March 2. Mr. Whitbread's Motion relative to the Earl of Chatham's Narrative Mr. Whitbread's Motion relative to the Earl of Chatham's Narrative 22. Vote of Thanks to Sir Robert Wilson.... Treasurer of the Post Office in Ireland 23. Lincoln's Inn Benchers-Mr. Farquharson's Petition SIR FRANCIS BURDETT TO HIS CONSTITUENTS; DENYING The Power OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TO IMPRISON THE PEOPLE OF ENGLALND Expedition to the Scheldt-Adjourned Debate 28. Mr. Lethbridge's Complaint against Sir Francis Burdett-Adjourned 29. Expedition to the Scheldt-Adjourned Debate April 3. Sir Francis Burdett's Motion respecting Captain Warwick Lake and April 17. Petition from Westminster for the Release of Sir Francis Burdett 18. Dispute with America ..... Disturbances in the Metropolis, in consequence of the Commitment of Sir Francis Burdett to the Tower..... Captain Foskett's Petition .... 737 2. Petition from Middlesex for the Release of Sir Francis Burdett, &c. Motion respecting the late Treasurer of the Post Office in Ireland 9. Sir Francis Burdett's Process against the Serjeant at Arms ........... 915 Petition from the Livery of London respecting the Commitment of Sir Petition from Reading respecting a Reform in Parliament Sir Francis Burdett's Process against the Speaker 11. Sir Francis Burdett's Notice to the Earl of Moira Proceedings respecting Sir Francis Burdett's Notices.... 14. Affairs of the East India Company PAPERS RELATING TO THE EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT-Concluded from Ap- Copy of the Earl of Chatham's Statement of his Proceedings; dated PETITION of the East India Company for Relief ....... from Westminster for the Release of Sir Francis Burdett ....... 1115 from the Proprietors of the late Theatre Royal Drury Lane from Middlesex for the Release of Sir Francis Burdett, &c. from the Livery of London respecting the Commitment of Sir Francis LIST of the Minority in the House of Lords, March 2, on the Marquis of Lans- down's Motion relative to the King's Answer to the City of London respecting the Expedition to the Scheldt... of the Minority and also of the Majority in the House of Commons, March 30, on Lord Porchester's Motion relative to the Expedition to the Scheldt 422 of the Minority in the House of Commons, April 5, on Sir Robert Salus- bury's Motion for the Commitment of Sir Francis Burdett to the Tower 547 of the Minority in the House of Commons, April 13, on Mr. Parnell's Mo- THE Parliamentary Debates During the Fourth Session of the Fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the Kingdom of Great Britain the Twenty-first, appointed to meet at Westminster, the Twenty-third Day of January, 1810, in the Fiftieth Year of the Reign of His Majesty King GEORGE the Third. [Sess. 1810. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, March 2, 1810. [CORN DISTILLATION PROHIBITION BILL.] Upon the order of the day being read, that the House do go into a Committee upon this Bill, The Earl of Hardwicke, in pursuance of the notice he gave yesterday, conceived it his duty to propose a limited period for the duration of the bill now before their lordships. He had been induced to adopt this mode of conduct, in consequence of the defect of information, how far this measure would be expedient for the interests of the country. If the present bill were limited to the duration of three months, it would afford the House an opportunity of examining the documents which had previously been moved for, and which would enable their lordships to form a correct opinion upon the policy of the measure; he should therefore move the alteration accordingly, in order that the bill might expire in May, and not in September. Earl Bathurst expressed his doubt whether this alteration would answer its intended purport; and he really apprehended, that persons interested in the event of this bill passing into a law, would thereby be thrown into such uncertainty as would be materially injurious to their interest. The amendment was then proposed, when a division took place-For the Amendment 18; Against it 21; Majority -3. The bill afterwards passed through the Committee. VOL. XVI. [THE KING'S ANSWER TO THE CITY OF LONDON RESPECTING THE EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT.] The order of the day having been read, the marquis of Lansdown desired, as a preliminary step, that the Narrative presented by lord Chatham to his Majesty might be read. The Narrative was accordingly read by the clerk, upon which, The Marquis of Lansdown rose to submit the motion of which he had given notice for a previous day, to the consideration of their lordships. He had postponed his motion on the former day, in consequence of the noble earl, the author of the Narrative, having to attend in another place, but he had hoped that on this day the noble earl would have been in his place. He had thought it, however, his duty to desire that the Narrative should be read, in order that their lordships might be in full possession of its contents. It was deeply to be regretted, that the author of the Narrative should have attempted to cast a blot upon that profession, to weaken public confidence in which was to darken the horizon and to dim the prospects of the country. He did not mean now to enter into a discussion of the policy and the conduct of the calamitous Expedition to the Scheldt, that must be reserved till another opportunity; he should therefore in the present instance confine himself to a very limited object. The author of the Narrative which their lordships had just heard read, was one of his Majesty's ministers, with whom his colleagues had daily opportunities of communication; A upon that most important and valuable ser vice.