the hourly expectation of the arrival of the re-inforcements under Sir John Moore, which would render the attainment of the object in view certain, Sir H. Burrard chose to stop, rather than to make a movement which, under the existing circumstances, was undoubtedly hazardous. Sir H. Burrard had the command of the army. He was present for a great part of the time in the hottest of the engagement, and had a duty to perform of which he could not divest himself. The responsibility rested with him, and he controlled (judiciously in Lord M.'s opinion) the opinion of Sir A. Wellesley respecting the advance to Torres Vedras. Sir H. Burrard must therefore be considered as acting the whole of the day, and ought not to be left out of the motion for thanks.

The Earl of Grosvenor wished this question had not been brought forward till the papers respecting the expedition had been laid on the table.-Lord Harrowby contended that Sir H. Burrard had with great magnanimity allowed, in his own dispatches, the actual command, during the battle, to remain with Sir Arthur Wellesley. To include Sir H. Burrard in the vote of thanks, would be giving an opinion on subsequent circumstances, respecting which no information was before the House.-Viscount Sidmouth did not feel that a vote of thanks to Sir A. W. would attach the least discredit to the character of Sir H. Burrard. He recommended to the noble baron to withdraw his amendment.-So also did Lord Auckland.-Lord Mulgrave said, that it was the VOL. LI.

glory of Sir H. Burrard to have duly admired and done justice to the services of Sir A. Wellesley. In the conduct of Sir A. Wellesley his lordship saw every thing that was dignified and transcendent. The victory of Vimiera, Lord M. maintaineď, would not be found wanting in the scale, when compared with any, the most brilliant achievement in the whole range of military history, ancient or modern.-Lord Erskine, having premised that he was altogether unacquainted with Sir H. Burrard or his family, maintained that Sir H. B. having been in the chief command on the 21st of August, was entitled to the admiration of his country, and the thanks of their lordships, for having embraced those plans which he found his predecessor in pursuit of. What objection could there be to passing a vote of thanks to Sir H. Burrard? Would any noble lord state, that the gallant general himself had signified an indifference to their approbation? Money, he believed, was an object of desire with most men. He was free to confess that it was so to himself. He was sure that soldiers and sailors loved to acquire it. He had himself spent the earlier part of his days in the service. But he knew a soldier's heart. He knew that soldiers and sailors have also a most ardent desire of praise. Impressed with these sentiments, he felt himself bound to support the proposed amendment.

The question being put on the amendment of Lord Moira, it was negatived without a division, and only one or two dissentient voices. The original motion was then put, and unanimously agreed to.-The same subject was, January the

E

25th,

25th, brought into the House of Commons by Lord Castlereagh, who made a motion for the thanks of the house to Sir A. Wellesley,and the officers and men under his command, for the brilliant victory they had achieved at the battle of Vimiera. In the course of illustrating the merit of Sir A. W. his lordship applied to the battle of Vimiera the epithet "Immortal."—All the military merit of this campaign was exclusively Sir A. Wellesley's; to whom military experience had ensured that success which ever accompanied his brilliant career.— No one was less disposed than himself to hurt the feelings of Sir H. Burrard, than whom he did not believe there was a more gallant officer, or one of a more enlarged soul, in the British empire. But it would, in his opinion, be doing an injury to that gallant and meritorious officer to mix him in the vote of thanks moved for.

Lord Folkstone, disagreeable as the task was, dissented from the motion. It appeared from official dispatches that the French army amounted only to 12 or 14,000 men; while the British army amounted to from 14 to 16,000 men, besides 1,200 Portugueze troops. It appeared also, that the court of inquiry could not blame Sir H. Burrard for objecting to the advance of our forces. The immediate consequences of that objection were the armistice and convention; to the necessity of agreeing to which our generals would not have been reduced, if Sir A. W. had waited only one day, for the re-inforcement under Sir J. Moore, and not have been in such haste to bring on the battles of Roleia and Vimiera. Nei

ther the victory of Vimiera, nor the armistice and convention, which it involved, deserved the thanks of the House.-Another objection in his mind, was, that no mention was made in the vote proposed, of the name of Sir H. Burrard, to whom he thought great praise was due for the part he had acted. From all these circumstances he objected to a vote of thanks for the battle of Vimiera: as he did not think it of so brilliant a description as to be entitled to a vote of thanks; as it fell short of any good consequences; and as the whole of the expedition had ended in a manner disgraceful to the country.-Mr. Lambe admited the merit of Sir A. W. but there had been a difference of opinion between him and Sir H. Burrard at the close of the day, with regard to the advance of the army. On the merits of that question the house was not called on to decide. If he voted for the motion, it must be with a clear understanding that this point was left as before, and that, by his vote, he did not impute or insinuate any blame against Sir H. Burrard.-Mr. Whitbread said, that the only way to prevent this, was, to introduce the name of Sir Harry, which might be done without any injury whatever to Sir A. Wellesley. If a commander was responsible for what he committed to an inferior officer, why should he be deprived of the praise? Sir A. came and took his orders from Sir H. Burrard, before, during, and after the battle. Sir H. considered the plan of Sir A. Wellesley, and held himself responsible for it. The house could not refuse its thanks to Sir H. Burrard, without doing a gross injustice to that

officer.

