| 8th May. | ||
| Serjeants, trumpeters, and troopers. | ||
| Present under arms | 1576 | |
| On command | 733 | |
| Prisoners of war | 115 | |
| —— | ||
| 2424 | ||
| 29th May. | ||
| Present | 1739 | |
| Command | 522 | |
| Prisoners of war | 127 | |
| —— | ||
| 2388 | ||
| —— | ||
| Median estimate for the 16th of May. | ||
| Present 8th May | 1576 | |
| Ditto 29th May | 1739 | |
| —— | ||
| 2)3315 | ||
| —— | ||
| 1657½ | ||
| 270 | 8th Portuguese regt. | |
| —— | ||
| 1927 | ||
| 127 | Prisoners of war. | |
| —— | ||
| 2054 | ||
| 750 | Spaniards. | |
| —— | ||
| 2804 | ||
| Deduct prisoners on the 8th | 115 | |
| —— | ||
| Total | 2689 | |
| —— | ||
To which are to be added the killed and wounded of the Anglo-Portuguese, and the men rejoined from command.
Thus, the statements in my History and in my Justification are both borne out; for the numbers are above two thousand as set down in the first, and nearly three thousand as stated in the last. Moreover, a general historian is not blameable for small inaccuracies. If he has reasonably good authority for any fact he cannot be justly censured for stating that fact, and you should make a distinction between that which is stated in my History and that which is stated in my controversial writings. All mistakes in the latter however trifling are fair; but to cavil at trifles in the former rather hurts yourself. Now with respect to the artillery there is an example of this cavilling, and also an illustration of your lordship’s mode of raising a very confused argument on a very plain fact. I said there were so many guns in the field, and that so many were nine-pounders; you accused me of arbitrarily deciding upon their calibre. In reply I shewed you that I took the number on the report of colonel Dickson, the commanding officer of artillery, the calibre upon the authority of your own witness and quarter-master-general, sir Benjamin D’Urban. The latter was wrong and there the matter should have ended. Your lordship, however, requires me, as a mark of ingenuousness, to acknowledge as my mistake that which is the mistake of sir Benjamin D’Urban, and you give a grand table, with the gross number of pounds of iron as if the affair had been between two ships. You set down in your columns the statements of the writer of a note upon your Strictures, the statement of the Strictures themselves, and my statement; and then come on with your own observations as if there were three witnesses on your side. But the author of the note is again your witness D’Urban, who thus shews himself incorrect both as to number and weight; and the author of the Strictures is yourself. This is not an ingenuous, though it is an ingenious mode of multiplying testimony. In your Further Strictures also you first called in sir B. D’Urban in person, you then used his original memoir, you also caused him to write anonymously a running commentary upon yours and his own statements, and now you comment in your own name upon your own anonymous statements, thus making five testimonies out of two.
The answer is simple and plain. When I took sir Benjamin D’Urban as a guide he led me wrong; and you instead of visiting his error upon his own head visit it upon mine, and require me and your readers to follow him implicitly upon all points while to do so avails for your defence, but not when they contradict it. From sir B. D’Urban I took the calibre of the allies’ guns employed in the battle of Albuera, and he was wrong! From him, if I had not possessed sir A. Dickson’s official return, I should also have taken the number of guns, and I should have been wrong, because he calls them thirty-four instead of thirty-eight. He also (see page 26 of the Appendix to your Further Strictures) says that the Spaniards had six guns, whereas Dickson says, they had but four; and if his six guns were reckoned there would have been forty pieces of artillery, which he however reduced to thirty-four by another error, namely, leaving out a whole brigade of German artillery. On sir Benjamin’s authority I called major Dickson the commander of the artillery, and this also was wrong. From sir Benjamin D’Urban’s Memoir, I took the statement that the fourth division arrived on the field of battle at six o’clock in the morning, and yet I am assured that they did not arrive until nine o’clock, and after the action had commenced. And this last is a very serious error because it gives the appearance of skill to your lordship’s combinations for battle and to sir Benjamin’s arrangements for the execution, which they do not merit, if, as I now believe, that division arrived at nine o’clock. But the latter hour would be quite in keeping with the story of the cavalry going to forage, and both together would confirm another report very current, namely, that your lordship did not anticipate any battle on the 16th of May. Setting this however aside, I know not why, in the face of all these glaring errors and a multitude of smaller ones, I am to take sir Benjamin D’Urban’s authority upon any disputed point.
I will now, my lord, admit one complete triumph which you have attained in your dissertation upon the numbers of the troops. I did say that from the 20th of March to the 16th of May, was only twenty days, and though the oversight is so palpably one that could not be meant to deceive, I will not deny your right to ridicule and to laugh at it. I have laughed at so many of your lordship’s oversights that it would be unfair to deny you this opportunity for retaliation, which I also admit you have used moderately.
I have since I wrote my Justification procured some proofs about the French numbers, you will find them in the following extracts from the duke of Dalmatia’s correspondence of that time. They are worth your attention. They throw some light upon the numbers of the allies, and one of them shows unquestionably that my estimate of the French numbers was, as I have before said, too high instead of too low. I give the translations to avoid the trouble and expense of printing in two languages, and I beg your lordship to observe that these extracts are not liable to the praise of that generous patriotism which you alluded to in speaking of French authors, because they were written before the action and for the emperor’s information, and because it was the then interest of the writer rather to exaggerate than to lessen his own numbers, in order to give his sovereign an idea of his activity and zeal.
Extract of a letter from Marshal Soult to the Prince of Wagram.
Seville, 22d April, 1811.
“General Latour Maubourg announces to me that general Beresford commanding the Anglo-Portuguese army, and the Spanish generals Castaños and Ballesteros with the remains of the corps of their nation are united at Zafra, and I am assured that the whole of their forces is twenty-five thousand men, of which three thousand are cavalry.”
“Colonel Quennot of the ninth regiment of dragoons, who commands upon the line of the Tinto and observes the movements on that side as far as Ayamonte, informs me that on the 18th and 19th, general Blake disembarked ten thousand infantry and seven hundred cavalry between the mouths of the Piedra and the Guadiana. These troops come from Cadiz, they have cannon, and Blake can unite in that part fifteen thousand men.”