The Sun.
London, England, 1810-02-27 00:00:00

SELWYN V. BRIDGMAN AND. RERD•

This cause, which 'came on on Saturday; was, a'f.
ter. sonie able argon-tents by tilt ATTORNEY-GENE•
RAL on the part of the :plaintiffs, and Mr.• GA aow
fot t-Ni defendant, agreed by the Council or both
bides to be referred. • -

In the 'courses- of the argument • Lord ELLE.N-
-!
OROVO4I, passed a high egconnurn on Mr. Set-
wytt's dbridgement of t/e • Laiv-of. Nisi Prius, in
which the CoutAel oo,both_ sites_ most cordiiliy
jotne .

• THE INQUIRY.

MINUTES OF •EVIDENCE.

ELEVENTH DAY, EEL 22.

yllE EARL OF, CHATHAM'S EVIDENCE..
After some preliminary questions of form, the •
following were put to his Lordship :
It- is stated. in yoUr Lordship's narrative that a
change had taken in the original plan, is con- •
sequence of the military,opinions ;
`wilt vourL9rd- .
Ship state what was, the original plin ?—The original
plan alluded to will' be slrewn.to the House by re.Nr j
ing the opinion of Sir David Dundas and the other
•
General Otlicers,.which was token upon that plan,;
thal was, the idea of landing at Ostend, and pro-7 -
ceeding from thence to Ant were.
Had that plan met with your Lordship's apnxoba-
tion ?—lt 'was not particularly submitted for -Inv
apprObation. '
- your-Lordship state,,by what mod,, of 'opera-
. tions it was intended, to-get possession of, or destroy
the enemy's fleet, and the arsenals at Antwerp ?
I conceive•that was intended to be tone, by lauaing
such part of tire army as a not engaged in the siege
of Flushing, and employed in the reduction of W;1-
diem; as soon as possible at Santvliet, and to pro-
ceed against Antwerp according' to circumstances,
which could not be distinctly kQown until our arr:v4
there, but must,- depend upon intelligence as cq--
cum -tances arose.

...

Did your Lordship urtderstand, .that to carry tint
plan into etfeet, it was inteneed to 'obtain posses-
sion of the town and the citadel. of Allwerp ?—Not
absolutely; might have been attained poisibly
without obtaining possession .of AntWerrand the
citadel ;- but , probably could not be attained without
obtaining possession of one of them, certainly.
Wasit at that tithe conceived that if your Lor-
ship obtained possession of the town without the-
citadel, you.viould be able to destroy the fleet and
the arsenal at Antwerp ?:-LThai must have -
pended entirely, on the'situation of the fleet and: of
the arsenals at Antwerp;
Is the Commktee to understand that yonr,Lord-
ship was sent to attack the, ars'enals and dOcks at
Antwep, wiliont being. apprised of -what was their -
situation ?—1 was not distinctly apprised of the situ '
ation of the ,locks, nor. cin I -know that there were,-- .:•
any docks itt AlitWuip there, t•Ke a great m4ny ships.
buildiug;. but I IdWaYs understood-they. k erc Wild;
upon slips, and not in do-ok.-
is the Committee .-to understand that your Lord-
ship was sent to attack tlw.- arsenals and- slips of -
Antwerp without being;.apprised what was tbe4 si-
tuation ?—1 did not exaCtly know, nor do I'Bl'l3re-1
hehd it.was -very material to the putpo:,e of the
['edition in what part of the town thry were, unless
. they were under protettion of the guns of the citadel.
Is the Comniirtee 1(1 understand that the op:nion •
of'your Lordship when the army was assembled at
\Batta was, thlt...thoSe ulterior objeas could not have
been accomplished without the possession -ot Lill°
and.Leifkenshocik, of the town of Ants erp, and
of the Citadel of Antlyero—ln a great meashte
it was; I ath not perfectly sure, but I believe -
they. could not have been accomplished without
the possessi9n of all. I_ ought to add,.that I believe, -
it could not well have been done withourthe posses-
sion of one or two other torts that were between
Lille" and Antwerp,' particelarly, 'Fort Fiederick
Henry, and another battery which, I believe, was
ereaed before -that time. -

Your Lordship haing stated in your dispatch of
the 29th of August, that Antwt-rp' was found to be
in a. state. of defence very different. from what 'Lad
been represented before the sailing of the Expedi-
tion, will your. Lordship tate in what that ditfttrence
'consisted IH-1 understood that the wer!-:s at, Ant-
werp bad been repairth, and were in a good state of
defence; that guns were mounted on the ramparts,
and that water had been let into the ditch.

• From that information was your Lordship in-
cluded to think that. Ant werp could be taken wittiout.
the operations of, a siege ?—lf that information had
been true to its fullest extent, and_ if many other
favourable combinations had also taken place at the
same time, it is possible that it might_ have been
taken without a seige.
What favourable combinations does your Lord-
ship allude to ?—I mean particularly the absence of
the greatest part of the military force, as represent-
ed ; I mean also, if it had been possible for the
%arrtiament to have arrived in as short a time as it had
been stated'to be possible at itklestination.,
What waa the time in which your LOrdship was
taught to believe that the armament might probably
have arrived at Santvliet ?—As I have stated, with
a combination of all favourable circumstances, I had.
understood it might arrive certainly sw%ithin 48 hours
after our, making the island of Walcheren .
What was the nature of the distina official opi-
nion from the Lords of the Admiralty, the commu-
nication or'which is mentioned in your Lordship's
narrative?---I never saw, that opinion but once, but
to the kest of my recolleaion, that opinion went
prin6pally to state that there would be no difficelty
in an armament of that size going up the.Scheldt,
and that there would be no .difficulty in landing the
. army on either side of the Scheldt; that I take to
be a public paper which I Suppose is before the
House with the other information.

By whom was .that opinion signed ?--7lt was
signed, I think, by- the three Naval Loitls of the
Admiralty.
. The signalureof the First. Lord of the Admiralty
then Was not affixed to that paper ? It was not. It
wagiogiven as a professional Opinion.
From that opinion, did your Lordship unleistand
that the *Expedition could arrive at Santvliet within
forty-eight hours after making Walcheren ?—No,
certainly not; there was no -mention whatever as to
time -

, From whom did your Lordship obtain that opi.;
nion think it -was in different communiCations
that passed, I. believe, at the Secretary of State's; at
which-different Officers were present.
Can your Lordship state what Pikers were pre-
sent, and whether their opinions were given in
writing.?—Their.opinions were not giyen in Writing ;
I am not rerteOly sure at this mot ent-whetbq Sir
ilichard Strachan w.)s there or not; but I- reijollell
perfettly Sit Home•Popharn being there, and having.

much conversation with 1141 a respeL•ling the time of
going up the river. - . •
[[Here fi)liow, a long examin;ition- relative to the opinions
`delivered by Sir David Dundas, Ueneri,l Ca'veil and Colonel
; Gordon, in their several. statements, ana the cowversatnanil

1

'7

F.
t

f

-F-