accomplished by the enterprize and ani- | mation of British troops, which cannot be previously demonstrated to be the infallible result of military calculation? Are we to be discouraged by sir William Erskine's opinion, that it would require 28 days to reduce the fort of Lillo, when we know that the French reduced it in a fifth of that time? Are we to be alarmed by a description of the formidable defences of Antwerp, a town which no military man for the last three centuries has ever ventured to defend, or even of the citadel, a work, which, though certainly more respectable, was originally constructed merely to repress the populace of a great city, and which was not only surrendered by an Austrian garrison, after a slight resistance in 1791, to the patriots of Brabant, but was taken in 1746 by a corps of the French army under the conte De Clermont, in five or six days after trenches were opened against it.

I need not press this view of the subject further. The House has before them a general outline of the proposed operations, the conduct of which must have been regulated by circumstances on the spot; it is only necessary for me in order to counteract the impression that there is any evidence before the House which can justify the conclusion, that the enemy had the means of carrying their ships so high up the Scheldt, as to place them beyond the reach of our attack, to advert to the evidence on this subject. Sir William Erskine's informant states that they might be carried up to Dendermond, 20 miles above Antwerp, other intelligence obtained by lord Roslyn however limits it to four miles above Antwerp, but in point of fact it does not appear upon an attentive comparison of the evidence, that at any time any of the ships were actually carried above the town. It is true sir William Erskine on the 11th Aug. reports nine sail of the line to be at Antwerp, taking out guns, stores, and ballast with an intention of proceeding up the Scheldt to Dendermond, and that two sail had already gone up to that place, but we find this to be an error, as sir William Erskine on the 18th corrects his former report upon the authority of a person, upon whose correctness he expresses his reliance, and who had been sent for the express purpose of ascertaining whether the enemy's fleet had moved up the river beyond Antwerp, by stating that on the 15th the ships were still at

Antwerp ranged along the quays from the citadel downwards, in number nine sail of the line, that they had all their guns in, and that two sail of the line were below the town. This is further corroborated by intelligence transmitted by sir John Hope on the 22d, whose informant was at Antwerp on the 20th, when the ships had all their guns in, and were ranged along the town, it therefore appears to me clear that no part of the fleet ever was carried up the Scheldt beyond Antwerp, but even supposing the enemy to have had the means of so removing them, (which may be doubted) without rendering them by such removal unfit for all the purposes of defence, it remains to be proved, supposing the destruction. of every thing at Antwerp to have been completed, and the British army to have remained superior in the field, that positions might not have been taken higher up the river on the right bank for the effectual attack of the fleet, more especially, if supported by our gun boats and light armed ships of war.

It has been contended that the opinion of the officers employed as given in evidence before the Committee is against the probability of success, and that an attack upon Antwerp by a coup-de-main was on the face of it absurd and impracticable. With respect to the latter point, it involves a mere discussion upon terms; if gentlemen chuse to annex to the term coup-demain the notion of a single attack which is to be the effort of an hour or a day, they may be borne out in their assertion, but if, as I understand it, the expression, may be correctly applied to a course of proceeding more extended in point of time, and may properly be used to describe a rapid operation of several days continuance, as contradistinguished from a formal siege or a campaign, there is no absurdity in the application which has been made of it, at all events the substance of the argument cannot be affected by the term that has been used. That I am not however without professional authority for using the term coup-de-main in this sense, will appear from the evidence of lieut. col. Clarke who served as principal engineer on the Expedition to Rochfort, to whom the following questions were put on his examination on sir J. Mordaunt's trial.

"2. Whether if he had been in Rochfort, and the defence of the place had been left to him as an engineer, and he

had ten days notice of a force marching up, he could have put it in a sufficient posture of defence against a coup-de-main? "A. No. But that depends greatly upon the number of the garrison, he explained that what he understood by a coup-de-main is taking a place in one, two, three or four days time without a regular attack.

