Such is the value of this carping disingenuous critic’s observations on this point; and I shall now demolish his other misstatements about the passage of the Douro.
1st. The poor barber’s share in the transaction is quite true; my authority is major-general sir John Waters who was the companion of the barber in the daring exploit of bringing over the boats. And if Waters had recollected his name, it is not the despicable aristocratic sneer of the reviewer about the ‘Plebeian’ that would have prevented me from giving it. 2d. The Barca de Avintas, where sir John Murray crossed, has already been shown by a reference to the maps and to lord Wellington’s despatch, to be not nine miles from the Serra Convent as the reviewer says, but three miles as I have stated: moreover, two Portuguese leagues would not make nine English miles. But to quit these minor points, the reviewer asks, ‘Why colonel Napier departed from the account of the events given in the despatch of sir Arthur Wellesley?’ This is the only decent passage in the whole review, and it shall have a satisfactory answer.
Public despatches, written in the hurry of the moment, immediately after the events and before accurate information can be obtained, are very subject to errors of detail, and are certainly not what a judicious historian would rely upon for details without endeavouring to obtain other information. In this case I discovered several discrepancies between the despatch and the accounts of eye-witnesses and actors written long afterwards and deliberately. I knew also, that the passage of the Douro, though apparently a very rash action and little considered in England, was a very remarkable exploit, prudent skilful and daring. Anxious to know the true secret of the success, I wrote to the duke of Wellington, putting a variety of questions relative to the whole expeditions. In return I received from him distinct answers, with a small diagram of the seminary and ground about it to render the explanation clear. Being thus put in possession of all the leading points relative to the passage of the Douro by the commanders on each side, for I had before got Soult’s, I turned to the written and printed statements of several officers engaged in the action for those details which the generals had not touched upon.
Now the principal objections of the reviewer to my statement are,—1st. That I have given too many troops to sir John Murray. 2d. That I have unjustly accused him of want of military hardihood. 3d. That I have erroneously described the cause of the loss sustained by the fourteenth dragoons in retiring from their charge. In reply I quote my authorities; and first, as to the numbers with Murray.
Extract from lord Wellington’s answers to colonel Napier’s questions.
‘The right of the troops which passed over to the seminary, which in fact made an admirable tête de pont, was protected by the passage of the Douro higher up by lieut.-general sir John Murray and the king’s German legion, supported by other troops.’
Armed with this authority, I did set aside the despatch, because, though it said that Murray was sent with a battalion and a squadron, it did not say that he was not followed by others. And in lord Londonderry’s narrative I found the following passage:—
‘General Murray, too, who had been detached with his division to a ferry higher up, was fortunate enough to gain possession of as many boats as enabled him to pass over with two battalions of Germans and two squadrons of the fourteenth dragoons.’
And his lordship, further on, says, that he himself charged several times and with advantage at the head of those squadrons. His expression is ‘the dragoons from Murray’s corps.’
With respect to the loss of the dragoons sustained by having to fight their way back again, I find the following account in the narrative of sir James Douglas, written, as I have before said, expressly for my guidance:—