CHAPTER VI.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.

Marshal Soult and General Thouvenot have1814. been accused of fighting with a full knowledge of Napoleon’s abdication. This charge circulated originally by the Bourbon party is utterly unfounded. The extent of the information conveyed to Thouvenot through the advanced posts has been already noticed; it was not sufficiently authentic to induce sir John Hope to make a formal communication, and the governor could only treat it as an idle story to insult or to deceive him, and baffle his defence by retarding his counter-operations while the works for the siege were advancing. For how unlikely, nay impossible, must it not have appeared, that the emperor Napoleon, whose victories at Mont-Mirail and Champaubert were known before the close investment of Bayonne, should have been deprived of his crown in the space of a few weeks, and the stupendous event be only hinted at the outposts without any relaxation in the preparations for the siege.

As false and unsubstantial is the charge against Soult.

The acute remark of an English military writer,Memoirs of captain Kincaid. that if the duke of Dalmatia had known of the peace before he fought, he would certainly have announced it after the battle, were it only to maintain himself in that city and claim a victory, is unanswerable: but there are direct proofs of the falsehood of the accusation. How was the intelligence to reach him? It was not until the 7th that the provisional government wrote to him from Paris, and the bearer could not have reached Toulouse under three days even by the most direct way, which was through Montauban. Now the allies were in possession of that road on the 4th, and on the 9th the French army was actually invested. The intelligence from Paris must therefore have reached the allies first, as in fact it did, and it was not Soult, it was lord Wellington who commenced the battle. The charge would therefore bear more against the English general, who would yet have been the most insane as well as the wickedest of men to have risked his army and his fame in a battle where so many obstacles seemed to deny success. He also was the person of all others called upon, by honour, gratitude, justice and patriotism, to avenge the useless slaughter of his soldiers, to proclaim the infamy and seek the punishment of his inhuman adversary.

Did he ever by word or deed countenance the calumny?

Lord Aberdeen, after the passing of the English reform bill, repeated the accusation in the house of lords and reviled the minister for being on amicable political terms with a man capable of such a crime. Lord Wellington rose on the instant and emphatically declared that marshal Soult did not know, and that it was impossible he could know of the emperor’s abdication when he fought the battle. The detestable distinction of sporting with men’s lives by wholesale attaches to no general on the records of history save the Orange William, the murderer of Glencoe. And though marshal Soult had known of the emperor’s abdication he could not for that have been justly placed beside that cold-blooded prince, who fought at St. Denis with the peace of Nimeguen in his pocket, because “he would not deny himself a safe lesson in his trade.”

The French marshal was at the head of a brave army and it was impossible to know whether Napoleon had abdicated voluntarily or been constrained. The authority of such men as Talleyrand, Fouché, and other intriguers, forming a provisional government, self-instituted and under the protection of foreign bayonets, demanded no respect from Soult. He had even the right of denying the emperor’s legal power to abdicate. He had the right, if he thought himself strong enough, to declare, that he would not suffer the throne to become the plaything of foreign invaders, and that he would rescue France even though Napoleon yielded the crown. In fine it was a question of patriotism and of calculation, a national question which the general of an army had a right to decide for himself, having reference always to the real will and desire of the people at large.

It was in this light that Soult viewed the matter, even after the battle and when he had seen colonel St. Simon.

Writing to Talleyrand on the 22d, he says, “TheOfficial Correspondence, MSS. circumstances which preceded my act of adhesion are so extraordinary as to create astonishment. The 7th the provisional government informed me of the events which had happened since the 1st of April. The 6th and 7th, count Dupont wrote to me on the same subject. On the 8th the duke of Feltre, in his quality of war minister, gave me notice, that having left the military cipher at Paris he would immediately forward to me another. The 9th the prince Berthier vice-constable and major-general, wrote to me from Fontainbleau, transmitting the copy of a convention and armistice which had been arranged at Paris with the allied powers; he demanded at the same time a state of the force and condition of my army; but neither the prince nor the duke of Feltre mentioned events, we had then only knowledge of a proclamation of the empress, dated the 3rd, which forbade us to recognize any thing coming from Paris.

“The 10th I was attacked near Toulouse by the whole allied army under the orders of lord Wellington. This vigorous action, where the French army the weakest by half showed all its worth, cost the allies from eight to ten thousand men: lord Wellington might perhaps have dispensed with it.

“The 12th I received through the English the first hint of the events at Paris. I proposed an armistice, it was refused, I renewed the demand it was again refused. At last I sent count Gazan to Toulouse, and my reiterated proposal for a suspension of arms was accepted and signed the 18th, the armies being then in presence of each other. The 19th I ratified this convention and gave my adhesion to the re-establishment of Louis XVIII. And upon this subject I ought to declare that I sought to obtain a suspension of arms before I manifested my sentiments in order that my will and that of the army should be free. That neither France nor posterity should have power to say it was torn from us by force of arms. To follow only the will of the nation was a homage I owed to my country.”

The reader will observe in the above letter certain assertions, relative to the numbers of the contending armies and the loss of the allies, which are at variance with the statements in this History; and this loose but common mode of assuming the state of an adverse force has been the ground-work for great exaggeration by some French writers, who strangely enough claim a victory for the French army although the French general himself made no such claim at the time, and so far as appears has not done so since.

Victories are determined by deeds and their consequences. By this test we shall know who won the battle of Toulouse.

Now all persons, French and English, who have treated the subject, including the generals on both sides, are agreed, that Soult fortified Toulouse the canal and the Mont Rave as positions of battle; that he was attacked, that Taupin’s division was beaten, that the Mont Rave with all its redoubts and entrenchments fell into the allies’ power. Finally that the French army abandoned Toulouse, leaving there three wounded generals, sixteen hundred men, several guns and a quantity of stores at the discretion of their adversaries: and this without any fresh forces having joined the allies, or any remarkable event affecting the operations happening elsewhere.

