am supposed to be a great friend to innovations of every kind. I have been represented as an innovator, but I do not deserve that title. My "vital Christianity" leads me to think that the strongest reason for being on the side of an established religion and government is, because it is established. I look to what is established, and approve of it--not because it is the best, but because it is established. Let any man examine what have been the sentiments that upon every occasion have fallen from me, and he will find that I have uniformly been against innovation. On the same ground I am against this innovation. Iam against its principle. It is unjust that a man should be paying a premium against himself. The prices have risen, notwithstanding all you have done to prevent it; and they will rise in spite of your teeth. The sooner they rise, the better for the country. Whether you offer premiums, whether you give bounties, or whether you do not, still the effect will be the the rest. same. An hon. gentleman wished somebody would suggest how the cottager might be made happy? I will tell him how. The cottager will be made happy by raising every thing in proportion to the price of provisions, his labour among Labour has risen, and it must rise higher. The price of labour must go up; you may struggle to keep it down by artificial means; but up it must go, do what you will. It is in vain for you to struggle against that which you cannot control; you must suffer labour to be raised with the price of provisions. You may go on making acts of parliament in one session, and repealing them the next; but you will do no good. But then it may be asked were will the storm fall? I will tell you it will fall upon the public creditor. What is the situation of the public creditor? he lends the public 100l. for which he is paid 37. 10s. interest: that may be 100 quarten loaves, or 40, or 20, according to the price. He is therefore the person who suffers by the rise of the price of provisions. To the few who deserve assistance, let assistance be given. The landed gentleman does not suffer; he can raise his rents: the revenue does not suffer that must be provided; no one suffers but the national creditor. It is not that the money he receives as interest for his capital is less, it is that the quantity of goods he receives for his money is less; and he will be still receiving less and less, while your taxes will be rising more and more. If the next administration mean to go on like the last, they have an interest in proposing premiums-they may otherwise be fearful of not having money lent them. I am sure it would be better for the country if no man would lend them a groat. Let them take three-fourths of a man's interest or property from him, and take off the taxes, and they would be doubly gainers by it. I undertake to maintain and prove this proposition. Reduce the national debt, and we may laugh and sing at home, and bid defiance to all the world if you do not reduce it, the consequence will be, that instead of paying the national creditor 120 loaves for the interest of his 100%. you will go on till you only pay him two or three. Depend upon it, that will be the fate of the national creditor. The resolutions were agreed to. Debate in the Commons on the Irish Martial Law Bill.] March 12. Lord | Castlereagh having moved, that the act made in the parliament of Ireland, in the 39th of the king, intituled, "An Act for the Suppression of the Rebellion which still unhappily exists within this Kingdom. and for the Protection of the Persons and Properties of his Majesty's faithful Subjects within the same," might be read, Mr. Sheridan said:-I rise to object to the reading of that act with the view to its continuance, and mean to move that the House should adjourn. It is my intention to make this last attempt to induce the noble lord not to bring forward this question at the present momentous crisis. After hearing his majesty's commission read to pass several public bills, we have a right to assume that there can exist but a very short interval before we shall receive a communication upon the present subject, and without waiting for such communication, we violate the respect due to his majesty. Whatever information may be afforded by the noble lord, who calls upon the House to continue a measure of the Irish parliament, I am not bound to receive as authentic. I know that noble lord to have been a most able member of the Irish parliament; but he must allow me to say, that we know no thing of him in this House as a minister. He does not appear among the list of responsible ministers of his majesty. If ever there was a measure respecting which we should have a communication from the crown, it is this very measure, which operates to the subversion of the whole law of Ireland, and places the people of that country under martial law at the discretion of the crown. I know the noble lord will say, that the act of the Irish parliament for reviving this measure previous to the last period of its expiration, was a proceeding assented to with. out any communication from the crown; but let me ask him, was it not originally adopted, in consequence of a communication? In case of rebellion or invasion, his majesty has, by virtue of his prerogative, a right to have recourse to martial law; but assuredly subject to the respon. sibility of those ministers who direct the assumption of such a power in the crown. Have we such a necessity to justify our consenting to the continuance of martial law in Ireland? The noble lord may have information of new rebellions, and new invasions. If I have a distinct pledge that he is in possession of information te such effect, I am bound then to act upon |