Siborne, vol. 1, p. 164, n., severely criticises the arrangements of the Prince of Orange for the transmission of intelligence.
[156] Müffling, Passages, p. 228.
[157] Gurwood, vol. xii, p. 472. App. C, ix; post, p. 370. We rely mainly on the “Memorandum for the Deputy Quartermaster General,” from which he drafted the orders. In some cases we know that the orders actually sent varied somewhat from the terms of the Memorandum; this was no doubt true in all cases; but the differences were not material. See Van Loben Sels, p. 177, note (1).
[158] 0llech (p. 116) says Cooke’s division was not mentioned in these orders. He is in error; it is Clinton’s division that is not mentioned. Cooke’s was ordered to collect at Ath, not Clinton’s, as Ollech has it.
[159] Müffling, Passages, p. 229.
[160] Chesney, p. 83, n. Müffling, p. 229. Maurice, p. 69: April, 1890. Charras, vol. 1, p. 132, n., says between eight and half-past nine.
[161] Gurwood, vol. xii, p. 473; App. C, ix; post, p. 370.
[162] Gneisenau, vol. 4, p. 365, note.
[163] Müffling, Passages, p. 229.
[164] At 10 o’clock, however, it was not known at Brussels that Charleroi had been taken. In a letter to the Duc de Feltre, dated 10 P.M., the Duke says that the enemy “appears to menace” Charleroi. Gurwood, vol. xii, p. 473; App. C, x; post, p. 371.