CAB38-17 — Page 202

Page 202

Page 202

Page 202

6

it was in the possession of France at the same moment that she was in possession of the course of the Rhine and of Holland. He added that Holland was bound by treaty, and would probably be induced by a sense of interest, not to make Antwerp a port of naval equipment; but that, even if Holland should break her treaty, and ships of war should ever be built at that port, instead of at Flushing or elsewhere, Antwerp could not, under Dutch control, be considered as formidable to Great Britain.

When Belgium was separated from Holland it was provided, both in the treaty of 1831 and in those of April 1839 (article 14), that the port of Antwerp, in conformity with the stipulations of the treaty of Paris (1814), should continue to be solely a port of

commerce.

In 1859 a system of concentrated defence was definitely Lord Vivian adopted in Belgium, and several fortresses were demolished: (Brussels), No. 74,

March 5, 1887. Antwerp was converted into a great central fortress and entrenched camp; the idea being that the Belgian army, if outnumbered, could fall back upon that place and then hold out until succour arrived. This system of defence was described by General Brialmont in 1866 as one of the best in Europe.

3. The position at Flushing.

Flushing was fortified at any rate as far back as 1809, for the British, on leaving Walcheren after the expedition of that year, destroyed the fortifications.

In the following year Napoleon built stronger fortifications there, and at the fort of Breskens opposite.

There is nothing in the Treaty of Vienna prohibiting the fortifi- cation of Flushing: on the other hand, the Duke of Wellington, in the despatch from Vienna already quoted, considered the contingency of Holland violating the treaty obligations and building ships of war at Antwerp instead of at Flushing or elsewhere, thereby, it would seem, admitting by implication that there was nothing at that time to preclude Holland from using Flushing as a naval arsenal.

It is stated in the "Gazetteer of the World," published in 1856, that Flushing was then fortified, and that the batteries swept the mouth of the Scheldt, but that its width (3 miles) prevented them from having complete command of it.

In 1873 it was converted from an arsenal into a commercial “Brockhaus'

port and in 1874 and 1875 His Majesty's Minister at the Hague Encyclopedia."

Sir E. Harris, reported that it was no longer garrisoned, but was about to become No. 47, 1874'; (sic) a great mercantile port. He added that the Dutch Govern- No. 141, 1875. ment were strongly impressed with the value of Flushing: but he does not state whether this was on naval or mercantile grounds or both, confining himself to a personal expression of opinion that "the time had arrived for strengthening its temporary defences."

The preceding paragraph does not appear wholly consistent; but there seems reason to believe that Flushing has never been entirely divested of means of defence, and the War Office would

2

,

Page 202

Page 202