Was Toulouse worth preserving? Was the abandonment of it forced or voluntary? Let the French general speak! “I have entrenched the suburb ofSoult to Suchet, 29th March. St. Cyprien which forms a good bridge-head. The enemy will not I think attack me there unless he desires to lose a part of his army. Two nights ago he made a demonstration of passing the Garonne two leagues above the city, but he will probably try to pass it below, in which case I will attack him whatever his force may be, because it is of the utmost importance to me not to be cut off from Montauban where I have made a bridge-head.”—“I think the enemy will not move on your side unless I move that way first, and I am determined to avoid that as long as I can.”—“If I could remain a month on the Garonne I should be able to put six or eight thousand conscripts into the ranks who now embarass me, and who want arms which I expect with great impatience from Perpignan.”—“I am resolved to deliver battle near Toulouse whatever may be theSoult to Suchet, 7th April. superiority of the enemy. In this view I have fortified a position, which, supported by the town and the canal, furnishes me with a retrenched camp susceptible of defence.”—“I have received the unhappy news of the enemy’s entrance into Paris. This misfortune strengthens my determination to defend Toulouse whatever may happen. The preservation of the place which contains establishments of all kinds is of the utmost importance to us, but if unhappily I am forced to quit it, my movements will naturally bring me nearer to you. In that case you cannot sustain yourself at Perpignan because the enemy will inevitably follow me.”—“The enemy appears astonished at the determination I have taken to defend Toulouse, four days ago he passed the Garonne and has done nothing since, perhaps the bad weather is the cause.”

From these extracts it is clear that Soult resolved if possible not to fall back upon Suchet, and was determined even to fight for the preservation of his communications with Montauban; yet he finally resigned this important object for the more important one of defending Toulouse. And so intent upon its preservation was he, that having on the 25th of March ordered all the stores and artillerySoult’s Orders. not of immediate utility, to be sent away, he on the 2d of April forbade further progress in that work and even had those things already removed brought back. Moreover he very clearly marks that to abandonChoumara. the city and retreat towards Suchet will be the signs and consequences of defeat.

These points being fixed, we find him on the evening of the 10th writing to the same general thus.

“The battle which I announced to you took place to-day, the enemy has been horribly maltreated, but he succeeded in establishing himself upon a position which I occupied to the right of Toulouse. The general of division Taupin has been killed, general Harispe has lost his foot by a cannon-ball, and three generals of brigade are wounded. I am prepared to recommence to-morrow if the enemy attacks, but I do not believe I can stay in Toulouse, it might even happen that I shall be forced to open a passage to get out.”

On the 11th of April he writes again:

“As I told you in my letter of yesterday I am in the necessity of retiring from Toulouse, and I fear being obliged to fight my way at Baziege where the enemy is directing a column to cut my communications. To-morrow I will take a position at Villefranche, because I have good hope that this obstacle will not prevent my passing.”

To the minister of war he also writes on the 10th.

“To-day I rest in position. If the enemy attacks me I will defend myself. I have great need to replenish my means before I put the army in march, yet I believe that in the coming night I shall be forced to abandon Toulouse, and it is probable I shall direct my movements so as to rally upon the troops of the duke of Albufera.”

Soult lays no claim here to victory. He admits that all the events previously indicated by him as the consequences of defeat were fulfilled to the letter. That is to say, the loss of the position of battle, the consequent evacuation of the city, and the march to join Suchet. On the other hand lord Wellington clearly obtained all that he sought. He desired to pass the Garonne and he did pass it; he desired to win the position and works of Mont Rave and he did win them; he desired to enter Toulouse and he did enter it as a conqueror at the head of his troops.

Amongst the French writers who without denying these facts lay claim to a victory Choumara is most deserving of notice. This gentleman, known as an able engineer, with a praise-worthy desire to render justice to the great capacity of marshal Soult, shews very clearly that his genius would have shone in this campaign with far greater lustre if marshal Suchet had adopted his plans and supported him in a cordial manner. But Mr. Choumara heated by his subject completes the picture by a crowning victory at Toulouse which the marshal himself appears not to recognize. The work is a very valuable historical document with respect to the disputes between Soult and Suchet, but with respect to the battle of Toulouse it contains grave errors as to facts, and the inferences are untenable though the premises were admitted.

The substance of Mr. Choumara’s argument is, that the position of Toulouse was of the nature of a fortress. That the canal was the real position of battle, the Mont Rave an outwork, the loss of which weighed little in the balance, because the French army was victorious at Calvinet against the Spaniards, at the convent of the Minimes against the light division, at the bridge of Jumeaux against Picton, at St. Cyprien against General Hill. Finally that the French general certainly won the victory because he offered battle the next day and did not retreat from Toulouse until the following night.

Now admitting that all these facts were established, the fortress was still taken.

But the facts are surprisingly incorrect. For first marshal Soult himself tells Suchet that the Mont Rave was his position of battle, and that the town and the canal supported it. Nothing could be more accurate than this description. For when he lost the Mont Rave, the town and the canal enabled him to rally his army and take measures for a retreat. But the loss of the Mont Rave rendered the canal untenable, why else was Toulouse abandoned? That the line of the canal was a more formidable one to attack in front than the Mont Rave is true, yet that did not constitute it a position; it was not necessary to attack it, except partially at Sacarin and Cambon and the bridge of the Demoiselles; those points once forced the canal would, with the aid of the Mont Rave, have helped to keep the French in Toulouse as it had before helped to keep the allies out. Lord Wellington once established on the south side of the city and holding the Pech David could have removed the bridge from Seilh to Portet, above Toulouse, thus shortening and securing his communication with Hill; the French army must then have surrendered, or broken out, no easy matter in such a difficult and strangled country. The Mont Rave was therefore not only the position of battle, it was also the key of the position behind the canal, and Mr. de Choumara is placed in this dilemma. He must admit the allies won the fight, or confess the main position was so badly chosen that a slight reverse at an outwork was sufficient to make the French army abandon it at every other point.

