Imágenes de página

But‘! cannot help thinking it ‘strange that all these’ prisoners," and all these cannon, should "have been taken 'from the French,‘ without the Allies admitting that‘they had a single man killed, or wounded, or a single’ prisoner taken.H Lord- Burghersh states, that there was much‘ltardfightinv ; that the Allies were f‘ strongly opposed?" that the French made "peeled attacks upon them, and were repulsed ‘with dzflicutty.‘ Was ‘there nobody but Frenchmen~ that- fell on this-occasion? were, the skins of the Cossacks‘ impenetrable to shot‘? or. had the Italy charm, which every Russian ‘carries with him to battle, so‘ miraculous an client on this occasion, that— they neither lost leg nor arm ‘2 But, reader, let me not deceive you; for I lied, on again castingi my eyes over the very “Y satisfactory-and‘accurate" letter of-Golonel Lowe, that I'was ‘mistaken in’ supposing the Allies hadi'neither killed nor wounded. I say,‘ [find] was, mis‘; taken ‘in this, because ‘I have now-discoveretl,‘ what had formerly escaped my notiee, that “ A Cossack'orderly-of General “ Guiessenau,‘ was shot byhis (Blucher’s) “ side!" I suppose this unfortunate Cossack had either lost his holy dmulcl, or had neglected, in ‘the morning, to offer up his prayers to St. Nicholas. 'He had certainly

een guilty of some-'very'great crime,‘ that he, of allithe thousands wholhad been exposed to the fire of the enemy, ‘should be the only one that'was slain‘. ' ~M, perhaps‘, Heaven intended 1by this'to ‘show- how highly it favoured; General LBludher, by dis mating the shot, i which was’ probably pointed at the “ hoary tveteran," to ‘the head or heart of the Cossack, iwhom‘it'le; veiled with the dust. - “ If ‘Europe- be “ saved," ~'says"- the Courier, “ Blucher “ will be-placed in the first- rank of her sa“ v-iours ! !"----But let us now return to-my Lord Burghersh. ~ If‘ we are to consider his Lordship’s statement afailhfid vdetail of what passed on1 the letinstant-,fwev shall be compelled to admit the power-of'the holy charms of the Russians. But if we do not ,- if we are to regard it- as a mere/vat-lial account olithe' proceedings of thatd-ay,» and that many things passed ‘before him, things

. which others, who-'saw'thetn, viewed as

matters of importance, and which were

really so: ii’, I say, his Lordship has told'

us only half the truth in one instance, how are we sure that‘ he has told us the whole truth in every other ‘I Or rather, - believing that he did transmit a fill! detail of

these occurrences, how are we sure, when

we find that detail, as lhave found it in


the Times and Ooitrier, disfigured and mu.. tilated, that any part of it is correct? Buonaparté has been" accused of “ mean “spiritedness,” of “ whining,” land'oi'

‘-‘ cowardice,” because he tells\his ub- '

jects the extent of his losses, and does not cori'cealtfrom them the dangers-to. whiclith‘e country is exposed. But I would rather trust a man who tells me all the truth,‘ however disagreeable that truth may be,‘ than‘he wholkeeps back a part of it.- The former, I am certain, itnows how to practise deceit .' the latter values‘himself upon being an honest man. 'It is from this view of‘ matters, that I am inclined to believe the following account‘ which Napoleon gives of the'cause of the loss of his cannon, to be the true one: “ In the midst-of “ the obscurity of the night, a batterytol' ,i the artillery of the guard, following the “ movements of acolumn of cavalry, which “ was ‘advancing to repulse a charge of the “enemy, lost its way', and was taken. “ When the cannoniers perceived the‘ am“ bush- into which they had fallen, and ‘i saw thatthey had not time to term their “battery, fo'rmed themsefies in a squa“ dron, attacked the enemy, and saved the


