“I arrived here yesterday, when contrary to his promise and to my expectations I find the marquis de la Romana with a great part of his troops.”—“He said to me in direct terms that had he known how things were, he neither would have accepted the command nor have returned to Spain. With all this, however, he talks of attacks and movements which are quite absurd, and then returns to the helpless state of his army.” “He could not be persuaded to destroy the bridge at Mansillas, he posted some troops at it which were forced and taken prisoners by the French on their march from Mayorga.”
The reviewer must now be content to swallow his disgust at finding Napoleon’s genius admired, Soult’s authority accepted, and Romana’s military talents contemned in my History; these proofs of my accuracy are more than enough, and instead of adding to them, an apology is necessary for having taken so much notice of two articles only remarkable for malevolent imbecility and systematic violation of truth. But if the reader wishes to have a good standard of value, let him throw away this silly fellow’s carpings, and look at the duke of Wellington’s despatches as compiled by colonel Gurwood, 5th and 6th volumes. He will there find that my opinions are generally corroborated, never invalidated by the duke’s letters, and that while no fact of consequence is left out by me, new light has been thrown upon many events, the true bearings of which were unknown at the time to the English general. Thus at page 337 of the despatches, lord Wellington speaks in doubt about some obscure negociations of marshal Victor, which I have shewn, book vii. chap. iii. to be a secret intrigue for the treacherous surrender of Badajos. The proceedings in Joseph’s council of war, related by me, and I am the first writer who was ever informed of them, shew the real causes of the various attacks made by the French at the battle of Talavera. I have shewn also, and I am the first English writer who has shewn it, that the French had in Spain one hundred thousand more men than the English general knew of, that Soult brought down to the valley of the Tagus after the fight of Talavera, a force which was stronger by more than twenty thousand men than sir Arthur Wellesley estimated it to be; and without this knowledge the imminence of the danger, which the English army escaped by crossing the bridge of Arzobispo, cannot be understood.
See Wellington’s Despatches, vol. v. p. 488, et passim. Again, the means of correcting the error which Wellington fell into in 1810 relative to Soult, who he supposed to have been at the head of the second corps in Placentia when he was really at Seville, has been furnished by me, insomuch as I have shewn that it was Mermet who was at the head of that corps, and that Wellington was deceived by the name of the younger Soult who commanded Mermet’s cavalry.
Two facts only have been misstated in my history.
1º. Treating of the conspiracy in Soult’s camp at Oporto, I said that D’Argenton, to save his life, readily told all he knew of the British, but with respect to his accomplices, was immoveable.
2º. Treating of Cuesta’s conduct in the Talavera campaign I have enumerated amongst his reasons for not fighting that it was Sunday.
Now the duke of Wellington says D’Argenton did betray his accomplices, and yet my information was drawn from authority only second to the duke’s, viz. major-general sir James Douglas, who conducted the interviews with D’Argenton, and was the suggester and attendant of his journey to the British head-quarters. He was probably deceived by that conspirator, but the following extract from his narrative proves that the fact was not lightly stated in my History.
“D’Argenton was willing enough to save his life by revealing every thing he knew about the English, and among other things assured Soult it would be nineteen days before any serious attack could be made upon Oporto; and there can be little doubt that Soult, giving credit to this information, lost his formidable barrier of the Douro by surprise. As no threats on the part of the marshal could induce D’Argenton to reveal the name of his accomplices, he was twice brought out to be shot and remanded in the expectation that between hope and intimidation he might be led to a full confession. On the morning of the attack he was hurried out of prison by the gens-d’armes, and, no other conveyance for him being at hand, he was placed upon a horse of his own, and that one the very best he had. The gens-d’armes in their hurry did not perceive what he very soon found out himself, that he was the best mounted man of the party, and watching his opportunity he sprung his horse over a wall into the fields, and made his escape to the English, who were following close.”
For the second error so good a plea cannot be offered, and yet there was authority for that also. The story was circulated, and generally believed at the time, as being quite consonant with the temper of the Spanish general; and it has since been repeated in a narrative of the campaign of 1809, published by lord Munster. Nevertheless it appears from colonel Gurwood’s compilation, 5th vol. page 343, that it is not true.