oath, like a grand jury; nor to receive written testimonies upon oath, like the court of king's bench, previous to the granting or refusing an information. But as the learned gentleman had described the board, stating the probabilities which determined their conduct on one side, why not suppose that they ought to have informed themselves as much as they could on the other; and after putting them in opposite scales, determine fairly in favour of the weightiest? Why not take the long and able services of the commander-in-chief as the basis to plead on, as well as the services of Sir Hugh Palliser? Why not consult the viceadmiral of the red, Sir John Lindsay, Sir John Lockhart Ross, and the captains La Forey Walsingham, Gower, &c.? If the board could not examine them upon oath, they might confer with them as officers, and consult them as gentlemen and men of honour. If what those gentlemen would have said could not be received as evidence, it might well be opposed to an accusation not given in upon oath. The opinions of such men, had they been desired, might well meet the opinion of Sir Hugh Palliser, for his accusation was no more. He was not bound to prove in any other manner but by the oaths of other men: so that, take it in any sense, if the opinions of those gentlemen already mentioned had contradicted that of the vice-admiral of the blue, it would have been no more than weighing opinion against opinion. He observed, that the noble lord who opposed the motion, had with his usual ability contended, that a vote of the House of Commons declaring the law was not law, nor binding upon the courts in Westminster-hall. He agreed with him most heartily; but he trusted that a vote of the House of Commons did not render what was before legal illegal. If it did not, then the observation went for nothing. But the question of law was already given up, by the noble lord's learned friend who spoke last; therefore, a vote of the House of Commons, declaring what the law was, when it went to declare what the law was acknowledged to be, was not usurping the whole legislative power into their own hands, but a mere opinion, that the legislature had declared the law to be such as stated in the vote. The noble lord's sentiments in the course of his speech brought a very remarkable circumstance fresh into his mind, which proved that his lordship once entertained a very different opinion. His lordship moved a proposition in that house some years since *, and maintained the propriety of it in a very able manner, in which it was asserted, that one of the ordinary functions of the first law-officer of the crown, was contrary to law, and the fundamental privileges of the people under the constitution; it seemed, however, that the noble lord exerted himself in this spirited attempt to no purpose; for if it had been carried by a vote of the House of Commons, it would have availed nothing, it would have been disregarded by the judges in Westminster-hall, which was not the language held by him on that occasion, and which he would not have treated as an extra-judicial opinion, that no man was obliged to take notice of or obey, because it had not the sanction of the other two branches of the legislature. After some farther allusions on the former and present conduct of the noble lord, he again resumed his observations on the arguments of the learned gentleman who spoke last, which he held up in a variety of strong lights, as involving a series of absurdity and contradiction. He concluded with recommending the House to come to the vote desired, as the only means of removing that contrariety of opinion every person on the opposite bench held with himself, and every individual who spoke held with the speaker who preceded him. The previous question being put on Mr. Dunning's first motion, the House divided: Yeas 135: Noes 228. So it passed * Alluding to Captain Phipps's motion on the 27th November 1770, respecting the power of the attorney-general to file informations ex The second motion was negatived in like in the negative. manner, by 218 to 121. ENQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF THE AMERICAN WAR. May 13. FROM the unexpected latitude which the examination of wit nesses, in the committee on the conduct of the American war had assumed, the ministry found themselves under the necessity of appealing to counter-evidence to disprove some of the statements. Accordingly, Mr. De Grey moved this day for a summons directing the attendance of ten witnesses. Mr. BURKE condemned this mode of proceeding as irregular and unfair. He remarked, that there were several precedent stages of the business in which such a proposition would have come with great propriety, if it had been accompanied with a fair, honest avowal, of the intention of proving the misconduct of the honourable general (Sir William Howe); but while ministers affected in the most warm terms to applaud his military conduct, they were now, by a side wind, in a late stage of the examination, preparing to defeat and invalidate evidence which they asserted they believed. Mr. Dundas said, this was the most extraordinary language he ever heard, considering the honourable gentleman from whom it came. The honourable commander moves for an en. quiry into his conduct, and produces evidence at the bar in his own justification. Ministers oppose the enquiry in the beginming: but very properly acquiesce in the sentiments of the Houses contrary to their own judgment. This ex parte evidence is received; and now, when ministers wish to have full and impartial information, an honourable gentleman, who all along professed the most earnest desire for full and impartial information, is the very person who sets his face against it. Mr. BURKE said, he had for some time past always attended to what fell from the learned gentleman with great pleasure; because it had the same effect upon him, as if in a camp, he heard the report of fired a gun it called him to his quarters, and warned him of the approach of the enemy. Ministers were obliged to the learned gentleman, who, especially when another learned gentleman, the attorney-general, was absent, answered the end of a courier, and announced the real intentions of his friends high in office. The gun was fired; the courier was arrived ; the mask was drawn aside; and the learned gentleman had in part revealed intentions that would, a few days ago, have been disavowed in the most open and direct terms. He thought that this was fair and honourable war, if the mode of making it had been earlier adopted. But what was the truth of the transaction? Witnesses had been summoned to attend before the Easter recess; the committee had already sat three weeks, and now, in almost the very last stage of the business, so far as the commander-in-chief was concerned, without previous notice or communication, ministers for the first time signified an intimation of calling other witnesses, in order to disprove the evidence delivered at the bar. A Mr. Welbore.Ellis could not help expressing his astonishment at the inconsistent conduct of the honourable gentleman. few days had only intervened since the honourable gentleman was loud in his demands for a general enquiry, and that evidence of every kind should be produced; yet now, on the appearance of a desire in ministers to vindicate their conduct, the very same gentleman was the first to complain. Mr. BURKE replied, that the right honourable gentleman misunderstood, he would not say misrepresented him: because he knew his candour and correctness in debate too well to impute to him any such intention. He agreed entirely in the principle laid down by the right honourable |