History of the war in the Peninsula and in the south of France from the year 1807 to the year 1814, vol. 6

by William Francis Patrick Napier

REPLY

TO THE

Third Article in the Quarterly Review

ON

COL. NAPIER’S HISTORY OF THE PENINSULAR WAR.

---

‘Now there are two of them; and one has been called Crawley, and the other is Honest Iago.’—Old Play.

This article is the third of its family, and like its predecessors is only remarkable for malignant imbecility and systematic violation of truth. The malice is apparent to all; it remains to show the imbecility and falseness.

The writer complains of my ill-breeding, and with that valour which belongs to the incognito menaces me with his literary vengeance for my former comments. His vengeance! Bah! The ass’ ears peep too far beyond the lion’s hide. He shall now learn that I always adapt my manners to the level of the person I am addressing; and though his petty industry indicates a mind utterly incapable of taking an enlarged view of any subject he shall feel that chastisement awaits his malevolence. And first with respect to the small sketches in my work which he pronounces to be the very worst plans possible. It is expressly stated on the face of each that they are only ‘Explanatory Sketches,’ his observations therefore are a mere ebullition of contemptible spleen; but I will now show my readers why they are only sketches and not accurate plans.

When I first commenced my work, amongst the many persons from whom I sought information was sir George Murray, and this in consequence of a message from him, delivered to me by sir John Colborne, to the effect, that if I would call upon him he would answer any question I put to him on the subject of the Peninsular War. The interview took place, but sir George Murray, far from giving me information seemed intent upon persuading me to abandon my design; repeating continually that it was his intention to write the History of the War himself. He appeared also desirous of learning what sources of information I had access to. I took occasion to tell him that the duke of Wellington had desired me to ask him particularly for the ‘Order of Movements,’ as essentially necessary to a right understanding of the campaign and the saving of trouble; because otherwise I should have to search out the different movements through a variety of documents. Sir George replied that he knew of no such orders, that he did not understand me. To this I could only reply that I spoke as the duke had desired me, and knew no more.[6] I then asked his permission to have reduced plans made from captain Mitchell’s fine drawings, informing him that officer was desirous so to assist me. His reply was uncourteously vehement—‘No! certainly not!’ I proposed to be allowed to inspect those drawings if I were at any time at a loss about ground. The answer was still ‘No!’ And as sir George then intimated to me that my work could only be a momentary affair for the booksellers and would not require plans I took my leave. I afterwards discovered that he had immediately caused captain Mitchell’s drawings to be locked up and sealed.

I afterwards waited on sir Willoughby Gordon, the quarter-master-general, who treated me with great kindness, and sent me to the chief of the plan department in his office with an order to have access to everything which might be useful. From that officer I received every attention; but he told me that sir George Murray had been there the day before to borrow all the best plans relating to the Peninsular War, and that consequently little help could be given to me. Now Captain Mitchell’s drawings were made by him after the war, by order of the government, and at the public expense. He remained in the Peninsula for more than two years with pay as a staff-officer, his extra expenses were also paid:[7] he was attended constantly by two Spanish dragoons as a protection and the whole mission was costly. Never was money better laid out, for I believe no topographical drawings, whether they be considered for accuracy of detail, perfection of manner, or beauty of execution, ever exceeded Mitchell’s. But those drawings belong to the public and were merely placed in sir George Murray’s official keeping. I believe they are still in his possession and it would be well if some member of parliament were to ask why they are thus made the property of a private man?[8]

Here I cannot refrain from observing that, in the course of my labours, I have asked information of many persons of various nations, even of Spaniards, after my first volume was published, and when the unfavourable view I took of their exertions was known. And from Spaniards, Portuguese, English, French, and Germans, whether of high or low rank, I have invariably met with the greatest kindness, and found an eager desire to aid me. Sir George Murray only has thrown obstacles in my way; and if I am rightly informed of the following circumstance, his opposition has not been confined to what I have stated above. Mr. Murray, the bookseller, purchased my first volume with the right of refusal for the second volume. When the latter was nearly ready a friend informed me that he did not think Murray would purchase, because he had heard him say that sir George Murray had declared it was not ‘The Book.’ He did not point out any particular error; but it was not ‘The Book;’ meaning doubtless that his own production, when it appeared, would be ‘The Book.’ My friend’s prognostic was good. I was offered just half of the sum given for the first volume. I declined it, and published on my own account; and certainly I have had no reason to regret that Mr. Murray waited for ‘The Book:’ indeed he has since told me very frankly that he had mistaken his own interest. Now whether three articles in ‘The Quarterly,’ and a promise of more,[9] be a tribute paid to the importance of ‘My Book,’ or whether they be the puff preliminary to ‘The Book,’ I know not; but I am equally bound to Mr. Editor Lockhart for the distinction, and only wish he had not hired such a stumbling sore-backed hackney for the work. Quitting this digression, I return to the Review.

My topographical ignorance is a favourite point with the writer, and he mentions three remarkable examples on the present occasion:—1. That I have said Oporto is built in a hollow; 2. That I have placed the Barca de Avintas only three miles from the Serra Convent, instead of nine miles; 3. That I have described a ridge of land near Medellin where no such ridge exists.

These assertions are all hazarded in the hope that they will pass current with those who know no better, and will be unnoticed by those who do. But first a town may be on a hill and yet in a hollow. If the reader will look at lieutenant Godwin’s Atlas,[10] or at Gage’s Plan of Oporto, or at Avlis’ Plan of that city—all three published by Mr. Wylde of Charing Cross—he will find that Oporto, which by the way is situated very much like the hot-wells at Bristol, is built partly on the slopes of certain heights partly on the banks of the river; that it is surrounded on every side by superior heights; and that consequently my description of it, having relation to the Bishop’s lines of defence and the attack of the French army, is militarily correct. Again, if the reader will take his compasses and any or all of the three maps above-mentioned, he will find that the Barca de Avintas is, as I have said, just three miles from the Serra Convent, and not nine miles as the reviewer asserts. Lord Wellington’s despatch called it four miles from Oporto, but there is a bend in the river which makes the distance greater on that side.

Such being the accuracy of this very correct topographical critic upon two or three examples, let us see how he stands with respect to the third.

Extracts from marshal Victors Official Report and Register of the Battle of Medellin.

‘Medellin is situated upon the left bank of the Guadiana. To arrive there, a handsome stone-bridge is passed. On the left of the town is a very high hill (mamelon tres elévé), which commands all the plain; on the right is a ridge or steppe (rideau), which forms the basin of the Guadiana. Two roads or openings (débouchés) present themselves on quitting Medellin; the one conducts to Mingrabil, the other to Don Benito. They traverse a vast plain, bounded by a ridge (rideau), which, from the right of the Ortigosa, is prolonged in the direction of Don Benito, and Villa Neuva de la Serena.’... ‘The ridge which confines the plain of Medellin has many rises and falls (movemens de terrain) more or less apparent. It completely commands (domine parfaitement) the valley of the Guadiana; and it was at the foot of this ridge the enemy’s cavalry was posted. Not an infantry man was to be seen; but the presence of the cavalry made us believe that the enemy’s army was masked behind this ridge of Don Benito.’... ‘Favoured by this ridge, he could manœuvre his troops, and carry them upon any point of the line he pleased without being seen by us.’

Now ‘rideau’ can only be rendered, with respect to ground, a steppe or a ridge; but, in this case, it could not mean a steppe, since the Spanish army was hidden behind it, and on a steppe it would have been seen. Again, it must have been a high ridge, because it not only perfectly commanded the basin of the Guadiana, overlooking the steppe which formed that basin, but was itself not overlooked by the very high hill on the left of Medellin. What is my description of the ground?—‘The plain on the side of Don Benito was bounded by a high ridge of land, mark, reader, not a mountain ridge, behind which Cuesta kept the Spanish infantry concealed, showing only his cavalry and guns in advance.’ Here then we have another measure of value for the reviewer’s topographical pretensions.

The reference to French military reports and registers has not been so far, much to the advantage of the reviewer; and yet he rests the main part of his criticisms upon such documents. Thus, having got hold of the divisional register of general Heudelet, which register was taken, very much mutilated, in the pursuit of Soult from Oporto, he is so elated with his acquisition that he hisses and cackles over it like a goose with a single gosling. But I have in my possession the general report and register of Soult’s army, which enables me to show what a very little callow bird his treasure is. And first, as he accuses me of painting the wretched state of Soult’s army at St. Jago, previous to the invasion of Portugal, for the sole purpose of giving a false colouring to the campaign, I will extract Soult’s own account, and the account of Le Noble, historian of the campaign, and ordonnateur en chef or comptroller of the civil administration of the army.

Extract from Soult’s Official Journal of the Expedition to Portugal, dated Lugo, 30th May, 1809.

‘Under these circumstances the enterprise was one of the most difficult, considering the nature of the obstacles to be surmounted, the shattered and exhausted state (“delabrement et epuisement”) of the “corps d’armée,” and the insufficiency of the means of which it could dispose. But the order was positive; it was necessary to obey.’... ‘The march was directed upon St. Jago, where the troops took the first repose it had been possible to give them since they quitted the Carion River in Castile.’... ‘Marshal Soult rested six days at St. Jago, during which he distributed some shoes, had the artillery carriages repaired and the horses shod; the parc which since the Carion had not been seen now came up, and with it some ammunition (which had been prepared at Coruña), together with various detachments that the previous hardships and the exhaustion of the men had caused to remain behind. He would have prolonged his stay until the end of February because he could not hide from himself that his troops had the most urgent need of it; but his operations were connected with the duke of Belluno’s, &c. &c., and he thought it his duty to go on without regard to time or difficulties.’

Extract from Le Noble’s History.

‘The army was without money, without provision, without clothing, without equipages, and the men (personnel) belonging to the latter, not even ordinarily complete, when they should have been doubled to profit from the feeble resources of the country.’

Who now is the false colourist? But what can be expected from a writer so shameless in his statements as this reviewer? Let the reader look to the effrontery with which he asserts that I have celebrated marshal Soult for the reduction of two fortresses, Ferrol and Coruña, which were not even defended, whereas my whole passage is a censure upon the Spaniards for not defending them, and without one word of praise towards the French marshal.

To return to general Heudelet’s register. The first notable discovery from this document is, that it makes no mention of an action described by me as happening on the 17th of February at Ribadavia; and therefore the reviewer says no such action happened, though I have been so particular as to mention the strength of the Spaniards’ position, their probable numbers, and the curious fact that twenty priests were killed, with many other circumstances, all of which he contradicts. Now this is only the old story of ‘the big book which contains all that sir George does not know.’ For, first, Heudelet’s register, being only divisional, would not, as a matter of course, take notice of an action in which other troops were also engaged, and where the commander-in-chief was present. But that the action did take place, as I have described it, and on the 17th February, the following extracts will prove, and also the futility of the reviewer’s other objections. And I request the reader, both now and always, to look at the passages quoted from my work, in the work itself, and not trust the garbled extracts of the reviewer, or he will have a very false notion of my meaning.

Extract from Soult’s General Report.

‘The French army found each day greater difficulty to subsist, and the Spanish insurrection feeling itself sustained by the approach of La Romana’s corps, organized itself in the province of Orense.

