HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



i83 



gumption then could the minister 

 call uponthatHousetoregulateits 

 decision on evidence which it 

 knew to be false, and to neglect 

 evidence which it felt to be true ? 

 In every part of the proposed ar- 

 rangement the result falsified the 

 intelligence on which the attempt 

 was made. But whilst it cut away 

 the ground on which the minister 

 rested, it realized every prediction 

 of the men who, foreseeing the 

 fail ure, had foretold the fatal result, 

 With what consistency could mi- 

 nisters defend that diversion which, 

 they said, afforded to Austria the 

 chance of recovery from her mis- 

 fortunes, in the same breath that 

 they arguedagainsl the propriety of 

 sending a force into the North of 

 Germany, with a view to assisting 

 the numerous insurgents in that 

 quarter?Why,saidthey,encourage 

 those insurgents to an ineffectual 

 resistance to the power of France, 

 only tosubjectthemto more aggra- 

 vated oppression ? Why then en- 

 deavour to allure Austria, after her 

 fall, to a renewal of a struggle 

 which would have for ever sealed 

 her subjugation ? — Mr. Grattan 

 said, in conclusion, '< in my con- 

 ception of public delinquency, 

 there can be no conduct more re- 

 prehensible than that of his ma- 

 jesty's ministers, except indeed the 

 conduct of this House, if it should 

 be so forgetful of its duties as not 

 to condemn them. This House has 

 lately censured lord Chatham for 

 an attempt to set aside the respon- 

 sibility of ministeis. Let it then 

 take care that its conduct, on this 

 occasion, does not tend to establish 

 ministerial impunity.'' — Mr. Can- 

 ning, in the course of a long and 

 elaborate speech, endeavoured to 

 ^rove the practicability of carrying 



such a place as Antwerp by a 

 coup de main, by an enumeration 

 of instances in which stronger 

 places had been so taken. In jus- 

 tification of the policy of the ex- 

 pedition, he said that the con- 

 tinued occupation of Walcheren 

 would have been as great a blow to 

 the maritime power and pride of 

 Buonaparte, as that of the Isle of 

 Wight by France to the power and 

 pride of Great Britain. In that 

 view, in the contemplation of its 

 moral effect on the minds of the 

 people of France, as much as in 

 respect to its solid advantages, he, 

 as one of his majesty's ministers, 

 had concurred in the destination of 

 the expedition to the Scheldt. It 

 would have been of incalculable 

 benefit that the people of France 

 should have seen that its ruler 

 could not strip hiscoastsandcoun- 

 try of troops without subjecting 

 his own territories to insult and 

 invasion. Though he certainly 

 should vote against the second re- 

 solution of lord Porchester, he 

 would move or suggest an amend- 

 ment to the counter resolutions of 

 GeneralCrawfurd, namely, to omit 

 the specific groundsof justification 

 arising from the circumstances of 

 Austria, and the destruction of the 

 basin at Flushing, and to leave the 

 justification of having forborne to 

 have kept possession of Walcheren 

 on the obvious ground of the ne- 

 cessity of collecting the materials 

 for an opinion, and the danger of 

 deciding precipitately on so great 

 and important a question. He Was 

 ready to concur in the conclusion, 

 that no blame was imputable to 

 government, but not in the ho- 

 nourable general's statement of the 

 premises from which that conclu- 

 sion was to be drawn. — Mr. Whit- 

 G 2 



