A LETTER

TO

GENERAL LORD VISCOUNT BERESFORD,

BEING

An Answer to his Lordships Assumed Refutation

OF

COL. NAPIER’S JUSTIFICATION OF HIS THIRD VOLUME.

My Lord,

You have at last appeared in print without any disguise. Had you done so at first it might have spared us both some trouble. I should have paid more deference to your argument and would willingly have corrected any error fairly pointed out. Now having virtually acknowledged yourself the author of the two publications entitled “Strictures” and “Further Strictures,” &c. I will not suffer you to have the advantage of using two kinds of weapons, without making you also feel their inconvenience. I will treat your present publication as a mere continuation of your former two, and then my lord, how will you stand in this controversy?

Starting anonymously you wrote with all the scurrility that bad taste and mortified vanity could suggest to damage an opponent, because in the fair exercise of his judgement he had ventured to deny your claim to the title of a great commander: and you coupled this with such fulsome adulation of yourself that even in a dependent’s mouth it would have been sickening. Now when you have suffered defeat, when all the errors misquotations and misrepresentations of your anonymous publications have been detected and exposed, you come forward in your own name as if a new and unexceptionable party had appeared, and you expect to be allowed all the advantage of fresh statements and arguments and fresh assertions, without the least reference to your former damaged evidence. You expect that I should have that deference for you, which your age, your rank, your services, and your authority under other circumstances might have fairly claimed at my hands; that I should acknowledge by my silence how much I was in error, or that I should defend myself by another tedious dissection and exposition of your production. My lord, you will be disappointed. I have neither time nor inclination to enter for the third time upon such a task; and yet I will not suffer you to claim a victory which you have not gained. I deny the strength of your arguments, I will expose some prominent inconsistencies, and as an answer to those which I do not notice I will refer to your former publications to show, that in this controversy, I am now entitled to disregard any thing you may choose to advance, and that I am in justice exonerated from the necessity of producing any more proofs.

You have published above six hundred pages at three different periods, and you have taken above a year to digest and arrange the arguments and evidence contained in your present work; a few lines will suffice for the answer. The object of your literary labours is to convince the world that at Campo Mayor you proved yourself an excellent general, and that at Albuera you were superlatively great! Greater even than Cæsar! My lord, the duke of Wellington did not take a much longer time to establish his European reputation by driving the French from the Peninsula; and methinks if your exploits vouch not for themselves your writings will scarcely do it for them. At all events, a plain simple statement at first, having your name affixed, would have been more effectual with the public, and would certainly have been more dignified than the anonymous publications with which you endeavoured to feel your way. Why should not all the main points contained in the laboured pleadings of your Further Strictures, and the still more laboured pleadings of your present work, have been condensed and published at once with your name? if indeed it was necessary to publish at all! Was it that by anonymous abuse of your opponent and anonymous praise of yourself you hoped to create a favourable impression on the public before you appeared in person? This, my lord, seems very like a consciousness of weakness. And then how is it that so few of the arguments and evidences now adduced should have been thought of before? It is a strange thing that in the first defence of your generalship, for one short campaign, you should have neglected proofs and arguments sufficient to form a second defence of two hundred pages.

You tell us, that you disdained to notice my “Reply to various Opponents,” because you knew the good sense of the public would never be misled by a production containing such numerous contradictions and palpable inconsistencies, and that your friends’ advice confirmed you in this view of the matter. There were nevertheless some things in that work which required an answer even though the greatest part of it had been weak; and it is a pity your friends did not tell you that an affected contempt for an adversary who has hit hard only makes the bystanders laugh. Having condescended to an anonymous attack it would have been wiser to refute the proofs offered of your own inaccuracy than to shrink with mock grandeur from a contest which you had yourself provoked. My friends, my lord, gave me the same advice with respect to your anonymous publications, and with more reason, because they were anonymous; but I had the proofs of your weakness in my hands, I preferred writing an answer, and if you had been provided in the same manner you would like me have neglected your friends’ advice.

My lord, I shall now proceed with my task in the manner I have before alluded to. You have indeed left me no room for that refined courtesy with which I could have wished to soften the asperities of this controversy, but I must request of you to be assured, and I say it in all sincerity, that I attribute the errors to which I must revert, not to any wilful perversion or wilful suppression of facts, but entirely to a natural weakness of memory, and the irritation of a mind confused by the working of wounded vanity. I acknowledge that it is a hard trial to have long-settled habits of self satisfaction suddenly disturbed,—

“Cursed be my harp and broke be every chord,

If I forget thy worth, victorious Beresford.”

It was thus the flattering muse of poetry lulled you with her sweet strains into a happy dream of glory, and none can wonder at your irritation when the muse of history awakened you with the solemn clangour of her trumpet to the painful reality that you were only an ordinary person. My lord, it would have been wiser to have preserved your equanimity, there would have been some greatness in that.

In your first Strictures you began by asserting that I knew nothing whatever of you or your services; and that I was actuated entirely by vulgar political rancour when I denied your talents as a general. To this I replied that I was not ignorant of your exploits. That I knew something of your proceedings at Buenos Ayres, at Madeira, and at Coruña; and in proof thereof I offered to enter into the details of the first, if you desired it. To this I have received no answer.

You affirmed that your perfect knowledge of the Portuguese language was one of your principal claims to be commander of the Portuguese army. In reply I quoted from your own letter to lord Wellington, your confession, that, such was your ignorance of that language at the time you could not even read the communication from the regency, relative to your own appointment.

You asserted that no officer, save sir John Murray, objected at the first moment to your sudden elevation of rank. In answer I published sir John Sherbroke’s letter to sir J. Cradock complaining of it.

You said the stores (which the Cabildo of Ciudad Rodrigo refused to let you have in 1809) had not been formed by lord Wellington. In reply I published lord Wellington’s declaration that they had been formed by him.

You denied that you had ever written a letter to the junta of Badajos, and this not doubtfully or hastily, but positively and accompanied with much scorn and ridicule of my assertion to that effect. You harped upon the new and surprising information I had obtained relative to your actions, and were, in truth, very facetious upon the subject. In answer I published your own letter to that junta! So much for your first Strictures.

In your second publication (page 42) you asserted that colonel Colborne was not near the scene of action at Campo Mayor; and now in your third publication (page 48) you show very clearly that he took an active part in those operations.

You called the distance from Campo Mayor to Merida two marches, and now you say it is four marches.

Again, in your first “Strictures,” you declared that the extent of the intrigues against you in Portugal were exaggerated by me; and you were very indignant that I should have supposed you either needed, or had the support and protection of the duke of Wellington while in command of the Portuguese army. In my third and fourth volumes, published since, I have shown what the extent of those intrigues was: and I have still something in reserve to add when time shall be fitting. Meanwhile I will stay your lordship’s appetite by two extracts bearing upon this subject, and upon the support which you derived from the duke of Wellington.

1º. Mr. Stuart, writing to lord Wellesley, in 1810, after noticing the violence of the Souza faction relative to the fall of Almeida, says,—“I could have borne all this with patience if not accompanied by a direct proposal that the fleet and transports should quit the Tagus, and that the regency should send an order to marshal Beresford to dismiss his quarter-master-general and military secretary; followed by reflections on the persons composing the family of that officer, and by hints to the same purport respecting the Portuguese who are attached to lord Wellington.”