But were the French victorious at every other point? Against the Spaniards they were, and Picton also was repulsed. The order of movements for the battle proves indeed that this general’s attack was intended to be a false one; he disobeyed[Appendix, No. 9.] his orders however, and one of his brigades was repulsed; but to check one brigade with a loss of three or four hundred men, is a small matter in a battle where more than eighty thousand combatants were engaged.

The light division made a demonstration against the convent of the Minimes and nothing more. Its loss on the whole day was only fifty-six men and officers, and no French veteran of the PeninsulaOfficial Returns. but would laugh at the notion that a real attack by that matchless division could be so stopped.

It is said the exterior line of entrenchments at St. Cyprien was occupied with a view to offensive movements, and to prevent the allies from establishing batteries to rake the line of the canal from that side of the Garonne; but whatever may have been the object, General Hill got possession of it, and was so far victorious. He was ordered not to assail the second line seriously and he did not, for his whole loss scarcely exceeded eighty men andIbid. officers.

From these undeniable facts, it is clear that the French gained an advantage against Picton, and a marked success against the Spaniards; but Beresford’s attack was so decisive as to counterbalance these failures and even to put the defeated Spaniards in possession of the height they had originally contended for in vain.

Mr. Choumara attributes Beresford’s success to Taupin’s errors and to a vast superiority of numbers on the side of the allies. “Fifty-three thousand infantry, more than eight thousand cavalry, and a reserve of eighteen thousand men of all arms, opposed to twenty-five thousand French infantry, two thousand five hundred cavalry, and a reserve of seven thousand conscripts three thousand of which were unarmed.” Such is the enormous disproportion assumed on the authority of general Vaudoncourt.

Now the errors of Taupin may have been great, and his countrymen are the best judges of his demerit; but the numbers here assumed are most inaccurate. The imperial muster-rolls are not of a later date than December 1813, yet an official table of the organization of Soult’s army, published byKock’s Campaign of 1814. the French military historian Kock, gives thirty-six thousand six hundred and thirty-five combatants on the 10th of March. Of these, in round numbers, twenty-eight thousand six hundred were infantry, two thousand seven hundred cavalry, and five thousand seven hundred were artillery-men, engineers, miners, sappers, gensd’armes, and military workmen. Nothing is said of the reserve division of conscripts commanded by general Travot, but general Vaudoncourt’s table of the same army on the 1st of April, adopted by Choumara, supplies the deficiency. The conscripts are there set down seven thousand two hundred and sixty-seven, and this cipher being added to Kock’s, gives a total of forty-three thousand nine hundred fighting men. The loss in combats and marches from the 10th of March to the 1st of April must be deducted, but on the other hand we find Soult informing the minister of war, on the 7th of March, that three thousand soldiers dispersed by the battle of Orthes were still wandering behind the army: the greatest part must have joined before the battle of Toulouse. There was also the regular garrison of that city, composed of the depôts of several regiments and the urban guards, all under Travot. Thus little less than fifty thousand men were at Soult’s disposal.

Let twelve thousand be deducted for, 1º. the urban guard which was only employed to maintain the police of the town, 2º. the unarmed conscripts, 3º. the military workmen not brought into action, 4º. the detachments employed on the flanks to communicate with La Fitte in the Arriege, and to reinforce general Loverdo at Montauban. There will remain thirty-eight thousand fighting men of all arms. And with a very powerful artillery; for we find Soult after the action, directing seven field-batteries of eight pieces each to attend the army; and the French writers mention, besides this field-train, 1º. fifteen pieces which were transferred during the battle from the exterior line of St. Cyprien to the northern and eastern fronts. 2º. Four twenty-four pounders and several sixteen-pounders mounted on the walls of the city. 3º. The armaments of the bridge-heads, the works on Calvinet and those at Saccarin and Cambon. Wherefore not less than eighty, or perhaps ninety, pieces of French artillery were engaged.

An approximation to the strength of the French army being thus made it remains to show the number of the allies, and with respect to the Anglo-Portuguese troops that can be done very exactly, not by approximative estimates but positively from the original returns.

The morning state delivered to lord WellingtonSee [note at the end of the Appendix.] on the 10th of April bears forty-three thousand seven hundred and forty-four British and Germans, and twenty thousand seven hundred and ninety-three Portuguese, in all sixty-four thousand five hundred and thirty-seven soldiers and officers present under arms, exclusive of artillery-men. Of this number nearly ten thousand were cavalry, eleven hundred and eighty-eight being Portuguese.

The Spanish auxiliaries, exclusive of Mina’s bands investing St. Jean Pied de Port, were 1º. Giron’s Andalusians and the third army under O’Donnel, fifteen thousand. 2º. The Gallicians under general Freyre, fourteen thousand. 3º. Three thousand Gallicians under Morillo and as many more under Longa, making with the Anglo-Portuguese a total of ninety thousand combatants with somewhat more than a hundred pieces of field-artillery.