‘The insurrection of the province of Orense, directed by the monks and by officers, became each day more enterprising, and extended itself to the quarters of general La Houssaye at Salvaterra. It was said the corps of Romana was at Orense (on disait le corps de Romana à Orense), and his advanced guard at Ribadavia.

‘The 16th of February the troops commenced their march upon Ribadavia.

‘The left column, under general Heudelet, found the route intercepted by barricades on the bridges between Franquiera and Canizar; and defended besides by a party of insurgents eight hundred strong. The brigade Graindorge, arriving in the night, overthrew them in the morning of the 17th, and pursued them to the heights of Ribadavia, where they united themselves with a body far more numerous. General Heudelet having come up with the rest of his division, and being sustained by Maransin’s brigade of dragoons, overthrew the enemy and killed many. Twenty monks at the least perished, and the town was entered fighting.

‘The 18th, general Heudelet scoured all the valley of the Avia, where three or four thousand insurgents had thrown themselves, Maransin followed the route of Rosamunde chasing all that was before him.’

The reviewer further says that, with my habitual inaccuracy as to dates, I have concentrated all Soult’s division at Orense on the 20th. But Soult himself says, ‘The 19th, Franceschi and Heudelet marched upon Orense, and seized the bridge. The 20th, the other divisions followed the movement upon Orense.’ Here then, besides increasing the bulk of the book, containing what sir George does not know, the reviewer has only proved his own habitual want of truth.

In the above extracts nothing is said of the ‘eight or ten thousand Spaniards;’ nothing of the ‘strong rugged hill’ on which they were posted; nothing of ‘Soult’s presence in the action.’ But the reader will find all these particulars in the Appendix to the ‘Victoires et Conquêtes des Français,’ and in ‘Le Noble’s History of Soult’s Campaign.’ The writers in each work were present, and the latter, notwithstanding the reviewer’s sneers, and what is of more consequence, notwithstanding many serious errors as to the projects and numbers of his enemies, is highly esteemed by his countrymen, and therefore good authority for those operations on his own side which he witnessed. Well, Le Noble says there were 15,000 or 20,000 insurgents and some regular troops in position, and he describes that position as very rugged and strong, which I can confirm, having marched over it only a few weeks before. Nevertheless, as this estimate was not borne out by Soult’s report, I set the Spaniards down at 8,000 or 10,000, grounding my estimate on the following data: 1st. Soult says that 800 men fell back on a body far more numerous. 2d. It required a considerable body of troops and several combinations to dislodge them from an extensive position. 3d. ‘Three or four thousand fugitives went off by one road only.’ Finally, the expression eight or ten thousand showed that I had doubts.

Let us proceed with Heudelet’s register. In my history it is said that Soult softened the people’s feelings by kindness and by enforcing strict discipline. To disprove this the reviewer quotes, from Heudelet’s register, statements of certain excesses, committed principally by the light cavalry, and while in actual pursuit of the enemy—excesses, however, which he admits that count Heudelet blamed and rigorously repressed, thus proving the truth of my statement instead of his own, for verily the slow-worm is strong within him. Yet I will not rely upon this curious stupidity of the reviewer. I will give absolute authority for the fact that Soult succeeded in soothing the people’s feelings, begging the reader to observe that both Heudelet and my history speak of Soult’s stay at Orense immediately after the action at Ribadavia.

Extract from Soult’s General Report.

‘At this period the prisoners of Romana’s corps (note, the reviewer says none of Romana’s corps were there) had all demanded to take the oath of fidelity, and to serve king Joseph. The Spanish general himself was far off (fort éloigné). The inhabitants of the province of Orense were returning to their houses, breaking their arms, and cursing the excitement and the revolt which Romana had fomented. The priests even encouraged their submission, and offered themselves as sureties. These circumstances appeared favourable for the invasion of Portugal.’

Animated by a disgraceful anxiety which has always distinguished the Quarterly Review to pander to the bad feelings of mankind by making the vituperation of an enemy the test of patriotism, this critic accuses me of an unnatural bias, and an inclination to do injustice to the Spaniards, because I have not made the report of some outrages, committed by Soult’s cavalry, the ground of a false and infamous charge against the whole French army and French nation. Those outrages he admits himself were vigorously repressed, and they were committed by troops in a country where all the inhabitants were in arms, where no soldier could straggle without meeting death by torture and mutilation, and, finally, where the army lived from day to day on what they could take in the country. I shall now put this sort of logic to a severe test, and leave the Reviewer’s patriots to settle the matter as they can. That is, I shall give from lord Wellington’s despatches, through a series of years, extracts touching the conduct of British officers and soldiers in this same Peninsula, where they were dealt with, not as enemies, not mutilated, tortured, and assassinated, but well provided and kindly treated.

Sir A. Wellesley to Mr. Villiers.

Extract, May 1, 1809.—‘I have long been of opinion that a British army could bear neither success nor failure, and I have had manifest proofs of the truth of this opinion in the first of its branches in the recent conduct of the soldiers of this army. They have plundered the country most terribly.’—‘They have plundered the people of bullocks, amongst other property, for what reason I am sure I do not know, except it be, as I understand is their practice, to sell them to the people again.’

Sir Arthur Wellesley to lord Castlereagh, May 31, 1809.

‘The army behave terribly ill. They are a rabble who cannot bear success more than sir John Moore’s army could bear failure. I am endeavouring to tame them but if I should not succeed I shall make an official complaint of them and send one or two corps home in disgrace; they plunder in all directions.’

Sir Arthur Wellesley to Mr. Villiers, June 13, 1809.

‘It is obvious that one of the private soldiers has been wounded; it is probable that all three have been put to death by the peasantry of Martede; I am sorry to say that from the conduct of the soldiers of the army in general, I apprehend that the peasants may have had some provocation for their animosity against the soldiers; but it must be obvious to you and the general, that these effects of their animosity must be discouraged and even punished, otherwise it may lead to consequences fatal to the peasantry of the country in general as well as to the army.’

Sir Arthur Wellesley to colonel Donkin, June, 1809.

‘I trouble you now upon a subject which has given me the greatest pain, I mean the accounts which I receive from all quarters of the disorders committed by, and the general irregularity of the —— and —— regiments.’

Sir Arthur Wellesley to lord Castlereagh, June, 1809.

‘It is impossible to describe to you the irregularities and outrages committed by the troops. They are never out of the sight of their officers, I may almost say never out of the sight of the commanding officers of the regiments and the general officers of the army, that outrages are not committed.’... ‘Not a post or a courier comes in, not an officer arrives from the rear of the army, that does not bring me accounts of outrages committed by the soldiers who have been left behind on the march. There is not an outrage of any description which has not been committed on a people who have uniformly received us as friends, by soldiers who never yet for one moment suffered the slightest want or the smallest privation.’... ‘It is most difficult to convict any prisoner before a regimental court-martial, for I am sorry to say that soldiers have little regard to the oath administered to them; and the officers who are sworn, “well and truly to try and determine according to evidence, the matter before them,” have too much regard to the strict letter of that administered to them.’... ‘There ought to be in the British army a regular provost establishment.’... ‘All the foreign armies have such an establishment. The French gendarmerie nationale to the amount of forty or fifty with each corps. The Spaniards have their police militia to a still larger amount. While we who require such an aid more, I am sorry to say, than any other nation of Europe, have nothing of the kind.’

‘We all know that the discipline and regularity of all armies must depend upon the diligence of regimental officers, particularly subalterns. I may order what I please, but if they do not execute what I order, or if they execute with negligence, I cannot expect that British soldiers will be orderly or regular.’... ‘I believe I should find it very difficult to convict any officer of doing this description of duty with negligence, more particularly as he is to be tried by others probably guilty of the same offence,’... ‘We are an excellent army on parade, an excellent one to fight, but we are worse than an enemy in a country, and take my word for it that either defeat or success would dissolve us.’

Sir Arthur Wellesley to Mr. Villiers, July, 1809.

‘We must have some general rule of proceeding in cases of criminal outrages of British officers and soldiers.’... ‘As matters are now conducted, the government and myself stand complimenting each other while no notice is taken of the murderer.’

Sir Arthur to lord Wellesley, August, 1809.

‘But a starving army is actually worse than none. The soldiers lose their discipline and spirit; they plunder even in the presence of their officers. The officers are discontented and are almost as bad as the men.’

Sir Arthur Wellesley to Mr. Villiers, September, 1809.

‘In respect to the complaints you have sent me of the conduct of detachments, they are only a repetition of others which I receive every day from all quarters of Spain and Portugal and I can only lament my inability to apply any remedy. In the first place, our law is not what it ought to be and I cannot prevail upon Government even to look at a remedy; secondly, our military courts having been established solely for the purpose of maintaining military discipline, and with the same wisdom which has marked all our proceedings of late years we have obliged the officers to swear to decide according to the evidence brought before them, and we have obliged the witnesses to give their evidence upon oath, the witnesses being in almost every instance common soldiers whose conduct this tribunal was constituted to controul; the consequence is, that perjury is almost as common an offence as drunkenness and plunder.’

Lord Wellington to lord Liverpool, January, 1810.

‘I am concerned to tell you, that notwithstanding the pains taken by the general and other officers of the army the conduct of the soldiers is infamous.’... ‘At this moment there are three general courts-martial sitting in Portugal for the trial of soldiers guilty of wanton murders, (no less than four people have been killed by them since we returned to Portugal), robberies, thefts, robbing convoys under their charge, &c. &c. Perjury is as common as robbery and murder.’

Lord Wellington to the adjutant-general of the forces, 1810.

‘It is proper I should inform the commander-in-chief that desertion is not the only crime of which the soldiers of the army have been guilty to an extraordinary degree. A detachment seldom marches, particularly if under the command of a non-commissioned officer (which rarely happens,) that a murder or a highway robbery, or some act of outrage, is not committed by the British soldiers composing it: they have killed eight people since the army returned to Portugal.’

Lord Wellington to lord Liverpool, 1810.

‘Several soldiers have lately been convicted before a general court-martial and have been executed.’... ‘I am still apprehensive of the consequence of trying them in any nice operation before the enemy, for they really forget everything when plunder or wine is within reach.’

Lord Wellington to sir S. Cotton, 1810.

‘I have read complaints from different quarters of the conduct of the hussars towards the inhabitants of the country.’... ‘It has gone so far, that they (the people) have inquired whether they might kill the Germans in our service as well as in the service of the French.’

Lord Wellington to lord Liverpool, May, 1812.

‘The outrages committed by the British soldiers have been so enormous, and they have produced an effect on the minds of the people of the country so injurious to the cause, and likely to be so injurious to the army itself, that I request your Lordship’s early attention to the subject.’

Many more extracts I could give, but let us now see what was the conduct of the French towards men who did not murder and mutilate prisoners:—

Lord Wellington to sir H. Wellesley, August, 1810.

‘Since I have commanded the troops in this country I have always treated the French officers and soldiers who have been made prisoners with the utmost humanity and attention; and in numerous instances I have saved their lives. The only motive which I have had for this conduct has been, that they might treat our officers and soldiers well who might fall into their hands; and I must do the French the justice to say that they have been universally well treated, and in recent instances the wounded prisoners of the British army have been taken care of before the wounded of the French army.’

