The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-03-03 00:00:00

MINGTEs OF EvaBIYGE;-
.4c....
TAKEN BEFORE THE .ClOllrlfaoF THE
WHOLE HOUSE. AFROINT 10 CONSIDER
OF THE POLICY AND CONDUCT OP THE LATL
EILYEDITION TO THE SCHELDT.

TWELFTH DAY.

The Right lien. the Earl of CHATHAM called in.
Examined by the Committee.
In a letter from Lord Castlereagh toYour Lord.
ship, dated the 2d Sept. 1809, to be found in paper
(A.) in No. 8, your Lordship is. reminded of
positive instructions relative to obstructing the
navigation of the Scheldt; the words are these:—
" I am to express to your Lordship his Majesty's
confident persuasion that, previous to your return,
and in conformity to your instructious, your
Lordship will co.uperate with the navy in giving
effect to any measures Sir Richard Strachan may
think fit to adopt for obstructing the navigation
of the Scheldt ;" what steps did your Lordship
take to give effect to that instruction ? I had it
not in toy power to give any.
How was the army employed from the taking
of Flushing on the 1•lth or 15th of August, till
their retreat was resolved ou ? The army was
not employed at all during that period ; it could
not be employed during that period.
Before, or at the time of the sailing of the Ex.
pedition, was your Lordship instructed to believe
Antwerp to be pregnable by a .cau p.dc-main ? I
had intelligence communicated to me, that the
• fortifications of Antwerp were in so bad a state
that perhaps it might be open to a coup-de-main.
If success had attended tho attack on the run-
nels of Antwerp and the French fleet, was your
Lordship instructed to look to any ulterior ob.
ject? I had iro other instructions than are be.
fore the ComMittee.

Your Lordship having stated that you had re.
coived information that from the state of the
forks of Antwerp, Antwerp was liable to be
taken by a coup-de-main, from whom did yoqr
Lordship receive that information ? It was in
the information which has been laid upon the ta-
ble; I received it from the Secretary of State offi.
clally.
Did any conversation pass between your Lord-
ship and the Secretary of State, upon the suhject
of the taking of Antwerp by a coup.de.maiii ? 1
do not know absolutely by a coup-de-main ; but
I had conversations as to whether it might not be
taken, without a regular siege, or without a bom-
bardment.

what way was it proposed at that time that
Antwerp should be taken, if nut by a cottp.de-
main, yet without siege or bombardment? If there
J ad been an opening fur it from the state of the
works, and the weakness of the garrison, proba-
bly by assault.
Did Lord Castlereagh express to your Lord-
ship any expectation that Antwerp would be taken
by assault ? He certainly exprcised such expec-
tation, under the circumstances which I have
stated.

Those circumstances mean the intelligence to
which you Lordship has referred ? Tne'works
lining in so bad a state, and the garrison so weak
as to admit of such a measure.

Did Lord Gistlereagh iliforni your Lordship
that he supposed the wurks to be so weak, and the
garrison in such a state as that your Lordship
would be able to take it by assault ? He seemed
certainly to thi•ik that it ini;;lrt be possible, under
the favourable circumstances I have inentiotied.

With all the intelligence submitted to your
Lordship by Lord Castlereagh, did your Lordship
ever eittertain any expectation that you should he
able to take Antwerp by assault ? If that intelli-
gence, which represented the very decayed state of
the works, and the absence of troops to the great
extent stated in some of the intelligence, had turn.
out to be true. I certainly thought it might have
been possible to have taken Antwerp by some vi.
porous attack, probably by assault.
Will your Lordship state to the Committee the
names of any General Officers with whom you con-
versed on the subject of taking Antwerp by as.
welt. I should think I must have mentioned it
to all the General Officers, or to all probably with
whom I had conversation ou the subject.
Previous to sailing, or at any other time, did
your Lordship ever ask the opinion of Sir Eyre
Coate, as to the practicability of taking Ant.
werp by assault, or the probability of success in
that enterprise ? I did not ask ally formal opi-
nion on the subject of Sir Eyre Coote ; but con-
versed with him on different modes of operation
that we might pursue.
Is the Committee to understand that no opinion
was asked of or was given by Sir Eyre Coote on
that particular point? No formal opinion.
Was any opinion at all, formal or informal,
given to your Lordship by Sir Eyre Coote, on
that subject ? Ido not know that there =sassy
opinion at all given; because I know that he con.
sidered our operations must be regulated by cir.
cumstances when we arrived.
Can your Lordship name any other General
Officer besides Sir Eyre Coote ? I conceive,
as I said before, that the question must have
arisen in conversation with all the General Ole.
cers ; we talked generally of the means of our
further operations, but no distinct opinion was
asked, becanse I did not conceive they could give
one.
Does your Lordship recolleft any marked con-
versation on that subject with Lord Paget ?
had a good deal of conversation at different times
with Lord Paget; I do not recollect any marked
conversation, that is, any formal or distinct opi-
nion given by him upon that subject.
With General Grosvenor ? I have had eonver:.
nation with General Grosvenor •en the subject
generally.
With General Brownrigg ? I had.
setae -

Upon that particuL , point ? On that point.
Does your Lordship recollect tbo conversation
that passed between your Lordship: and General
Browurigg on that particular point ? I cannot
recollect any particular conversation ; my con-
♦ersations with General Brownrigg were very Ire.
quest.
In the Memorandum or Statement, was the at-
tack on Antwerp described u intended to be a si.

=I

N"

•

•