Of this force, O’Donnel’s troops were in the valley of the Bastan, Longa’s on the Upper Ebro; one division of Freyre’s Gallicians was under Carlos D’España in front of Bayonne; one half of Morillo’s division was blockading Navarens, the other half and the nine thousand Gallicians remaining under Freyre, were in front of Toulouse. Of the Anglo-Portuguese, the first and fifth divisions, and three unattached brigades of infantry with one brigade of cavalry, were with sir John Hope at Bayonne; the seventh division was at Bordeaux; the household brigade of heavy cavalry was on the march from the Ebro where it had passed the winter; the Portuguese horsemen were partly employed on the communications in the rear, partly near Agen, where sirSee [note at the end of the Appendix.] John Campbell commanding the fourth regiment had an engagement on the 11th with the celebrated partizan Florian. The second, third, fourth, sixth,[Appendix 7], sections 6 and 7. and light divisions of infantry, and Le Cor’s Portuguese, called the unattached division, were with lord Wellington, who had also Bock’s, Ponsonby’s, Fane’s, Vivian’s, and lord E. Somerset’s brigades of cavalry.

These troops on the morning of the 10th mustered under arms, in round numbers, thirty-one thousand infantry, of which four thousand three hundred were officers sergeants and drummers, leaving twenty-six thousand and six hundred bayonets. Add twelve thousand Spaniards under Freyre and Morillo, and we have a total of forty-three thousand five hundred infantry. The cavalry amounted to seven thousand, and there were sixty-four pieces of artillery. Hence about fifty-two thousand of all ranks and arms were in line to fight thirty-eight thousand French with more than eighty pieces of artillery, some being of the largest calibre.

But of the allies only twenty-four thousand men with fifty-two guns can be said to have been seriously engaged. Thirteen thousand sabres and bayonets with eighteen guns were on the left of the Garonne under general Hill. Neither the light division nor Ponsonby’s heavy cavalry, nor Bock’s Germans were really engaged. Wherefore twelve thousand six hundred sabres and bayonets under Beresford, nine thousand bayonets under Freyre, and two thousand five hundred of Picton’s division really fought the battle. Thus the enormous disproportion assumed by the French writers disappears entirely; for if the allies had the advantage of numbers it was chiefly in cavalry, and horsemen were of little avail against the entrenched position and preponderating artillery of the French general.

The duke of Dalmatia’s claim to the admiration of his countrymen is well-founded and requires no vain assumption to prop it up. Vast combinations, inexhaustible personal resources, a clear judgment, unshaken firmness and patience under difficulties, unwavering fidelity to his sovereign and his country, are what no man can justly deny him. In this celebrated campaign of only nine months, although counteracted by the treacherous hostility of many of his countrymen, he repaired and enlarged the works of five strong places and entrenched five great camps with such works as Marius himself would not have disdained; once he changed his line of operations and either attacking or defending delivered twenty-four battles and combats. Defeated in all he yet fought the last as fiercely as the first, remaining unconquered in mind, and still intent upon renewing the struggle when peace came to put a stop to his prodigious efforts. Those efforts were fruitless because Suchet renounced him, because the people of the south were apathetic and fortune was adverse; because he was opposed to one of the greatest generals of the world at the head of unconquerable troops. For what Alexander’s Macedonians were at Arbela, Hannibal’s Africans at Cannæ, Cæsar’s Romans at Pharsalia, Napoleon’s guards at Austerlitz, such were Wellington’s British soldiers at this period. The same men who had fought at Vimiera and Talavera contended at Orthes and Toulouse. Six years of uninterrupted success had engrafted on their natural strength and fierceness a confidence which rendered them invincible. It is by this measure Soult’s firmness and the constancy of his army is to be valued, and the equality to which he reduced his great adversary at Toulouse is a proof of ability which a judicious friend would put forward rather than suppress.

Was he not a great general who being originally opposed on the Adour by nearly double his own numbers, for such was the proportion after the great detachments were withdrawn from the French army by the emperor in January, did yet by the aid of his fortresses, by his able marches and combinations, oblige his adversary to employ so many troops for blockades sieges and detached posts, that at Toulouse his army was scarcely more numerous than the French? Was it nothing to have drawn Wellington from such a distance along the frontier, and force him at last, either to fight a battle under the most astonishing disadvantages or to retreat with dishonour. And this not because the English general had committed any fault, but by the force of combinations which embracing all the advantages offered by the country left him no option.

That Soult made some mistakes is true, and perhaps the most important was that which the emperor warned him against, though too late, the leaving so many men in Bayonne. He did so he says because the place could not hold out fifteen days without the entrenched camp, and the latter required men; but the result proved Napoleon’s sagacity, for the allies made no attempt to try the strength of the camp, and on the 18th of March lord Wellington knew not the real force of the garrison. Up to that period sir John Hope was inclined to blockade the place only, and from the difficulty of gathering the necessary stores and ammunition on the right bank of the Adour, the siege though resolved upon was not even commenced on the 14th of April when that bloody and most lamentable sally was made. Hence the citadel could not even with a weaker garrison have been taken before the end of April, and Soult might have had Abbé’s division of six thousand good troops in the battles of Orthes and Toulouse. Had Suchet joined him, his army would have been numerous enough to bar lord Wellington’s progress altogether, especially in the latter position. Here it is impossible not to admire the sagacity of the English general, who from the first was averse to entering France and only did so for a political object, under the promise of great reinforcements and in the expectation that he should be allowed to organize a Bourbon army. What could he have done if Soult had retained the twenty thousand men drafted in January, or if Suchet had joined, or the people had taken arms?

