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

Copons was led into this danger by sir John Murray, who had desired him to harass Maurice Mathieu’s rear, with a view to a general attack, and then changed his plan without giving the Spanish general any notice. However he escaped. The French moved upon Taragona, and Murray was left free to embark or to remain at the Col de Balaguer. He called a council of war, and it was concluded to re-embark, but at that moment, the great Mediterranean fleet appeared in the offing, and admiral Hallowel, observing a signal announcing lord William Bentinck’s arrival, answered with more promptitude than propriety, “we are all delighted.”

Sir John Murray’s command having thus terminated, the general discontent rendered it impossible to avoid a public investigation, yet the difficulty of holding a court in Spain, and some disposition at home to shield him, caused great delay. He was at last tried in England. Acquitted of two charges, on the third he was declared guilty of an error in judgement, and sentenced to be admonished; but even that slight mortification was not inflicted.

This decision does not preclude the judgement of history, nor will it sway that of posterity. The court-martial was assembled twenty months after the event, when the war being happily terminated, men’s minds were little disposed to treat past failures with severity. There were two distinct prosecutors, having different views; the proceedings were conducted at a distance from the scene of action, defects of memory could not be remedied by references to localities, and a door was opened for contradiction and doubt upon important points. There was no indication that the members of the court were unanimous in their verdict; they were confined to specific charges, restricted by legal rules of evidence, and deprived of the testimony of all the Spanish officers, who were certainly discontented with Murray’s conduct, and whose absence caused the serious charge of abandoning Copons’ army to be suppressed. Moreover the warmth of temper displayed by the principal prosecutor, admiral Hallowel, together with his signal on lord William Bentinck’s arrival, whereby, to the detriment of discipline, he manifested his contempt for the general with whom he was acting, gave Murray an advantage which he improved skilfully, for he was a man sufficiently acute and prompt when not at the head of an army. He charged the admiral with deceit, factious dealings, and disregard of the service; described him as a man of a passionate overweening, busy disposition, troubled with excess of vanity, meddling with everything, and thinking himself competent to manage both troops and ships.

Nevertheless sir John Murray had signally failed, both as an independent general, and as a lieutenant acting under superior orders. On his trial, blending these different capacities together, with expert sophistry he pleaded his instructions in excuse for his errors as a free commander, and his discretionary power in mitigation of his disobedience as a lieutenant; but his operations were indefensible in both capacities. Lord Wellington’s instructions, precise, and founded upon the advantages offered by a command of the sea, prescribed an attack upon Taragona, with a definite object, namely, to deliver Valencia.

“You tell me,” said he, “that the line of the Xucar, which covers Valencia, is too strong to force; turn it then by the ocean, assail the rear of the enemy, and he will weaken his strong line to protect his communication; or, he will give you an opportunity to establish a new base of operations behind him.”

This plan however demanded promptness and energy, and Murray professed neither. The weather was so favourable, that a voyage which might have consumed nine or ten days was performed in two, the Spanish troops punctually effected their junction, the initial operations were secured, Fort Balaguer fell, the French moved from all sides to the succour of Taragona, the line of the Xucar was weakened, the diversion was complete. In the night of the 12th the bulk of Murray’s army was again afloat, a few hours would have sufficed to embark the cavalry at the Col de Balaguer, and the whole might have sailed for the city of Valencia, while Suchet’s advanced guard was still on the hills above Monroig, and he, still uncertain as to the fate of Taragona, one hundred and fifty miles from the Xucar. In fine Murray had failed to attain the first object pointed out by Wellington’s instructions, but the second was within his reach; instead of grasping it he loitered about the Col de Balaguer, and gave Suchet, as we shall find, time to reach Valencia again.

