HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



81 



expedition. That noble lord had 

 stated in his evidence at the bar 

 that his opinion was never given 

 JormaUy as an officer. Was it then 

 to be supposed that Lord Chatham 

 was never consulted on the expe- 

 dition? or that he did not approve 

 of the expedition ? No. It was be- 

 cause his Majesty's government 

 had the advantage of Lord Chat- 

 ham's opinion in a better and more 

 satisfactory mode. Lord Castle- 

 reagh rested very much on the 

 opinions of General Brownrigg, 

 who had expressed his regret that 

 the whole of the armament des- 

 tined for Santvliet, was not at once 

 carried to the entrance of theWest 

 Scheldt, instead of being directed 

 to rendezvous at the Stone-Deep. 

 There was, however, one instance 

 in which Lord Castlereagh did not 

 agree in opinion with General 

 Brownrigg. The General had cer- 

 tainly stated that ten days might 

 possibly have been required to re- 

 duce Liefkenshoek. Was it pro- 

 bable, however, that a work not 

 casemated would have resisted so 

 long? But upon the point imme- 

 diately under consideration, Gene- 

 ral Brownrigg had distinctly de- 

 clared that he was, previously to 

 the sailing of the expedition, and 

 still continued to be, of opinion, 

 that there was a fair prospect of 

 success had the army arrived at 

 Santvliet early in August. — In 

 what page of our history had Lord 

 Porchester convinced himself that 

 the interests of the empire would 

 be best consulted by banishing en- 

 lerprize in war from the service, 

 and chilling the martial spirit of 

 the country by the rigid principles 

 of cold precaution and mathema- 

 tical calculation i Had it been by 

 the observance of such a principle 

 Vol.. LU. 



that our naval power had been 

 raised to its present pre-eminence? 

 or that the triumphs of our army 

 had been brought to rival those of 

 our navy ? He was not contend- 

 ing for rash and improvident ex- 

 posure of the public force. What 

 he contended against was the prin- 

 ciple that nothing should be un- 

 dertaken unlessevery circumstance 

 bearing on the operation could be 

 previously ascertained, and that 

 nothing should be risked unless 

 success could be demonstrated to 

 be inevitable. 



Lord Castlereagh bad the House, 

 if they wished to know what pros- 

 pect of success ministers really 

 had, in the enemy's judgment at 

 least, to look at the measures of 

 precaution he had ordered to be 

 adopted for securing Antwerp, 

 since the attempt on that city was 

 abandoned. — What, Lord Castle- 

 reagh asked, would have been the 

 verdict of their opposers if minis- 

 ters had brought forward such a 

 defence as might have been framed 

 out of the materials upon which 

 they were now inculpated. Could 

 they have justified themselves 

 from the speculative difficulties of 

 the attempt for having left an ally 

 unsupported, and a naval arsenal 

 of such magnitude, and so situated 

 unassailed? The claims of Austria 

 alone would have justified the at- 

 tempt. Its naval policy rendered 

 it a paramount duty. But, when 

 both considerationswerecombined 

 hesitation would have been crimi- 

 nal. He was conscious that, in 

 common with the other servants of 

 the crown, he had done his duty. 

 And, however they might have 

 failed in securing for the country 

 all the advantages for which they 

 contended, heshould always pride 



G 