How well Soult chose his ground at Toulouse, how confidently he trusted that his adversary would eventually pass the Garonne below and not above the city, with what foresight he constructed the bridge-head at Montauban, and prepared the difficulties lord Wellington had to encounter have been already touched upon. But Mr. Choumara has assumed that the English general’s reason for relinquishing the passage of the Garonne at Portet on the night of the 27th, was not the want of pontoons but the fear of being attacked during the operation, adducing in proof Soult’s orders to assail the heads of his columns. Those orders are however dated the 31st, three days after the attempt of which Soult appears to have known nothing at the time: they were given in the supposition that lord Wellington wished to effect a second passage at that point to aid general Hill while descending the Arriege. And what reason has any man to suppose that the same general and troops who passed the Nive and defeated a like counter-attack near Bayonne, would be deterred by the fear of a battle from attempting it on the Garonne? The passage of the Nive was clearly more dangerous, because the communication with the rest of the army was more difficult, Soult’s disposable force larger, his counter-movements more easily hidden until the moment of execution. At Portet the passage, designed for the night season, would have been a surprise, and the whole army, drawn close to that side could have been thrown over in three or four hours with the exception of the divisions destined to keep the French in check at St. Cyprien. Soult’s orders did not embrace such an operation. They directed Clauzel to fall upon the head of the troops and crush them while in the disorder of a later passage which was expected and watched for.

General Clauzel having four divisions in hand was no doubt a formidable enemy, and Soult’s notion of defending the river by a counter-attack was excellent in principle; but to conceive is one thing to execute is another. His orders were, as I have said, only issued on the 31st, when Hill was across both the Garonne and the Arriege. Lord Wellington’s design was then not to force a passage at Portet, but to menace that point, and really attack St. Cyprien when Hill should have descended the Arriege. Nor did Soult himself much expect Clauzel would have any opportunity to attack, for in his letter to the minister of war he said, the positions between the Arriege and the canal were all disadvantageous to the French and his intention was to fight in Toulouse if the allies approached from the south; yet he still believed Hill’s movement to be only a blind and that lord Wellington would finally attempt the passage below Toulouse.

The French general’s views and measures were profoundly reasoned but extremely simple. His first care on arriving at Toulouse was to secure the only bridge over the Garonne by completing the works of St. Cyprien, which he had begun while the army was still at Tarbes. He thus gained time, and as he felt sure that the allies could not act in the Arriege district, he next directed his attention to the bridge-head of Montauban to secure a retreat behind the Tarn and the power of establishing a fresh line of operations. Meanwhile contrary to his expectation lord Wellington did attempt to act on the Arriege, and the French general, turning of necessity in observation to that side, entrenched a position on the south; soon however he had proof that his first notion was well-founded, that his adversary after losing much time must at last pass below Toulouse; wherefore he proceeded with prodigious activity to fortify the Mont Rave and prepare a field of battle on the northern and eastern fronts of the city. These works advanced so rapidly, while the wet weather by keeping the rivers flooded reduced lord Wellington to inactivity, that Soult became confident in their strength, and being influenced also by the news from Paris, relinquished his first design of opposing the passage of the Garonne and preserving the line of operations by Montauban. To hold Toulouse then became his great object, nor was he diverted from this by the accident which befel lord Wellington’s bridge at Grenade. Most writers, French and English, have blamed him for letting slip that opportunity of attacking Beresford. It is said that general Reille first informed him ofNotes by general Berton, MSS. the rupture of the bridge, and strongly advised him to attack the troops on the right bank; but Choumara has well defended him on that point; the distance was fifteen miles, the event uncertain, the works on the Mount Rave would have stood still meanwhile, and the allies might perhaps have stormed St. Cyprien.

Lord Wellington was however under no alarm for Beresford, or rather for himself, because each day he passed the river in a boat and remained on that side. His force was not less than twenty thousandMorning State of lord Wellington, 4th of April, MSS. including sergeants and officers, principally British; his position was on a gentle range the flanks covered by the Ers and the Garonne; he had eighteen guns in battery on his front, which was likewise flanked by thirty other pieces placed on the left of the Garonne. Nor was he without retreat. He could cross the Ers, and Soult dared not have followed to any distance lest the river should subside and the rest of the army pass on his rear, unless, reverting to his original design of operating by Montauban, he lightly abandoned his now matured plan of defending Toulouse. Wisely therefore he continued to strengthen his position round that city, his combinations being all directed to force the allies to attack him between the Ers and the Mount Rave where it seemed scarcely possible to succeed.

He has been also charged with this fault, that he did not entrench the Hill of Pugade. Choumara holds that troops placed there would have been endangered without adequate advantage. This does not seem conclusive. The hill was under the shot of the main height, it might have been entrenched with works open to the rear, and St. Pol’s brigade would thus have incurred no more danger than when placed there without any entrenchments. Beresford could not have moved up the left bank of the Ers until these works were carried, and this would have cost men. It is therefore probable that want of time caused Soult to neglect this advantage. He committed a graver error during the battle by falling upon Beresford with Taupin’s division only when he could have employed D’Armagnac’s and Villatte’s likewise in that attack. He should have fallen on him also while in the deep country below, and before he had formed his lines at the foot of the heights. What hindered him? Picton was repulsed, Freyre was defeated, the light division was protecting the fugitives, and one of Maransin’s brigades withdrawn from St. Cyprien had reinforced the victorious troops on the extreme left of the Calvinet platform. Beresford’s column entangled in the marshy ground, without artillery and menaced both front and rear by cavalry, could not have resisted such an overwhelming mass, and lord Wellington can scarcely escape criticism for placing him in that predicament.