"2. If Rochfort could not have been taken under three or four days, whether artillery would not have been necessary to facilitate the taking of the place?

tertained by sir William Erskine. I certainly do not at this distance of time carry in my recollection the communication alluded to, and it may have made the less impression upon my mind, as I had more than one personal conversation with the gallant general himself when at Deal, in none of which were his doubts ever com municated to me, but I have no difficulty in admitting, that I should not have been induced, when the Expedition was upon the eve of sailing, to hesitate upon the expediency of its departure upon the mere suggestion of a single officer, more espe

As a more recent instance in point, I consider that the operation against Copenhagen was in the nature of a coup-de-main. Our prospects of success there depended upon the early effect of a bombardment, rather than a siege in form; we had in the attack of that place infinitely greater difficulties and obstacles to contend with, than could have been apprehended in the operation against Antwerp, the assailing force was kept at a distance from the place for several days by outworks, and by an extended line of water defences in front of the town; notwithstanding which, and although considerable delay was occasioned by taking up a new line of positions for our batteries, after the enemy were driven within the town the place surrendered to a bombardment, within three days after fire was opened upon it. I trust, therefore, we shall hear no more controversy either upon the term coup-de-main, or the possibility of taking a town of equal or superior strength to Antwerp by means similar to those intended to be employed against that place.

With respect to the opinions given by the officers on the probability of success, their judgment is of course entitled to due deference, but it is material to advert to the circumstances under which they were given, as well as to the nature of the opinions themselves.

The opinion of sir William Erskine is certainly unfavourable throughout. It appears that officer looked to other more advantageous modes, as he conceived, of employing the force of the country, and considered the operations. against Antwerp as hopeless before the Expedition sailed. Sir Richard Strachan has stated, that he communicated to me at Deal, how little hope of success was en

in total ignorance of the information upon which government acted, and upon a recollection of the place, not more recent than that of many of his senior officers, with whom his Majesty's ministers had had opportunities of communicating.

The next opinion to which I shall advert is that of the earl of Roslyn-I am perfectly willing to admit the weight to which it is entitled, and upon the whole it must be considered to be discouraging as to the result; but the House will be pleased to remark, that lord Roslyn's judgment was formed, without reference to the information which government had received, as will appear from the following question put, and answer given by the noble earl:

"2. At any time after the communication of the object of the Expedition to your lordship, were you of opinion that the object was attainable?

"A. I was not in possession of the intelligence upon which the Expedition was ordered, and without some knowledge of the force of the enemy, not only in the countries against which the Expedition was immediately directed, but in all the surrounding districts, it was not possible to form a decided opinion upon that subject."

His lordship is further asked as to the probability of succeeding against Antwerp, on the supposition that the armament had assembled at Santvliet on the 3rd or 4th of Aug., to which he answers:

"I do not believe from the information I have had respecting the state of the town, that it would have been possible even then to have taken it without heavy artillery."

This opinion, however, the House will observe is contingent upon the accuracy of the intelligence received of the works being repaired, and in a state of defence, the truth of which, I have before ques

tioned, but does not even in that case negative the possibility of success upon the supposition of heavy artillery being employed, provided the attack could have been made at the early period referred to. I am forced equally to allow that the opinion of sir John Hope, than which, none more entitled to deference can be quoted, is upon the whole unfavourable, as to the ulterior objects of the Expedition. But I can by no means admit, that fairly understood, it is conclusively so; and this opinion also is open to the remark, that it was formed without any local knowledge of Antwerp, or its defences, or any consideration of the information which ministers had received. Sir John Hope's view of the question may best be collected from his memorandum of the 23rd of August, in which, considering the course which the operation might have taken if circumstances had admitted of an early attack, he thus expresses himself.

"I do not imagine, that Antwerp has ever been in a situation to expose it to be carried by a coup de main, nor is there I think reason to conclude from any information that has been received respecting the state of the fortifications, that at any period we could have got possession of it, without erecting works, and bringing heavy ordnance before the place.

"Supposing however that it had been practicable to push a corps of 20 or 22,000 men upon Antwerp, the labours of a siege might thereby have been much lightened, the time necessary to reduce the place much abridged, and it is not an improbable supposition that the influence of panic and surprise combined with an unprepared state of defence might have thrown it into our hands at a comparatively easy rate," he then proceeds to state "that if such a moment ever did exist it has now passed over.'

I hope I do not presume too much in considering this reasoning as by no means decisive against the undertaking.-It rests in the first place, upon an assumption of the truth of the information obtained on the spot that the works were in repair, it next makes the event depend upon an attack with heavy artillery, a course of attack which I apprehend has been shewn by evidence to have been not only in contemplation, but within our power; and it proceeds to admit as not an improbable supposition, that so attacked, Antwerp might have surrendered,

VOL. XVI,

With respect to the opinions of the chief engineer colonel Fyers, and of general Macleod, the commanding officer of ar tillery, they have both declared that the attack, which they had the means of making, would have been of a nature sufficiently formidable to destroy the town, if it did not surrender.-These officers were asked, whether they could take upon them. selves to answer for the success of the at tack? I must put it to the House whether any officer of experience would take it upon himself to answer for the success of any operation in war, and whether the expediency of an attempt can rationally be rested upon such an issue.-It does not lie particularly within the province of military men to form a judgment, whether the garrison and inhabitants of Antwerp were likely to submit to the total destruction of that city, including probably the arsenal and ships on the stocks, rather than to purchase their safety by the surrender of those naval objects for which alone we were contending..

