HISTORY OF EUROPE. [105 



treaty, or permit a truce. Mr. 

 Tierney's motion was negatived, 

 after a very long debate, by 14-2 

 against 34. 



A motion to the same effect, by 

 Mr. Jobnes, on the eighth of May, 

 was negatived by 59 against 51. 



Another, of the same tendency, 

 by Mr. Western, under the name 

 of a motion for an inquiry into the 

 state of the nation, on the ninth of 

 July, was negatived by 143 against 

 27- 



- The members of parliament in 

 opposition to government, not only 

 opposed the grant of a supply for 

 the entertainment of new armies, 

 but called them to account for the 

 use they had made of those already 

 at their disposal. 



On the tenth of February, Mr. 

 Sheridan, after a very long speech 

 in the house of commons, in which 

 he acquitted the commander-in- 

 chief, officers, and army, that had 

 been sent to the Helder, of all 

 blame, but arraigned the impolicy, 

 ignorance, and rashness of ministers, 

 moved, " That the house resolve it- 

 self into a committee of the whole 

 house to inquire into the causes of 

 the expedition against Holland." 



Mr. Dundas rose to assign the 

 reasons why he could not give his 

 consent to the honourable gentle- 

 man's motion. He touched on the 

 various topics, political and mili- 

 tary, introduced by Mr. Sheridan, 

 and insisted much on the advantages 

 that had accrued to Britain by the 

 Dutch expedition, particularly the 

 capture of the Dutch fleet, and the 

 diversion of the French arms from 

 the Upper Rhine to Holland. — Mr. 

 Dunda.s, on a review of the whole 

 affair, objected to all public mili- 

 tary criticism on any part of military 

 operations. This was a considera- 



tion, he said, which did not fall 

 within the scope of the charge com- 

 mitted to the honourable gentleman 

 who had made the motion, as a 

 member of parliament. He thought 

 it his duty to resist a motion of in- 

 quiry, which could not be produc- 

 tive of any benefit, at the same 

 time that it might considerably clog 

 and harass the measures of govern- 

 ment. 



Mr. Bouverie thought that the 

 business should be investigated, in 

 order to ascertain whether blame 

 was to be imputed to the projectors 

 of the expedition, or to those to 

 whom the execution of it had been 

 intrusted. So also thought all the 

 members who supported Mr. She- 

 ridan's motion. 



Mr. Tierney, in the course of a 

 long speech, in which he made 

 many shrewd remarks, said, " The 

 capitulation seems to me to enfix an 

 indelible stain on the national cha- 

 racter, and inflicts a deep wound on 

 the soldier's honour. A king's son, 

 who commanded forty thousand 

 men, capitulated to a French ge- 

 neral who had only thirty-one thou- 

 sand. We owe it to our sovereign, 

 and we owe it to our constituents, 

 to inquire strictly into the causes of 

 this unheard of disgrace. The ex- 

 pedition either failed from unfore- 

 seen accidents, or from the folly of 

 those who planned it. Let these 

 circumstances, then, be stated, or 

 let the guilty" be dragged forth to 

 punishment." 



Mr. Percival allowed that capi- 

 tulation, abstractedly considered, 

 was not a very honourable conclu- 

 sion to a military expedition. But 

 that was a mere abstract considera- 

 tion. Two of the three grand ob- 

 jects of the expedition were at- 

 tained ; the Dutch fleet was cap- 