officer. In no vote of thanks had the commander-in-chief ever before been left out. The conduct of Sir Hyde Parker, who had entrusted the execution of the busi

ness at Copenhagen in 1801 to Lord Nelson, became a subject of animadversion; yet Sir Hyde Parker was thanked by both houses. If the conduct of Sir A. W. instead of producing a brilliant result, had led to some disaster, Sir H. B. would have been responsible, and it would have been no excuse that he had delegated the command to Sir A. Wellesley. The name of Sir Harry Burrard, under all these circumstances, ought not to be omitted in the vote of thanks, and he therefore moved, that it should be inserted.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to Mr. Whitbread, said, that with respect to the case of Sir Hyde Parker at Copenhagen, that Admiral had been thanked for the disposition he had made. But Sir H. Burrard did not lay claim either to the disposition or execution. In answer to Lord Folkstone, he said, that though the British troops in the field were superior in number to the French, yet, out of eight brigades, of which the army consisted, only five had been engaged in the action.*

General Stewart, after professing the highest respect for Sir H. Burrard, said, that ‍he had not the good fortune to be present at the battle of Vimiera, but that he arrived soon after, and observed the

sentiment of enthusiasm in favour of Sir A. W. that prevailed from the general to the drummer. It was impossible for him adequately to describe it. But he might use the emphatic language of an experienced general who had served in most of our armies on the continent, and was fully capable of judging of the question-he meant general Anstruther, an officer for whom he entertained the sincerest love and affection, who had promised to become one of the brightest ornaments of the British army, but who, unfortunately for his country, died in consequence of the fatigue of the late retreat. That distinguished officer had stated to him that it was impossible for him to conceive any thing more admirable than the conduct of Sir A. W. from the commencement of his operations to the result of the battle of Vimiera; that there was no difficulty which he did not contrive to obviate; that his mind was full of resources; that he managed his army like a machine, of the nature of which he was complete master; and that no officer he ever saw conducted the operations of an army with more distinguished ability.-That such was the opinion entertained of Sir A. W. by general Anstruther, was confirmed by Mr. W. Adam, who had a letter written by the general on the field of battle, in which he said, that such was the confidence of the army of Vimiera in Sir A. W. and such his talents for command,

seen

mand, that there was nothing that army would not attempt under that commander, and few things that they would not achieve. Mr. Adam was particularly anxious to express his strong approbation of what had fallen from the honourable general respecting brigadier general Anstruther. It was impossible to speak too highly of the military merit, the capacity in all respects, and the excellent character of that officer, who, if his life had not been lost to the public, would have been in, the list of those this day to receive the thanks of their country. Mr. Adam, speaking with great interest and feeling of general Ferguson, stated, that he knew from the best authority that Sir A. W. had said, that the intrepid gallantry and conduct with which general Ferguson led on his troops to the charge was the finest thing he had ever seen in his military service. He thought that his honourable friend, Mr. Whitbread, would prejudge the matter, by his amendment as it regarded Sir H. Burrard. Mr. W. in compliance with the recommendation of his honour. able friend, withdrew his motion; retaining however the opinion he had already expressed, that Sir H. B. was entitled to the thanks of the house. The amendment being withdrawn, the resolution for a vote of thanks to Sir A. W. was put and carried. The thanks

of the house were next voted to major generals Spencer, Hill, and Ferguson; and to brigadier generals Ackland, Nightingale, Fane, and Bowes, and the officers under their command. A resolution was then agreed to, expressive of the approbation of that house, of the conduct of the non-commissioned officers and privates.

On the same day, January 25th, in the House of Lords, the Earl of Liverpool rose to move the thanks of the house for the defeat before Corunna. After a handsome eulogium on Sir John Moore, and some observations on the difficulties encountered in the retreat, and the battle in which it terminated, and stating that in wording the motion, the precedent of Egypt, in which the gallant Abercrombie fell, had been followed, moved the thanks of the house to lieutenant-general Sir D. Baird second in command of the army in Spain; lieutenant-general the hon. John Hope, who took the command on Sir John Moore's receiving the wound, which terminated in his much-lamented death, and to the other officers employed. All the lords who spoke on this occasion concurred heartily in this motion, bestowed the highest praise on the character and conduct of Sir John Moore, and deeply deplored his loss to the country. But the Earl of Moira, in giving his concurrence, could not avoid asking ministers,