2º. Extract from a letter written at Moimenta de Beira by marshal Beresford, and dated 6th September, 1810.—“However, as I mentioned, I have no great desire to hold my situation beyond the period lord Wellington retains his situation, or after active operations have ceased in this country, even should things turn out favourably, of which I really at this instant have better hopes than I ever had though I have been usually sanguine. But in regard to myself, though I do not pretend to say the situation I hold is not at all times desirable to hold, yet I am fully persuaded that if tranquillity is ever restored to this country under its legal government, that I should be too much vexed and thwarted by intrigues of all sorts to reconcile either my temper or my conscience to what would then be my situation.”

For the further exposition of the other numerous errors and failures of your two first publications, I must refer the reader to my “Reply” and “Justification,” but the points above noticed it was necessary to fix attention upon, because they give me the right to call upon the public to disregard your present work. And this right I cannot relinquish. I happened fortunately to have the means of repelling your reckless assaults in the instances above mentioned, but I cannot always be provided with your own letters to disprove your own assertions. The combat is not equal my lord, I cannot contend with such odds and must therefore, although reluctantly, use the advantages which by the detection of such errors I have already obtained.

These then are strong proofs of an unsound memory upon essential points, and they deprive your present work of all weight as an authority in this controversy. Yet the strangest part of your new book (see page 135) is, that you avow an admiration for what you call the generous principle which leads French authors to misstate facts for the honour of their country; and not only you do this but sneer at me very openly for not doing the same! you sneer at me, my lord, for not falsifying facts to pander to the morbid vanity of my countrymen, and at the same time, with a preposterous inconsistency you condemn me for being an inaccurate historian! My lord, I have indeed yet to learn that the honour of my country either requires to be or can be supported by deliberate historical falsehoods. Your lordship’s personal experience in the field may perhaps have led you to a different conclusion but I will not be your historian: and coupling this, your expressed sentiment, with your forgetfulness on the points which I have before noticed, I am undoubtedly entitled to laugh at your mode of attacking others. What, my lord? like Banquo’s ghost you rise, “with twenty mortal murthers on your crown to push us from our stools.” You have indeed a most awful and ghost-like way of arguing: all your oracular sentences are to be implicitly believed, and all my witnesses to facts sound and substantial, are to be discarded for your airy nothings.

Captain Squire! heed him not, he was a dissatisfied, talking, self-sufficient, ignorant officer.

The officer of dragoons who charged at Campo Mayor! He is nameless, his narrative teems with misrepresentations, he cannot tell whether he charged or not.

Colonel Light! spunge him out, he was only a subaltern.

Captain Gregory! believe him not, his statement cannot be correct, he is too minute, and has no diffidence.

Sir Julius Hartman, Colonel Wildman, Colonel Leighton! Oh! very honourable men, but they know nothing of the fact they speak of, all their evidence put together is worth nothing! But, my lord, it is very exactly corroborated by additional evidence contained in Mr. Long’s publication. Aye! aye! all are wrong; their eyes, their ears, their recollections, all deceived them. They were not competent to judge. But they speak to single facts! no matter!

Well, then, my lord, I push to you your own despatch! Away with it! It is worthless, bad evidence, not to be trusted! Nothing more likely, my lord, but what then, and who is to be trusted? Nobody who contradicts me: every body who coincides with me, nay, the same person is to be believed or disbelieved exactly as he supports or opposes my assertion; even those French authors, whose generous principles lead them to write falsehoods for the honour of their country. Such, my lord, after a year’s labour of cogitation, is nearly the extent of your “Refutation.”

In your first publication you said that I should have excluded all hearsay evidence, and have confined myself to what could be proved in a court of justice; and now when I bring you testimony which no court of justice could refuse, with a lawyer’s coolness you tell the jury that none of it is worthy of credit; that my witnesses, being generally of a low rank in the army, are not to be regarded, that they were not competent to judge. My lord, this is a little too much: there would be some shew of reason if these subalterns’ opinions had been given upon the general dispositions of the campaign, but they are all witnesses to facts which came under their personal observation. What! hath not a subaltern eyes? Hath he not ears? Hath he not understanding? You were once a subaltern yourself, and you cannot blind the world by such arrogant pride of station, such overweening contempt for men’s capacity because they happen to be of lower rank than yourself. Long habits of imperious command may have so vitiated your mind that you cannot dispossess yourself of such injurious feelings, yet, believe me it would be much more dignified to avoid this indecent display of them.

I shall now, my lord, proceed to remark upon such parts of your new publication as I think necessary for the further support of my history, that is, where new proofs, or apparent proofs, are brought forward. For I am, as I have already shewn, exonerated by your former inaccuracies from noticing any part of your “Refutation” save where new evidence is brought forward; and that only in deference to those gentlemen who, being unmixed with your former works, have a right either to my acquiescence in the weight of their testimony, or my reasons for declining to accept it. I have however on my hands a much more important labour than contending with your lordship, and I shall therefore leave the greatest part of your book to those who choose to take the trouble to compare your pretended Refutation with my original Justification in combination with this letter, being satisfied that in so doing I shall suffer nothing by their award.

1st. With respect to the death of the lieutenant-governor of Almeida, you still harp upon my phrase that it was the only evidence. The expression is common amongst persons when speaking of trials; it is said the prisoner was condemned by such or such a person’s evidence, never meaning that there was no other testimony, but that in default of that particular evidence he would not have been condemned. Now you say that there was other evidence, yet you do not venture to affirm that Cox’s letter was not the testimony upon which the lieutenant-governor was condemned, while the extract from lord Stuart’s letter, quoted by me, says it was. And, my lord, his lordship’s letter to you, in answer to your enquiry, neither contradicts nor is intended to contradict my statement; nor yet does it in any manner deny the authenticity of my extracts, which indeed were copied verbatim from his letter to lord Castlereagh.

Lord Stuart says, that extract is the only thing bearing on the question which he can find. Were there nothing more it would be quite sufficient, but his papers are very voluminous, more than fifty large volumes, and he would naturally only have looked for his letter of the 25th July, 1812, to which you drew his attention. However, in my notes and extracts taken from his documents, I find, under the date of August, 1812, the following passage:—

“The lieutenant-governor of Almeida was executed by Beresford’s order, he, Beresford, having full powers, and the government none, to interfere. Great interest was made to save him, but in vain. The sentence and trial were published before being carried into execution and were much criticized. Both the evidence and the choice of officers were blamed; and moreover the time chosen was one of triumph just after the battle of Salamanca, and the place Lisbon.”

This passage I have not marked in my book of notes as being lord Stuart’s words; it must therefore be only taken as an abstract of the contents of one of his papers; but comparing it with the former passage, and with the facts that your lordship’s words are still very vague and uncertain as to the main point in question, namely, the evidence on which this man was really condemned, I see no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the statement in my first edition, nor the perfect accuracy of it as amended in the second edition of my third volume, published many months ago. You will find that I have there expunged the word “only,” and made the sentence exactly to accord with the extract from lord Stuart’s letter. You will also observe, my lord, that I never did do more than mention the simple fact, for which I had such good authority; and that so far from imputing blame to you for the execution of the sentence I expressly stated that the man richly deserved death.