Now whether the letter or the spirit of Wellington’s instructions be considered, there was here a manifest dereliction on the part of Murray. What was that officer’s defence? That no specific period being named for his return to Valencia, he was entitled to exercise his discretion! Did he then as an independent general perform any useful or brilliant action to justify his delay? No! his tale was one of loss and dishonour! The improvident arrangements for the siege of San Felippe de Balaguer, and the unexpected fortune which saved him from the shame of abandoning his guns there also have been noted; and it has been shown, that when the gain of time was the great element of success, he neither urged Copons to break up the roads, nor pushed the siege of Taragona with vigour. The feeble formality of this latter operation has indeedDefence of sir J. Murray in Phillipart’s Military Calendar. been imputed to the engineer major Thackary, yet unjustly so. It was the part of that officer to form a plan of attack agreeable to the rules of art, it might be a bold or a cautious plan, and many persons did think Taragona was treated by him with too much respect; but it was the part of the commander-in-chief, to decide, if the general scheme of operations required a deviation from the regular course. The untrammelled engineer could then have displayed his genius. Sir John Murray made no sign. His instructions and his ultimate views were withheld alike, from his naval colleague, from his second in command, and from his quarter-master-general; and while the last-named functionary was quite shut out from the confidence of his commander, the admiral, and many others, both of the army and navy, imagined him to be the secret author of the proceedings which were hourly exciting their indignation. Murray however declared on his trial, that he had rejected general Donkin’s advice, an avowal consonant to facts, since that officer urged him to raise the siege on the 9th and had even told him where four hundred draught bullocks were to be had, to transport his heavy artillery. On the 12th he opposed the spiking of the guns, and urged Murray to drag them to Cape Salou, of which place he had given as early as the third day of the siege, a military plan, marking a position, strong in itself, covering several landing places, and capable of being flanked[See Plan, No. 1.] on both sides by the ships of war: it had no drawback save a scarcity of water, yet there were some springs, and the fleet would have supplied the deficiency.

It is true that Donkin, unacquainted with Wellington’s instructions, and having at Castalla seen no reason to rely on sir John Murray’s military vigour, was averse to the enterprize against Taragona. He thought the allies should have worked Suchet out of Valencia by operating on his right flank. And so Wellington would have thought, if he had only looked at their numbers and not at their quality; he had even sketched such a planVol. V. p. 512. for Murray, if the attack upon Taragona should be found impracticable. But he knew the Spaniards too well, to like such combinations for an army, two-thirds of which were of that nation, and not even under one head; an army ill-equipped, and with the exception of Del Parque’s troops, unused to active field operations. Wherefore, calculating their power with remarkable nicety, he preferred the sea-flank, and the aid of an English fleet.

Here it may be observed, that Napoleon’s plan of invasion did not embrace the coast-lines where they could be avoided. It was an obvious disadvantage to give the British navy opportunities of acting against his communications. The French indeed, seized Santona and Santander in the Bay of Biscay, because, these being the only good ports on that coast, the English ships were thus in a manner shut out from the north of Spain. They likewise worked their invasion by the Catalonian and Valencian coast, because the only roads practicable for artillery run along that sea-line; but their general scheme was to hold, with large masses, the interior of the country, and keep their communications aloof from the danger of combined operations by sea and land. The providence of the plan was proved by Suchet’s peril on this occasion.

Sir John Murray, when tried, grounded his justification on the following points. 1º. That he did not know with any certainty until the night of the 11th that Suchet was near. 2º. That the fall of Taragona being the principal object, and the drawing of the French from Valencia the accessary, he persisted in the siege, because he expected reinforcements from Sicily, and desired to profit from the accidents of war. 3º. That looking only to the second object, the diversion would have been incomplete, if the siege had been raised sooner, or even relaxed; hence the landing of guns and stores after he despaired of success. 4º. That he dared not risk a battle to save his battering train, because Wellington would not pardon a defeat. Now had he adopted a vigorous plan, or persisted until the danger of losing his army was apparent, and then made a quick return to Valencia, this defence would have been plausible, though inconclusive. But when every order, every movement, every expression, discovered his infirmity of purpose, his pleading can only be regarded as the subtle tale of an advocate.