partiality, negligence, and misconduct, drew a conclusion very fair, if he had established bis premises, that he ought to be removed from his office. Burke pointed, with all the powers of ridicule and ingenuity, what he contended to be error, incapacity, negligence, and treachery in Lord Sandwich, but did not adduce proofs. When men of so astonishing force of reasoning as Burke and Fox proceed upon assumptions, a reader fairly concludes that it is from their wishes, not their conviction, that they speak. During no period had Britain so many difficulties to encounter as under the Administration of Lord Sandwich, yet did her fleets maintain the dominion of the sea against a combination of force unprecedented in history. He could not be a bad First Lord of the Admiralty, who had fleets ready to withstand the combined power of America, Holland, Spain, and France, and to vanquish the two most powerful of these nations. It was not proved that the little impression made on the enemy in the commencement of the war was owing to a deficiency in force. The reasoning, therefore, of Burke and Fox was inconclusive. It afterwards appeared, that the opinion they professed to entertain respecting Lord Sandwich's ability and skill was wrong. In fact, it was manifest that he was able, skilful, and attentive enough in the management of our navy, to enable us to make extraordinary efforts. The violent speeches of Burke tended to inflame instead of allaying the dissensions in the navy: a very dangerous tendency at any time, especially when we were engaged in so formidable a war. The conduct of the Howes next came to be a subject of parliamentary inquiry. It was publicly alledged by the friends of Ministry, that much more might have been done towards the subjugation of America. It was even confidently asserted that General Howe might have repeatedly ended the war, had he followed up his successes at Long Island, White Plains, the Brandy Wine, and German Town. He had complained of want of confidence and support from Ad ministration. Lord George Germain proved that he had furnished him with thirty thousand men, whereas General Howe said nineteen thousand were sufficient. As to confidence, so great was the trust reposed in him, that the military plans and measures were left to himself.* In 1777 the British troops amounted to forty-one thousand, and the American to twenty-three. It must, therefore, either have been something in the war itself which rendered success unattainable, in his mode of carrying it on, and not the alledged want of support and confidence from the Ministry that obstructed his exertions. It was generally reported, and never contradicted, that dissipation of every species prevailed in the army while under his command. That certainly was not the most effectual mode of subjugating America. In this case, the most partial admirers of Burke must acknowledge that he acted as a party man, as determined to throw blame on Ministers, * See Stedman's History, vol. i. near the end. whether they were or were not blameable. He and Mr. Fox pressed urgently for an inquiry into the conduct of the Howes. The Ministers declared they had no share in any attack upon their character, (' Whatever,' said Lord North, our opinion may be in certain matters') and thought an inquiry unnecessary, but did not oppose its institution. It evidently appeared, that although the vindication of the General was the ostensible object of the inquirers, the condemnation of Ministry was the real. Many of the questions that were put did not respect the Commander in Chief. Those interrogatories that were relative to him, rather regarded his general character and conduct than special proceedings. The answers of the evidences called by Howe were more in the style of general eulogium than of special exculpation. Ministry seeing that Burke and the other Opposition members were partial in their interrogatories, called in witnesses on the other side. ral Robertson and Mr. Galway gave a circumstantial, particular narrative, that by Gene no means coincided with the opinion which Burke and Fox entertained or professed to entertain. The Opposition members, after hearing the evidence of General Robertson and Mr. Galway, moved to dissolve the committee, which was accordingly done; and so ended the inquiry. We cannot, consistently with impartiality, credit patriotism, or indeed justice, with the carrying on an inquiry whilst it ap-' peared to tend to one object, and when it appeared to tend to another, propose its abandonment. On the other hand, it may be observed, that if Ministers could establish proof of misconduct or neglect in General Howe, it was their duty to bring forward that proof. As no evidence has been adduced to substantiate the charges against the General, no person is warranted in imputing to him negligence or any other defect in his military conduct. The inquiry included General Burgoyne. Nothing came out, tending to impeach his military character. He had been unfortunate; but there |