Passing now to the subject of the eighth Portuguese regiment, I will first observe, that when I said the eighth Portuguese regiment was broken to pieces I imputed no blame to it. No regiment in the world could have stemmed the first fury of that French column which attacked the mountain where the eighth was posted. If the eighth was not broken by it, as sir James Douglas’s letter would seem to imply, what was it doing while the enemy by their flank movement gained the crest of the position in such numbers as to make it a most daring exploit of the ninth British regiment to attack them there. It is a strange thing that a heavy column of French who were resolute to gain the crest of such a position should have made “a flank movement,” to avoid one wing of a regiment of Portuguese conscripts. I should rather imagine, with all deference, that it was the conscripts who made the flank movement, and that some optical deception had taken place, like that which induces children while travelling in a carriage to think the trees and rocks are moving instead of themselves. However, with this I have nothing to do, I have given my authority, namely, the statement of major Waller, a staff-officer present, and the statement of colonel Taylor (for he is my nameless eye-witness) of the ninth, the very regiment to which sir James Douglas appeals for support of his account. These are my authorities, and if their recollections are irreconcilable with that of sir James Douglas it only shows how vain it is to expect perfect accuracy of detail. I knew not of sir James Douglas’s negative testimony, but I had two positive testimonies to my statement, and as I have still two to one, I am within the rules of the courts of justice to which your lordship would refer all matter of history; moreover, some grains of allowance must be made for the natural partiality of every officer for his own regiment. The following extract from sir James Leith’s report on the occasion is also good circumstantial evidence in favour of my side of the question.

“The face of affairs in this quarter now wore a different aspect, for the enemy who had been the assailant, having dispersed or driven every thing there opposed to him, was in possession of the rocky eminence of the sierra at this part of major-general Picton’s position without a shot being fired at him. Not a moment was to be lost. Major-general Leith resolved instantly to attack the enemy with the bayonet. He therefore ordered the ninth British regiment, which had been hitherto moving rapidly by its left in columns in order to gain the most advantageous ground for checking the enemy, to form the line, which they did with the greatest promptitude accuracy and coolness under the fire of the enemy, who had just appeared formed on that part of the rocky eminence which overlooks the back of the ridge, and who had then for the first time also perceived the British brigade under him. Major general Leith had intended that the thirty-eighth, second battalion, should have moved on in the rear and to the left of the ninth regiment, to have turned the enemy beyond the rocky eminence which was quite inaccessible towards the rear of the sierra, while the ninth should have gained the ridge on the right of the rocky height, the royals to have been posted (as they were) in reserve; but the enemy having driven every thing before them in that quarter, afforded him the advantage of gaining the top of the rocky ridge, which is accessible in front, before it was possible for the British brigade to have reached that position, although not a moment had been lost in marching to support the point attacked, and for that purpose it had made a rapid movement of more than two miles without halting and frequently in double quick time.”

Here we have nothing of flank movements to avoid a wing of Portuguese conscripts, but the plain and distinct assertion twice over, that every thing in front was dispersed or driven away—and that not even a shot was fired at the enemy. Where then was the eighth Portuguese? Did the French column turn aside merely at the menacing looks of these conscripts? If so, what a pity the latter had not been placed to keep the crest of the position. There is also another difficulty. Sir James Douglas says he was with the royals in the attack, and sir James Leith says that the royals were held in reserve while the ninth drove away the enemy; besides which, the eighth Portuguese might have been broke by the enemy when the latter were mounting the hill and yet have rallied and joined in the pursuit when the ninth had broken the French. Moreover, my lord, as you affirm that both yourself and the duke of Wellington saw all the operations of the eighth Portuguese on this occasion, I will extend my former extract from colonel Taylor’s letter, wherein you will perceive something which may perhaps lead you to doubt the accuracy of your recollection on that head.

“No doubt general Leith’s letter to the duke was intended to describe the aspect of affairs in so critical a situation, and where the duke himself could not possibly have made his observations; and also Leith wished to have due credit given to his brigade, which was not done in the despatches. On the contrary, their exertions were made light of, and the eighth Portuguese regiment was extolled, which I know gave way to a man, save their commanding officer and ten or a dozen men at the outside; but he and they were amongst the very foremost ranks of the ninth British.”—“General Leith’s correspondence would be an interesting document to colonel Napier, as throwing considerable light upon the operations at Busaco, between Picton and Hill’s corps, a very considerable extent of position which could not of possibility be overlooked from any other part of the field.”

Charge of the nineteenth Portuguese. Your lordship has here gained an advantage; I cannot indeed understand some of general M‘Bean’s expressions, but it is impossible for me to doubt his positive statement; I believe therefore that he was in front of the convent wall and that he charged some body of the enemy. It is however necessary to restore the question at issue between your lordship and myself to its true bearing. You accused me of a desire to damage the reputation of the Portuguese army, and you asked why I did not speak of a particular charge made by the nineteenth Portuguese regiment at Busaco. This charge you described as being against one of Ney’s attacking columns, which had, you said, gained the ascent of the position, and then forming advanced on the plain above before it was charged by the nineteenth regiment. As this description was certainly wrong I treated the whole as a magniloquent allusion to an advance which I had observed to have been made by a Portuguese regiment posted on the mountain to the right. (General M‘Bean is mistaken when he quotes me as saying that his line was never nearer to the enemy’s lines than a hundred yards. I spoke of a Portuguese regiment, which might possibly be the nineteenth.) I never denied that any charge had been made, but that a charge such as described by you had taken place, and in fact general M‘Bean’s letter while it confirms the truth of your general description, by implication denies the accuracy of the particulars. Certainly Ney’s columns never passed the front of the light division nor advanced on the plain behind it.

The difficulty I have to reconcile general M‘Bean’s statement with my own recollections and with the ground and position of the light division, may perhaps arise from the general’s meaning to use certain terms in a less precise sense than I take them. Thus he says he was posted in front of the convent-wall, and also on the right of the light division; but the light division was half a mile in front of the convent-wall, and hence I suppose he does not mean as his words might imply immediately under the wall. He speaks also of the light division as being to his left, but unless he speaks of the line of battle with reference to the sinuosities of the ground, the light division was with respect to the enemy and the convent in his front; and if he does speak with regard to those sinuosities, his front would have been nearly at right angles to the front of the fifty-second and forty-third, which I suppose to be really the case. Again he says that he charged and drove the French from their position down to the bottom of the ravine; but the enemy’s position, properly so called, was on the opposite side of the great ravine, and as all his artillery and cavalry, all the eighth corps and the reserves of the sixth corps, were in order of battle there, ten regiments, much less one, dared not to have crossed the ravine which was of such depth that it was difficult to distinguish troops at the bottom. I conclude therefore, general M‘Bean here means by the word position some accidental ground on which the enemy had formed. Taking this to be so, I will now endeavour to reconcile general M‘Bean’s statement with my own recollection; because certainly I do still hold my description of the action at that part to be accurate as to all the main points.

