60 



ANNUAL REGISTER, ISIO. 



because, having been given in a 

 garbled shape, its immediate effect 

 was, to point the censure of the 

 public against lord Chatham, 

 The gallant admiral had given the 

 same satisfactory account of it at 

 Walcheren that he had recently 

 given in the House of Commons, 

 namely, that he had never con- 

 ceived it was to be made public, 

 and that he had no other object 

 in it, than to pass a merited enco- 

 mium on the force under his im- 

 mediate command. But why did 

 ministers publish only an extract 

 of the dispatch ? Sir Richard had 

 therein informed them of an im- 

 pending scarcity of provisions. 

 Not a word of this had come out ; 

 because to have stated that there 

 remained only a supply for ten 

 days in store, while our force 

 amounted to 70,000 men, would 

 have been to tell the public, that 

 there was an end of the expedi- 

 tion. — Lord Rosslyn disclaimed 

 any idea, in what he stated, of 

 throwing any imputation whatever 

 on sir Richard Strachan, or the 

 navy. He considered sir Richard 

 as an ornament to his profession, 

 •and was convinced that he, his 

 officers, and seamen, did every 

 thing in their power : nor was 

 there any thing in lord Chatham's 

 narrative meant to convey an in- 

 sinuation to the contrary. The 

 facts there stated would ultimate- 

 ly be found to fix the blame on the 

 boardof admiralty . — He also spoke 

 very handsomely of lord Chatham. 

 Though he had not any connec- 

 tion whatever with him, except 

 what had arisen from the circum- 

 stance of serving under his com- 

 mand, he woulii assert, that he 

 never remarked in that noble lord 

 any want of zeal or energy, or any 



deficiency in the qualitiesrcquisite 

 for the due discharge of the trust 

 reposed in him. He concluded 

 with some observations on the il- 

 liberal treatment which lord Chat- 

 ham had received on the part of 

 the public journalists, and parti- 

 cularly those that supported the 

 ministry. 



Lord Vassal Holland observed, 

 that if the minister had the in- 

 formation communicated by lord 

 Chatham at the time they gave 

 the answer to the London address, 

 then they were culpable in a very 

 high degree ; for it appeared that 

 one of the commanders did, in his 

 official narrative, accuse the other, 

 whicli wa?, unquestionably, a suf- 

 ficient ground for inquiry. If 

 again, lord Chatham had availed 

 himself of his situation, as a privy 

 counsellor to give that narrative 

 to the king without the knowledge, 

 not only of tl'.e admiral and the 

 public, but even of his colleagues, 

 what were their lordships to think 

 of such proceedings? Would it 

 be asserted, in that case, that 

 there was not an influence behind 

 the throne, diffiirentfromthat of the 

 ostensible servants of the Crown ? 

 — The earl of Westmoreland said, 

 that there were no reflections 

 against either of the commanders 

 of the Scheldt expedition in the 

 public documents; and that there- 

 fore there were no grounds for 

 inquiry. — Lord Mulgrave declar- 

 ed, not only that he had never 

 seen or heard of lord Chatham's 

 narrative until the 21st of Febru- 

 ary, but that he had never con- 

 ceived the possibility of the exist- 

 ence of such a document. He 

 would, however, admit, that had 

 he seen the narrative before the 

 address of the city of London was 