If we advert to the evidence given by, the earl of Chatham, we shall find that his lordship entertained a confident hope of success, supposing the army had arrived at Santvliet early in August, and he founded this hope upon his belief of the intelligence which government had received previous to the sailing of the Expedition and upon which the final decision on the enterprise was taken with lord Chatham's concurrence, he being then a member of the cabinet.

When his lordship was asked what was now his opinion of the probability of success supposing the army had arrived at the period referred to, his reply is, that he thinks it would have been even then doubtful, but he expressly reats this doubt upon the supposition, that the intelligence received by him after his ar rival in the Scheldt, of the works of Antwerp being completely repaired, was correct, of the truth of which his lordship does not however profess to give any opi nion.

General Brownrigg's testimony is much more sanguine as the House will recollect as to the probability of success. And here I may be permitted without disre spect to the noble lord (lord Porchester) to remark on the singularity of his having closed the inquiry into this transaction (as far as depended upon him) without having deemed it necessary to examine either the quarter master general of the army, the K

The House must feel, I am persuaded, how much they would have lost had they been deprived of testimony so important and delivered with such uncommon clearness and professional ability as the evidence of gen. Brownrigg.

I think I do not assert too much in saying that without the aid of his information both parole and documentary, our means of judging upon this case would have been wholly incomplete, and it is no disparagement to the other distinguished officers, who have been examined upon this subject, to assert, that none have given, none could give a view of the subject so methodical and so comprehensive as that which gen. Brownrigg has furnished to the House. I do therefore rest and am justified in resting much, as far as authority can weigh in such a case in the opinions stated by gen. Brownrigg. The House cannot fail to have read his evidence with attention, it would be doing it injustice to attempt to give a summary of it, but upon the point immediately under consideration, general Brownrigg has distinctly declared, that he was, previous to the sailing of the Expedition, and still continues to be of opinion, that there was a fair prospect of success, had the armament arrived early in August at Santvliet. Such is the case upon which the noble lord (Porchester) has thought fit to propose for the adoption of the House a Vote of Censure, calculated to inflict disgrace if not punishment on all concerned in advising the late Expedition to the Scheldt: and upon what ground?

Is it that we have failed of success, when it has been proved that the failure arose out of causes, which those who framed the Expedition could neither foresee nor controul?

Is it that the plan was ill imagined, or the armament defective and inadequate? That the former was the best calculated to secure success, which under all circumstances could have been devised, has never been questioned; and the latter has

Is it that due diligence was not used to procure information of the numbers and defences of the enemy? No, the intelligence upon which government acted was ample; its authenticity has been confirmed, as far as it related to the force of the enemy; whilst its accuracy with respect to the defences of Antwerp, although contradicted in some points, has in no instance been actually disproved.

What then has been our offence, that we undertook an operation which we cannot now indisputably prove must have succeeded in all its parts, if prosecuted to a close; are we then to understand, that such is the principle hereafter to be imposed, under the authority of parliament, upon the military counsels of the crown? The fate that awaits the ministers who acted, in the case under consideration, is of comparatively little importance, but the effects of such a principle would be fatal indeed to the future prospects of the country.

In what page of our history, has the noble lord convinced himself, that the interests of the empire would best be consulted by banishing enterprize in war from the service? has it been by the observance of such a principle that our naval power has been raised to its present preeminence? or that the triumphs of our army have been brought to rival those of our navy? was it under the cold maxims of such cautionary principles, that Nelson fought and died, and bequeathed that example to the navy, which must make them for ever invincible? when he attacked at Copenhagen, was his decision taken upon such maxims? was it at Aboukir, when he exposed his ships on an unknown coast, between the shore and the enemy's fleet? or at Trafalgar when he bore down in two columns on the enemy, one third superior to his own fleet in number, exposing his ships to be raked during their advance, by the opposing line, and with orders not to open their fire, till they had passed through and brought up to leeward of their respective opponents?

Was it such principles as these which animated Wolfe when he ascended and stormed the heights of Quebec in presence of a superior army acting in defence of a fortified place? had such principles prevailed in the late war, would lord Melville have dared to send the army he did to expel a superior enemy from Egypt, or should we in this war have so glo