The edge of the table-land or tongue on which the light division stood was very abrupt, and formed a salient angle, behind the apex of which the forty-third and fifty-second were drawn up in a line, the right of the one and the left of the other resting on the very edges; the artillery was at the apex looking down the descent, and far below the Caçadores and the ninety-fifth were spread on the mountain side as skirmishers. Ney employed only two columns of attack. The one came straight against the light division; the head of it striking the right company of the fifty-second and the left company of the forty-third was broken as against a wall; and at the same time the wings of those regiments reinforced by the skirmishers of the ninety-fifth, who had retired on the right of the forty-third, advanced and lapped over the broken column on both sides. No other troops fought with them at that point. In this I cannot be mistaken, because my company was in the right wing of the forty-third, we followed the enemy down to the first village which was several hundred yards below the edge, and we returned leisurely; the ground was open to the view on the right and on the left, we saw no other column, and heard of none save that which we were pursuing.

When we returned from this pursuit the light division had been reformed on the little plain above, and some time after several German battalions, coming from under the convent wall, passed through our ranks and commenced skirmishing with Ney’s reserve in the woods below.

General M‘Bean says he saw no German infantry, and hence it is clear that it was not at this point his charge had place. But it is also certain Ney had only two columns of attack. Now his second, under the command of general Marchand, moved up the hollow curve of the great mountain to the right of the light division, and having reached a pine-wood, which however was far below the height on which the light division stood, he sent skirmishers out against Pack’s brigade which was in his front. A part of Ross’s troops of artillery under the direction of lieutenant, now colonel M‘Donald, played very sharply upon this column in the pine-wood. I was standing in company with captain Loyd of my own regiment, close to the guns watching their effect, and it was then I saw the advance of the Portuguese regiment to which I have alluded; but general M‘Bean again assures me that the nineteenth regiment was not there. Two suppositions therefore present themselves. The enemy’s skirmishers from this column were very numerous. Some of them might have passed the left flank of Pack’s skirmishers, and gathering in a body have reached the edge of the hill on which the light division were posted, and then rising behind it have been attacked by general M‘Bean; or, what is more likely, the skirmishers, or a small flanking detachment from the column which attacked the light division, might have passed under the edge of the descent on the right of the light division, and gathering in a like manner have risen under general M‘Bean’s line.

Either of these suppositions, and especially the last, would render the matter clear to me in all points save that of attacking the enemy’s position, which as I have before observed, may be only a loose expression of the general’s to denote the ground which the French opposed to him had attained on our position. This second supposition seems also to be confirmed by a fact mentioned by general M‘Bean, namely, that the enemy’s guns opened on him immediately after his charge. The French guns did open also on that part of the light division which followed the enemy down the hill to the first village, thus the time that the nineteenth charged seems marked, and as I was one of those who went to the village, it also accounts for my not seeing that charge. However considering all things, I must admit that I was so far in error that I really did not, nor do I now possess any clear recollection of this exploit of the nineteenth regiment; and in proof of the difficulty of attaining strict accuracy on such occasions, I can here adduce the observation of general M‘Bean viz. that he saw no Germans save the artillery; yet there was a whole brigade of that nation near the convent wall, and they advanced and skirmished sharply with the enemy soon after the charge of the nineteenth would appear to have taken place. Very often also, things appear greater to those who perform them than to the bye-standers, and I would therefore ask how many men the nineteenth lost in the charge, how many prisoners it took, and how many French were opposed to it? for I still maintain that neither by the nineteenth Portuguese, nor by any other regiment, save those of the light division, was any charge made which called for particular notice on my part as a general historian. I am not bound to relate all the minor occurrences of a great battle; “those things belong to the history of regiments,” is the just observation of Napoleon. Yet general M‘Bean may be assured that no desire to underrate either his services or the gallantry of the Portuguese soldiers ever actuated me, and to prove it, if my third volume should ever come to a third edition, I will take his letter as my ground for noticing this charge, although I will not promise to make it appear so prominent as your lordship would have me to do.

Your lordship closes this subject by the following observation. “As colonel Napier represents himself as having been an eye-witness of a gallant movement made by a certain Portuguese regiment,—which regiment he does not profess to know,—but which movement took place a mile distant from the position given to the nineteenth regiment, it is evident he could not also have been an eye-witness of what was passing a mile to the left. Nor can he therefore negative what is said to have occurred there. It is extraordinary that the historian should not have perceived the predicament in which he has placed himself.” Now your lordship does not say that the two events occurred at the same time, wherefore your conclusion is what the renowned Partridge calls a “non sequitur;” and as general M‘Bean expressly affirms his charge to have taken place on the right of the light division, it was not absolutely necessary that I should look to the left in order to see the said charge. Hence the predicament in which I am placed, is that of being obliged to remark your lordship’s inability to reason upon your own materials.

Your next subject is captain Squire, but I will pass over that matter as having been I think sufficiently discussed before, and I am well assured that the memory of that very gallant and able officer will never suffer from your lordship’s angry epithets. Campo Mayor follows. In your “Further Strictures” you said that colonel Colborne was not near the scene of action; you now show in detail that he was actively engaged in it. You denied also that he was in support of the advanced guard, and yet quote his own report explaining how he happened to be separated from the advanced guard just before the action, thus proving that he was marching in support of it. You refuse any credit to the statements of captain Gregory and colonel Light; and you endeavour to discredit and trample upon the evidence of the officer of the thirteenth dragoons who was an actor in the charge of that regiment, but with respect to him a few remarks are necessary.

1º. The accuracy of that gentleman’s narrative concerns my Justification very little, except in one part. I published it whole as he gave it to me, because I thought it threw light upon the subject. I think so still, and I see nothing in your lordship’s observation to make me doubt its general correctness. But it was only the part which I printed in italics that concerned me. I had described a remarkable combat of cavalry, wherein the hostile squadrons had twice passed through each other, and then the British put the French to flight. Your lordship ridiculed this as a nursery tale; you called my description of it a “country dance,” and you still call it my “scenic effect.” Did the hostile masses meet twice, and did the British then put their opponents to flight? These were the real questions. The unusual fact of two cavalry bodies charging through each other, was the point in dispute; it is scenic, but is it true? Now my first authority, whom I have designated as an “eye-witness,” was colonel Colborne; my second authority colonel Dogherty of the thirteenth dragoons, an actor; and when your lordship so coolly says the latter’s statement does not afford “the slightest support to my scenic description,” I must take the liberty of laughing at you. Why, my lord, you really seem disposed to treat common sense as if it were a subaltern. Colonel Dogherty bears me out even to the letter; for as the second charge took place with the same violence that the third did, if the hostile bodies had not passed through to their original position, the French must have fled towards the allied army; but they fled towards Badajos. The English must therefore have passed through and turned, and it was then that in the personal conflict with the sabre which followed the second charge the thirteenth dragoons defeated the French.