Lord Wellington to admiral Berkeley, October, 1810.

‘I confess, however, that as the French treat well the prisoners whom they take from us and the Portuguese treat their prisoners exceedingly ill, particularly in point of food, I should prefer an arrangement, by which prisoners who have once come into the hands of the provost marshal of the British army should avoid falling under the care of any officer of the Portuguese government.’

Having thus displayed the conduct of the British army, as described by its own general through a series of years; and having also from the same authority, shown the humane treatment English officers and soldiers, when they happened to be made prisoners, experienced from the French, I demand of any man with a particle of honour, truth or conscience in his composition,—of any man, in fine, who is not at once knave and fool, whether these outrages perpetrated by British troops upon a friendly people can be suppressed, and the outrages of French soldiers against implacable enemies enlarged upon with justice? Whether it is right and decent to impute relentless ferocity, atrocious villainy, to the whole French army, and stigmatize the whole French nation for the excesses of some bad soldiers, prating at the same time of the virtue of England and the excellent conduct of her troops; and this too in the face of Wellington’s testimony to the kindness with which they treated our men, and in the face also of his express declaration (see letter to lord Wellesley, 26th January, 1811), that the majority of the French soldiers were ‘sober, well disposed, amenable to order, and in some degree educated.’ But what intolerable injustice it would be to stigmatise either nation for military excesses which are common to all armies and to all wars; and when I know that the general characteristic of the British and French troops alike, is generosity, bravery, humanity, and honour.

And am I to be accused of an unnatural bias against the Spaniards because I do not laud them for running away in battle; because I do not express my admiration of their honour in assassinating men whom they dared not face in fight; because I do not commend their humanity for mutilating, torturing, and murdering their prisoners. I have indeed heard of a British staff-officer, high in rank, who, after the battle of Talavera, looked on with apparent satisfaction at a Spaniard beating a wounded Frenchman’s brains out with a stone, and even sneered at the indignant emotion and instant interference of my informant. Such an adventure I have heard of, yet there are few such cold-blooded men in the British army. But what have I said to the disparagement of the Spaniards in my history without sustaining it by irrefragable testimony? Nothing, absolutely nothing! I have quoted the deliberate judgment of every person of note, French and English, who had to deal with them; nay, I have in some instances supported my opinion by the declaration even of Spanish generals. I have brought forward the testimony of sir Hew Dalrymple, of sir John Moore, of sir John Craddock, of Mr. Stuart, of Mr. Frere, of general Graham, of lord William Bentinck, of sir Edward Pellew, of lord Collingwood, of sir Edward Codrington, and of Mr. Sydenham, and a crowd of officers of inferior rank. Lastly, I have produced the testimony of the duke of Wellington; and I will now add more proofs that his opinion of the Spanish character coincides with that expressed in my history.

Extracts from lord Wellington’s Correspondence, 1809.

‘I come now to another topic, which is one of serious consideration.’... ‘That is the frequent, I ought to say constant and shameful misbehaviour of the Spanish troops before the enemy: we in England never hear of their defeats and flights, but I have heard of Spanish officers telling of nineteen and twenty actions of the description of that at the bridge of Arzobispo.’... ‘In the battle of Talavera, in which the Spanish army with very trifling exceptions was not engaged, whole corps threw away their arms and ran off in my presence when they were neither attacked nor threatened with an attack, but frightened I believe by their own fire.’... ‘I have found, upon inquiry, and from experience, the instances of the misbehaviour of the Spanish troops to be so numerous and those of their good behaviour to be so few, that I must conclude that they are troops by no means to be depended upon.’

‘The Spanish cavalry are I believe nearly entirely without discipline; they are in general well clothed armed and accoutred, and remarkably well mounted, and their horses are in good condition; but I never heard anybody pretend that in one instance they have behaved as soldiers ought to do in the presence of an enemy.’... ‘In respect to that great body of all armies—I mean the infantry—it is lamentable to see how bad that of the Spaniards is.’... ‘It is said that sometimes they behave well; though I acknowledge I have never seen them behave otherwise than ill.’... ‘Nothing can be worse than the officers of the Spanish army; and it is extraordinary that when a nation has devoted itself to war, as this nation has by the measures it has adopted in the last two years, so little progress has been made in any one branch of the military profession by any individual.’... ‘I cannot say that they do anything as it ought to be done, with the exception of running away and assembling again in a state of nature.’

‘The Spaniards have neither numbers, efficiency, discipline, bravery or arrangement to carry on the contest.’

Extracts, 1810.

‘The misfortune throughout the war has been that the Spaniards are of a disposition too sanguine; they have invariably expected only success in objects for the attainment of which they had adopted no measures; they have never looked to or prepared for a lengthened contest; and all those, or nearly all who have had anything to do with them, have imbibed the same spirit and the same sentiments.’

‘Those who see the difficulties attending all communications with Spaniards and Portuguese, and are aware how little dependence can be placed upon them, and that they depend entirely upon us for everything, will be astonished that with so small a force as I have I should have been able to maintain myself so long in this country.’

‘The character of the Spaniards has been the same throughout the war; they have never been equal to the adoption of any solid plan, or to the execution of any system of steady resistance to the enemy by which their situation might be gradually improved. The leading people amongst them have invariably deceived the lower orders; and instead of making them acquainted with their real situation, and calling upon them to make the exertions and sacrifices which were necessary even for their defence, they have amused them with idle stories of imaginary successes, with visionary plans of offensive operations which those who offer them for consideration know that they have not the means of executing, and with hopes of driving the French out of the Peninsula by some unlooked-for good. The consequence is, that no event is provided for in time, every misfortune is doubly felt, and the people will at last become fatigued with the succession of their disasters which common prudence and foresight in their leaders would have prevented.’

Wellington to sir H. Wellesley, 1810.

‘In order to show you how the Spanish armies are going on, I enclose you a report which sir William Beresford has received from general Madden the officer commanding the brigade of Portuguese cavalry in Estremadura. I am convinced that there is not one word in this letter that is not true. Yet these are the soldiers who are to beat the French out of the Peninsula!!!!

‘There is no remedy for these evils excepting a vigorous system of government, by which a revenue of some kind or other can be raised to pay and find resources for an army in which discipline can be established. It is nonsense to talk of rooting out the French, or of carrying on the war in any other manner. Indeed, if the destruction occasioned by the Guerillas and by the Spanish armies, and the expense incurred by maintaining the French armies, are calculated, it will be obvious that it will be much cheaper for the country to maintain 80,000 or 100,000 regular troops in the field.

‘But the Spanish nation will not sit down soberly and work to produce an effect at a future period. Their courage, and even their activity is of a passive nature, it must be forced upon them by the necessity of their circumstances and is never a matter of choice nor of foresight.’

Wellington to lord Wellesley, 1810.

‘There is neither subordination nor discipline in the army either amongst officers or soldiers; and it is not even attempted (as, indeed, it would be in vain to attempt) to establish either. It has in my opinion been the cause of the dastardly conduct which we have so frequently witnessed in Spanish troops, and they have become odious to the country. The peaceable inhabitants, much as they detest and suffer from the French, almost wish for the establishment of Joseph’s government to be protected from the outrages of their own troops.’

Wellington to sir H. Wellesley, Dec. 1810.

‘I am afraid that the Spaniards will bring us all to shame yet. It is scandalous that in the third year of the war, and having been more than a year in a state of tranquillity, and having sustained no loss of importance since the battle of Ocaña, they should now be depending for the safety of Cadiz—the seat of their government—upon having one or two, more or less, British regiments; and that after having been shut in for ten months, they have not prepared the works necessary for their defence, notwithstanding the repeated remonstrances of general Graham and the British officers on the danger of omitting them.

‘The Cortes appear to suffer under the national disease in as great a degree as the other authorities—that is, boasting of the strength and power of the Spanish nation till they are seriously convinced they are in no danger, and then sitting down quietly and indulging their national indolence.’

Wellington to general Graham, 1811.

‘The conduct of the Spaniards throughout this expedition (Barrosa) is precisely the same as I have ever observed it to be. They march the troops night and day without provisions or rest, and abuse everybody who proposes a moment’s delay to afford either to the famished and fatigued soldiers. They reach the enemy in such a state as to be unable to make any exertion or to execute any plan, even if any plan had been formed; and thus, when the moment of action arrives they are totally incapable of movement, and they stand by to see their allies destroyed, and afterwards abuse them because they do not continue, unsupported, exertions to which human nature is not equal.’[11]

So much for Wellington’s opinion of the Spanish soldiers and statesmen; let us now hear him as to the Spanish generals:—

1809. ‘Although the Duque de Albuquerque is proné by many, amongst others by Whittingham and Frere, you will find him out. I think the marquis de la Romana the best I have seen of the Spaniards. I doubt his talents at the head of an army, but he is certainly a sensible man and has seen much of the world.’

Now reader, the following is the character given to Romana in my history; compare it with the above:—

‘Romana was a man of talent, quickness, and information, but disqualified by nature for military command.’ And again, speaking of his death, I say, ‘He was a worthy man and of quick parts, although deficient in military talent. His death was a great loss.’ If the expressions are more positive than Wellington’s, it is because this was the duke’s first notion of the marquis; he was more positive afterwards, and previous circumstances unknown to him, and after circumstances known to him, gave me a right to be more decided. The following additional proofs, joined to those already given in my former reply, must suffice for the present. Sir John Moore, in one of his letters, says, ‘I am sorry to find that Romana is a shuffler.’ And Mr. Stuart, the British envoy, writing about the same period to general Doyle to urge the advance of Palafox and Infantado, says, ‘I know that Romana has not supported the British as he ought to have done, and has left our army to act alone when he might have supported it with a tolerably efficient force.’

In 1812, during the siege of Burgos, Mr. Sydenham, expressing lord Wellington’s opinions, after saying that Wellington declared he had never met with a really able man in Spain, while in Portugal he had found several, proceeds thus—

‘It is indeed clear to any person who is acquainted with the present state of Spain, that the Spaniards are incapable of forming either a good government or a good army.’... ‘With respect to the army there are certainly in Spain abundant materials for good common soldiers. But where is one general of even moderate skill and talents? I know nothing of Lacy and Sarzfield, but assuredly a good general is not to be found amongst Castaños, Ballesteros, Palacios, Mendizabal, Santocildes, Abadia, Duque del Parque, La Pena, Elio, Mahy, or Joseph O’Donnel.’... ‘You cannot make good officers in Spain.’

If to this the reader will add what I have set forth in my history about Vives, Imas, Contreras, Campo Verde, Cuesta, and Areyasaga, and that he is not yet satisfied, I can still administer to his craving. In 1809 Wellington speaks with dread of ‘Romana’s cormorants flying into Portugal,’ and says, ‘that foolish fellow the Duque del Parque has been endeavouring to get his corps destroyed on the frontier.’ Again—

‘The Duque del Parque has advanced, because, whatever may be the consequences, the Spaniards always think it necessary to advance when their front is clear of an enemy.’

