Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

, and, at the moment when

they were about to let it fall, their arm is unnerved, and those whom their valour destined to be the captives of their country, may now become its plundering invaders.With respect to this enterprize there was an unanimity of sentiment, a cordiality of wishes, an absence of party feeling, such as I do not recollect to have witnessed upon any former occasion. Amongst us, who bave opportunities of addressing the public in print, there was not a man, as far as I could perceive, who did not discover great anxiety for the result, and who did not join in hearty applause as far as applause was due, of both the commanders and the ministers. Such is the unanimity and such the feeling of disapprobation now; and, while I do not wish to insinuate that the ministers have any desire to withhold justice from the nation, 1 must express my opinion, that, if they were to make the attempt, they would be guilty of an act of insolence so outrageous, that, if the people were to bear it, they would deserve to be swept from the face of the earth.-Leaving the responsibility of the War-Secretary as a subject for future discussion, the only point, upon which, at present, there appears to be any difference of opinion, is this: whether Wellesley is a participator with Dalrymple, or not?" The negative has been strongly insisted upon by the numerous, the powerful, the active, and the audacious friends of the former, who, after having used their influence for the purpose of obtaining detached paragraphs in the newspapers, beginning with an assertion that he was at forty miles distance when the armistice was signed, have at last, in the Morning Post newspaper, found a person, who, in his capacity of editor, has inserted, as his own, a defence evidently written by some one closely connected with the person defended.--Now, then, let us see what this defence is made of -The pretended editor sets out with a few silly remarks upon the measures themselves; but, very quick. ly comes to the chief, and, indeed, the only, object of his writing, thus --"Here it becomes us to consider who "are the persons responsible. The respon

[ocr errors]

sibility attaches to his majesty's minis"ters on the one hand, and the com"mander of the forces on the other. It "is presumable that when ministers sent "such an immense force to Portugal as near 37,000 men, their object was to. "enable the general to whom they gave "the command, completely to reduce the enemy, and compel them to surrender; and if they have not limited and tied up.

[ocr errors]

.

"the txa' Ker Kft him to obtain "those terms which the greatness ci bis "force intitled him to demand, they are "totally unimpeachable. It is, therefore, "on the commander of the forces, that "the whole responsibility remains. Both "the Conventions, though the one was "signed by Sir Arthur Wellesley, and the "other by Col. Murray, are to be con"sidered as the work of Sir How Dalrym"ple, and of Sir Hew Dalrymple alone. "The commander-in-chief of an army "is alone responsible to the nation for what. "is done by the army. He acts under the. "king's orders, and all the army under "their commander's orders. The suppo

sing any other principle, the supposing "that there was a separate responsibility in.

any part or member of an army from "that of its commander-in-chief, would. "be to set up distinct commands and

authorities, and would justify division. "and mutiny. Supposing Col. Murray's. "name had been subscribed to the first "Convention, would any man have con"sidered Col. Murray as responsible for, "the treaty? No; he would have con"sidered Col. Muriay as merely ministerial, "and as giving authentication to the dictates of his commander. Upon what

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

"

play of his disapprobation? An inferior general will often cheatfully acquiesce in "the decision of his superior, when per"haps, were he himself commander-inchef, he would act very differently. This "flows from the very nature of two situa

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

tions, the commander and the command"ed. The latter not being responsible for "his opinions will not be tenacious of them; "be will easily submit to the decision of "his superior, because his acquiescence "neither leads to censure nor to praise, "nor is he vested with responsibility, or liable to examination or trial. With re gard to Sir A. Wellesley's opinion, it is "known, that if his advice had been fol"lowed on the 21st, he would have pur"sued the routed army of Junot, and never " have let him rest till he had destroyed it. "When the line of pursuing the enemy

"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

was dropped, and negociation admitted, "he was then superseded in command, and "had only to follow the plans of Sir Hew Dalrymple, for he had no plans of his " own to follow. This subject, however, lies in a short compass. Con Sir A. "Well-ley be brought to trial, for signing a Convention according to the instruc ❝tions of his commanding general? He " cannot How absurd then to impute blame to an officer, for an obedience to "the invariable rules of discipline, and for

his submission to which it is not possible "he can be brought to trial! *— I can go no further.What! The Wellesleys; the high Wellesleys; the haughty Wellesleys, accept of this Old-Bailey-like defence! This worse than any defence ever set up by pinioned caitiff, tutored by attorney that ought to have been hanged as many times as he has hairs upon his head! What! "Ah!