My lord, you will never by such special pleading, I know of no other term by which I can properly designate your argument, you will never, I say, by such special pleading, hide your bad generalship at Campo Mayor. The proofs of your errors there are too many and too clear; the errors themselves too glaring too gross to leave you the least hope; the same confusion of head which prevented you from seizing the advantages then offered to you seems to prevail in your writing; and yet while impeaching every person’s credit where their statements militate against your object, you demand the most implicit confidence in your own contradictory assertions and preposterous arguments. My lord, you only fatigue yourself and your readers by your unwieldy floundering, you are heavy and throw much mud about; like one of those fine Andalusian horses so much admired in the Peninsula, you prance and curvet and foam and labour in your paces but you never get on. At Campo Mayor you had an enormous superiority of troops, the enemy were taken by surprize, they were in a plain, their cavalry were beaten, their artillery-drivers cut down, their infantry, hemmed in by your horsemen and under the play of your guns, were ready to surrender; yet you suffered them to escape and to carry off their captured artillery and then you blamed your gallant troops. The enemy escaped from you, my lord, but you cannot escape from the opinion of the world by denying the truth of all statements which militate against you.

The march by Merida. If you had said at once that the duke of Wellington forbade you to go by Merida, there would have been an end of all my arguments against your skill; yet it by no means follows that these arguments would be futile in themselves, though not applicable to you personally. New combinations were presented, and the duke of Wellington might very probably have changed his instructions had he been present on the spot. But, why was this your justification withheld until now? why was so plain, so clear, so decisive a defence of yourself never thought of before? and why is it now smothered with such a heap of arguments as you have added, to prove that you ought not to have gone by Merida? Have you found out that I am not such a bad reasoner upon military affairs as you were pleased to style me in your former publication? Have you found out that pleading high rank is not a sufficient answer to plain and well supported statements? It is good however that you have at last condescended to adopt a different mode of proceeding. I applaud you for it, and with the exception of two points I will leave you in the full enjoyment of any triumph which the force of your arguments may procure you; always, however, retaining my right to assume that your lordship’s memory with respect to the duke of Wellington’s negative, may have been as treacherous as it was about your own letter to the junta of Badajos.

I have therefore nothing to add to the arguments I have already used in my Justification, and in my History, in favour of the march to Merida; if I am wrong the world will so judge me. But the two points I have reserved are, 1º. That you assert now, in direct contradiction to your former avowal, that the march to Merida would have been one of four days instead of two; and that the road by Albuquerque was the only one which you could use. In answer to this last part I observe, that the French before, and the Spaniards then, marched by the road of Montigo; and that a year after, when lord Hill’s expedition against Almaraz took place, the whole of his battering and pontoon train, with all the ammunition belonging to it, moved with great facility in three days from Elvas, by this very road of Montigo, to Merida; and Elvas as your Lordship knows is rather further than Campo Mayor from Merida.

The second point is that mode of conducting a controversy which I have so often had occasion to expose in your former publications, viz. mis-stating my arguments to suit your own reasoning. I never said that you should have attempted, or could have succeeded in a “coup de main” against Badajos; I never even said you should have commenced the siege immediately. What I did say was, that by the march through Merida you could have placed your army at once between Badajos and the French army, and so have thrown the former upon its own resources at a most inconvenient time; that in this situation you could have more readily thrown your bridge at Jerumenha, and proceeded at your convenience.

Further than this I do not think it necessary to dissect and expose your new fallacies and contradictions; it requires too much time. You have written upwards of six hundred pages, four hundred of them I have before demolished; but my own volumes are rather thick and to me at least much more important than yours; your lordship must therefore spare me the other two hundred, or at least permit me to treat them lightly. I will leave the whole siege of Badajos to you, it is matter of opinion and I will not follow your example in overloading what is already clear by superfluity of argument. I will only expose one error into which you have been led by colonel La Marre’s work. On his authority you say the garrison on the 10th of April had three months’ provisions; but the following extract from a letter of marshal Soult’s to the prince of Wagram will prove that La Marre is wrong:—

“Seville, 18th April.

“From the 11th of this month the place was provisioned, according to the report of general Phillipon, for two months and some days as to subsistence; and there are 100 milliers of powder,” &c. &c.

Let us now come to the battle of Albuera.

You still doubt that the position as I explained it is four miles long, and you rest upon the superior accuracy of major Mitchell’s plan, on which you have measured the distance with your compasses. I also am in possession of one of major Mitchell’s plans, and I find by the aid of my pair of compasses, that even from the left of the Portuguese infantry (without noticing Otway’s squadron of cavalry) to the right of the Spanish line, as placed at the termination of the battle, is exactly four miles; and every body knows that a line over the actual ground will from the latter’s rises and falls exceed the line on paper. Wherefore as my measurement does not coincide with your lordship’s, and as we are both Irishmen, I conclude that either your compasses are too short or that mine are too long.

Your grand cheval de bataille is, however, the numbers of the armies on each side. Thirty-eight long pages you give us, to prove what cannot be proved, namely, that my estimate is wrong and yours right; and at the end you are just where you began. All is uncertain, there are no returns, no proof! the whole matter is one of guess upon probabilities as to the allies, and until lately was so also with respect to the French.

Mine was a very plain statement. I named a certain number as the nearest approximation I could make, and when my estimate was questioned by you I explained as briefly as possible the foundation of that estimate. You give in refutation thirty-eight pages of most confused calculations, and what is the result? why that the numbers of the allies on your own shewing still remain uncertain; and your estimate of the French, as I will shew by the bye, is quite erroneous.

I said in my History, you had more than two thousand cavalry in the field, and in my Justification I gave reasons for believing you had nearly three thousand; you now acknowledge two thousand; my history then is not far wrong. But your lordship does not seem to know the composition of your own divisions. General Long’s morning states, now before me, do not include general Madden’s cavalry. That officer’s regiments were the fifth and eighth, and if I mistake not the sixth and ninth also were under him; those in general Long’s division are the first and seventh. I find from general Madden’s own account of his services, given in the Military Calendar, that a part of his brigade, namely, the eighth regiment, under colonel Windham, was in the battle of Albuera. Now taking the eighth to be between two hundred and seventy and two hundred and eighty-one troopers, which were the respective strengths of the first and seventh regiments in Long’s Division on the 29th of May, I have above eighteen hundred troopers, namely, fifteen hundred and eighty-seven in Long’s division, and two hundred and seventy-five in the eighth regiment, and to these I add about two hundred and fifty officers and sergeants, making in all more than two thousand sabres. In general Long’s states of the 8th of May, those two Portuguese regiments had indeed fewer under arms than on the 29th, but then six hundred and eighty-nine men and forty-four serjeants and trumpeters were on command, of which more than four hundred belonged to those two Portuguese regiments. Many of these men must surely have joined before the battle, because such an unusual number on command could only be temporary. Again I find in the state of the 29th of May, one hundred and fifteen serjeants trumpeters and troopers returned as prisoners of war; and when the killed and wounded in the battle are added, we may fairly call the British and Portuguese cavalry above two thousand. Your lordship admits the Spaniards to have had seven hundred and fifty; but I will for clearness place this in a tabular form:

GENERAL LONG’S STATES.

8th May.
Serjeants, trumpeters, and troopers.
Present under arms1576
On command733
Prisoners of war115
——
2424
29th May.
Present1739
Command522
Prisoners of war127
——
2388
——
Median estimate for the 16th of May.
Present 8th May1576
Ditto 29th May1739
——
2)3315
——
1657½
2708th Portuguese regt.
——
1927
127Prisoners of war.
——
2054
750Spaniards.
——
2804
Deduct prisoners on the 8th115
——
Total2689
——

To which are to be added the killed and wounded of the Anglo-Portuguese, and the men rejoined from command.