‘There never was anything like the madness, the imprudence, and the presumption of the Spanish officers in the way they risk their corps, knowing that the national vanity will prevent them from withdrawing them from a situation of danger, and that if attacked they must be totally destroyed. A retreat is the only chance of safety for the Duque del Parque’s corps; but instead of making it he calls upon you for cavalry.’... ‘I have ordered magazines to be prepared on the Douro and Mondego to assist in providing these vagabonds if they should retire into Portugal, which I hope they will do as their only chance of salvation.’

Again in 1811, defending himself from an accusation, made by the Spaniards, that he had caused the loss of Valencia, he says, ‘the misfortunes of Valencia are to be attributed to Blake’s ignorance of his profession and to Mahy’s cowardice and treachery.’

Now if any passage in my history can be pointed out more disparaging to the Spaniards than the expressions of lord Wellington and the other persons quoted above, I am content to be charged with an ‘unnatural bias’ against that people. But if this cannot be done, it is clear that the reviewer has proved, not my unnatural bias to the French but his own natural bias to calumny. He has indeed a wonderful aversion to truth, for close under his eye, in my second volume which he was then reviewing, was the following passage; and there are many of a like tendency in my work relative to the Spaniards which he leaves unnoticed.

‘Under such a system it was impossible that the peasantry could be rendered energetic soldiers, and they certainly were not active supporters of their country’s cause; but with a wonderful constancy they suffered for it, enduring fatigue and sickness, nakedness and famine with patience, and displaying in all their actions and in all their sentiments a distinct and powerful national character. This constancy and the iniquity of the usurpation, hallowed their efforts in despite of their ferocity and merits respect, though the vices and folly of the juntas and the leading men rendered the effects nugatory.’—History, vol. ii. chap. 1.

I would stop here, but the interests of truth and justice, and the interests of society require that I should thoroughly expose this reviewer. Let the reader therefore mark his reasoning upon Soult’s government of Oporto and the intrigue of the Anti-Braganza party. Let him however look first at the whole statement of these matters in my book, and not trust the garbled extracts made by the reviewer. Let him observe how Heudelet’s expedition to Tuy is by this shameless writer, at one time made to appear as if it took place after Soult had received the deputations and addresses calling for a change of dynasty; and this to show that no beneficial effect had been produced in the temper of the people, as I had asserted, and of which I shall presently give ample proof. How at another time this same expedition of Heudelet is used as happening before the arrival of the addresses and deputations, with a view to show that Soult had laboured to procure those addresses, a fact which, far from denying, I had carefully noticed. Let him mark how an expression in my history, namely, that Soult was unprepared for one effect of his own vigorous conduct, has been perverted, for the purpose of deceit; and all this with a spirit at once so malignant and stupid, that the reviewer is unable to see that the garbled extracts he gives from Heudelet’s and Riccard’s Registers, not only do not contradict but absolutely confirm the essential point of my statement.

Certainly Soult was not unprepared for the submission of the Portuguese to the French arms because it was the object and bent of his invasion to make them so submit. But there is a great difference between that submission of which Heudelet and Riccard speak, and the proposal coming from the Portuguese for the establishment of a new and independent dynasty; a still greater difference between that and offering the crown to Soult himself; and it was this last which the word unprepared referred to in my history. So far from thinking or saying that Soult was unprepared for the deputations and addresses, I have expressly said, that he ‘encouraged the design,’ that he ‘acted with great dexterity,’ and I called the whole affair an ‘intrigue.’ But if I had said that he was unprepared for the whole affair it would have been correct in one sense. He was unprepared to accede to the extent of the Anti-Braganza party’s views. He had only received authority from his sovereign to conquer Portugal, not to establish a new and independent dynasty, placing a French prince upon the throne; still less to accept that throne for himself. These were dangerous matters to meddle with under such a monarch as Napoleon; but the weakness of Soult’s military position made it absolutely necessary to catch at every aid, and it would have been a proof that the duke of Dalmatia was only a common man and unsuited for the great affairs confided to his charge if he had rejected such a powerful auxiliary to his military operations: wisely, therefore, and even magnanimously did he encourage the Anti-Braganza party, drawing all the military benefit possible from it, and trusting to Napoleon’s sagacity and grandeur of soul for his justification. Nor was he mistaken in either. Yet I am ready to admit that all this must appear very strange to Quarterly Reviewers and parasites, whose knowledge of the human mind is confined to an accurate measure of the sentiments of patrons, rich and powerful, but equally with themselves incapable of true greatness and therefore always ready to ridicule it.

The facts then stand thus. Heudelet’s expedition through the Entre Minho e Douro took place between the 5th of April and the 27th of that month, and the country people being then in a state of exasperation opposed him vehemently; in my history the combats he sustained are mentioned, and it is said that previous to the Anti-Braganza intrigue the horrible warfare of assassinations had been carried on with infinite activity. But the intrigue of the malcontents was not completed until the end of April, and the good effect of it on the military operations was not apparent until May, consequently could not have been felt by Heudelet in the beginning of April. In my history the difference of time in these two affairs is expressly marked, inasmuch as I say that in treating of the intrigue I have anticipated the chronological order of events. Truly if Mr. Lockhart has paid for this part of the Review as criticism Mr. Murray should disallow the unfair charge in his accounts.

I shall now give two extracts from Soult’s general report, before quoted, in confimation of my statements:—

‘Marshal Soult was led by necessity to favour the party of the malcontents, which he found already formed in Portugal when he arrived. He encouraged them, and soon that party thought itself strong enough in the province of Entre Minho e Douro, to propose to the marshal to approve of the people declaring for the deposition of the house of Braganza, and that the emperor of the French should be asked to name a prince of his family to reign in Portugal. In a political view, marshal Soult could not without express authority, permit such a proceeding, and he could not ask for such authority having lost his own communication with France, and being without news of the operations of any of the other corps which were to aid him; but considered in a military point of view the proposition took another character. Marshal Soult there saw the means of escaping from his embarrassments, and he seized them eagerly, certain that whatever irregularity there was in his proceedings ultimate justice would be done to him.’

‘These dispositions produced a remarkable change, tranquillity was re-established, and the confidence was such, that in the province (Entre Minho e Douro) all the inhabitants returned to their labours, supplied the markets and familiarized themselves with the idea of an approaching change.’... ‘Marshal Soult received numerous deputations of the clergy to thank him for the attentions he paid them, and for the order which he had restored. Before this no Frenchman could straggle without being mutilated and killed. The Portuguese, believing that it was glorious and grateful to God to do all the mischief possible to the army, had perpetrated the most dreadful horrors on the wretched soldiers who fell into their hands.’

It would be too tedious and unprofitable to the reader to continue thus following the reviewer step by step. Wherefore, neglecting his farrago about the principles of war, and his application of them to show how I am wrong in my statement, that, in a strategic point of view it was better to attack Victor, but that especial circumstances led sir Arthur to fall upon Soult, I hold it sufficient to place sir Arthur’s own statement before the reader and leave him to compare it with mine.

‘Lisbon, April 24, 1809.

‘I intend to move towards Soult and attack him, if I should be able to make any arrangement in the neighbourhood of Abrantes which can give me any security for the safety of this place during my absence to the northward.

‘I am not quite certain, however, that I should not do more good to the general cause by combining with general Cuesta in an operation against Victor; and I believe I should prefer the last if Soult was not in possession of a part of this country very fertile in resources, and of the town of Oporto, and if to concert the operations with Cuesta would not take time which might be profitably employed in operations against Soult. I think it probable, however, that Soult will not remain in Portugal when I shall pass the Mondego. If he does I shall attack him. If he should retire, I am convinced that it would be most advantageous for the common cause that we should remain upon the defensive in the north of Portugal, and act vigorously in co-operation with Cuesta against Victor.

‘An operation against Victor is attended by these advantages—if successful it effectually relieves Seville and Lisbon, and in case affairs should take such a turn as to enable the King’s ministers to make another great effort for the relief of Spain, the corps under my command in Portugal will not be removed to such a distance from the scene of operation as to render its co-operation impossible; and we may hope to see the effect of a great effort made by a combined and concentrated force.’

The assertion of the reviewer that I have underrated Cuesta’s force, inasmuch as it was only 19,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry, instead of 30,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry, as I have stated it to be, and that consequently the greatest numbers could not be brought to bear on Victor, is one of those curious examples of elaborate misrepresentation in which this writer abounds. For first, admitting that Cuesta had only 20,000 men, sir Arthur would have brought 24,000 to aid him, and Victor had only 30,000. The allies would then have had double the number opposed to Soult. But the pith of the misrepresentation lies in this, that the reviewer has taken Cuesta’s account of his actual force on the 23d of April, and suppresses the facts, that reinforcements were continually pouring into him at that time, and that he actually did advance against Victor with rather greater numbers than those stated by me.

PROOFS.

Sir Arthur to lord Castlereagh, April 24, 1809.

‘Cuesta is at Llerena, collecting a force again, which it is said will soon be 25,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry.’

To general Mackenzie, May 1, 1809.

‘They (Victor’s troops) have in their front a Spanish army with general Cuesta at Llerena, which army was defeated in the month of March, and has since been reinforced to the amount of twenty thousand men.’... ‘They will be attacked by Cuesta, who is receiving reinforcements.’

Mr. Frere to sir Arthur Wellesley, Seville, May 4.

‘We have here 3,000 cavalry, considered as part of the army of Estremadura (under Cuesta). Cuesta has with him 4,000 cavalry.’

Sir Arthur Wellesley to lord Castlereagh, June 17, 1809.

‘We had every reason to believe that the French army consisted of about 27,000, of which 7,000 were cavalry; and the combined British and Portuguese force which I was in hopes I should have enabled to march upon this expedition would have amounted to about 24,000 men.’

To lord Wellesley, August 8, 1809.

‘The army of Cuesta, which crossed the Tagus thirty-six or thirty-eight thousand strong, does not now consist of 30,000.’

Extract from a Memoir by sir A. Wellesley, 1809.

‘The Spanish army under General Cuesta had been reinforced with cavalry and infantry, and had been refitted with extraordinary celerity after the action of Medellin.’

All the reviewer’s remarks about Cuesta’s numbers, and about the unfordable nature of the Tagus, are a reproduction of misrepresentations and objections before exposed and refuted by me in my controversy with marshal Beresford; but as it is now attempted to support them by garbled extracts from better authorities, I will again and completely expose and crush them. This will however be more conveniently done farther on. Meanwhile I repeat, that the Tagus is only unfordable during the winter, and not then if there is a few days dry weather; that six months of the year it is always fordable in many places, and as low down as Salvaterra near Lisbon; finally, that my expression, ‘a river fordable at almost every season,’ is strictly correct, and is indeed not mine but lord Wellington’s expression. To proceed with the rest:—

Without offering any proof beyond his own assertion, the reviewer charges me with having exaggerated the importance of D’Argenton’s conspiracy for the sole purpose of excusing Soult’s remissness in guarding the Douro. But my account of that conspiracy was compiled from the duke of Wellington’s letters—some public, some private addressed to me; and from a narrative of the conspiracy written expressly for my guidance by major-general sir James Douglas, who was the officer employed to meet and conduct D’Argenton to and from the English army;—from Soult’s own official report; from Le Noble’s history; and from secret information which I received from a French officer who was himself one of the principal movers—not of that particular conspiracy—but of a general one of which the one at Oporto was but a branch.