[ocr errors]

you may say what you like, but you can66 not take the law of him. He is not in"dictable. There is a flaw in your pro"ceedings. His head is safe from the "noose!" Why, if there be any thing that can add to the just indignation and resentment of the public, it is a defence like this. "You cannot get hold of him: you "cannot bring him to trial!" I appeal to the reader, whether he eveth eard, or read, of any thing so base as this.Yes, there is a very wide difference indeed between Wellesley and Murray. The latter was merely the agent of the commander-in-cli f; he was a ficid officer, and had no command in the army; he was. not one of those who would be consulted as to what ought to be done, or who would be called into a council of war. Whereas the former was not only one of that rank to be consult

-

ed, to be one of a council of war, but he had had the previous command; he had been commander-in-chief until but a few hours before he entered upon the negociation of the armistice; he was in possession of all the local knowledge, of all the knowledge relative to the force and condition of the enemy, that was possessed in our army; and, of course, if he agreed to, or sanctioned by his signature, what was injurious to his country, he was, and must be held to be respon sible for the act; or, at least, must come in for his full share of the responsibility. Great pains, the reader will perceive, is taken to produce the belief, that Wellesley was a mere instrument; a thing having no will of its own; a machine moved by the great Dalrymple; and, in a subsequent part of the article above quoted, the writer says, that he was no more responsible than an “attorney's or banker's clerk would be for "signing an obligation of his master." Oh! the gentle, the submissive, the humbleminded Wellesley! Well, this man, whenever he dies, ought to be preserved in pickle; for such a Wellesley I never heard of before. "An attorney's or banker's clerk!" This is a defence well worthy of him who signed the armistice with General Kellerman.But, comè, let us see to what point this doctrine of automaten submission would carry us. The proposition is this: that an officer, Inferior in command, is net, and cannot be cone responsible, for any thing, be it what it which he does by the command of his superior, if the thing done be not con-, trary to the articles of war." Articles of war! Oh, shame! So then, bec: use the express statute cannot be cited against him, he is to be holden up as an innocent man! But, to illustrate the effect of this doctrine, suppose Dalrymple were to order Wellesley' to shoot the king. Would not the latter, as well as the former, be hanged for high treason? Well, then, there are things which an inferior may not do at the command of his superior; yet, the shooting of the king is nowhere expressly prohibited “in the ar"ticles of war." Suppose, in the armistice, it had been agreed upon to surrender the whole of the British army, in Portugal, to Janot, at discretion. Would not every one of the generals, nay every colonel or commander of a corps, who should have obeyed an order to fulfil such an agreement, have been shot, in a few days after his landing in England? Yet, there is, in the "arti"cles of war," nothing expressly forbidding such surrender. Both these supposed acts, and all other acts contrary to the honour and interests of the country, are

[ocr errors][merged small]

10: dificies relating to the #cbar of duty; but they are 110 where expressly pointed out. The real ques-, tion is, then, whether the agreeing to the armistice was, or was not, an act, which, to every rational mind, must have manifestly appeared to be detrimental to the nation. if this question be decided in the negative, then, not only Wellesley, but all the parties concerned are innocent; but, if it be decided in the affirmative, they are all guilty, and he the most guilty, because he, who alone could possibly be well acquainted with all the local and other circumstances, was the first to set his hand to the agreement.