“horses and harness. They lost lil'teen ,

“ men killed or taken prisoners.”.---'-The reader will observe, that I have hitherto been-speaking merely of the battle of the 1st. ~ I shall-notice what is said about the loss of‘ both sides on the 2d, after I have stated ‘my reasons for believing that Buoé nspart'é‘ was‘; not personally engaged in the battleof Briennc, and that he afterwards drew off his troops ‘from that quarter, not because they were routed, but because he hadiiprevioaslya intended to do so. Lord Burghersh does not say, in as many words, that the French Emperor look a part in the action. ‘He merely states, that Buonaparté placed his army so and so, that Buonaparté continued the action with considerable -ob"~ stinacy, 82c. 'All this we know he could have directed to be done, without leaving his‘ head-quarters. 'Ol' the Russian general, Lord Burghersh speaks thusz'WGeneral ‘‘ Bluchcr was present at the elei'ence'of this

“ village, and contributed ‘materially by his '

7“ exertions in the repulse ofthe e'nemy."Here the person of Blucher is so completely idenli’ fiedwvith thé occurrences of the day, that it is impossible to mistake his being present. But there'is no such identity of Buonaparté; it is not said that he was present in any part of the action. If he had been on the

spot, -it cannot be believed that Lord Burg-~

hersh would‘ have omitted n'oticiug,~ and

that in the most painted manner, a cir

cumstance so well calculated, as thedefeat _

of Napoleon in person, to enhance the value of the victory. Besides, it appears from the French bulletin that he actually was not there. “ On the ‘28th .the “ Emperor went to Manticrmder. On “ the ‘29th, at 8 in the morning, Gene“ ral Grouchy, who commands the- cavalry, “ sent ward tltat General Milhattd, sec." Here wefind him at a distance from the scene of action, and one of his Generals sending hitn word as to the movements of the Allies, a step which would not have been necessary ltad he been titer: in person to observe them. It is no where Said that Buonaparté left Montierender until the 3d instant, on the noonof which day we find he " entered 'l‘royes."-Butl shall be told that the factof Buonaparte's per-serial, pvrcnce is put beyond all doubt by the letter of Colo‘ nel Lowe, who appears to have been a witness of the whole transaction, and, therefore, it was but natural to expect that he would be able to tell us something posittve, something certain as to Buonaparté.'—~b~.“ Colonel Lowe's detail ‘@ (says Sir C. Stewart) is so satisfactory,“ and so accurate, from his having had the “ advantage ofbeing with Marshal Blucher in “ the advance during the whole of the day." --- Let us see then what this very accurate Colonel,v who saw every thing, says about the presence of Napoleon. He states, that “ Buonaparté, in person, it is Rnrqaren “ by the prisoners, led on the attaclt him“ self, at the, head of the young guat'd,3and “ had a horse shot under him."—-——So this is What Sir Charles Stewart calls satisfacturyiand accurate information. It is reported by the prisoners. Why not assorted by Colonel Lowe who was “ in the “ advance during the whole day,’_’ and could not fail to see Buonaparté if he “ led “ on the attack himself?" _ . either true that Buonaparté» test on, the attack himself, or it is unlikely ‘thatColonel Lowe was ,-in the advance during the whole day. For the .j'ormer, of those statements, weohave only the report of the


' Colonel to whom it was reported by some

‘prisoners: neither he nor Sir Charles “(ilson say that they believe the fact. But for the latter we have the positive‘assertion of both these officers. The fair and rational conclusion, therefore, is, that Buonaparté neither led on the attack himself, nor was present during any part of the action. .The '1' imes and the Courier, however, will have it that Buonaparte was “ actively