A commander is not indeed to refrain from high attempts because of their perilous nature, the greatest have ever been the most daring, and the English general who could not remain inactive before Toulouse was not deterred by danger or difficulty: twice he passed the broad and rapid Garonne and reckless of his enemy’s strength and skill worked his way to a crowning victory. This was hardihood, greatness. But in Beresford’s particular attack he did not overstep the rules of art, he hurtled against them, and that he was not damaged by the shock is owing to his good fortune the fierceness of his soldiers and the errors of his adversary. What if Beresford had been overthrown on the Ers? Wellington must have repassed the Garonne, happy if by rapidity he could reunite in time with Hill on the left bank. Beresford’s failure would have been absolute ruin and that alone refutes the French claim to a victory. Was there no other mode of attack? That can hardly be said. Beresford passed the Lavaur road to assail the platform of St. Sypiere, and he was probably so ordered to avoid an attack in flank by the Lavaur road, and because the platform of Calvinet on the side of the Ers river was more strongly entrenched than that of St. Sypiere. But for this gain it was too much to throw his column into the deep ground without guns, and quite separated from the rest of the army seeing that the cavalry intended to maintain the connection were unable to act in that miry labyrinth of water-courses. If the Spaniards were judged capable of carrying the strongest part of the Calvinet platform, Beresford’s fine Anglo-Portuguese divisions were surely equal to attacking this same platform on the immediate left of the Spaniards, and an advanced guard would have sufficed to protect the left flank. The assault would then have been made with unity, by a great mass and on the most important point: for the conquest of St. Sypiere was but a step towards that of Calvinet, but the conquest of Calvinet would have rendered St. Sypiere untenable. It is however to be observed that the Spaniards attacked too soon and their dispersion exceeded all reasonable calculation: so panic-stricken they were as to draw from lord Wellington at the time the bitter observation, that he had seen many curious spectacles but never before saw ten thousand men running a race.

Soult’s retreat from Toulouse, a model of order and regularity, was made in the night. This proves the difficulty of his situation. Nevertheless it was not desperate; nor was it owing to his adversary’s generous forbearance that he passed unmolested under the allies’ guns as an English writer has erroneously assumed. For first those guns had no ammunition, and this was one reason why lord Wellington though eager to fall upon him on the 11th could not do so. On the 12th Soult was gone, and his march covered by the great canal could scarcely have been molested, because the nearest point occupied by the allies was more than a mile and a half distant. Nor do I believe that Soult, as some other writers have imagined, ever designed to hold Toulouse to the last. It would have been an avowal of military insolvency to which his proposal, that Suchet should join him at Carcassone and retake the offensive, written on the night of the 11th, is quite opposed. Neither was it in the spirit of French warfare. The impetuous valour and susceptibility of that people are ill-suited for stern Numantian despair. Place an attainable object of war before the French soldier and he will make supernatural efforts to gain it, but failing he becomes proportionally discouraged. Let some new chance be opened, some fresh stimulus applied to his ardent sensitive temper, and he will rush forward again with unbounded energy: the fear of death never checks him he will attempt anything. But the unrelenting vigour of the British infantry in resistance wears his fury out; it was so proved in the Peninsula, where the sudden deafening shout, rolling over a field of battle more full and terrible than that of any other nation, and followed by the strong unwavering charge, often startled and appalled a French column before whose fierce and vehement assault any other troops would have given way.

Napoleon’s system of war was admirably adapted to draw forth and augment the military excellence and to strengthen the weakness of the national character. His discipline, severe but appealing to the feelings of hope and honour, wrought the quick temperament of the French soldiers to patience under hardships and strong endurance under fire; he taught the generals to rely on their own talents, to look to the country wherein they made war for resources, and to dare every thing even with the smallest numbers, that the impetuous valour of France might have full play: hence the violence of their attacks. But he also taught them to combine all arms together, and to keep strong reserves that sudden disorders might be repaired and the discouraged troops have time to rally and recover their pristine spirit, certain that they would then renew the battle with the same confidence as before. He thus made his troops, not invincible indeed, nature had put a bar to that in the character of the British soldier, but so terrible and sure in war that the number and greatness of their exploits surpassed those of all other nations: the Romans not excepted if regard be had to the shortness of the period, nor the Macedonians if the quality of their opponents be considered.

Let their amazing toils in the Peninsular war alone, which though so great and important was but an episode in their military history, be considered. “In Spain large armies will starve and small armies will be beaten” was the saying of Henry IV. of France, and this was no light phrase of an indolent monarch but the profound conclusion of a sagacious general. Yet Napoleon’s enormous armies were so wonderfully organized that they existed and fought in Spain for six years, and without cessation, for to them winters and summers were alike. Their large armies endured incredible toils and privations but were not starved out, nor were their small armies beaten by the Spaniards. And for their daring and resource a single fact recorded by lord Wellington will suffice. They captured more than one strong place in Spain without any provision of bullets save those fired at them by their enemies, having trusted to that chance when they formed the siege! Before the British troops they fell, but how terrible was the struggle! how many defeats they recovered from, how many brave men they slew, what changes and interpositions of fortune occurred before they could be rolled back upon their own frontiers! And this is the glory of England, that her soldiers and hers only were capable of overthrowing them in equal battle. I seek not to defraud the Portuguese of his well-earned fame, nor to deny the Spaniard the merit of his constancy. England could not alone have triumphed in the struggle, but for her share in the deliverance of the Peninsula let this brief summary speak.

She expended more than one hundred millions sterling on her own operations, she subsidised Spain and Portugal besides, and with her supplies of clothing arms and ammunition maintained the armies of both even to the guerillas. From thirty up to seventy thousand British troops were employed by her constantly, and while her naval squadrons continually harassed the French with descents upon the coasts, her land forces fought and won nineteen pitched battles and innumerable combats; they made or sustained ten sieges, took four great fortresses, twice expelled the French from Portugal, preserved Alicant, Carthagena, Cadiz, Lisbon; they killed wounded and took about two hundred thousand enemies, and the bones of forty thousand British soldiers lie scattered on the plains and mountains of the Peninsula.