enemy. Sh A. Wesley neither ap proyed, nor had any concern whatever in writing the armistice: it was negociated "with Kellermann by Sir H. Dalrymple "himself (indeed it was dictated and writ"ten in French by Keilermann), and was "afterwards signed by Sir A. Wellesley, "in obedience to the positive order of Sir H. "Dalrymple the commander-in-chief.—It is

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a curious fact, not unworthy of remark, "that Sir H. Dalrymple had intended in "the first instance to affix his own signature to the armistice; but that he refrained "from doing so, and ordered Sir A Wellesley to sign it, at the instigation of the "French general, whose views in such a requisition it does not require much pe "netration to discover. Sir A. Wellesley "therefore is no more responsible for the terms of the armistice, than col. Murray, "is for the terms of the Convention; or to carry the comparison still farther, than

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

The writer of this defence says, in another place, that very great mischief might lave arisen from an open rupture between our commanders. In the plural, observe, Bough, but a moment before, we had been old, that there was but one commander. We are told, that if Wellesley had publicly leclared his disapprobation of the terms of he agreement, the discord, which must ' have ensued between him and the commander-in-chief wool have unquestionably embarrassed all future operations of the army." What! the cisapprobation" under the firmest conviction in his own

of so mild, so gentle, so unassuming, so
hamble, so submissive a thing as a attor-
"ney's or banker's clerk "! Could this
thing's disapprobation have embarras d all
the operations of an army, under a chef
whose nod was law? Incredible! No: we
cannot be made to believe, that a muchine,
though composed of flesh and blood or of
Ah and bones rather, could have produced
any embarrassment in the operations of an
try. If it stood in his way, Sir Hew
(what a name!) could have put it into an
armi chest, or thrusted it into any hole or
corner, and amongst any of the dead stock
of the army. When a man has a bad cause;
when he is put to the inventing of reasons,
his pretty sure to contradict himself.-
Hitherto I have proceeded upon the suppo-
sition, that Wellesley really did no more
than obey the orders of Dalrymple; that
the latter was the great mover in the af
fir; and that the former only aided and
assisted. The contrary, however, I think,
clearly appears to have been the fact; but,
fire let us hear what further this famous
defender has to say.
Sir Arthur
"Wellesley, in fact, privately protested
against the armistice in the strongest
terms; he distinctly declared his objec-
"tions to the commander-in-chief, and
"tried all in his power to prevent him
from granting the terms he did to the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

an attorney or banker's clerk would be "for signing an obligation of his master.. "It has been urged, that Sir A. Wellesley. might have told the commander-in-chief, "that he would sooner go into arrest than put his naine to such an instrument, but

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"mind (which, if coolly considered, will
"be found to be the simple fact), that he
is was merely acting under the positive or
"ders of the commander-in-chief,
"signed it as he would have done any
"other military order which did not appear

[ocr errors]

be

to him to be contrary to the articles of war, or the established laws of his country, in preference to commencing open "hostilities with his commander-in-chief "the very day after he superseded him. "Sir A. Wellesley's refusal to sign the

armistice, would by no means have pre-. "vented the conclusion of it, but the dis"cord which must have ensued between "him and the commander-in-chief would "have unquestionably embarrassed all the

future operations of the army. These "are strong facts; but they are most sub"stantially and literally true, and perfectly "corroborated by numerous letters from "the most distinguished officers of the "British army in Portugal. These letters

[ocr errors]

also all agree in stating, that Sir A, Wellesley most distinctly declared his "opinion that the expediency of per..