Thus, the statements in my History and in my Justification are both borne out; for the numbers are above two thousand as set down in the first, and nearly three thousand as stated in the last. Moreover, a general historian is not blameable for small inaccuracies. If he has reasonably good authority for any fact he cannot be justly censured for stating that fact, and you should make a distinction between that which is stated in my History and that which is stated in my controversial writings. All mistakes in the latter however trifling are fair; but to cavil at trifles in the former rather hurts yourself. Now with respect to the artillery there is an example of this cavilling, and also an illustration of your lordship’s mode of raising a very confused argument on a very plain fact. I said there were so many guns in the field, and that so many were nine-pounders; you accused me of arbitrarily deciding upon their calibre. In reply I shewed you that I took the number on the report of colonel Dickson, the commanding officer of artillery, the calibre upon the authority of your own witness and quarter-master-general, sir Benjamin D’Urban. The latter was wrong and there the matter should have ended. Your lordship, however, requires me, as a mark of ingenuousness, to acknowledge as my mistake that which is the mistake of sir Benjamin D’Urban, and you give a grand table, with the gross number of pounds of iron as if the affair had been between two ships. You set down in your columns the statements of the writer of a note upon your Strictures, the statement of the Strictures themselves, and my statement; and then come on with your own observations as if there were three witnesses on your side. But the author of the note is again your witness D’Urban, who thus shews himself incorrect both as to number and weight; and the author of the Strictures is yourself. This is not an ingenuous, though it is an ingenious mode of multiplying testimony. In your Further Strictures also you first called in sir B. D’Urban in person, you then used his original memoir, you also caused him to write anonymously a running commentary upon yours and his own statements, and now you comment in your own name upon your own anonymous statements, thus making five testimonies out of two.

The answer is simple and plain. When I took sir Benjamin D’Urban as a guide he led me wrong; and you instead of visiting his error upon his own head visit it upon mine, and require me and your readers to follow him implicitly upon all points while to do so avails for your defence, but not when they contradict it. From sir B. D’Urban I took the calibre of the allies’ guns employed in the battle of Albuera, and he was wrong! From him, if I had not possessed sir A. Dickson’s official return, I should also have taken the number of guns, and I should have been wrong, because he calls them thirty-four instead of thirty-eight. He also (see page 26 of the Appendix to your Further Strictures) says that the Spaniards had six guns, whereas Dickson says, they had but four; and if his six guns were reckoned there would have been forty pieces of artillery, which he however reduced to thirty-four by another error, namely, leaving out a whole brigade of German artillery. On sir Benjamin’s authority I called major Dickson the commander of the artillery, and this also was wrong. From sir Benjamin D’Urban’s Memoir, I took the statement that the fourth division arrived on the field of battle at six o’clock in the morning, and yet I am assured that they did not arrive until nine o’clock, and after the action had commenced. And this last is a very serious error because it gives the appearance of skill to your lordship’s combinations for battle and to sir Benjamin’s arrangements for the execution, which they do not merit, if, as I now believe, that division arrived at nine o’clock. But the latter hour would be quite in keeping with the story of the cavalry going to forage, and both together would confirm another report very current, namely, that your lordship did not anticipate any battle on the 16th of May. Setting this however aside, I know not why, in the face of all these glaring errors and a multitude of smaller ones, I am to take sir Benjamin D’Urban’s authority upon any disputed point.

I will now, my lord, admit one complete triumph which you have attained in your dissertation upon the numbers of the troops. I did say that from the 20th of March to the 16th of May, was only twenty days, and though the oversight is so palpably one that could not be meant to deceive, I will not deny your right to ridicule and to laugh at it. I have laughed at so many of your lordship’s oversights that it would be unfair to deny you this opportunity for retaliation, which I also admit you have used moderately.

I have since I wrote my Justification procured some proofs about the French numbers, you will find them in the following extracts from the duke of Dalmatia’s correspondence of that time. They are worth your attention. They throw some light upon the numbers of the allies, and one of them shows unquestionably that my estimate of the French numbers was, as I have before said, too high instead of too low. I give the translations to avoid the trouble and expense of printing in two languages, and I beg your lordship to observe that these extracts are not liable to the praise of that generous patriotism which you alluded to in speaking of French authors, because they were written before the action and for the emperor’s information, and because it was the then interest of the writer rather to exaggerate than to lessen his own numbers, in order to give his sovereign an idea of his activity and zeal.

Extract of a letter from Marshal Soult to the Prince of Wagram.

Seville, 22d April, 1811.

“General Latour Maubourg announces to me that general Beresford commanding the Anglo-Portuguese army, and the Spanish generals Castaños and Ballesteros with the remains of the corps of their nation are united at Zafra, and I am assured that the whole of their forces is twenty-five thousand men, of which three thousand are cavalry.”

“Colonel Quennot of the ninth regiment of dragoons, who commands upon the line of the Tinto and observes the movements on that side as far as Ayamonte, informs me that on the 18th and 19th, general Blake disembarked ten thousand infantry and seven hundred cavalry between the mouths of the Piedra and the Guadiana. These troops come from Cadiz, they have cannon, and Blake can unite in that part fifteen thousand men.”

Ditto to Ditto.

“May 4th, 1811.

“Cordova is menaced by a corps of English Portuguese and Spaniards, many troops are concentrated in Estremadura, Badajos is invested, Blake has united on the Odiel an army of fifteen to sixteen thousand men.” “I depart in four days with twenty thousand men, three thousand horses, and thirty pieces of cannon to drive across the Guadiana the enemy’s corps which are spread in Estremadura, to disengage Badajos and to facilitate the arrival of count D’Erlon. If the troops which that general brings can unite with mine, and if the troops coming from the armies of the north and centre, and which I have already in part arranged, arrive in time, I shall have in Estremadura, thirty-five thousand men five thousand horses and forty pieces of artillery.”

Now, my lord, I find by the imperial returns that count D’Erlon marched towards Andalusia with twelve thousand men present under arms, and that he did not arrive until the 14th June. There remain three thousand men as coming from the armies of the north and centre, to make up the thirty-five thousand men mentioned by Soult, and I find the following passage in his letter to the prince of Wagram, dated the 9th of May.

“The 12th, I shall be at Fuente Cantos, general Bron commands there, he brings with him the first reinforcement coming from the armies of the north and centre, and I shall employ him in the expedition.”

Hence, if we take the first reinforcement at half of the whole number expected, we add one thousand five hundred men and five guns to the twenty thousand, making a total for the battle of Albuera of twenty-one thousand five hundred men of all arms, and thirty-five guns. From these must be deducted the detachments left at Villalba, stragglers on the march, and some hussars sent to scout on the flanks, for I find in general Madden’s narrative of his services, that he was watched by part of the enemy’s cavalry on the day of the battle.