Finally, for Portugal she re-organized a native army and supplied officers who led it to victory, and to the whole Peninsula she gave a general whose like has seldom gone forth to conquer. And all this and more was necessary to redeem the Peninsula from France!

The duke of Wellington’s campaigns furnish lessons for generals of all nations, but they must always be peculiarly models for British commanders in future continental wars, because he modified and reconciled the great principles of art with the peculiar difficulties which attend generals controlled by politicians who depending upon private intrigue prefer parliamentary to national interests. An English commander must not trust his fortune. He dare not risk much however conscious he may be of personal resources when one disaster will be his ruin at home. His measures must therefore be subordinate to this primary consideration. Lord Wellington’s caution, springing from that source, has led friends and foes alike into wrong conclusions as to his system of war. The French call it want of enterprize, timidity; the English have denominated it the Fabian system. These are mere phrases. His system was the same as that of all great generals. He held his army in hand, keeping it with unmitigated labour always in a fit state to march or to fight; and thus prepared he acted indifferently as occasion offered on the offensive or defensive, displaying in both a complete mastery of his art. Sometimes he was indebted to fortune, sometimes to his natural genius, but always to his untiring industry, for he was emphatically a pains-taking man.

That he was less vast in his designs, less daring in execution, neither so rapid nor so original a commander as Napoleon must be admitted, and being later in the field of glory it is to be presumed that he learned something of the art from that greatest of all masters; yet something besides the difference of genius must be allowed for the difference of situation; Napoleon was never even in his first campaign of Italy so harassed by the French as Wellington was by the English Spanish and Portuguese governments. Their systems of war were however alike in principle, their operations being necessarily modified by their different political positions. Great bodily exertion, unceasing watchfulness, exact combinations to protect their flanks and communications without scattering their forces, these were common to both. In defence firm, cool, enduring; in attack fierce and obstinate; daring when daring was politic, but always operating by the flanks in preference to the front: in these things they were alike, but in following up a victory the English general fell short of the French emperor. The battle of Wellington was the stroke of a battering-ram, down went the wall in ruins. The battle of Napoleon was the swell and dash of a mighty wave, before which the barrier yielded and the roaring flood poured onwards covering all.

Yet was there nothing of timidity or natural want of enterprize to be discerned in the English general’s campaigns. Neither was he of the Fabian school. He recommended that commander’s system to the Spaniards, but he did not follow it himself. His military policy more resembled that of Scipio Africanus. Fabius dreading Hannibal’s veterans, red with the blood of four consular armies, hovered on the mountains, refused battle, and to the unmatched skill and valour of the great Carthaginian opposed the almost inexhaustible military resources of Rome. Lord Wellington was never loath to fight when there was any equality of numbers. He landed in Portugal with only nine thousand men, with intent to attack Junot who had twenty-four thousand. At Roliça he was the assailant, at Vimiera he was assailed, but he would have changed to the offensive during the battle if others had not interfered. At Oporto he was again the daring and successful assailant. In the Talavera campaign he took the initiatory movements, although in the battle itself he sustained the shock. His campaign of 1810 in Portugal was entirely defensive, because the Portuguese army was young and untried, but his pursuit of Massena in 1811 was as entirely aggressive although cautiously so, as well knowing that in mountain warfare those who attack labour at a disadvantage. The operations of the following campaign, including the battles of Fuentes Onoro and Albuera the first siege of Badajos and the combat of Guinaldo, were of a mixed character; so was the campaign of Salamanca; but the campaign of Vittoria and that in the south of France were entirely and eminently offensive.

Slight therefore is the resemblance to the Fabian warfare. And for the Englishman’s hardiness and enterprise bear witness the passage of the Douro at Oporto, the capture of Ciudad Rodrigo, the storming of Badajos, the surprise of the forts at Mirabete, the march to Vittoria, the passage of the Bidassoa, the victory of the Nivelle, the passage of the Adour below Bayonne, the fight of Orthes, the crowning battle of Toulouse! To say that he committed faults is only to say that he made war; but to deny him the qualities of a great commander is to rail against the clear mid-day sun for want of light. How few of his combinations failed. How many battles he fought, victorious in all! Iron hardihood of body, a quick and sure vision, a grasping mind, untiring power of thought, and the habit of laborious minute investigation and arrangement; all these qualities he possessed, and with them that most rare faculty of coming to prompt and sure conclusions on sudden emergencies. This is the certain mark of a master spirit in war, without it a commander may be distinguished, he may be a great man, but he cannot be a great captain: where troops nearly alike in arms and knowledge are opposed the battle generally turns upon the decision of the moment.

At the Somosierra, Napoleon’s sudden and what to those about him appeared an insensate order, sent the Polish cavalry successfully charging up the mountain when more studied arrangements with ten times that force might have failed. At Talavera, if Joseph had not yielded to the imprudent heat of Victor, the fate of the allies would have been sealed. At the Coa, Montbrun’s refusal to charge with his cavalry saved general Craufurd’s division, the loss of which would have gone far towards producing the evacuation of Portugal. At Busaco, Massena would not suffer Ney to attack the first day, and thus lost the only favourable opportunity for assailing that formidable position. At Fuentes Onoro, the same Massena suddenly suspended his attack when a powerful effort would probably have been decisive. At Albuera, Soult’s column of attack instead of pushing forward halted to fire from the first height they had gained on Beresford’s right, which saved that general from an early and total defeat; again at a later period of that battle the unpremeditated attack of the fusileers decided the contest. At Barosa, general Graham with a wonderful promptitude snatched the victory at the very moment when a terrible defeat seemed inevitable. At Sabugal, not even the astonishing fighting of the light division could have saved it if general Reynier had possessed this essential quality of a general. At El Bodon, Marmont failed to seize the most favourable opportunity which occurred during the whole war for crushing the allies. At Orthes, Soult let slip two opportunities of falling upon the allies with advantage, and at Toulouse he failed to crush Beresford.