Again, the reviewer denies that I am correct in saying, that Soult thought Hill’s division had been disembarked from the ocean; that he expected the vessels would come to the mouth of the Douro; and that considering that river secure above the town his personal attention was directed to the line below Oporto. Let Soult and Le Noble answer this.

Extract from Soult’s General Report.

‘In the night of the 9th and 10th the enemy made a considerable disembarkation at Aveiro, and another at Ovar. The 10th, at daybreak, they attacked the right flank of general Franceschi, while the column coming from Lisbon by Coimbra attacked him in front.’

Extract from Le Noble.

‘The house occupied by the general-in-chief was situated beyond the town on the road to the sea. The site was very high, and from thence he could observe the left bank of the Douro from the convent to the sea. His orders, given on the 8th, to scour the left bank of the river, those which he had expedited in the morning, and the position of his troops, rendered him confident that no passage would take place above Oporto; he believed that the enemy, master of the sea, would try a disembarkation near the mouth of the Douro.’

Such is the value of this carping disingenuous critic’s observations on this point; and I shall now demolish his other misstatements about the passage of the Douro.

1st. The poor barber’s share in the transaction is quite true; my authority is major-general sir John Waters who was the companion of the barber in the daring exploit of bringing over the boats. And if Waters had recollected his name, it is not the despicable aristocratic sneer of the reviewer about the ‘Plebeian’ that would have prevented me from giving it. 2d. The Barca de Avintas, where sir John Murray crossed, has already been shown by a reference to the maps and to lord Wellington’s despatch, to be not nine miles from the Serra Convent as the reviewer says, but three miles as I have stated: moreover, two Portuguese leagues would not make nine English miles. But to quit these minor points, the reviewer asks, ‘Why colonel Napier departed from the account of the events given in the despatch of sir Arthur Wellesley?’ This is the only decent passage in the whole review, and it shall have a satisfactory answer.

Public despatches, written in the hurry of the moment, immediately after the events and before accurate information can be obtained, are very subject to errors of detail, and are certainly not what a judicious historian would rely upon for details without endeavouring to obtain other information. In this case I discovered several discrepancies between the despatch and the accounts of eye-witnesses and actors written long afterwards and deliberately. I knew also, that the passage of the Douro, though apparently a very rash action and little considered in England, was a very remarkable exploit, prudent skilful and daring. Anxious to know the true secret of the success, I wrote to the duke of Wellington, putting a variety of questions relative to the whole expeditions. In return I received from him distinct answers, with a small diagram of the seminary and ground about it to render the explanation clear. Being thus put in possession of all the leading points relative to the passage of the Douro by the commanders on each side, for I had before got Soult’s, I turned to the written and printed statements of several officers engaged in the action for those details which the generals had not touched upon.

Now the principal objections of the reviewer to my statement are,—1st. That I have given too many troops to sir John Murray. 2d. That I have unjustly accused him of want of military hardihood. 3d. That I have erroneously described the cause of the loss sustained by the fourteenth dragoons in retiring from their charge. In reply I quote my authorities; and first, as to the numbers with Murray.

Extract from lord Wellington’s answers to colonel Napier’s questions.

‘The right of the troops which passed over to the seminary, which in fact made an admirable tête de pont, was protected by the passage of the Douro higher up by lieut.-general sir John Murray and the king’s German legion, supported by other troops.’

Armed with this authority, I did set aside the despatch, because, though it said that Murray was sent with a battalion and a squadron, it did not say that he was not followed by others. And in lord Londonderry’s narrative I found the following passage:—

‘General Murray, too, who had been detached with his division to a ferry higher up, was fortunate enough to gain possession of as many boats as enabled him to pass over with two battalions of Germans and two squadrons of the fourteenth dragoons.’

And his lordship, further on, says, that he himself charged several times and with advantage at the head of those squadrons. His expression is ‘the dragoons from Murray’s corps.’

With respect to the loss of the dragoons sustained by having to fight their way back again, I find the following account in the narrative of sir James Douglas, written, as I have before said, expressly for my guidance:—

‘Young soldiers like young greyhounds run headlong on their prey; while experience makes old dogs of all sorts run cunning. Here two squadrons actually rode over the whole rear French guard, which laid down upon the road; and was, to use their own terms, passé sur le ventre: but no support to the dragoons being at hand no great execution was done; and the two squadrons themselves suffered severely in getting back again through the infantry.’

Thus, even in this small matter, the reviewer is not right. And now with the above facts fixed I shall proceed to rebut the charge of having calumniated sir John Murray.

First, the reviewers assertion, that Murray’s troops were never within several miles of the seminary, and that they would have been crushed by Soult if they had attacked the enemy, is evidently false from the following facts. Lord Wellington expressly says, in his answer to my questions quoted before,—That the right of the troops in the seminary was protected by the troops under Murray; which could not be if the latter were several miles off. Again, if the dragoons of Murray’s corps could charge repeatedly with advantage, the infantry and guns of that corps might have followed up the attack without danger upon a confused, flying, panic-stricken body of men who had been surprised and were at the same time taken both in flank and rear. But if Murray dared not with any prudence even approach the enemy,—if it were absolutely necessary for him to retire as he did,—what brought him there at all? Is the duke of Wellington a general to throw his troops wantonly into such a situation,—and on ground which his elevated post at the Serra Convent enabled him to command perfectly, and where the men and movements of both sides were as much beneath his eye as the men and movements on a chess-board? Bah!

But the fact is that a part of the Germans under Murray, aye!—a very small part! did actually engage the enemy with success. Major Beamish, in his ‘History of the German Legion,’ on the authority of one of the German officers’ journals, writes thus:—

‘The skirmishers of the first line under lieutenant Von Hölle, and two companies of the same regiment under ensign Hodenberg, were alone brought into fire. The skirmishers made several prisoners, and one rifleman (Henry Hauer) was lucky enough to capture a French lieutenant-colonel. Seven of the legion were wounded.’

Murray wanted hardihood. And it is no answer to say lord Wellington did not take notice of his conduct. A commander-in-chief is guided by many circumstances distinct from the mere military facts, and it might be, that, on this occasion he did not choose to judge rashly or harshly a man, who had other good qualities, for an error into which, perhaps, a very bold and able man might have fallen by accident. And neither would I have thus judged sir John Murray from this fact alone, although the whole army were disgusted at the time by his want of daring and openly expressed an unfavourable opinion of his military vigour. But when I find that the same want of hardihood was again apparent in him at Castalla, as I have shown in my fifth volume, and still more glaringly displayed by him at Taragona, as I shall show in my sixth volume, the matter became quite different, and the duty of the historian is to speak the truth even of a general, strange as that may and I have no doubt does appear to this reviewer.

Having disposed of this matter, I shall now set down some passages evincing the babbling shallowness and self-conceit of the critic, and beneath them my authorities, whereby it will appear that the big book containing all sir George does not know is increasing in bulk:—

‘Sir Arthur Wellesley was detained at Oporto neither by the instructions of the English Cabinet nor by his own want of generalship, but simply by the want of provisions.’—Review.

Indeed! Reader, mark the following question to, and answer from the duke of Wellington.

Question to the duke of Wellington by colonel Napier.

Why did the duke halt the next day after the passage of the Douro?

Answer.—‘The halt was made next day,—first, because the whole army had not crossed the Douro and none of its supplies and baggage had crossed. Secondly, on account of the great exertion and fatigue of the preceding days particularly the last. Thirdly, because we had no account of lord Beresford being in possession of Amarante, or even across the Douro; we having, in fact, out-marched everything. Fourthly, the horses and animals required a day’s rest as well as the men.’

And, in the answer to another question, the following observation occurs:—‘The relative numbers and the nature of the troops must be considered in all these things; and this fact moreover, that excepting to attain a very great object we could not risk the loss of a corps.’

I pass over the reviewer’s comments upon my description of Soult’s retreat, because a simple reference to my work will at once show their folly and falseness; but I beg to inform this acute and profound historical critic that the first field-marshal captured by an English general was marshal Tallard, and that the English general who captured him was called John, duke of Marlborough. And, with respect to his sneers about the ‘little river of Ruivaens;’ ‘Soult’s theatrical speech;’ ‘the use of the twenty-five horsemen;’ ‘the non-repairs of the Ponte Nova;’ and the ‘Romance composed by colonel Napier and Le Noble;’ I shall, in answer, only offer the following authorities, none of which, the reader will observe, are taken from Le Noble.

Extract from Soult’s General Report.

‘The 15th, in the morning, the enemy appeared one league from Braga; our column was entangled in the defile; the rain came down in torrents; and the wind was frightful. On reaching Salamanca we learned that the bridge of Ruivaens, over the little river (ruisseau) of that name was cut, and the passage guarded by 1,200 men with cannon. It was known also that the Ponte Nova on the route of Montelegre, which they had begun to destroy, was feebly guarded; and the marshal gave to major Dulong the command of 100 brave men, of his own choice, to carry it. The valiant Dulong under cover of the night reached the bridge, passed it notwithstanding the cuts in it, surprised the guard, and put to the sword those who could not escape. In four hours the bridge was repaired; general Loison passed it and marched upon the bridge of Misserella, near Villa da Ponte, where 800 Portuguese well retrenched defended the passage. A battalion and some brave men, again led by the intrepid Dulong, forced the abbatis entered the entrenchments and seized the bridge.’

Extract from the ‘Victoires et Conquêtes des Français’.

‘The marshal held a council, at the end of which he called major Dulong. It was nine o’clock in the evening. “I have selected you from the army, he said to that brave officer, to seize the bridge of Ponte Nova which the enemy are now cutting: you must endeavour to surprise them. The time is favourable. Attack, vigorously with the bayonet you will succeed or you will die. I want no news save that of your success, send me no other report, your silence will be sufficient in a contrary case. Take a hundred men at your choice; they will be sufficient; add twenty-five dragoons, and kill their horses to make a rampart, if it be necessary, on the middle of the bridge to sustain yourself and remain master of the passage.”’

‘The major departed with determined soldiers and a Portuguese guide who was tied with the leather slings of the muskets. Arrived within pistol-shot of the bridge he saw the enemy cutting the last beam. It was then one o’clock the rain fell heavily and the enemy’s labourers being fatigued thought they might take some repose before they finished their work. The torrents descending from the mountains and the cavado itself made such a noise that the march of the French was not heard, the sentinel at the bridge was killed without giving any alarm, and Dulong with twenty-five grenadiers passed crawling on the beam, one of them fell into the cavado but happily his fall produced no effect. The enemy’s advanced post of twenty-four men was destroyed, &c. &c. The marshal, informed of this happy event, came up in haste with the first troops he could find to defend the bridge and accelerate the passage of the army; but the repairing was neither sufficiently prompt or solid to prevent many brave soldiers perishing. The marshal embraced major Dulong, saying to him, “I thank you in the name of France brave major; you have saved the army.”’