I have now, my lord, given you positive and undeniable testimony that the French numbers were overrated instead of being underrated by me, and I have given you corroborative evidence, that the number of the allies was as great as I have stated it to be; for we find in the above extracts Soult giving Blake fifteen thousand men, of which, at least, seven hundred are cavalry, before the battle, and twenty-five thousand, of which three thousand are cavalry, to your lordship, Castaños, &c. We find the French general’s information, taking into consideration the troops which joined Blake in the Niebla, not differing essentially from Mr. Henry Wellesley’s report of the numbers of Blake’s army, namely twelve thousand, of which one thousand one hundred were cavalry; and we find both in some manner confirmed by lord Wellington’s repeated statements of the forces of Blake’s army after the battle, that is to say, making a reasonable allowance for the numbers lost in the action. Soult and Mr. Wellesley also agree in making out the Spanish cavalry more numerous than your lordship will admit of. Blake alone had from seven to eleven hundred cavalry, following the statement of these persons, and there was in addition the corps of Penne Villemur, which, as I have said in my Justification, was not less than five hundred.

In closing your calculation of numbers you exultingly observe that it is the first time you ever heard of a general’s being censured for keeping one-third of his force in reserve and beating the enemy with the other two. Aye—but this involves the very pith of the question. At Albuera the general did not beat the enemy. My lord, you have bestowed great pains on your argument about the battle of Albuera, and far be it from me to endeavour to deprive you of any addition to your reputation which you may thus obtain. I have no desire to rob you of any well-earned laurels, my observations were directed against what appeared to me your bad generalship; if I have not succeeded in pointing that out to the satisfaction of the public I have nothing further to offer in fairness and certainly will not by any vile sophistry endeavour to damage your fame. But do not think that I acknowledge the force of your present arguments. If I do not take the trouble to dissect them for reasons before mentioned, be assured it is not from any want of points to fasten upon; indeed, my lord, your book is very weak, there are many failures in it, and a few more I will touch upon that you may estimate my forbearance at its proper value. I will begin with your observations on captain Gregory’s testimony, not in defence of that gentleman’s credit, for in truth, as his and the other officers’ evidence is given to facts of which they were personally cognizant I cannot pay the slightest regard to your confused arguments in opposition to their honour. I am aware that you do not mean to impeach anything but their memory; but if I were to attempt to defend them from your observations it would appear as if I thought otherwise. My lord, you have missed captain Gregory, but you have hit yourself very hard.

Behold the proof.

At page 167 you say, “I will now point out the gross and palpable errors of captain Gregory’s narrative.”—“He says, that on receiving the intelligence from an orderly of the thirteenth dragoons who came in from a picquet on the right with intelligence that the enemy was crossing the river, general Long galloped off.” I conclude to the right, “and found half the army across,” and to the right. Why, every other authority has stated that the enemy’s first movement was from the wood along the right bank of the Albuera upon our left; and that we were not at all aware of their intention to cross above our right and there make an attack, till after their first movement was considerably advanced and the action had actually commenced with Godinot’s corps on the opposite side of the river to our left. It is quite surprising that colonel Napier should have overlooked a blunder so gross as to destroy the value of the whole of his friend’s testimony.

Now, my lord, compare the passage marked by italics (pardon me the italics) in the above, with the following extract from your own despatch.

“The enemy on the 16th did not long delay his attack: at eight o’clock” (the very time mentioned by captain Gregory,) “he was observed to be in movement, and his cavalry were seen passing the rivulet of Albuera considerably above our right, and shortly after, he marched, out of the wood opposite to us, a strong force of cavalry and two heavy columns of infantry, posting them to our front, as if to attack the village and bridge of Albuera. During this time he was filing the principal body of his infantry over the river beyond our right, and it was not long before his intention appeared to be to turn us by that flank.” Your lordship has, indeed in another part discarded the authority of your despatch, as appears most necessary in treating of this battle, but is rather hard measure to attack me so fiercely for having had some faith in it.

With respect to sir Wm. Lumley’s letter I cannot but admire his remembrance of the exact numbers of the British cavalry. A recollection of twenty-three years, founded on a few hasty words spoken on a field of battle is certainly a rare thing; yet I was not quite unprepared for such precision, for if I do not greatly mistake, sir William was the general, who at Santarem edified the head-quarters by a report, that “the enemy were certainly going to move either to their right or to their left, to their front or to their rear.” One would suppose that so exact a person could never be in error; and yet the following extract from general Harvey’s journal would lead me to suppose that his memory was not quite so clear and powerful as he imagines. Sir William Lumley says, that to the best of his recollection he was not aware of the advance of the fuzileers and Harvey’s brigade until they had passed his left flank; that they then came under his eye; that as the rain and smoke cleared away he saw them as one body moving to engage, and although they had become so oblique, relative to the point where he stood, that he could not well speak as to their actual distance from one another, there did not appear any improper interval between them.

Now hear general Harvey!

“The twenty-third and one battalion of the seventh fuzileers were in line. The other battalion at quarter distance, forming square, at every halt to cover the right which the cavalry continued to menace. Major-general Lumley, with the British cavalry, was also in column of half squadrons in rear of our right and moved with us, being too weak to advance against the enemy’s cavalry.”

There, my lord, you see that generals as well as doctors differ. Sir W. Lumley, twenty-three years after the event, recollects seeing the fuzileers and Harvey’s brigade at such a distance, and so obliquely, that he could not speak to their actual distance from one another. General Harvey writing the day after the event, says, sir William Lumley had his cavalry in half squadrons close in rear of these very brigades, and was moving with them! This should convince your lordship that it is not wise to cry out and cavil at every step in the detail of a battle.

As to the term gap, I used the word without the mark of quotation, because it was my own and it expressed mine and your meaning very well. You feared that the cavalry of the French would overpower ours, and break in on your rear and flank when the support of the fuzileers was taken away. I told you that general Cole had placed Harvey’s brigade in the gap, that is, in such a situation that the French could not break in. I knew very well that Harvey’s brigade followed in support of the attack of the fuzileers because he says so in his journal; but he also says, that both ours and the enemy’s cavalry made a corresponding movement. Thus the fear of the latter breaking in was chimerical, especially as during the march Harvey halted, formed, received and beat off a charge of the French horsemen.

But I have not yet done with sir W. Lumley’s numbers. How curious it is that brigade-major Holmes’s verbal report on the field of battle, as recollected by sir William, should give the third dragoon guards and the fourth dragoons, forming the heavy brigade, the exact number of five hundred and sixty men, when the same brigade-major Holmes in his written morning state of the 8th of May, one week before the battle, gives to those regiments seven hundred and fifty-two troopers present under arms, and one hundred and eighty-three on command. What became of the others in the interval? Again, on the 29th of May, thirteen days after the battle, he writes down these regiments six hundred and ninety-five troopers present under arms, one hundred and eighty-two on command, and thirty-two prisoners of war. In both cases also the sergeants, trumpeters, &c. are to be added; and I mark this circumstance, because in the French returns all persons from the highest officer to the conductors of carriages are included in the strength of men. I imagine neither of the distinguished regiments alluded to will be willing to admit that their ranks were full before and after, but empty on the day of battle. It is contrary to the English custom. Your lordship, also, in a parenthesis (page 125) says that the thirteenth dragoons had not three hundred men at this time to produce; but this perverse brigade-major Holmes writes that regiment down also on the 8th of May, at three hundred and fifty-seven troopers present under arms, and sixty-three on command; and on the 29th of May, three hundred and forty-one present seventy-nine on command, eighty-two prisoners-of-war. Staff-officers are notoriously troublesome people.

