Star.
London, England, 1810-02-14 00:00:00

•
that opinion ?—The only hifonaatioh I had xectiYed was that T
have set forth In the paper.
- Did you understand that that was the oily information which
Government could communicate ipon that subject?—!t was the
only information that Government cotnmunleated to, the Com-
nder in Chief upon that stftvet.
You state that you had no to as to the extent of the Militia,
do you understand from whist information you may have re-
ceived, that the French had a considerable Militia or National
Guard in an organized state throughout their dominions ?—I un
derstood it to he so, but I have no positive inforrnatitin of it; as a
great military country, [hake for granted they could not be with-
out some such force.
.At the ti ne you were asked your opinion, was any plan sub-
mitted to you of the country, of its defehem and its fortification ?
—Norte.
Heise yon any knowledge of the fortifications of Antwerp, and
the state of its defences ?—None but what I have derived from
an iespeetiatt of the best maps.
When that opinion was asked of you, was no information
commurecated to you with respect to the actual state of the forth
iisations of Antwerp, of Lillo, and the other Forts upon the
Scheldt ?—No more information was given to me than that
wh:ch is hated in the paper just now read.
i: the seeped: ism that Antwerp was a fortress that had a cita-
del, vseuld net the Militia force that Prance is supposed to have
be of cersikreble avail in its defence ?—Undoubtedly it would.
Do you think it possible that a train of Artillery could have
been transported front this country, and conveyed together with
a besieging army to Antwerp, without considerable time lasing
given to the enemy to prepare for its reception is so very
general a question ; talking of a train of artillery, I should like to
know the exact proportion of the artillery I am to answer to.
Such an amts as would be sufficient to undertake the siege of
Antwerp, on the supposition that its defences were strong, and
that ice garrison was capable of sustaining a siege ?—lt would cer-
tainly require very considerable time.
Do you think that it is possible to form a jest estimate of the
practicability of such an attempt, without knowing what were
the nature and extent of the fortifications of Antwerp ?—it was
the wart of isoormation that induced me to give the strew opi-
. nioe i have already given against it.
Do you not think that if an army bad been sent to besiege
Antwerp, it would have been necessary to have made great de-
tachments to cover the different fortresses from which the enemy
might nterch to its relief; as well as to uccepy different posts in
the Province of Zealynd, to cover its communication ? —I believe
there can be no !:It h; upon that subject.
Do you know wheteer any plan of the country or of its forti-
licatiors was Liven to fend Chatham, when he was intrusted with
the command of the expedition ?--1 do not know.
Do you know -stother any instructiors wive at any time given
to !.ord Chatham hem the Commander in Chiefs Office ?—Yes,
there were.
Do you know what the nature of those instructions was ?--
There were instructiens in writing for his guidance on points of
military detail.
Do you meat! the detail of military operations?--No, the lute-
rigor detail of the army.
After you had del:vend in that opinion, were you consulted by
his Majesty's Ministers, or the Commander in Chile, upon tam
subject of that °Olden ?---A good deal of conversation passed at
venous times between the Commander in Chid and myself upon
that subject.
Did you at any time stn Lord Castiereaoli or any other of his
Majesty's Mieisors on the tibject of toe Expedition ?—Lord
Castltreagh frequently in da: colmse of the business of his office.
Did any conversation arise upon the subject of that opinion
between Lord Castlereagh and you ?—I think not.
You do not recollect having been asked sity questions by Lord
Castlereagh on the subject of that opinion ?—I do not.
Did net Lord ('astlereagh hold various conversations with. you
in the cc se of that service; and did net you know that lord
Castlereagh was in possession cf the military opinion you Led
given ?---I certainly knew that the Commander in Chief had
transmitted nay eoinion to the Secretary of State, and during tae
course of the fining out of the Expedition I had almost daily
eontinunications with the Secretary of State: but what I mean is,
that I was never examined upon the subject of that opinion.
In the course of those conversations, have not the general diffi-
culties of the cperations passed under the consideration of Lord
Castlereagh and yeurself ?—it is very possible that they might, as
matter of conversation.