Then follows a detailed account of the Misserella bridge, or Saltador, and its abbatis and other obstacles; of Dulong’s attack; of his being twice repulsed; and of his carrying of the bridge, the Leaper as it was called, at the third assault, falling dreadfully wounded at the moment of victory; finally, of the care and devotion with which his soldiers carried him on their shoulders during the rest of the retreat. And the reader will observe that this account is not a mere description in the body of the work, but a separate paper in the Appendix, written by some officer evidently well acquainted with all the facts, perhaps Dulong himself, and for the express purpose of correcting the errors of detail in the body of that work. Theatrical to the critic, and even ridiculous it may likely enough appear. The noble courage and self-devotion of such a soldier as Dulong is a subject which no person will ever expect a Quarterly viewer to understand.

In the foregoing comments I have followed the stream of my own thoughts, rather than the order of the reviewer’s criticisms; I must therefore retrace my steps to notice some points which have been passed over. His observations about Zaragoza have been already disposed of in my reply to his first articles published in my fifth volume, but his comments upon Catalonian affairs shall now be noticed.

The assertion that lord Collingwood was incapable of judging of the efforts of the Catalans, although he was in daily intercourse with their chiefs, co-operating with their armies and supplying them with arms and stores, because he was a seaman, is certainly ingenious. It has just so much of pertness in it as an Admiralty clerk of the Melville school might be supposed to acquire by a long habit of official insolence to naval officers, whose want of parliamentary interest exposed them to the mortification of having intercourse with him. And it has just so much of cunning wisdom as to place it upon a par with that which dictated the inquiry which we have heard was sent out to sir John Warren during the late American war, namely, “whether light—very light frigates, could not sail up the St. Lawrence to Lake Ontario?” And with that surprising providence, which did send out birch-brooms and tanks to hold fresh water for the use of the ships on the said lake of Ontario. But quitting these matters, the reviewer insinuates what is absolutely untrue, namely, that I have only quoted lord Collingwood as authority for my statements about Catalonia. The readers of my work know that I have adduced in testimony the Spanish generals themselves, namely, Contreras, Lacy, and Rovira; the testimony of sir Edward Codrington, of sir Edward Pellew, of colonel Doyle, and of other Englishmen. That I have referred to St. Cyr, Suchet, Lafaille, and other French writers; that I have quoted Vacani and Cabane’s Histories, the first an Italian serving with the French army in Catalonia, the last a Spaniard and chief of the staff to the Catalan army: and now, to complete the reviewer’s discomfiture, I will add the duke of Wellington, who is a landsman and therefore according to this reviewer’s doctrine, entitled to judge:—

Letter to lord Liverpool, 19th Dec. 1809.

‘In Catalonia the resistance is more general and regular; but still the people are of a description with which your armies could not co-operate with any prospect of success, or even of safety. You see what Burghersh says of the Somatenes; and it is notorious that the Catalans have at all times been the most irregular, and the least to be depended upon of any of the Spaniards.’

So much for light frigates, birch-brooms, fresh-water tanks, and Collingwood’s incapacity to judge of the Catalans, because he was a seaman; and as for Reding’s complaints of the Spaniards when dying, they must go to sir George’s big book with this marginal note, that St. Cyr is not the authority. But for the grand flourish, the threat to prove at another time, ‘from Wellington’s despatches,’ that the Spaniards gave excellent intelligence and made no false reports, let the reader take the following testimony in anticipation:—

Extracts from lord Wellington’s Correspondence, 1809.

‘At present I have no intelligence whatever, excepting the nonsense I receive occasionally from ——; as the Spaniards have defeated all my attempts to obtain any by stopping those whom I sent out to make inquiries.’

‘I do not doubt that the force left in Estremadura does not exceed 8,000 infantry and 900 cavalry; and you have been made acquainted with the exact extent of it, because, the Duque del Albuquerque, who is appointed to command it, is interested in making known the truth; but they have lied about the cavalry ordered to the Duque del Parque.’

‘It might be advisable, however, to frighten the gentlemen at Seville with their own false intelligence.’

‘It is most difficult to obtain any information respecting roads, or any local circumstances, which must be considered in the decisions to be formed respecting the march of troops.’

1810. ‘We are sadly deficient in good information, and all the efforts which I have made to obtain it have failed; and all that we know is the movement of troops at the moment, or probably after it is made.’

‘I have had accounts from the marquis de la Romana: he tells me that the siege of Cadiz was raised on the 23d, which cannot be true.’

‘I believe there was no truth in the stories of the insurrection at Madrid.’

‘There is so far a foundation for the report of O’Donnel’s action, as that it appears that Suchet’s advanced guard was at Lerida on the 11th of April. It is doubtful, however, according to my experience of Spanish reports, whether O’Donnel was beaten or gained a victory.’

‘I recommend to you, however, to proceed with great caution in respect to intelligence transmitted to you by the marquis de la Romana, and all the Spanish officers. It is obvious there is nothing they wish for so much as to involve our troops in their operations. This is evident both from the letters of the marquis himself, and from the false reports made to lieutenant Heathcote of the firing heard from Badajos at Albuquerque.’

Wellington to lord Liverpool, 1810. Cartaxo.

‘The circumstances which I have related above will show your Lordship that the military system of the Spanish nation is not much improved, and that it is not very easy to combine or regulate operations with a corps so ill-organised, in possession of so little intelligence, and upon whose actions no reliance can be placed. It will scarcely be credited that the first intelligence which general Mendizabal received of the assembling of the enemy’s troops at Seville was from hence.’

Wellington to sir H. Wellesley, 1810.

‘Mendizabal, &c. &c., have sent us so many false reports that I cannot make out what the French are doing.’

‘This is a part of the system on which all the Spanish authorities have been acting, to induce us to take a part in the desultory operations which they are carrying on. False reports and deceptions of every description are tried, and then popular insults, to show us what the general opinion is of our conduct.’

‘The Spaniards take such bad care of their posts, and have so little intelligence, that it is difficult to say by what troops the blow has been struck.’

‘It is strange that the governor of Ciudad Rodrigo should have no intelligence of the enemy’s movements near his garrison, of which we have received so many accounts.’

‘We hear also a great deal of Blake’s army in the Alpujarras, and of a corps from Valencia operating upon the enemy’s communications with Madrid; but I conclude that there is as little foundation for this intelligence as for that relating to the insurrection of Ronda.’

‘I enclose a letter from General Carrera, in which I have requested him to communicate with you. I beg you to observe, however, that very little reliance can be placed on the report made to you by any Spanish general at the head of a body of troops. They generally exaggerate on one side or the other; and make no scruple of communicating supposed intelligence, in order to induce those to whom they communicate it to adopt a certain line of conduct.’

The reader must be now somewhat tired of quotations; let us therefore turn for relaxation to the reviewer’s observations about light troops,—of which he seems indeed to know as much as the wise gentleman of the Admiralty did about the facility of sailing up the St. Lawrence to Lake Ontario; but though that wise gentleman did not know much about sailing-craft, the reviewer knows something of another kind of craft, namely misrepresentation. Thus he quotes a passage from captain Kincaid’s amusing and clever work as if it told in his favour; whereas it in no manner supports his foolish insinuation—namely, that the 43d and 52d regiments of the light division were not light troops, never acted as such, and never skirmished! Were he to say as much to the lowest bugler of these corps, he would give him the fittest answer for his folly—that is to say, laugh in his face.

‘There are but two kinds of soldiers in the world’ said Napoleon, ‘the good and the bad.’

Now, the light division were not only good but, I will say it fearlessly, the best soldiers in the world. The three British regiments composing it had been formed by sir John Moore precisely upon the same system. There was no difference save in the colour of the riflemen’s jackets and the weapons which they carried. Captain Kincaid’s observation, quoted by the reviewer, merely says, what is quite true, that the riflemen fought in skirmishing order more frequently than the 43d and 52d did. Certainly they did, and for this very sufficient reason—their arms, the rifle and sword, did not suit any other formation; it is a defect in the weapon, which is inferior to the musket and bayonet, fitted alike for close or open order. Napoleon knew this so well that he had no riflemen in his army, strange as it may appear to those persons who have read so much about French riflemen. The riflemen of the light division could form line, columns, and squares—could move as a heavy body—could do, and did do everything that the best soldiers in the world ought to do; and in like manner the 52d and 43d regiments skirmished and performed all the duties of light troops with the same facility as the riflemen; but the difference of the weapon made it advisable to use the latter nearly always in open order: I do not, indeed, remember ever to have seen them act against the enemy either in line or square. Captain Kincaid is too sensible and too good a soldier, and far too honest a man, to serve the purpose of this snarling blockhead, who dogmatizes in defiance of facts and with a plenitude of pompous absurdity that would raise the bile of an alderman. Thus, after quoting from my work the numbers of the French army, he thus proceeds:—

‘Notwithstanding that this enormous force was pressing upon the now unaided Spanish people with all its weight, and acting against them with its utmost energy, it proved wholly unable to put down resistance.’—Review, page 497.

Now this relates to the period following sir John Moore’s death, which was on the 16th of January. That general’s fine movement upon Sahagun, and his subsequent retreat, had drawn the great bulk of the French forces towards Gallicia, and had paralyzed many corps. The war with Austria had drawn Napoleon himself and the imperial guards away from the Peninsula. Joseph was establishing his court at Madrid; Victor remained very inactive in Estremadura; Soult marched into Portugal;—in fine, this was precisely the period of the whole war in which the French army were most insert. Napoleon has fixed upon the four months of February, March, April, and May, 1809, as the period in which the King let the Peninsula slip from his feeble hands.

Let us see then what the Spaniards did during that time. And first it is false to say that they were unaided. They were aided against Victor by the vicinity of sir John Craddock’s troops; they were aided on the Gallician coast by an English squadron; they were aided on the Beira frontier, against Lapisse, by the Portuguese troops under sir Robert Wilson; they were aided on the Catalonian coast by lord Collingwood’s fleet; they were aided at Cadiz by the presence of general M‘Kenzie’s troops, sent from Lisbon; and they were aided everywhere by enormous supplies of money arms and ammunition sent from England. Finally, they were aided, and most powerfully so, by sir John Moore’s generalship, which had enabled them to rally and keep several considerable armies on foot in the southern parts of the country. What did these armies—these invincible Spaniards—do? They lost Zaragoza, Monzon, and Jaca, in the east; the fortresses of Ferrol and Coruña, and their fleet, in the north; they lost Estremadura, La Mancha, Aragon, the Asturias, and Gallicia; they lost the battles of Ucles and of Valls; the battle of Monterrey, that of Ciudid Real, and the battle of Medellin. They won nothing! they did not save themselves, it was the British army and the indolence and errors of the French that saved them.

Extract from Napoleon’s Memoirs.

‘After the embarkation of the English army, the king of Spain did nothing; he lost four months; he ought to have marched upon Cadiz, upon Valencia, upon Lisbon; political means would have done the rest.’

Extracts from lord Wellington’s Correspondence. 1809.

‘It is obvious that the longer, and the more intimately we become acquainted with the affairs of Spain, the less prospect do they hold out of anything like a glorious result. The great extent of the country, the natural difficulties which it opposes to an enemy, and the enmity of the people towards the French may spin out the war into length, and at last the French may find it impossible to establish a government in the country; but there is no prospect of a glorious termination to the contest.’

