my such monstrous doctrine, and gave it as his opinion, that the reform recommended by the honourable baronet would only increase the danger it was designed to remedy. He would support his majesty's administration; he meant, that he would never enter into any systematic opposition against it. He approved of the address, because it did not pledge the house to any thing. As to the Walcheren expedition, that part of it which had succeeded, had been very much undervalued. The Scheldt, for four months of the year, was not navigable, and the French fleet had begun already to feel the want of their basin. The capture of Flushing was an important service. Here General Tarleton turned up his eyes.-Mr. Yorke lamented to see in his honourable friend, on the present and other occasions, such a disposition to withhold that defence from brother officers in their absence, which it would so well be come a brother officer to make. With regard to the advance of Lord Wellington to Talavera, he thought there was no part of that illustrious officer's proceedings that was not worthy of his exalted reputation. Yet if there was any thing that might admit of the nicest investigation of military criticism, he would select two points, one was, the seemingly too great rehance placed by that gallant officer on the Spaniards; the other was, his not having secured the pass of Banos, which Sir Robert Wilson had so gallantly defended against a superior force for nine hours. These were the only points on which he thought there could be any doubt.

General Tarleton still maintained that the merit of Lord Wellington was equivocal. He had blamedthat noble Lord, when present in the house, for the convention of Cintra; for to him it was almost entirely to be attributed. He might have known that it was first necessary to secure the supplies. From the days of Homer till now, armies could not march and fight without eating. General Tarleton admitted that the army had gained great glory at Talavera. But the conduct of the general was a totally distinct consideration, and that alone he blamed.

Sir John Sebright thought the present ministers incapable of serving the country efficiently at the present awful crisis. He did not blame the right honourable gentleman at the head of the government, whom he highly respected, for the dissentions and bickerings, &c. that had lately occurred in the cabinet. But if there had been an efficient head, there would have been no such dissentions. With regard to th. Walcheren expedi tion, he could not see the necessity of waiting for the production of papers before they gave their opinion upon it. What could those papers contain? Could ministers shew him a new map of Europe, essentially different from all that he had ever consulted?— As to the glorious victory of Talavera, as it had been called, there was a glory of the soldier, and a glory of the general. The former had been displayed in all its lustre at Talavera. But although he admired Lord Wellington, he did not think that he had, in the advance into Spain, acted the part of a wise generaf Before he ad

vanced,

vanced, he ought to have ascertained what was the strength of his ally, and what the position of the enemy. He beat the French; but then he was compelled to retreat, as if he had been beaten. Sir John, after adverting to the disgraceful manner in which the high offices of the state had been bandied about, animadverted on the abuse of the term, loyalty. He admitted the loyalty of Mr. Perceval, and that loyalty was a very high virtue. But he could not allow the right honourable gentleman to be the sole possessor of loyalty. No one had a right to identify himself and bis party with the king. It was equally injurious to the king, and inconsistent with the constitution.

The report being brought up and read, Mr. Whitbread, after some prefatory observations, moved an amendment to the address, the substance of which was, "that in justice to the people, the house would, on the earliest opportunity, diligently apply itself to the effecting such economical reform, as might be consistent with the welfare of the state, satisfactory to the feelings of the people, and in some measure prove an alleviation of their burthens."

The Chancellor of the Exchedid not see the least occasion

quer

for this amendment, his Majesty having promised that the estimates for the current year should be prepared with the utmost attention to economy. Mr. Ponsonby supported the amendment, on the ground that the estimates related solely to the war expenditure, while the amendment related to measures proper at all times, but particularly so at a time when the war expenditure was enormous.→→ Mr. Bathurst thought the paragraph unnecessary, as matters connected. The Earl of Temple thought it important that the house should shew a disposition to prove and examine into every abuse; for otherwise the people would be apt to think that the abuses were greater than they were.-Sir A. Pigot put the question, what con, fidence parliament could place in the assurances of ministers, that the estimates for the present year should be framed with a strict re gard to economy, when they op posed an enquiry into the profuse expenditure of the year that was past?

On a division of the house, there appeared

For Mr. Whitbread's amendment, 54.

Against it, 95.

CHAP.

tion was, a specific vote of thanks for a particular service. The motions were put and negatived.