“ engaged," and the votaries of these lying idols, who would hold it crttm'nahwere, they to entertain a doubt as to the Vtl'iltity'y are ready to exterminatev every man who ventures to differ from them in opinion on this subject. With them the F rench bulletins contain nothing but “ itnpudent false’ “ hoods." Even our ownolficial accountsare rejected, or thrown aside, if they come in contact with their favourite journals._ Butleaving these groveling insects to enjoy tlteir fancied triumph, let us proceed, in the developetnent of the motives which induced. Buonaparté to withdraw his rear guard from before Brienne. We have already seen that this was not because of adefrat, for at the closeof the battle, 1as admitted‘ by Lord Burghersh, “ the enemy.stitl tuttt “ the ground beyond La Rothiere, and was “ still in possession, at the, dark, of the “ heights of Brienne." 'Even “next morn‘f ing" (i‘. e. the morning of thefzd instant l sayshis lordship, “ his rear, guardwas in “ occupation of the position _o_f,Bttt'enne_."_Those whohave ,been in ithetpractice of; observing the ‘military progress of Burmaparté, must have remarked, that‘ he has been indebted for the greater'part of_his victories, to his manoeuvring, ,and ‘the protnptness ‘with which. heexecutes all his designs. In fact, he calculates more upon' the rapidity and, variety of his movements, than upon, any other circumstance. , These. he knows ,tend to embarrass his oppog nents, to deceive them as to his ulterior views‘; and when he finds, ,as.,he cont-_ monly doesfithanhe has bewildered them, that .he has drawn their attention ,frpntthe realuobject ‘he has in view, he neyerfails to turn this to goodfaceount. The, advantages whichNapoleou had gainedon the sideof. Brienne, prior to. the 30th of Janus ary, though, very decisive‘ in their nature seem to, have been, more the result of the impetuosity and enthusiastic courage of, his troops,,than of. any regplar. plan of this natnre.~ . They had drivenUtheAllies vfront several strong ,positions abut there wont; still others, which the VQQlPQWRlZ‘QlQI'IQtQf force. that evsnr (day bronchus thettllied Arman rsndsrettsmush. wresfortttislabln


and which Buonawtéawi'th..ltisastnltpsr .

netratient'lappears .w. have :ssrwmmdis: ism/cred required something tunrssthatttbe native enthusiasm pf ,himraymnttgliscjplined soldiers to,ov,ercotne.,,| Hehtherefor'e, do; tgrminednon concentrating .(hls army, ‘and sitcoms: .a isolationist his different. was which atdtat moment occupied separate ,ipositions,E for. the purposeof enabling; him‘

to carry on operations in a quarter, where he had calculated upon acting with greater effect. That Buonapart'e had formed this resolution prior to the battle of the lst, appears to me clear from what is said in the otficial bulletin, which the reader will probably think with me, deserves as much credit as the very “ satislactory and accu“ rate" letter of Colonel Lowe, ‘of which we have already had so notable a specimen. “ The Slst," says the bulletin, “ was cm“ ployed by us in repairing the bridge of “ Lesmont, on the Aube, the Emperor in“ tending to advance towards Troyes, to: “ operate upon the columns which directed “their march by Bar-sur-Aube, and the “ road of Anxerre upon Sens. The bridge “ of Lesmont could not be repaired before “ the lst of February in the morning; a~ “ liar! of the troops were immediately made “ tofile of.” ‘Here, then, it is distinctly stated, that Buonaparté had ‘resolved on the 3lst ult., if not before, to remove his headquarters to Troyes; to advance, not to retreat, as the Courier most impudently asserted. Not only had Napoleon adopted this resolution on that day, but he actually caused a part of his troops “immediately “ to file oife” These were the troops who had, only two days before, defeated the Allies, aitera whole day's fighting, and driven them beyond Brienne. lnsteadi'o'i filing off in consequence of having been themselves beaten by the Allies ; instead of retreating before a victorious army, 'they were retiring of their own accord, in com~ pliance with the orders of their vGenerals who had-cut out work for thein in another quarter. The circumstance of the ‘other divisions of Buonaparté’s army having been previously in advance towards Troyes, at, once accounts for this one being called the rear guard. It is true, neither Lord Burghersh, Sir Charles Stewart, nor Colo‘nel Lowe tell us any thing of the intention of the French Emperor, nor of the actual movement of h‘; troops on the 31st January. But I have already shewn, that the dispatchcs'of these oflicers, as they'appear in the Gazette, are entirely silent as to every thing that occurred before the [st instant. The “ most glorious victory" obtained on that day by the Allies was enough for them to think of. It gave them no leisure, even had they felt the inclination, to notice events which had proved glorious only to the enemy, and which they were not disposed to be the willing instruments of handing down to posterity. No, no; they knew the taste of “john Bull" better than


