his country had been reduced from that splendid situation which,
in the early part or his majesty's reign, made her the envy of all
Europe, to her present dangerous state, which had of late called forth
our utmost exertions without any adequate benefit." The speakers in
opposition, who supported this amendment, chiefly dwelt on the numerous
blunders of administration in the management of the war; attributing
every failure to their measures, and every successful operation to
circumstances over which they had no control. It was argued, indeed,
that ministers had only made such preparations as would ensure defeats;
and that it was marvellous we were not involved in indiscriminate ruin
and disgrace. The blunders of ministers were both numerous and palpable,
but it cannot be denied that they were mightily magnified by the
opposition, who looked at their every movement with a jealous and
jaundiced eye. The amendment was rejected by a majority of two hundred
and twenty-six against one hundred and seven.

AFFAIR RESPECTING ADMIRAL KEPPEL AND SIR HUGH PALLISER.

During the debate on the amendment in the commons, Charles Fox
introduced the subject of the operations of the fleet commanded by
Keppel and Palliser, and attributed all the blame of its failure to the
conduct of ministers and the admiralty, who, he said, had not sent a
sufficient fleet out, and that it was sent to sea too late to effect
the objects for which it was fitted out. This subject was brought
prominently before the house of commons on the 2nd of December. Mr.
Temple Luttrel said, that the whole of that transaction demanded a
particular and close inquiry, and that the two admirals, who were both
in the house, were bound to give information for the sake of their own
honour, and also for the sake of public tranquillity. Thus challenged,
Keppel, who was a whig, stood up to defend his own conduct. He could not
consider, he remarked, that the British flag had been tarnished in his
hands, or that the affair off Ushant was in any way disgraceful. He
impeached no man; and was persuaded that Sir Hugh Palliser manifested no
want of courage. He expressed a hope that he should not be compelled to
answer any questions relative to the action or to individuals, at the
same time asserting that he was ready to explain his own conduct in
that house or elsewhere, Nothing, he said, was left untried to bring the
French to a decisive action. He then adverted to Palliser's publi