Were the particular difficulties stated by you in your opinion,
ever made the subject of conversation between yourself and Lord
Castlereagh ?—I think not.
When were you first consulted by the Commander in Chief
upon the subject of the Expedition to the Scheldt ?-1 cannot tx-
at t'y say the exact tats; it must have been some time a little prior
to the date of that opinion.
Had you undsrstoxid, before yeu were so consulted, that it
was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to send a lame Ex-
pedition to the:Scheidt ?-1 had heard that some conversation had
passed upon it in the latter end of March ; but from that time
until the beginning of May, 1 had no further information upon
the subject.
What was tke information you had the beginning of May ?
A conve ?Nolen with the Commander in Chief, chick led to these
opinions.
Supposing the operation against Antwerp to be conducted by
the course of the Scheldt, do you consider that the occupation of
Wetherell and Flushing were necessary. to that operation ?—1
have stated in the opinion that the first operations that would be
necessary appeared to la to obtain possession of Walcheren and
South Beveland, or Casisand and South Beveland; the possession
of the latter appears to be indispensalOe.
I wish to point the question particularly to the possession of
the fortress of Flushing ?—Unloss the fleet could pass up and
down the Scheldt without being damaged by the batteries from
Flushing, it would appear to me that the possession of Flushing
was indispensable, but net otherwise.
If Cadsand could not be taken, was not the possession of Flush-
ing indispensable ?—I think my former answer applies equally to
that question.
Suppose the operation intended bad been limited to the capture
of Walcheren .and Flushing, and thet we Lad failed in getting
possession of Cadsand, would not the same besieging army have
been respired, and would it not have been necessary to have oc-
cupied Leveland and Waive rsdyck with a force to cover the siege
of Flushing, and if so, to what amount of three ?—lt is very possi-
ble; bat I do not think I can give an accurate opinion upon the
subject, those only upon the spot can be competent judges upon
that subject.
Dues it require the same force regularly to besiege a place as it
does merely to invest it ?—I have always understood that when
an al my besieged a place it was necessary to have a covering
army, and that investing the place was preparatory to the siege.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
[The Witness was again called in.]
Is it the practice of Government to apply to the Commander in
Chief to name Officers to command Expeditions ?---ft certainly
is not the practice, nor do I recollect any particular instance of
that being the case.
Was an application made to the Commander its Chief upon
the subject of naming a Commander for the Expedition that went
to the Scheldt ?--I cannot toil what direct communication may
have passed between the Secretary of State and the Commander
in Chief upon that subject.
2.• Was any application made by you, as Military Secretary to the
nd Commander in Chief ?—No, that is not the common routine
upon these confidential occasions.
Had you, as Military Secretary to the Commander in Chief,
oa- ! any record in the office of the military services of Lord Chat-
ham ?--A short time before I left the office of the Commander
in Chief, I suggested to the Commander in Chief the expediency
of calling for the military services of every officer in the army
above the rank of a Field Officer; 1 believe that the Commander
in Chief did so, and that the services of every officer above that
; rank are now recorded under the signature of the respective OM- '
cers, in the office of the Commanding Officer.
might You apprehend that those records are to be found in the office?
of , —Certainly I do.
ef- Do you recollect that application was made for Officers to go
upon out to Walcheren, after the surrender of Flushing, to command ?
cos- --After Lord Chatham returned to Walcheren, application was
the certainly made for a Lieuteuant-General to be sent to relieve Sir
Otis Eyre Coote, who was left in command of the force at Walcheren.
As you have referred to the services of General Officers having
be been called for, and stated to be given by themselves, do you or
,her. do you net veceellect that the Commander in Chief so calling fur
means those services, calling upon the Officers themselves to state those
enter- serrates, marked his communication to them as secttt ?—The cir-
earlier cular letter is marked secret.
- been Was it not meant, if it is consistent with your knowledge, that
the secrecy so used on the pate of the Coinmantkr in Chief,
should convey to those Cenerel Officers, that se, h returns were
Arm solely intended for his information, as Commander in Chief of
Logos the Army take it for granted it was inttstded for the informa-
tion of the Commander in Chief.

rat