“ be after such naughty tricks.” But they could not conceal from the public, at least

for any length'oftime, the fact as recorded“

by Buonaparté; neither could the attentivex observer long remain ignorant, that the French rear guard had actually began its march towards Troyes, before the allied army ventured, even with all its accumulation of force, to attack it. Napoleon loresaw that it‘was probable something might be attempted against this part of his army, and therefore he provided against it. \Ve have seen what was ‘the result. Not the defeat and dispersion of theenemy; no compelling them to abandon their positions; but, on the contrary, a complete repulsion of the main ‘body of the united army of llussia, of Austria, of Prussia, and of VVertetnbnrgh, acting under the immediate comisland‘ of‘ their most ‘celebrated Generals, and encouraged by the presence of the Emperor of Russia‘, the King of Prussia, the Prince Royal ‘of \Vertemburgh, and the never'to be forgotten Prince Schwartzenburgh,"who, in person, received, on this occasion, a sword from the Emperor Alexander,‘ for the sleill'and talent he'had‘“ dis“ played in bringing the troops under his “ orders to the brilliant situation" which they then occupied. Mark, reader,.'thc brilliant situation oftroops, who had cndea~ retired for nearly a whole day, but in vain, to compel the rear guard of Buonaparté’s army to abandon its‘ positions.--—‘—But,. then, though the Allies could not, with, 80,000 men, force this incorrigible rear


guard to move an inch, they took “ 75,‘

“ pieces of cannon and ‘about 4,000 pri“ soners" from them.‘ We have ‘already seen, that it was not by fighting, but by accident, that the Allies‘got‘possession of a great proportion, at least, ‘of these cannon. \Vc have also seen it positively asserted by Buonaparte, that, at the termination of the battle of the lst, “ few pri“soneis were made on either side." The affai'r‘of'thc lst had created a pause in the ,movement of the enemy’s rear. But after the ‘action was over; early in the morning of the 2d, it again began to tile off‘. ' “ His columns," says Lord Burg


.hersh, “ appear to have began their move— '

“ ment to the rear, about one in the morn“ ing.” “ It successively took positions “ (says the Frenchbulletin) to finish pass— “ ing the bridge of Lesmont and rejoining “ the rest of the army." It was at this critical moment that the Allies again resolved to renew the attack. They saw the rear guard separated from the main body

of Napoleon’s army ; they observed its exposed situation, occasioned by the necessity there was of changing its front, and of contracting its files, in order to effect the passage of a narrow bridge. Taking advantage of these circumstances, and while part of the French division were actually “ in position upon. the bridge of Rosnay,” it was “ attacked by an Austrian corps ‘_‘ which had passed behind the woods." It cannot be surprising, then, if a part of the French division, which must have remained on the Briennc side of the bridge of Rosnay', which must have been isolaled from the mass of the rear guard that had either crossed or was “ in position upon “ the bridge." It willnot, I say, appear extraordinary if some of those troops which were surprised by the Austrian corps that had been concealed from view by the woods, were taken prisoners, and thata considerable number of them were killed and wounded. The French bulletin states their loss in the two days at from 2 to 3,000 killed or wounded; and adds, “ that “ of the enemy has at least been double.”

