On the morning of the 24th July, two breaches were deemed quite practicable, but the assault which was first intended to take place on that day was postponed until the 25th at 5 A.M. It completely failed: a certain amount of gallantry was shown by the attacking troops, but there was a feeling of depression among them, which seemed to have arisen from exaggerated ideas of the difficulty of the task. Sir Thomas Graham, while giving due credit for the courage which was shown, and which was proved by the list of casualties, felt that his troops were not in the same mood as those who stormed Badajoz. In a letter to Colonel Dickson To Colonel Dickson, dated 8 p.m. 25 July, 1813. on the night of the assault, he said: “It is evident to me that the troops here never will carry this breach, unless every annoyance but the castle fire (which is not come-at-able at present) be removed.... The approach to the breach is certainly very unfavourable, and does not admit of attempting to feed or renew the attack, as all must go in one narrow column over rough, slippery stones,—and that, with an enfilading and flanking fire, occasioned the complete failure; nor would it have been possible at last to get any other fresh men from the trenches to have advanced.” Further than keeping up a fire which would not interfere with the attacking party, the Artillery had nothing to do with the assault; but Sir Thomas Graham in reporting the failure took the opportunity of referring to their services on the preceding days, in the following gratifying terms:—“The To Lord Wellington, dated 27 July, 1813. conduct, throughout the whole of the operations of the siege hitherto, of the officers and men of the Royal Artillery and Engineers, never was exceeded in indefatigable zeal, activity, and gallantry; and I beg to mention particularly to your Lordship Lieut.-Colonels Dickson, Frazer, and May, and Major Webber Smith, of the Royal Artillery”....
Colonel Dickson to D.-A.-Gen. dated 12 Aug. 1813.
Lord Wellington came in person to look at the state of affairs, and as it was not deemed prudent to repeat the assault, and the ammunition of the Artillery was nearly expended, the operations against the place were brought to a close;—greatly to the disappointment of many. After the failure of the assault, Lord Wellington ordered, for security, that all the guns, with the exception of a few pieces, should be removed from the batteries, and a blockade substituted for a siege. The forward movement of Soult’s army, which will be discussed hereafter, produced a further order to embark the guns and stores. On the French being driven back, Colonel Dickson received orders to land them again; the batteries also were repaired, new ones constructed, and everything put in readiness for a second siege as soon as ammunition should arrive from England. The arrival of this was, however, delayed beyond the endurance of Sir Thomas Graham, who was not so familiar with the dilatory habits of the Civil branch of the Ordnance, as Colonel Dickson was. In one of his numerous letters to the latter Dated 7 Aug. 1813. during this period, he wrote: “It is too provoking to think of such mistakes and delays at home, where they have nothing else to do or think of, but the execution of demands made at an early enough period to give full time for preparation.” Sir Thomas Graham’s correspondence shows at this time a feverish, almost fretful, anxiety about the preparations for the second siege, which was not unnatural in a General anxious to wipe out the recollection of failure. The reader of his letters cannot resist a wish to have seen his face when the incident occurred, described by Napier: “With characteristic negligence, this enormous armament (i.e. two new battering trains) had been sent out from England with no more shot and shells than would suffice for one day’s consumption.” At length, everything was in readiness, and the batteries opened on the 26th August, 1813. Before entering on the narrative of the siege, a list of the batteries with their respective armaments will be given, extracted not merely from Sir A. Dickson’s official returns, but also from private letters written at the time,—with all the necessary information at his hand.
To commence with the Left Attack. The only batteries used before the storming of the city on the 31st August were those numbered 5 and 6,—containing 7 24-pounders, 2 8-inch howitzers, and Captain Morrison’s brigade of six 18-pounders. Others will be given, hereafter, which were used at the bombardment of the castle. The object of the fire of the left attack was to breach the right face of the left demi-bastion, and the curtain over it; also, the face of the left demi-bastion of the hornwork, and generally to annoy the defences. Lieut.-Colonel Hartmann, K.G.A., again commanded the left attack.
