All which is most dutifully submitted.
(Signed)
David Dundas, General.
Moira, General.
Peter Craig, General.
Heathfield, General.
Pembroke, Lieut.-Gen.
G. Nugent, Lieut.-Gen.
Ol. Nicholls, Lieut.-Gen.
Dec. 22, 1808.
3. LORD MOIRA’S ‘OPINION.’
I feel less awkwardness in obeying the order to detail my sentiments on the nature of the Convention, because that I have already joined in the tribute of applause due in other respects to the Officers concerned. My opinion, therefore, is only opposed to theirs on a question of judgment, where their talents are likely to have so much more weight, as to render the profession of my difference, even on that point, somewhat painful. Military duty is, however, imperious on me not to disguise or qualify the deductions which I have made during this investigation.
An Armistice simply might not have been objectionable, because Sir Hew Dalrymple, expecting hourly the arrival of Sir John Moore’s division, might see more advantage for himself in a short suspension of hostilities, than what the French could draw from it. But as the Armistice involved, and in fact established, the whole principle of the Convention, I cannot separate it from the latter.
Sir Arthur Wellesley has stated that he considered his force, at the commencement of the march from the Mondego river, as sufficient to drive the French from their positions on the Tagus. That force is subsequently joined by above 4,000 British troops, under Generals Anstruther and Acland. The French make an attack with their whole disposable strength, and are repulsed with heavy loss, though but a part of the British army is brought into action. It is difficult to conceive that the prospects which Sir Arthur Wellesley entertained could be unfavourably altered by these events, even had not the certainty of speedy reinforcements to the British army existed.
It is urged, that, had the French been pushed to extremity, they would have crossed the Tagus, and have protracted the campaign in such a manner as to have frustrated the more important view of the British Generals, namely, sending succours into Spain.
This measure must have been equally feasible for the French if no victory had been obtained over them; but I confess that the chance of such an attempt seems to me assumed against probability. Sir Hew Dalrymple notices what he calls ‘the critical and embarrassed state of Junot,’ before that General has been pressed by the British army; and, in explanation of that expression, observes, that the surrender of Dupont, the existence of the victorious Spanish army in Andalusia, which cut off the retreat of the French in that direction, and the universal hostility of the Portuguese, made the situation of Junot one of great distress. No temptation for the translation of the war into Alemtejo presents itself from this picture; nor does any other representation give ground to suppose, that Junot could have contemplated the measure, as holding forth any prospect but ultimate ruin, after much preliminary distress and disgrace. The strongest of all proofs as to Junot’s opinion, arises from his sending the very morning after the battle of Vimiero, to propose the evacuation of Portugal; a step which sufficiently indicated that he was satisfied he could not only make no effectual defence, but could not even prolong the contest to take the chance of accidents. He seems, indeed, to have been without any real resource.