At Vimiera, lord Wellington was debarred by Burrard from giving a signal illustration of this intuitive generalship, but at Busaco and the heights of San Cristoval, near Salamanca, he suffered Massena and Marmont to commit glaring faults unpunished. On the other hand he has furnished many examples of that successful improvisation in which Napoleon seems to have surpassed all mankind. His sudden retreat from Oropesa across the Tagus by the bridge of Arzobispo; his passage of the Douro in 1809; his halt at Guinaldo in the face of Marmont’s overwhelming numbers; the battle of Salamanca; his sudden rush with the third division to seize the hill of Arinez at Vittoria; his counter-stroke with the sixth division at Sauroren; his battle of the 30th two days afterwards; his sudden passage of the Gave below Orthes. Add to these his wonderful battle of Assye, and the proofs are complete that he possesses in an eminent degree that intuitive perception which distinguishes the greatest generals.

Fortune however always asserts her supremacy in war, and often from a slight mistake such disastrous consequences flow that in every age and every nation the uncertainty of arms has been proverbial. Napoleon’s march upon Madrid in 1808 before he knew the exact situation of the British army is an example. By that march he lent his flank to his enemy. Sir John Moore seized the advantage and though the French emperor repaired the error for the moment by his astonishing march from Madrid to Astorga, the fate of the Peninsula was then decided. If he had not been forced to turn against Moore, Lisbon would have fallen, Portugal could not have been organized for resistance, and the jealousy of the Spaniards would never have suffered Wellington to establish a solid base at Cadiz: that general’s after-successes would then have been with the things that are unborn. It was not so ordained. Wellington was victorious, the great conqueror was overthrown. England stood the most triumphant nation of the world. But with an enormous debt, a dissatisfied people, gaining peace without tranquillity, greatness without intrinsic strength, the present time uneasy, the future dark and threatening. Yet she rejoices in the glory of her arms! And it is a stirring sound! War is the condition of this world. From man to the smallest insect all are at strife, and the glory of arms which cannot be obtained without the exercise of honour, fortitude, courage, obedience, modesty and temperance, excites the brave man’s patriotism and is a chastening corrective for the rich man’s pride. It is yet no security for power. Napoleon the greatest man of whom history makes mention, Napoleon the most wonderful commander, the most sagacious politician, the most profound statesman, lost by arms, Poland, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain and France. Fortune, that name for the unknown combinations of infinite power, was wanting to him, and without her aid the designs of man are as bubbles on a troubled ocean.

Nº. 1. Vol. 6.

click here for larger image.

Explanatory
Sketch
of the
CATALONIAN OPERATIONS
1813-14
with the Plan of a
position at
CAPE SALOU
proposed by
GEN^L. DONKIN
to
SIR S. MURRAY.
London, Pub^d. by T. & W. BOONE, 1840. Drawn by Col. Napier

Nº. 2. Vol. 6.

click here for larger image.

Explanatory
Sketch of
SOULT’S OPERATIONS
to relieve
PAMPELUNA
July 1813
BATTLE OF THE 28^th.
Enlarged
London, Pub^d. by T. & W. BOONE, 1840. Drawn by Col. Napier

Nº. 3. Vol. 6.

click here for larger image.

Combat of
MAYA
July 25^th.
1813.
Combat of
RONCESVALLES
July 25^th.
1813.
London, Pub^d. by T. & W. BOONE, 1840. Drawn by Col. Napier

Nº. 4. Vol. 6.

click here for larger image.

Explanatory
Sketch
of the
ASSAULT OF S^T. SEBASTIAN
August 31^st.
1813.
London, Pub^d. by T. & W. BOONE, 1840. Drawn by Col. Napier

Nº. 5. Vol. 6.

click here for larger image.

Explanatory Sketch
of
Soult’s passage of the
Bidassoa,
Aug^t. 31^st.
And
Lord Wellington’s
Passage of that River
October 7^th.
1813.
London, Pub^d. by T. & W. BOONE, 1840. Drawn by Col. Napier

Nº. 6. Vol. 6.

click here for larger image.

Explanatory Sketch
of
The Battle of the Nivelle,
Nov^r. 10^th.
1813.

Centre Attack

Right Attack

Nº. 7. Vol. 6.

click here for larger image.

Explanatory Sketch
of the
Operations round
Bayonne
in
Dec^r. & Feb^y.
1813-1814.
Battle of the
10^th. Dec^r.
1813.
London, Pub^d. by T. & W. BOONE, 1840. Drawn by Col. Napier

Nº. 8. Vol. 6.

click here for larger image.

Explanatory
Sketch
of the
Passage of the Nive,
And
Battle of S^t. Pierre;
December
9^th. and 13^th.
1813.
London, Pub^d. by T. & W. BOONE, 1840. Drawn by Col. Napier

Nº. 9. Vol. 6.

click here for larger image.

Explanatory Sketch
of the Battle
of Orthez;
And the Retreat of Soult,
To Aire:
1814.
Drawn by Col. Napier London, Pub^d. by T. & W. BOONE, 1840.

Nº. 10. Vol. 6.

click here for larger image.

Explanatory Sketch
of the
operations
about
Tarbes,
and the
Battle of Toulouse.
London, Pub^d. by T. & W. BOONE, 1840. Drawn by Col. Napier