House of Lords, January 26. The order of the day being read, the Earl of Liverpool rose, for the purpose of moving the thanks of the house to Lord Viscount Wellington, and the officers and the army under his command, for the skill and ability, the valour and bravery, by which they obtained a victory over the enemy at Talavera. In framing his motion, he had, with a view to conciliation, separated the conduct of the army, and the officer commanding, from every other subject connected with the general management of the campaign. Whatever opinion might be entertained with respect to the measures which led to the battle itself, or to the consequences which ensued, there could be but one sentiment as to the skill of the general, and the valour of the army that fought at Talavera. The thanks of both houses had been given to Sir John Stuart, and the army, for the eminent skill and valour displayed, and the splendid victory obtained by the battle of Maida; though the objects for which that battle was fought, were not obtained. It had been determined to make a concentrated attack on the combined armies. Although the Spanish army was present, and partially took a part in the battle, the brunt of the attack was principally, if not wholly, borne by the English, not amounting to more than 20,000 men. The French army fell but little short of 50,000. The enemy, after repeatedly renewing their attacks, were repulsed with the loss of nearly 10,000 men,

twenty pieces of artillery, and four standards. It was of the last importance, that such victories as that of Talavera, should be rewarded by every tribute of honour and praise, that house could bestow. It had been the good fortune of Great Britain to unite a military spirit with commercial pursuits, and every encouragement was due still further to promote that spirit. No achievement was ever more entitled to praise than the victory of Talavera.

He admitted, that if their lordships were called upon to decide on all the circumstances of the campaign, it might materially alter the question. But he wished to direct their lordship's attention solely to the conduct of the officer, and the army under his command, on the 27th and 28th of July.

Lord Liverpool concluded with moving, "That this house do return their thanks to General Lord Viscount Wellington, for the skill and ability displayed by him on the 27th and 28th of July, 1809, at Talavera.

The Earl of Suffolk said, that, as a professional man, it was with pain to his feelings he rose to state his objections to the motion of thanks to Lord Wellington. The noble earl had alluded to the battle of Maida. But that battle was decisive in its issue, and did not come in a questionable shape like the victory of Talavera. He could not denominate that a victory where a retreat immediately followed, and the wounded and the prisoners fell immediately into the hands of the enemy. As to the capture of artillery, this was not, in all circumstances, to be considered as a signal of victory. It

might have been convenient for the enemy to leave them on the field. With regard to the reinforcement of 36,000 men, which was advancing to support the French, why did not Lord Wel lington know of their situation, and the probability of their ap proach? It was the duty of every general to have such information. The Earl of Suffolk, considering the amount of the British force in the peninsula, and that only so small a portion of it was brought into action at Talavera, there was here also much ground for reprehension. And this conduct appeared to be in perfect conformity to that of the same general, in bringing up only half his forces to act against the enemy, at the battle of Vimeira.*

The Earl of Grosvenor was apprehensive, that if the house were to be called upon to vote thanks for every instance of the display of valour, the proceeding would draw after it injurious results. If a single detachment, nay, if an individual had exhibited proofs of determined bravery, their lord ships might be called upon to vote away thanks. The battle of Talavera was one, which, in all its circumstances, did not appear to him to be entitled to such a reward, Lord Mountjoy maintained, that no general was better skilled in war, none more enlightened, none more valiant than Lord Viscount Wellington. The choice of a position at Talavera reflected lustre on his talents; the victory was as brilliant and glorious as any on record. It was entitled to the unanimous approbation of their lordships, and

the eternal gratitude of Spain and of this country.

The Earl of Grey agreed with the Earl of Liverpool, as to the propriety of bestowing rewards where rewards were due, and of conferring the high honour of the thanks of that house on transcendent merit; but not that the battle of Talavera was an event that ought to be characterized in such a way, or remunerated by that distinction. Before, however, he should enter into a discussion of the subject immediately before the house, he begged leave to say a few words relative to the victory of Maida. The objects of the expedition to Italy, under Sir John Stuart, had not completely failed, as stated by the noble lord. If they did fail, the failure was remote. A French force was, at that period, assembled on the Neapolitan coast, for the purpose of making a descent on Sicily. To destroy this force, was the object of the expedition of Sir John Stuart; and in that object, in the battle of Maida, and the conse quences that resulted from it, he completely succeeded. The ene my did not, after that action, retire in regular order, nor take up a position within sight of the field of battle. They were completely dispersed, and, as an army, annihilated. The battle of Talavera had neither succeeded in attaining the general object of the campaign, nor the immediate object, namely, that of dispersing the enemy's army.

The general object of the advance of Lord Wellington into Spain, Lord Grey took to be that