History of the war in the Peninsula and in the south of France from the year 1807 to the year 1814, vol. 6

by William Francis Patrick Napier

Lord Stuart says, that extract is the only thing bearing on the question which he can find. Were there nothing more it would be quite sufficient, but his papers are very voluminous, more than fifty large volumes, and he would naturally only have looked for his letter of the 25th July, 1812, to which you drew his attention. However, in my notes and extracts taken from his documents, I find, under the date of August, 1812, the following passage:—

“The lieutenant-governor of Almeida was executed by Beresford’s order, he, Beresford, having full powers, and the government none, to interfere. Great interest was made to save him, but in vain. The sentence and trial were published before being carried into execution and were much criticized. Both the evidence and the choice of officers were blamed; and moreover the time chosen was one of triumph just after the battle of Salamanca, and the place Lisbon.”

This passage I have not marked in my book of notes as being lord Stuart’s words; it must therefore be only taken as an abstract of the contents of one of his papers; but comparing it with the former passage, and with the facts that your lordship’s words are still very vague and uncertain as to the main point in question, namely, the evidence on which this man was really condemned, I see no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the statement in my first edition, nor the perfect accuracy of it as amended in the second edition of my third volume, published many months ago. You will find that I have there expunged the word “only,” and made the sentence exactly to accord with the extract from lord Stuart’s letter. You will also observe, my lord, that I never did do more than mention the simple fact, for which I had such good authority; and that so far from imputing blame to you for the execution of the sentence I expressly stated that the man richly deserved death.

Passing now to the subject of the eighth Portuguese regiment, I will first observe, that when I said the eighth Portuguese regiment was broken to pieces I imputed no blame to it. No regiment in the world could have stemmed the first fury of that French column which attacked the mountain where the eighth was posted. If the eighth was not broken by it, as sir James Douglas’s letter would seem to imply, what was it doing while the enemy by their flank movement gained the crest of the position in such numbers as to make it a most daring exploit of the ninth British regiment to attack them there. It is a strange thing that a heavy column of French who were resolute to gain the crest of such a position should have made “a flank movement,” to avoid one wing of a regiment of Portuguese conscripts. I should rather imagine, with all deference, that it was the conscripts who made the flank movement, and that some optical deception had taken place, like that which induces children while travelling in a carriage to think the trees and rocks are moving instead of themselves. However, with this I have nothing to do, I have given my authority, namely, the statement of major Waller, a staff-officer present, and the statement of colonel Taylor (for he is my nameless eye-witness) of the ninth, the very regiment to which sir James Douglas appeals for support of his account. These are my authorities, and if their recollections are irreconcilable with that of sir James Douglas it only shows how vain it is to expect perfect accuracy of detail. I knew not of sir James Douglas’s negative testimony, but I had two positive testimonies to my statement, and as I have still two to one, I am within the rules of the courts of justice to which your lordship would refer all matter of history; moreover, some grains of allowance must be made for the natural partiality of every officer for his own regiment. The following extract from sir James Leith’s report on the occasion is also good circumstantial evidence in favour of my side of the question.

“The face of affairs in this quarter now wore a different aspect, for the enemy who had been the assailant, having dispersed or driven every thing there opposed to him, was in possession of the rocky eminence of the sierra at this part of major-general Picton’s position without a shot being fired at him. Not a moment was to be lost. Major-general Leith resolved instantly to attack the enemy with the bayonet. He therefore ordered the ninth British regiment, which had been hitherto moving rapidly by its left in columns in order to gain the most advantageous ground for checking the enemy, to form the line, which they did with the greatest promptitude accuracy and coolness under the fire of the enemy, who had just appeared formed on that part of the rocky eminence which overlooks the back of the ridge, and who had then for the first time also perceived the British brigade under him. Major general Leith had intended that the thirty-eighth, second battalion, should have moved on in the rear and to the left of the ninth regiment, to have turned the enemy beyond the rocky eminence which was quite inaccessible towards the rear of the sierra, while the ninth should have gained the ridge on the right of the rocky height, the royals to have been posted (as they were) in reserve; but the enemy having driven every thing before them in that quarter, afforded him the advantage of gaining the top of the rocky ridge, which is accessible in front, before it was possible for the British brigade to have reached that position, although not a moment had been lost in marching to support the point attacked, and for that purpose it had made a rapid movement of more than two miles without halting and frequently in double quick time.”