The Right Attack was under the command of Lieut.-Colonel Frazer, and consisted of the following batteries, according to Colonel Dickson’s numbering:—
| No. 1 (evidently No. 11 in Jones’s ‘Sieges’) containing | 2 8-inch howitzers. |
| No. 3 (evidently No. 13 in Jones’s ‘Sieges’) containing | 1 12-inch Spanish mortar, and 5 10-inch mortars. |
| No. 4 (evidently No. 14 in Jones’s ‘Sieges’) containing | 5 8-inch howitzers. 4 68-pr. carronades. 6 24-pr. guns. |
| No. 5 (evidently No. 15 in Jones’s ‘Sieges’) containing | 15 24-pr. guns. |
| No. 6 (evidently No. 16 in Jones’s ‘Sieges’) containing | 4 10-inch mortars. |
| No. 7 (evidently No. 17 in Jones’s ‘Sieges’) containing | 6 10-inch mortars. |
The breaching batteries were Nos. 4 and 5, but more especially the latter. Field officers were detailed for duty alternately in these two batteries, while the firing was going on: Majors Dyer and Webber Smith being in No. 4, and Majors Buckner and Sympher, K.G.A., in No. 5.
According to Sir J. Jones, the batteries opened with a general salvo from 57 guns;—according, however, to Colonel Dickson, only 48 were in action. The whole commenced by signal, and as Sir Thomas Graham wrote to Colonel Dickson, Dated 26 Aug. 1813. “Nothing could be more imposing than the opening of your fire this morning.” The guns in the left attack were found to be too distant for the effect required; but the fire from the batteries of the right attack was so destructive, Colonel Dickson to D.-A.-G. 1 Sept. 1813. that in the course of five days, from the 26th to the 30th, the demi-bastion was demolished, a breach made in the curtain behind it, the towers on each side of the former breach laid down, and the wall laid open which connected the curtain with the left of the first breach. The batteries of the left attack laid open a hornwork; and four guns having been brought forward into a battery (No. 7) which was much nearer the works, they breached the right face of the demi-bastion, and greatly assisted in bringing down the end of the curtain.
About 11 o’clock A.M. on the 31st August, the column for the assault, which had now been ordered, moved forward, and arrived at the breach with comparatively little loss. The defence of the French was such, however, that no lodgment could be effected,—more than one attempt having been repulsed; and as the enemy occupied a higher position than his assailants, he was able to fire down upon them and inflict great loss. It was at this time that Sir Thomas Graham ordered the Artillery to commence a fire, which has received the greatest praise at the hands of historians, and of which the following graphic description, from Colonel Dickson’s pen, cannot fail to interest the reader:—“The great body of our cannon, howitzers, and carronades fired upon the great curtain and behind it—over the heads of our own men (only a few feet perpendicular lower down), with a vigour and accuracy probably unprecedented in the annals of artillery. It was the admiration and surprise of Sir Thomas Graham, and Marshal Beresford, and all who beheld it. No one could say there was a single error to the disadvantage of our own people; and the force of the fire entirely prevented the enemy making any effort along the rampart to drive us from the breach. I must say the enemy stood with great firmness, firing over the parapet as well as they could, notwithstanding numbers had their heads taken off by our round shot. In short, on this occasion, our artillery was served in such a manner that I would not have believed it, had I not seen it.”
Sir J. Jones says of the Artillery fire at this time, that it was admirable, and occasioned no casualties among the assailants; and Napier describes the stream of missiles, like a horrid tempest, in its fearful course strewing the rampart with the mangled limbs of the defenders. It was a critical time; and a want of precision on the part of the Artillery Dated Oyarzun, 1 Sept. 1813. would have produced a fatal panic among the assailants. In his despatch to Lord Wellington, announcing the success of the assault, Sir Thomas Graham admitted that, prior to the Artillery coming into action on this occasion, the state of the attack was desperate; and he described the fire (which after consultation with Colonel Dickson he ventured to order) as having been “kept up with a precision of practice beyond all example.” The ultimate success was almost accidental. A large number of shells and combustible materials had been accumulated above the breach to throw down on the storming party. This was fortunately ignited by the fire of the Allied Artillery, and a great explosion followed, killing many of the French, and producing a disorder which enabled the troops to establish themselves on the curtain, which they fought from traverse to traverse. Some additional troops having entered the town by another breach near the Towers, the curtain was abandoned, and the fighting confined to the streets; but very soon the French were driven into the castle, which alone remained in their hands at the end of the day. The Allies lost 500 killed, and 1500 wounded in this assault.