2º. The reviewer says, the mountains round Madrid do not touch the Tagus at both ends within the frontier of Spain, that river is not the chord of their arc; neither are the heights of Palmela and Almada near Lisbon one and the same. This is very true, although not very important. I should have written the heights of Palmela and Almada, instead of the heights of Palmela or Almada. But though the mountains round Madrid do not to the westward, actually touch the Tagus within the Spanish frontier, their shoots are scarcely three miles from that river near Talavera, and my description was general, being intended merely to shew that Madrid could not be approached from the eastward or northward, except over one of the mountain ranges, a fact not to be disputed.
3º. It is hinted by the reviewer that lord Melville’s degrading observation, namely, that “the worst men made the best soldiers,” was picked by me out of general Foy’s historical fragment. Now, that passage in my history was written many months before general Foy’s work was published; and my authority was a very clear recollection of lord Melville’s speech, as reported in the papers of the day. The time was just before his impeachment for malversation.
General Foy’s work seems a favourite authority with the reviewer, and he treats general Thiebault’s work with disdain; yet both were Frenchmen of eminence, and the ennobling patriotism of vituperation might have been impartially exercised, the weakness of discrimination avoided. However general Thiebault’s work, with some apparent inaccuracies as to numbers, is written with great ability and elegance, and is genuine, whereas general Foy’s history is not even general Foy’s writing; colonel D’Esmenard in his recent translation of the Prince of Peace’s memoirs has the following conclusive passage upon that head.
“The illustrious general Foy undertook a history of the war in Spain, his premature death prevented him from revising and purifying his first sketch, he did me the honour to speak of it several times, and even attached some value to my observations; the imperfect manuscripts of this brilliant orator have been re-handled and re-made by other hands. In this posthumous history, he has been gratuitously provided with inaccurate and malignant assertions.”
While upon this subject, it is right to do justice to Manuel Godoy, Prince of the Peace. A sensual and corrupt man he was generally said to be, and I calledSee Memoirs of Manuel Godoy, translated by Colonel D’Esmenard. him so, without sufficient consideration of the extreme exaggerations which the Spaniards always display in their hatred. The prince has now defended himself; colonel D’Esmenard and other persons well acquainted with the dissolute manners of the Spanish capital, and having personal experience of Godoy’s character and disposition,See also London & Westminster Review No 1. have testified that his social demeanour was decent and reserved, and his disposition generous; wherefore I express my regret at having ignorantly and unintentionally calumniated him.
To return to the reviewer. He is continually observing that he does not know my authority for such and such a fact, and therefore he insinuates, that no such fact had place, thus making his ignorance the measure of my accuracy. This logic seems to be akin to that of the wild-beast showman, who declares that “the little negro boys tie the ostrich bird’s leg to a tree, which fully accounts for the milk in the cocoa-nuts.” I might reply generally as the late alderman Coombe did to a certain baronet, who, in a dispute, was constantly exclaiming, “I don’t know that, Mr. Alderman! I don’t know that!” “Ah, sir George! all that you don’t know would make a large book!” However it will be less witty, but more conclusive to furnish at least some of my authorities.
1º. In opposition to the supposititious general Foy’s account of Solano’s murder, and in support of my own history, I give the authority of sir Hew Dalrymple, from whom the information was obtained; a much better authority than Foy, because he was in close correspondence with the insurgents of Seville at the time, and had an active intelligent agent there.
2º. Against the supposititious Foy’s authority as to the numbers of the French army in June 1808, the authority of Napoleon’s imperial returns is pleaded. From these returns my estimate of the French forces in Spain during May 1808 was taken, and it is so stated in my [Appendix.] The inconsistency of the reviewer himself may also be noticed, for he marks my number as exclusive of Junot’s army, and yet includes that army in what he calls Foy’s estimate! But Junot’s army was more than 29,000 and not 24,000 as the supposititious Foy has it, and that number taken from 116,000 which, though wrong, is Foy’s estimate of the whole leaves less than 87,000. I said 80,000. The difference is not great, yet my authority is the best, and the reviewer feels that it is so, or he would also have adopted general Foy’s numbers of the French at the combat of Roliça. In Foy’s history they are set down as less than 2,500, in mine they are called 5,000. He may be right, but it would not suit the reviewer to adopt a truth from a French writer.
3º. On the negative proofs afforded 1º. by the absence of any quoted voucher in my work, 2º. by the absence of any acknowledgement of such a fact in general Anstruther’s manuscript journal, which journal may or may not be garbled, the reviewer asserts that the English ministers never contemplated the appointing of a military governor for Cadiz. Against this, let the duke of Wellington’s authority be pleaded, for in my note-book of conversations held with his grace upon the subject of my history, the following passage occurs:—
“The ministers were always wishing to occupy Cadiz, lord Wellington thinks this a folly, Cadiz was rather a burthen to him, but either general Spencer or general Anstruther was intended to command there, thinks it was Anstruther, he came out with his appointment.”