[ocr errors]

mitting the French to capitulate at "all, was occasioned solely by the di "lemma into which the army had been

brought by its being prevented, contrary "to his plans and wishes repeatedly urged, "from following up the victory of the 21st,

[ocr errors]

"

"in which case,, the whole French army must inevitably have been destroyed, instead of being enabled by that fatal delay to retreat to the passes, and to concen"trate themselves in forts in their rear, "which it might consume the whole of the "winter months to beat them out of. At "the conclusion of the action of the 21st, "the head quarters of the French at "Torres Vedras were four miles nearer to

"the right wing of the English army, "which had not been engaged, than to the "French defeated army, in consequence of Junot's having exclusively attacked our centre and left wing. It therefore amounts "almost to a certainty, that if Sir A. Wel

"

lesley had been permitted to push forward agreeably to his plan and request, he "must inevitably have arrived before them, "occupied their posts, and annihilated "them as an army."- There is, after this, a crying paragraph about " party ani

[ocr errors]

mosity," than which charge nothing ever was more false, as every man in the country will testify. So, here, the few weeks of Sir Hew are swelled out into "the whole "of the winter months "! And where was Junot to find provisions for the whole of the winter months? Were his army and his horses and his fleet to be fed by ravens; or had they collected food sufficient, in that very country where our fine commanders were afraid of being starved in a week or two? So, if Wellesley had been permitted to go on, he would have destroyed the French army. Now, who prevented him? His victory was won on the 21st of August. Sir Harry (another slang name !) tells us, that though he arrived while the battle was going on, he left all to Wellesley; and Wellesley's friends in England took special care to inform the public, that he, and he alone, had the claim to the merit. Accordingly, those who express their joy and approbation by the use of the bottle, drank the brave,

Sir Arthur Wellesley and his army." Nobody's name was heard of but his. Sir Burrard did not pretend to have any share in the merit, and we gave him credit for his modesty. Well, then, who stopped Wellesley? Who prevented him from " pushing on?" The Duke D'Abrantes. That cruel Tartar, It was he, or it was nobody, that so suddenly arrested the progress of our dashing "Cheva"lier du bain." For only look at the dates, which are always very troublesome things, when men have to lie through a cause. Who, upon reading what I have quoted above, would not suppose, that a month, or, at least, many days, had elapsed between the battle of the 21st and the signing of the ar

mistice; seeing that, before the latter took place, the French had had time" to retreat

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

A

to the passes, and to concentrate them"selves in the strong forts?" Who would re not suppose, that several days, at least, had elapsed? But, the fact is, that the battle was fought on the 21st, and the armistice agreed upon and signed on the 22d. There could not possibly be any more than twenty four hours between the battle and the armistice; and, observe, Sir Burrard left me Wellesley to do as he pleased on the 21st; he had all the then army undet his command; he j might have gone on if he would; and his j stupid defender, appearing to forget these mat really strong and undeniable facts, calls the 21st a fatal day.- Now, as to poor Sir Hew, when did he come upon the stage? Not till the 22d; not till the day of after the fatal day ; not, to use his own words, till " a few hours before general, "Kellerman came. So that, it is, I think, as clear as day-light, that Wellesley was Da controuled by nobody, that he was held back gen by nobody; that he was, as to all practical purposes, the commander-in-chief, until the very moment of General Kellerman's arrival, and that, as he has had all the praise, so he is entitled, to all the blame for whatever, deserving blame, took place previous to that moment.- -There remains now to be no ticed; what this defender says about privatif protests and private letters. He asserts, that Wellesley privately protested against the ar mistice, and that Dalrymple turned a deaf ear to his advice. Against this assertion, which is quite bare of all authority, let us put the probabilities of the case. And, I ask the reader; I put it to the plain good sense) of the public, whether it be probable, or hardly possible, that Sir Dalrymple, who had arrived at head quarters but a few hours, and who had been in the country not many hours; who could know little, of nothing, of local circumstances or of other circumstances to be taken into consideration; who was a person of no great fame, and who carried with him no other weight than that of his mere rank: I put it to an impartial public, whether it was probable, whether it was possible, that this man, should, under such circumstances, come in with his boots on, and his hands and face unwashed, and take, not only the actual operative command upon him, but take up the pen, before he sat down to eat or to drink, and settle, upon his own unassisted opinion, an agreement which was to determine the fate of the whole of the enemy's army and fleet; that he should do this, not only with out advice, but against the advice and the se