‘After the perusal of these details, and of Soult’s letters, can any one doubt that the evacuation of Gallicia was occasioned by the operations of the British troops in Portugal?’

‘The fact is, that the British army has saved Spain and Portugal during this year.’

The reviewer is not only a great critic, he is a great general also. He has discovered that there are no positions in the mountains of Portugal; nay, he will scarcely allow that there are mountains at all; and he insists that they offer no defence against an invader, but that the rivers do—that the Douro defends the eastern frontier of Beira, and that the frontier of Portugal generally is very compact and strong for defence, and well suited for a weak army to fight superior numbers;—that the weak army cannot be turned and cut off from Lisbon, and the strong army must invade in mass and by one line.

Now, first, it so happened, unluckily for this lucid military notion of Portugal, that in Massena’s invasion lord Wellington stopped to fight on the mountain of Busaco, and stopped Massena altogether at the mountains of Alhandra, Aruda, Sobral, and Torres Vedras—in other words at the lines, and that he did not once stop him or attempt to stop him by defending a river. That Massena, in his retreat, stopped lord Wellington on the mountain of Santarem, attempted to stop him on the mountains of Cazal Nova, Moita, and Guarda, but never attempted to stop him by defending a river, save at Sabugal, and then he was instantly beaten. Oh, certainly, ’tis a most noble general, and a very acute critic! Nevertheless, I must support my own opinions about the frontier of Portugal, the non-necessity of invading this country in one mass, and the unfordable nature of the Tagus, by the testimony of two generals as distinguished as honest Iago.

Extract of a letter from sir John Moore.

‘I am not prepared at this moment to answer minutely your lordship’s question respecting the defence of Portugal; but I can say generally that the frontier of Portugal is not defensible against a superior force. It is an open frontier, all equally rugged, but all equally to be penetrated.’

Extracts from lord Wellington’s Correspondence.

‘In whatever season the enemy may enter Portugal, he will probably make his attack by two distinct lines, the one north the other south of the Tagus; and the system of defence must be founded upon this general basis. In the summer season, however, the Tagus being fordable, &c. &c., care must be taken that the enemy does not by his attack directed from the south of the Tagus and by the passage of that river, cut off from Lisbon the British army engaged in operations to the north of the Tagus.’

‘The line of frontier to Portugal is so long in proportion to the extent and means of the country, and the Tagus and the mountains separate the parts of it so effectually from each other, and it is so open in many parts, that it would be impossible for an army acting upon the defensive to carry on its operations upon the frontier without being cut off from the capital.’

‘In the summer it is probable as I have before stated that the enemy will make his attacks in two principal corps, and that he will also push on through the mountains between Castello Branco and Abrantes. His object will be by means of his corps, south of the Tagus, to turn the positions which might be taken in his front on the north of that river; to cut off from Lisbon the corps opposed to him; and to destroy it by an attack in front and rear at the same time. This can be avoided only by the retreat of the right centre and left of the allies, and their junction at a point, at which from the state of the river they cannot be turned by the passage of the Tagus by the enemy’s left. The first point of defence which presents itself below that at which the Tagus ceases to be fordable, is the river Castenheira close to the lines.’

In the above extracts, the fordable nature of the Tagus has been pretty clearly shown, but I will continue my proofs upon that fact to satiety.

Lord Wellington to Charles Stuart, Esq.

‘The line of operations which we are obliged to adopt for the defence of Lisbon and for our own embarkation necessarily throws us back as far as below Salvaterra on the Tagus, to which place, and I believe lower, the Tagus is fordable during the summer; and we should be liable to be turned or cut off from Lisbon and the Tagus if we were to take our line of defence higher upon the river.’

Lord Wellington to general Hill, August.

‘I had already considered the possibility that Regnier might move across the fords of the Tagus at Vilha Velha and thus turn your right.’

Lord Wellington to general Hill, October.

‘If there are no boats, send them (the sick and encumbrances) across the Tagus by the ford (at Santarem).’

Sir Arthur Wellesley to general Hill.

‘I have desired Murray to send you the copy of a plan we have, with some of the fords of the Tagus marked upon it, but I believe the whole river from Barquina to Santarem is fordable.’

Sir Arthur Wellesley to marshal Beresford.

‘I enclose a letter which colonel Fletcher has given me, which affords but a bad prospect of a defence for the Tagus. I think that if captain Chapman’s facts are true his arguments are unanswerable, and that it is very doubtful whether any heavy ordnance should be placed in the batteries on the upper Tagus.’

Sir Arthur Wellesley to admiral Berkeley.

‘But if the invasion should be made in summer, when the Tagus is fordable in many places.’... ‘In the event of the attack being made between the months of June and November, when the Tagus is fordable, at least as low down as Salvaterra (near the lines).’

Sir John Craddock to lord Castlereagh, April.

‘There is a ferry at Salvaterra, near Alcantara, and another up the left bank of the Tagus in the Alemtejo, where there is also a ford, and the river may be easily passed.’

Extract from a Memoir by sir B. D’Urban, quarter-master-general to Beresford’s army:—‘The Tagus, between Golegao and Rio Moinhos was known to offer several fords after a few days’ dry weather.’[12]

Thus we see that, in nearly every month in the year, this unfordable Tagus of the reviewer is fordable in many places, and that in fact it is no barrier except in very heavy rains. But to render this still clearer I will here give one more and conclusive proof. In an elaborate manuscript memoir upon the defence of Portugal, drawn up by the celebrated general Dumourier for the duke of Wellington, that officer argues like this reviewer, that the Tagus is unfordable and a strong barrier. But a marginal note in Wellington’s hand-writing runs thus:—‘He (Dumourier) does not seem to be aware of the real state of the Tagus at any season.’

What can I say more? Nothing upon this head, but much upon others. I can call upon the reader to trace the deceitful mode in which the reviewer perverts or falsifies my expressions throughout. How he represents the Spaniards at one moment so formidable as to resist successfully the utmost efforts of more than 300,000 soldiers, the next breath calls them a poor unarmed horde of peasants incapable of making any resistance at all. How he quotes me as stating that the ministers had unbounded confidence in the success of the struggle in Spain; whereas my words are, that the ministers professed unbounded confidence. How he represents me as saying, the Cabinet were too much dazzled to analyse the real causes of the Spanish Revolution; whereas it was the nation not the Cabinet of which I spoke. And this could not be mistaken, because I had described the ministers as only anxious to pursue a warlike system necessary to their own existence, and that they were actuated by a personal hatred of Napoleon. Again, how he misrepresents me as wishing the British to seize Cadiz, and speaks of a mob in that city, when I have spoken only of the people (oh, true Tory!); and never proposed to seize Cadiz at all, and have also given the unexceptionable authority of Mr. Stuart, general M‘Kenzie, and sir George Smith, for my statement. And here I will notice a fine specimen of this reviewer’s mode of getting up a case. Having undertaken to prove that every river in Portugal is a barrier, except the Zezere which I had fixed upon as being an important line, he gives an extract of a letter from lord Wellington to a general Smith, to the effect that, as the Zezere might be turned at that season in so many ways, he did not wish to construct works to defend it then. Now, first, it is necessary to inform the reader that there is no letter to general Smith. The letter in question was to general Leith, and the mistake was not without its object, namely, to prevent any curious person from discovering that the very next sentence is as follows:—‘If, however, this work can be performed, either by the peasantry or by the troops, without any great inconvenience, the line of the Zezere may, hereafter, become of very great importance.’

All this is very pitiful, and looks like extreme soreness in the reviewer; but the effrontery with which he perverts my statements about the Austrian war surpasses all his other efforts in that line, and deserves a more elaborate exposure.

In my history it is stated, that some obscure intrigues of the princess of Tour and Taxis, and the secret societies on the continent, emanating from patrician sources, excited the sympathy, and nourished certain distempered feelings in the English ministers, which feeling made them see only weakness and disaffection in France. This I stated, because I knew that those intrigues were, in fact, a conspiracy concocted, with Talleyrand’s connivance, for the dethronement of Napoleon; and the English ministers neglected Spain and every other part of their foreign affairs for the moment, so intent were they upon this foolish scheme and so sanguine of success. These facts are not known to many, but they are true.

In the same paragraph of my history it is said, the warlike preparations of Austria, and the reputation of the archduke Charles, whose talents were foolishly said to exceed Napoleon’s, had awakened the dormant spirit of coalitions; meaning, as would be evident to any persons not wilfully blind, had awakened that dormant spirit in the English ministers.

Now reader, mark the candour and simplicity of the reviewer. He says that I condemned these ministers, ‘for nourishing their distempered feelings by combining the efforts of a German monarch in favour of national independence.’ As if it were the Austrian war, and not the obscure intrigues for dethroning Napoleon that the expression of distempered feelings applied to. As if the awakening the dormant spirit of coalitions, instead of being a reference to the sentiments of the English ministers, meant the exciting the Austrians and other nations to war, and the forming of a vast plan of action by those ministers! And for fear any mistake on that head should arise, it is so asserted in another part of the review in the following terms:—

‘To have “awakened the dormant spirit” of coalitions, is another of the crimes which the British ministers are charged with, as if it would have been a proof of wisdom to have abstained from forming a combination of those states of Europe which still retained some degree of independence and magnanimity to resist a conqueror,’ &c. &c.—Review.

The Quarterly’s attention to Spanish affairs seems to have rendered it very intimate with the works of Ferdinand Mendez Pinto. But since it has thus claimed the Austrian war as the work of its former patrons, the ministers of 1809, I will throw some new light upon the history of that period, which, though they should prove little satisfactory to the Quarterly, may, as the details are really curious, in some measure repay the reader for his patience in wading through the tedious exposition of this silly and unscrupulous writer’s misrepresentations.

After the conference of Erfurth, the Austrian count Stadion, a man of ability and energy, either believing, or affecting to believe, that Napoleon was determined to destroy Austria and only waited until Spain was conquered, resolved to employ the whole force of the German empire against the French monarch in a war of destruction for one or other of the contending states. With this view his first efforts were directed to change the opinions of the archduke Charles and those immediately about him who were averse to a war; and though he was long and vigorously resisted by general Grün, an able man and the archduke’s confidant, he finally succeeded. Some time before this France had insisted upon a reduction of the Austrian forces, and being asked if she would do the same for the sake of peace, replied that she would maintain no more troops in Germany than should be found necessary; but the army of the Confederation must be kept up as a constitutional force, and it was impossible during the war with England to reduce the French troops in other quarters. To this succeeded an attempt at a triple treaty, by which the territories of Austria, Russia, and France, were to be mutually guaranteed. Champagny and Romanzow suggested this plan, but the Austrian minister did not conceive Russia strong enough to guarantee Austria against France. Stadion’s project was more agreeable, and a note of a declaration of war was sent to Metternich, then at Paris, to deliver to the French government. The archduke Charles set off for the army, and was followed by the emperor.

