d affirmed that the interference required would
be setting up ourselves as guardians of the consciences of foreign
potentates. The motion was negatived by a large majority.

MOTION FOR INQUIRY INTO THE RECENT FAILURES OF OUR ARMIES.

As all the efforts of opposition to procure a termination of the war, or
a dissolution of alliances with foreign potentates, had failed, they now
proceeded to inquire how far the objects proposed had been obtained,
and what was the probability of ultimate success. After reviewing the
measures and events of the last campaign, in a speech of considerable
ability, Major Maitland moved for a committee to inquire into the causes
which led to the failure of the army under the Duke of York, and to the
evacuation of Toulon. In reply it was urged, that though the possession
of Dunkirk would have been a valuable acquisition, its conquest was
impracticable, from the enormous efforts of the French; and that the
same cause occasioned the evacuation of Toulon. On a general view of the
campaign it was stated that the British arms had acquired great glory;
and the house seemed to be of this opinion, for the motion was negatived
by a great majority.

THE TRIAL OF WARREN HASTINGS.

On the 5th of March, Burke moved for a committee to inspect the
journals of the lords relative to the proceedings of the trial of Warren
Hastings; and to report the facts and observations on them to the house.
Leave being given, he diligently set to work, and the report, occupying
nearly two hundred pages, was made on the 17th of April; and it is said,
by competent judges, to be one of the most able and elaborate papers
that have come from his pen. It was published, without authority, in
form of a pamphlet; and Lord Thurlow embraced an early opportunity of
venting his indignation against both its publication and its
contents. He characterised it as "disgraceful and indecent, tending to
misrepresent and vilify the conduct of judges and magistrates intrusted
with the administration of justice and the laws of the country." Burke
made a pointed reply to this charge on the following day, in his seat
in the house of commons. He remarked:--"It accuses the judges neither
of ignorance nor corruption: whatever it says, it does not say it
calumniously; that kind of language belongs to persons whose eloquence
entitles them to a free use of epithets. The report states that
the judges had given their opinion secretly, contrary to