-It would be recollected, also, that the ministers who had thus advised his Majesty to refuse inquiry into the petition of his subjects, where inquiry was so imperiously demanded, were the same ministers. who, on a former occasion, when a petition from the same corporation called for inquiry into the disgraceful affair of the convention of Cintra, had advised his Ma thus coming to ask for inquiry, and to state, that his Majesty was desirous at all times to institute inquiry, where, as in that case, the hopes and expectations of the nation had been disappointed. The same ministers too, who when intending to move the thanks of parliament to a naval commanding officer, upon only hearing it intimated that an officer who commanded a single ship in the fleet intended, not to prefer a charge, but to oppose the Vote of Thanks, immediately instituted a court martial upon the officer in command, yet, who had refused inquiry in the case of this calamitous Expedition to the Scheldt, where so many circumstances demanded it-where it was called for to clear the character of the navy from the reproach cast upon it by the author of the Narrative-where it was called for by the general voice and the universal feeling of the country. Did his Majesty's ministers intend to shield themselves under his Ma and from whom, having these daily opportunities of communication, it was to be supposed his colleagues must have learnt those circumstances detailed in the Narrative, each of which imperiously demanded inquiry; an inquiry, however, had been deemed unnecessary by his Majesty's confidential servants. It had happened that a corporation amongst the first in the country in importance and dignity, had assembled, for the purpose of consi-jesty to reprove the citizens of London for dering of a petition to his Majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to direct an immediate and effectual inquiry into the causes of the calamitous failure which had attended the Walcheren Expedition, and had determined upon one to that effect, which, in speaking the opinion of that corporation, also spoke the decided and unanimous opinion of the whole country. It had happened also that from some circumstances, a considerable interval elapsed between the determination to present this petition and the delivery of it, giving his Majesty's ministers still further time to inform themselves of the real circumstances attending that Expedition. Was it to be believed, then, that for three months from the time of the arrival of the noble earl, the author of the Narrative, in this country, in September, and the period of delivering the petition to which he had alluded, in December, his Majesty's ministers should have had no communication with their colleague, relative to the cir-jesty's sacred name and authority? He cumstances which had caused the failure of the Expedition? Was it to be believed, that when every voice in England was lifted up to demand inquiry into the causes of these calamities which had afflicted the country-that when every mind in Eng-lieved, that they were ignorant of the senland was intent upon the calamitous circumstances of this Expedition-that there should be nine or ten individuals wholly indifferent to these calamities, and wholly regardless of the public feeling and the public anxiety, and wholly negligent in inquiring into the causes of these evils so generally deplored-and that these nine or ten individuals should be his Majesty's ministers?-Yet their lordships would find, by the Answer given to the city of London, that his Majesty's ministers had advised his Majesty to say, that he had not deemed it necessary to institute any inquiry; and this notwithstanding all the circumstances detailed in the Narrative, and which so loudly demanded an inquiry for the sake of the navy, to remove that stain which had been attempted to be cast trusted the country would not be deceived by such an artifice, nor suffer them to take advantage of the sanctuary of a temple profaned by such unhallowed steps, and polluted by such hands. Was it to be timents and opinions of the author of the Narrative? was it to be believed, that, having daily opportunities of communication with the noble earl, the author of the Narrative, one of their colleagues, the master general of the ordnance, and the military commander in chief of the Expedition, they should have neglected to have required him to give them all the information in his power upon the subject of the Expedition; that they should with all their opportunities of information and explanation, have remained in utter ignorance of the opinions and sentiments of their colleagues, in utter ignorance even of many material facts relating to this Expedition? He could not believe that it was in this utter ignorance of the facts and circumstances stated by their colleague in his |