[4] Baron Rogniat also in his relation of the siege says, le Maréchal exigea que la ville se rendît à discretion (p. 44), and omits to say that terms of capitulation were required and granted. Baron Rogniat declares that one of his motives for publishing this relation, which he was not permitted to do during the reign of Buonaparte, was to celebrate the glory of his comrades. For a man of honour and humanity to have been in the course of military service involuntarily engaged in effecting such a conquest, would be the greatest of all misfortunes; but to look back upon it with complacency, and record it as glorious, is a crime.
[5] The veracious historian of Marshal Soult asserts that Romana had compelled the Bishop to withdraw, knowing how much the example of his submission would influence the Galicians; as if he thought that to make a man sacrifice any thing to a sense of patriotism and of duty compulsion was necessary! and as if he were utterly ignorant of the part which that excellent Prelate sustained throughout these troubles. See vol. i. p. 409, for the character of the man who is thus traduced.
[6] Marshal Soult’s historian represents this affair as of great importance, because it removed the impression which their failure in crossing the Minho had made upon the army. What is more curious, he finds in it a justification for their invasion of Portugal! Les Portugais avaient fait trois lieues sur les terres d’Espagne pour venir attaquer l’armée Française engagée avec les Espagnols, mouvement hostile concerté avec la Romana pour faciliter sa retraite, et qui justifiait l’entrée que nous allions faire en Portugal.—P. 106. If any thing can be more detestable than the avowed and exultant profligacy of these men during their season of triumph, it is the manner in which they have afterwards attempted to gloze over actions which public opinion (and still more the event) has made them feel are too nefarious to be openly defended.
[7] Marshal Soult’s historian expresses himself upon this subject in a manner altogether worthy of such a writer: “Le Français, si passionné pour la beauté, sacrifia ses plaisirs à l’honneur de protéger les femmes qui réclamèrent son appui.”
I believe that no other portion of history was ever so entirely and audaciously falsified as that of the peninsular war has been by the French. This writer asserts that few days have been so brilliant for the French arms as that on which Porto was taken; that they were astonished at their own success when they saw how many obstacles they had overcome; for that des officiers du genie Portugais et Anglais s’étaient occupés à reunir à l’avantage de la position, tout ce que l’art a inventé pour la defense d’un camp; and that these formidable works were manned by 70,000 men determined to defend them to the last extremity. Pp. 159–60–77.
There is another statement of this writer’s which deserves notice. He says that the former campaign in Portugal had been distinguished by cruelties on the part of the inhabitants (p. 56); and that in the present “pour animer le peuple contre les Français, on avait répandu les bruits les plus absurdes. La haine les peignait aux yeux de la superstition et de la crédulité, comme des hérétiques qui foulaient aux pieds tous les principes religieux, commes des barbares qui au mépris des lois divines et humaines, dévoraient les enfans, livraient le sexe à tous les outrages, et envoyaient les hommes dans le nord pour renforcer leurs armées.”—(P. 119.) The charges against which this contemptuous indignation is affected are true to the very letter, with the exception of that of eating the children, which, be it remembered, was never made. They did not eat children; ... they only butchered them sometimes, and sometimes (as will be shown hereafter) let them die of hunger before their eyes.
[8] The matter is of more importance than may be immediately perceived by a protestant. For more than three of these nails are shown as relics in different churches; and, therefore, if only three, according to the prevailing opinion, were used, the fourth must be spurious, and thus, as all cannot be genuine, a doubt would be cast upon the authenticity of each.
[9] This is the substance of a declaration upon oath by one of the eye-witnesses.
[10] It is said that there were some articles of very great value in the baggage, particularly some jewels of which General Lahoussaye had possessed himself at the Escurial, and which Chalot was supposed to have secreted.—Campaign of 1809, p. 20.
[11] Que la perdida de la batalla nada importaba. The French used to say that the best General in Spain was the General no importa.