Here we have nothing of flank movements to avoid a wing of Portuguese conscripts, but the plain and distinct assertion twice over, that every thing in front was dispersed or driven away—and that not even a shot was fired at the enemy. Where then was the eighth Portuguese? Did the French column turn aside merely at the menacing looks of these conscripts? If so, what a pity the latter had not been placed to keep the crest of the position. There is also another difficulty. Sir James Douglas says he was with the royals in the attack, and sir James Leith says that the royals were held in reserve while the ninth drove away the enemy; besides which, the eighth Portuguese might have been broke by the enemy when the latter were mounting the hill and yet have rallied and joined in the pursuit when the ninth had broken the French. Moreover, my lord, as you affirm that both yourself and the duke of Wellington saw all the operations of the eighth Portuguese on this occasion, I will extend my former extract from colonel Taylor’s letter, wherein you will perceive something which may perhaps lead you to doubt the accuracy of your recollection on that head.

“No doubt general Leith’s letter to the duke was intended to describe the aspect of affairs in so critical a situation, and where the duke himself could not possibly have made his observations; and also Leith wished to have due credit given to his brigade, which was not done in the despatches. On the contrary, their exertions were made light of, and the eighth Portuguese regiment was extolled, which I know gave way to a man, save their commanding officer and ten or a dozen men at the outside; but he and they were amongst the very foremost ranks of the ninth British.”—“General Leith’s correspondence would be an interesting document to colonel Napier, as throwing considerable light upon the operations at Busaco, between Picton and Hill’s corps, a very considerable extent of position which could not of possibility be overlooked from any other part of the field.”

Charge of the nineteenth Portuguese. Your lordship has here gained an advantage; I cannot indeed understand some of general M‘Bean’s expressions, but it is impossible for me to doubt his positive statement; I believe therefore that he was in front of the convent wall and that he charged some body of the enemy. It is however necessary to restore the question at issue between your lordship and myself to its true bearing. You accused me of a desire to damage the reputation of the Portuguese army, and you asked why I did not speak of a particular charge made by the nineteenth Portuguese regiment at Busaco. This charge you described as being against one of Ney’s attacking columns, which had, you said, gained the ascent of the position, and then forming advanced on the plain above before it was charged by the nineteenth regiment. As this description was certainly wrong I treated the whole as a magniloquent allusion to an advance which I had observed to have been made by a Portuguese regiment posted on the mountain to the right. (General M‘Bean is mistaken when he quotes me as saying that his line was never nearer to the enemy’s lines than a hundred yards. I spoke of a Portuguese regiment, which might possibly be the nineteenth.) I never denied that any charge had been made, but that a charge such as described by you had taken place, and in fact general M‘Bean’s letter while it confirms the truth of your general description, by implication denies the accuracy of the particulars. Certainly Ney’s columns never passed the front of the light division nor advanced on the plain behind it.

The difficulty I have to reconcile general M‘Bean’s statement with my own recollections and with the ground and position of the light division, may perhaps arise from the general’s meaning to use certain terms in a less precise sense than I take them. Thus he says he was posted in front of the convent-wall, and also on the right of the light division; but the light division was half a mile in front of the convent-wall, and hence I suppose he does not mean as his words might imply immediately under the wall. He speaks also of the light division as being to his left, but unless he speaks of the line of battle with reference to the sinuosities of the ground, the light division was with respect to the enemy and the convent in his front; and if he does speak with regard to those sinuosities, his front would have been nearly at right angles to the front of the fifty-second and forty-third, which I suppose to be really the case. Again he says that he charged and drove the French from their position down to the bottom of the ravine; but the enemy’s position, properly so called, was on the opposite side of the great ravine, and as all his artillery and cavalry, all the eighth corps and the reserves of the sixth corps, were in order of battle there, ten regiments, much less one, dared not to have crossed the ravine which was of such depth that it was difficult to distinguish troops at the bottom. I conclude therefore, general M‘Bean here means by the word position some accidental ground on which the enemy had formed. Taking this to be so, I will now endeavour to reconcile general M‘Bean’s statement with my own recollection; because certainly I do still hold my description of the action at that part to be accurate as to all the main points.