One point more, and I have done.

You accuse me of having placed sir A. Dickson in a position where he never was, and you give a letter from that officer to prove the fact. You also deny the correctness of sir Julius Hartman’s statement, and you observe that even were it accurate, he does not speak of an order to retreat, but an order to cover a retreat. Now to say that I place Dickson in a wrong position is scarcely fair, because I only use sir Julius Hartman’s words, and that in my Justification; whereas in my History, I have placed colonel Dickson’s guns exactly in the position where he himself says they were. If your lordship refers to my work you will see that it is so; and surely it is something akin to quibbling, to deny, that artillery posted to defend a bridge was not at the bridge because its long range enabled it to effect its object from a distance.

You tell me also that I had your quarter-master general’s evidence to counteract sir Julius Hartman’s relative to this retreat. But sir Benjamin D’Urban had already misled me more than once; and why, my lord, did you garble sir A Dickson’s communication? I will answer for you. It contained positive evidence that a retreat was ordered. Your lordship may ask how I know this. I will tell you that also. Sir Alexander Dickson at my request sent me the substance of his communication to you at the same time. You are now I hope, convinced that it is not weakness which induces me to neglect a complete analysis of your work. I do assure you it is very weak in every part.

My lord, you have mentioned several other letters which you have received from different officers, colonel Arbuthnot, colonel Colborne, &c. as confirming your statements, but you have not, as in the cases of sir James Douglas and general M‘Bean, where they were wholly on your own side, given these letters in full; wherefore, seeing the gloss you have put upon lord Stuart’s communication, and this garbling of sir A. Dickson’s letter, I have a right to suppose that the others do not bear up your case very strongly,—probably they contradict it on some points as sir Alexander Dickson’s does. I shall now give the latter entire.

“The Portuguese artillery under my command (twelve guns) attached to general Hamilton’s division was posted on favourable ground about 750 or 800 yards from the bridge, and at least 700 yards S. W. of the village of Albuera, their fire bore effectually upon the bridge and the road from it to the bridge, and I received my orders to take this position from lord Beresford when the enemy threatened their main attack at the bridge. At a certain period of the day, I should judge it to have been about the time the fourth division moved to attack, I received a verbal order in English from Don Jose Luiz de Souza (now Conde de Villa Real, an aid-de-camp of lord Beresford) to retire by the Valverde road, or upon the Valverde road, I am not sure which; to this I strongly expressed words of doubt, and he then rode off towards Albuera; as, however, I could see no reason for falling back, and the infantry my guns belonged to being at hand, I continued in action, and though I believe I limbered up once or twice previous to the receipt of this message and moved a little to improve my position, I never did so to retire. Soon after Don Jose left me, seeing lord Beresford and some of his staff to my right, I rode across to satisfy myself that I was acting correctly, but perceiving that the French were giving way I did not mention the order I had received, and as soon as lord Beresford saw me, he asked what state my guns were in, and then ordered me to proceed as quickly as I could with my nine-pounders to the right, which I did in time to bring them into action against the retiring masses of the enemy. The foregoing is the substance of an explanation given to lord Beresford which he lately requested.”

Thus you have the whole of what sir Alexander Dickson (as he tells me) wrote to you; and here therefore I might stop, my lord, to enjoy your confusion. I might harp upon this fact, as being so formidable a bar to your lordship’s argument, that rather than give it publicity, you garbled your own correspondent’s letter. But my object is not to gain a triumph over you, it is to establish the truth, and I will not follow your example by suppressing what may tend to serve your argument and weaken mine. It is of no consequence to me whether you gave orders for a retreat or not. I said in my History that you did not do so, thinking the weight of testimony to be on that side, and it was only when your anonymous publications called forth new evidence that I began to doubt the correctness of my first statement.[5] But if the following observation in sir Alexander Dickson’s letter can serve your argument, you are welcome to it, although it is not contained in the substance of what he wrote to you; and here also I beg of you to remember that this letter of sir Alexander’s was written to me after my Justification was printed.

“I had never mentioned the matter to any one, except to Hartman, with whom I was on the greatest habits of intimacy, and indeed I was from the first induced to attribute Souza’s message to some mistake, as neither in my conversation with lord Beresford was there any allusion to it, nor did any thing occur to indicate to me that he was aware of my having received such an order.”

Your lordship will no doubt deny that the Count of Villa Real had any authority from you to order this retreat, so be it; but then you call upon me and others to accept this Count of Villa Real’s evidence upon other points, and you attempt to discredit some of my witnesses, because their testimony is opposed to the testimony of the Count of Villa Real; if you deny him at Albuera, you cannot have him at Campo Mayor. And behold, my lord, another difficulty you thus fall into. Your publications are intended to prove your talent as a general, and yet we find you acknowledging, that in the most critical period of this great and awful battle of Albuera, your own staff had so little confidence in your ability, that sir Henry Hardinge took upon himself to win it for you, while the Conde de Villa Real took upon himself to lose it; the one ordering an advance, which gained the day; the other ordering a retreat, which would have ruined all. My lord, be assured that such liberties are never taken by the staff of great commanders.

In ancient times it was reckoned a worthy action to hold the mirror of truth up to men placed in high stations, when the partiality of friends, the flattery of dependents, and their own human vanity had given them too exalted notions of their importance. You, my lord, are a man in a high station, and you have evidently made a false estimate of your importance, or you would not treat men of inferior rank with so much disdain as you have expressed in these your publications; wherefore it may be useful, and certainly will be just, to let you know the judgment which others have formed of your talents. The following character was sketched about two months after the battle of Albuera. The author was a man of great ability, used to public affairs, experienced in the study of mankind, opposed to you by no personal interest, and withal had excellent opportunities of observing your disposition; and surely his acuteness will not be denied by those who have read your three publications in this controversy.

“Marshal Beresford appears to possess a great deal of information upon all subjects connected with the military establishments of the kingdom, the departments attached to the army, and the resources of the country. But nothing appears to be well arranged and digested in his head; he never fixes upon a point, but deviates from his subject, and overwhelms a very slender thread of argument by a profusion of illustrations, stories, and anecdotes, most of which relate to himself. He is captious and obstinate, and difficult to be pleased. He appears to grasp at every thing for his own party, without considering what it would be fair, and reasonable, and decent to expect from the other party.”

I now take leave of you, my lord, and notwithstanding all that has passed, I take leave of you with respect, because I think you to be a brave soldier, and even an able organizer of an army. I know that you have served your country long, I firmly believe to the utmost of your ability, and I admit that ability to have been very considerable; but history, my lord, deals with very great men, and you sink in the comparison. She will speak of you as a general far above mediocrity, as one who has done much and a great deal of it well, yet when she looks at Campo Mayor and Albuera she will not rank you amongst great commanders, and if she should ever cast her penetrating eyes upon this your present publication, she will not class you amongst great writers.