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

lemn protest of one notoriously the favourite of the ministers, notoriously backed by a nosi of powerful friends at home in and out of parliament, and not less notoriously of no very unassuming disposition, especially on the morrow of his gaining a brilliant victory; that he, a prudent old man, should not deign to consult with, but should reject the advice of such a person, nay, and make him, like an attorney's or banker's clerk, set his hand to, as being the negociator of, terms penned by the French General, and against which hateful terms he had made a solemn protest; I put it to the sense of any man who hears me, whether this be possible? Away, then, with all the lies about private protests and private letters. There is no proof produced of the existence of any such protest; while there is the strongest presumptive proof, that no such protest ever was made. Besides, have we not the internal evidence of Dalrymple's dispatch? What does the old gentleman say? Why: "As I land"ed in Portugal entirely unacquainted with "the actual state of the French army, and many circumstances of a local and inci"dental nature, which, DOUBTLESS, "bad great weight in deciding the question, "my OWN opinion in favour of expelling "the French army from Portugal, by means "of the Convention, was, such and such." Why this doubtless?" He does not pretend to have had a decided opinion of his own. Would he have thus spoken, if he had despised the protest of Wellesley? The thing is not to be believed by even the most credulous and most stupid of mankind; and I beseech the honest part of the public, I beseech all those who feel for the honour of their abused country, to be upon their guard against the arts of that sink of falsehood and corruption, which is now stirring to its very entrails for the purpose of misleading the public mind and palsying the arm of justice." Private letters from "the army" bave been trumped up, and published without signatures; it was stated, in several of the papers, that, when the armistice was signed, Wellesley was at the distance of forty miles from head quarters; but, there are two facts, which I am particularly anxious to impress upon the minds of my readers; the first of which is, that the Morning Post news-paper, in which has appeared the dirty defence of Wellesley, was, in the autumn of 1806, the proper y

of a company of persons, chiefly East Indians, and that Mr. Paull having accused one of these persons, a man who had been high in office under Lord Wellesley, of causing certain articles to be

1 that paper against him, the person 50 accused, whose name was Hornson, and who lived in Devonshire Place, acknowledged, in a letter to Mr. Paull that he was a part proprietor, which letter I saw and read. I have not heard, that the paper has changed proprietors, and my firm belief is, that it has not. The second fact is, that, in the Gazette Extraordinary, containing the documents relating to the late transactions in Portugal, that document, that most important document of all, the armistice, which was signed by, and which was evidently the work of, Wellesley, was inserted in the French language, unaccompanied with a translation, while all the other documents, to none of which his name and seal were affixed, were inserted in English only; a thing as unprecedented as the motive of it must be obvious to all the world. Until the ministers have had time to show, that they had no hand in this; that some of their underlings were bribed to do it; I will not accuse them, or suppose them guilty, of an act of partiality so shockingly base; but, unless this be done by them, upon their heads the charge must finally fall, and, in the mean while we should be upon our guard, every man should endeavour to warn his neighbour, against the effect of that powerful and infamous influence which is now at work for the purpose of bringing Wellesley off in safety over the mangled reputations of the other commanders.

Botley, 22 Sept, 1808.

P. S. I have below, inserted, upon this subject, a letter, and an article from the Times newspaper, both which I beg to recommend to the perusal of my readers.

CONVENTIONS IN PORTUGAL.

SIR, I cannot doubt that you, who have been so often the eulogist of British valour, and the assertor of British honour, and who have lately descanted with so much force and justice upon both, will open the pages of your Register to whoever shall wish to expose to public observation transactions by which the honour of our country is impaired, and the glory of her brave defenders tarnished. That this has happened by the Convention concluded by our commander in Portugal is, unfortunately, not a matter of doubtful surmise or hypothesis; it is a fact notorious to every class of the community; it is felt by every man throughout England, from the cabinet minister to the cottager; it is at this moment the subject of universal grief and indignant reprobation in all parts of this capital.How is it, Sir, that mi

« AnteriorContinuar »