When the war was thus resolved upon, it remained to settle whether it should be carried on for the sole benefit of Austria, or in such a manner as to interest other nations. Contrary to her usual policy Austria decided for the latter, and contrary to her usual parsimony she was extremely liberal to her general officers and spies. It was determined that the war should be one of restitution, and in that view secret agents had gone to Italy, and were said to have made great progress in exciting the people; officers had been also sent to Sicily and Sardinia to urge those courts to attempt their own restoration to the continental thrones. The complete restoration of Naples, of Tuscany, and the Pope’s dominions, and large additions to the old kingdom of Piedmont were proposed, and Austria herself only demanded a secure frontier, namely, the Tyrol, the river Po, and the Chiusa, which was not much more than the peace of Campo Formio had left her.

Such were her views in the south where kings were to be her coadjutors, but in the north she was intent upon a different plan. There she expected help from the people, who were discontented at being parcelled out by Napoleon. Treaties were entered into with the elector of Hesse, the dukes of Brunswick and Oels, and it was understood that the people there and in the provinces taken from Prussia, were ready to rise on the first appearance of an Austrian soldier. Hanover was to be restored to England; but Austria was so discontented with the Prussian king, that the restoration of the Prussian provinces, especially the duchy of Warsaw, was to depend upon his conduct in the war.

The means of effecting this mighty project were the great resources which Stadion had found or created; they were greater than Austria had ever before produced and the enthusiasm of her people was in proportion. The landwehr levy had been calculated at only 150 battalions; it produced 300 battalions, besides the Hungarian insurrection. The regular army was complete in everything, and the cavalry good, though not equal to what it had been in former wars. There were nine ‘corps d’armée.’ The archduke Ferdinand with one was to strike a blow in the duchy of Warsaw. The archduke Charles commanded in chief. Marching with six corps, containing 160,000 regular troops besides the landwehr attached to them, he was to cross the frontier and fall on the French army, supposed to be only 40,000. That is to say, the first corps, under Belgarde and Klenau, were to march by Peterwalde and Dresden against Bernadotte who was in that quarter. The second corps, under Kollowrath and Brady, were to march by Eger upon Bareith and Wurzburg, to prevent the union of Davoust and Bernadotte. The third corps, under prince Rosenberg, was to move by Waldmunchen, in the Upper Palatinate, and after beating Wrede at Straubingen, to join the archduke Charles near Munich. The archduke himself was to proceed against that city with the reserves of prince John of Lichtenstein, Hiller’s corps, Stipchitz, and those of Hohenzollern’s, and the archduke Louis’. The archduke John was to attack Italy; and the different corps, exclusive of landwehr, amounted to not less than 260,000 men.

The project was gigantic, the force prodigious, and though the quarter-master-general Meyer, seeing the vice of the military plan, resigned his situation, and that Meerfelt quarrelled with the archduke Charles, the general feeling was high and sanguine; and the princes of the empire were, with the exception of Wirtemberg and Westphalia, thought to be rather favourable towards the Austrians. But all the contributions were in kind; Austria had only a depreciated paper currency which would not serve her beyond her own frontiers; wherefore England, at that time the paymaster of all Europe, was looked to. England, however, had no ambassador, no regular accredited agent at Vienna; all this mighty armament and plan were carried on without her aid, almost without her knowledge; and a despatch from the Foreign Office, dated the 8th of December, but which only arrived the 10th of March, refused all aid whatsoever! and even endeavoured to prove that Austria could not want, and England was not in a situation to grant. Yet this was the period in which such lavish grants had been made to Spain without any condition—so lavish, that, in Cadiz, nearly four hundred thousand pounds, received from England, was lying untouched by the Spaniards. They were absolutely glutted with specie, for they had, at that moment, of their own money, and lying idle in their treasury, fourteen millions of dollars, and ten millions more were on the way from Vera Cruz and Buenes Ayres. Such was the wisdom, such the providence of the English ministers! heaping money upon money at Cadiz, where it was not wanted, and if it had been wanted, ill bestowed; but refusing it to Austria to forward the explosion of the enormous mine prepared against Napoleon in Germany and Italy. Their agent, Mr. Frere, absolutely refused even to ask for a loan of some of this money from the Spaniards. This is what the reviewer, wilfully perverting my expression, namely, ‘awakened the dormant spirit of coalitions,’ calls ‘the forming a combination of the states of Europe!’ The English ministers were treated as mere purse-bearers, to be bullied or cajoled as the case might be; and in these two instances, not without reason, for they neither know how to give nor how to refuse in the right time or place. Nor were their military dispositions better arranged, as we shall presently see.

To proceed with our narrative. Stadion, to prevent the mischief which this despatch from England might have produced, by encouraging the peace-party at the court, and discouraging the others, only imparted it to the emperor and his secret council, but hid it from those members of the cabinet who were wavering. Even this was like to have cost him his place; and some members of the council actually proposed to reduce one-third of the army. In fine, a cry was arising against the war, but the emperor declared himself on Stadion’s side, and the cabinet awaited the result of count Walmoden’s mission to London. That nobleman had been despatched with full powers to conclude a treaty of alliance and subsidy with England, and to learn the feeling of the English cabinet upon an extraordinary measure which Austria had resorted to; for being utterly unable to pay her way at the outset, and trusting to the importance of the crisis, and not a little to the known facility with which the English ministers lavished their subsidies, she had resolved to raise, through the principal bankers in Vienna, £150,000 a month, by making drafts through Holland upon their correspondents in London, to be repaid from the subsidy TO BE granted by England! Prince Staremberg was sent at the same time with a special mission to London, to arrange a definite treaty for money, and a convention regulating the future object and conduct of the war—a very curious proceeding—because Staremberg had been recalled before for conduct offensive to the English cabinet; but he was well acquainted with London, and the emperor wished to get him away lest he should put himself at the head of the peace-party in Vienna. Thus the English ministers continued so to conduct their affairs, that, while they gave their money to Spain and their advice to Austria, and both unprofitably, they only excited the contempt of both countries.

From the conference of Erfurth, France had been earnest with Russia to take an active part, according to treaty, against Austria; and Romanzow, who was an enemy of England, increased Alexander’s asperity toward that country, but nothing was done against Austria; and when Caulaincourt, the French ambassador at Petersburg, became clamorous, Alexander pretended to take the Austrian ambassador Swartzenberg to task for the measures of his court, but really gave him encouragement, by repairing immediately afterwards to Finland without inviting Caulaincourt. A contemporaneous official note, from Romanzow to Austria, was indeed couched in terms to render the intention of Alexander apparently doubtful, but this was only a blind for Napoleon. There was no doubt of the favourable wishes and feelings of the court, the Russian troops in Poland did not stir, and Stadion, far from having any dread of them, calculated upon their assistance in case of any marked success in the outset. The emperor Alexander was, however, far from inattentive to his own interests, for he sent general Hitroff at this time to Turkey to demand Moldavia and Wallachia as the price of a treaty, hoping thus to snatch these countries during the general commotion. He was foiled by the Austrian cabinet, which secretly directed the Turks sent to meet Hitroff, to assume a high tone and agree to no negociation in which England was not a party: hence, when the Russians demanded the dismissal of Mr. Adair from Constantinople Hitroff was himself sent away.

While the affairs with Russia were in this state, the present king of Holland arrived, incognito, at Vienna, to offer his services either as heir to the stadtholdership, as a prince of the German empire, or as a near and confidential connection of the house of Brandenberg; but it was only in the latter view he could be useful, and it was evident he expected the Austrian court would make their policy in the north coincide with that of the Prussian court. He said the secret voyage of the royal family to Petersburg had exposed them to mortifications and slights which had changed the sentiments of both the king and queen towards France, and the queen, bowed down by misfortune, dreaded new reverses and depressed the spirit of the king. They stood alone in their court, ministers and officers alike openly maintained opinions diametrically opposed to the sovereign, and at a grand council held in Koningsberg every minister had voted for war with Napoleon. The king assented, but the next day the queen induced him to retract. However, the voice of the people and of the army was for war, and any order to join the troops to those of the Rhenish confederation was sure to produce an explosion. There were between 30,000 and 40,000 regular troops under arms, and Austria was assured, that if any Austrian force approached the frontier, the Prussian soldiers would, bag and baggage, join it, despite of king or queen.

In this state of affairs, and when a quarrel had arisen between Bernadotte and the Saxon king (for the people of that country were ill-disposed towards the French), it is evident that a large English army appearing in the north of Germany would have gathered around it all the people and armies of the north, and accordingly Stadion proposed a landing in the Weser and the Elbe. Now England had at that time the great armament which went to Walcheren, the army under Wellington in the Peninsula, and that under sir John Stuart in Sicily, that is to say, she had about 80,000 or 90,000 men disposable; and yet so contriving were the ministers, that they kept Wellington too weak in Spain, Stuart too strong in Sicily; and instead of acting in the north of Germany where such a great combination awaited them, they sent their most powerful force to perish in the marshes of Walcheren, where the only diversion they caused was the bringing together a few thousand national guards from the nearest French departments. And this the reviewer calls ‘the forming a combination of those states in Europe which still retained some degree of independence and magnanimity to resist the ambition of a conqueror.’ What a profound, modest, and, to use a Morning Post compound, not-at-all-a-flagitious writer this reviewer is.

Well, notwithstanding this grand ‘combination,’ things did not turn out well. The Austrians changed their first plan of campaign in several particulars. Napoleon suddenly and unexpectedly appeared at the head of his army, which, greatly inferior in number, and composed principally of German contingents, was not very well disposed towards him; and yet, such was the stupendous power of this man’s genius and bravery, he in a few days by a series of movements unequalled in skill by any movement known in military records, broke through the Austrian power, separated her armies, drove them in disorder before him, and seized Vienna; and but for an accident, one of those minor accidents so frequent in war, which enabled the archduke Charles to escape over the Danube at Ratisbon, he would have terminated this gigantic contest in ten days. The failure there led to the battle of Esling, where the sudden swell of the Danube again baffled him and produced another crisis, which might have been turned to his hurt if the English army had been in the north of Germany; but it was then perishing amongst the stagnant ditches of Walcheren, and the only combination of the English ministers to be discovered was a combination of folly, arrogance, and conceit. I have now done with the review. Had all the objections contained in it been true, it would have evinced the petty industry of a malicious mind more than any just or generous interest in the cause of truth; but being, as I have demonstrated, false even in the minutest particular, I justly stigmatise it as remarkable only for malignant imbecility and systematic violation of truth.

---

The reviewers having asserted that I picked out of Foy’s history the charge against lord Melville of saying “the worst men made the best soldiers,” I replied that I drew for it on my own clear recollection of the fact.

Since then a friend has sent me the report of lord Melville’s speech, extracted from the Annual Register (Baldwin’s) 1808, p. 112, and the following passage extracted from his lordship’s speech bears out my assertion and proves the effrontery with which the reviewers deny facts.

“What was meant by a better sort of men? Was it that they should be taller or shorter, broader or thinner? This might be intelligible, but it was not the fact. The men that had hitherto formed the British armies were men of stout hearts and habits; men of spirit and courage; lovers of bold enterprize. These were the materials of which an army must be composed. Give him such men though not of the better description. The worse men were the fittest for soldiers. Keep the better sort at home.”

HISTORY

OF THE

WAR IN THE PENINSULA.

HISTORY

OF THE

PENINSULAR WAR.

---