Journal of events & minutes of particular evidence relating to the late expedition against Rochefort &c & the subsequent Courts of Enquiry

did not see the first day -

Question: (by Sir J. M's desire) What number of troops wou'd in your opinion, have enabled a commander to prevent their landing at the propos'd landing-place at Chatelaillon?

Ans: Any opinion I can form upon that point must be very indeterminate; but from what I cou'd observe, the land-hills were pretty near to the water-side & my notion is, all circumstances consider'd - 1000 good foot or 200 or 300 horse might have prevented about 2000 men landing from boats.

Question: How many could have embark'd in the boats?

Ans: I believe there was never any exact calculation made of that, I should think about 36 companies which consisted of about 60 men each - besides officers.

Question Did you see any troops where it was propos'd to land?

Ans. No - I saw 6 pieces of

cannon on the point, but these I think cou'd not reach the beach.

2: If a sufficient number of men had been conceal'd behind the sand-hills, cou'd ships in that case be of any use to cover the landing?

A. No: Such troops must have been safe from the ships while conceal'd.

Nov. 15th Following the above came Col. J. Howard's testimony, together w'h that of Capt Mordaunt M-G'l Conway M-G'l Cornwallis Col. Brudenell

Conway inform'd the Board that in order to save the trouble of any further questions he had prepar'd a statement of the whole proceedings, which he forth-with read out at length -

After adm'ls Knowles & Brodrick had both been quetioned by the Board I was again call'd up & ask'd:

2. What is your opinion of the practicability of landing troops between

between Rochelle & Ft. Fouras?

Nov. 15th: Ans: I saw the bays upon the 29th Sept & beg to offer a minute of the report then made - (for the substance of this minute see ante fr?.) My opinion is - the landing was very practicable in the great Bay of Chatelaillon - The lesser bay I did not see much of -

2. Could the boats have gone out of the reach of the 6 pieces of cannon?

A. Yes -

2. Had you been order'd to attempt landing at any time w'h all the men the boats w'd have contain'd - did any such difficulties appear to you as w'd have justify'd you in representing against as rash or impracticable?

A - Had I been order'd to do

it I shou'd not have represented against it - I have observ'd that I did not see the bay till the 29th

2. Did you ever propose to go out before that time?

A. I can't particularly recollect - look'd upon it to be more immediately the duty of my office - as Quarter M'r Gen'l & was ready to go, whenever order'd -

2. Do you know anything relative to Fort Fouras on the land-side?

A. Only from viewing it through glasses from the I. Of Aix.

2. How far is it, as you apprehend, from the great Bay of Chatelaillon by land to Ft. Fouras?

A. I can't well say - I never was within the Bay; it may possibly by 7 or 8 miles - but the guess if quite vague -

2. How far from the landing-place

-place to Rochefort?

A. I know nothing of it but I have been told it is about 12 miles from the great Bay - about 4 leagues -

2. During the march from the landing-place to Rochefort, might a? detachment sent to Fouras of 400 or 500 men, in your opinion have taken it?

A. I don't know the strength of Fouras sufficiently to answer the question -

2. If the troops had been in possession of Ft. Fouras, w'd not a retreat have been secured?

A. I suppose it might - but can't speak w'h any certainty or precision.

2. What do you take to have been the strength of Rochefort from the best intelligence you cou'd get?

A. I know nothing of Rochefort