'Our dispatches, on the other band, do not

acknowledge the loss of a single man on the part of the Allies ; except, indeed, we ad~ tnit, that the “ orderly Cossack,” who fell by the side of Blucher, ought to be cousi~ dered a person slain in ball/e, and not by the hand of St. Nicholas, as a punishment for losing his holy amulet, or for having impiously neglected to offer up prayers to that Saint. Which of the statements are to be adopted as the most correct, the reader will be at no loss to determine, from what I have already said. For my part, I cannot refuse my assent to the leading facts stated in the French bulletin, because that statement appears perfectly open, natural, and consistent; whereas, on the other side, there is an obvious concealment of some

[merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small]

which it appears, that the Allies entered that place on the 7th, in consequence of Buonaparté having left it the night before, and proceeded to Nogent. Troyes is about 95 miles from Paris, and Nogent 70. The following French oilicial bulletin, which. has been confirmed by the arrival of Paris papers to the 15th instant, shows that Napoleon has again commenced offensive ope— rations, and that these have been attended with very considerable success. The engagement took place near Chateau Tltiery. “ Paris, Feb. 12. (‘Telegraphic Dis“ patch.) The day before yesterday, Feb. “ 10, the Emperor completely defeated a “ Russian corps near Sezanne. The Ge“ neral was taken, and his Staff, forty‘ “ cannon, 6,000 men, all the caissons, “the baggage and materiel. Yesterday, “the 11th, the Emperor completely de— “ feated and put to rout the corps of Ge


“ neral Sacken, of whom he has taken 50 '

“ pieces of cannon, and 10,000 men.”

The negociations are still going on at Chatillon, whence dispatches were received from Lord Castlereagh, dated the 10th. The Morning Post says, “that “ Lord Castlereagh has recommended to “ his colleagues the measure of peace with “ Buonaparté, whose authority is most “ unfortunately ascertained to be ans/taken , “ and his means of carrying on the war. “ am/rle enough to discourage the hope of “ breaking down or overthrowing his [low“ er ;” “ that the allied powers have found “ the enemy much stronger than they ex~ “ pected; and that unless we become par“ ties, not only in the negociatieus, but “ to the treaty which they are concluding, “ we expose ourselves to the charge of “ being considered as the sole obstacles to “ peace, and being left alone to bear the “ burdens of an exhausting war, which we “ might have closed with safety and ho“ nour.” " It is the Morning Chronicle, that the Morning Post is the g0vernment demi-oflieial journal, as the Courier, which deprecates all intercourse with the “ .Assassin of one of the Bourbon “ Princes,” is that which belongs, to Carlton House.


Published by e. nwsnaw, BrydgesPStreet, Govern-Garden.


.-—’———————-e_ -M _.__,_.___‘:.._.;

LONDON: Tl‘llmd by J- M‘Oreery, Blaebflorsoconrt, Fleet-smetQ ' - " ' ‘

.r .4.

a». ‘

[merged small][merged small][graphic][graphic][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small]


“ Tm: Scoonm: or Con.” A Corres' pondent, whose letter will be found in another part of this Number, has “ taken me “ to task," as it is called, upon the subject of my notions, relative to the charge against Buonaparté, that he is the “scourge of “ God." A charge, indeed, it is not, in my view of the matter; but, rather, an exculpation. This gentleman, who calls himself‘ a constant reader, sets‘ out with observing, though, I must confess, in a very moderate strain, that I do not understand matters of polemic divinity. He is very right; but, then, he should bear in mind, that I never pretended to understand them; and, he must permit me to observe, in my turn, that to say that I am ignorant of what I am writing about, or have been writing about, is but an indifferent opening to an answer to my positions or my arguments.——This subject, I am told by my correspondent, is not my fort; but, be it remembered, that I have never attemptedl to enter into it, except in cases, where our adversaries have mixed up religion with politics, and in such a way as made it impossible to separate them, in any commentary upon their writings. Il'divine right; or divine power; or divinev authority, be introduced into a political discussion, it must make part of the subject on one side as well as on the other side. If the adver-' saries of our liberties will, in future, forhear to enrol Divine Providence on their side; if they will forhear thus to degrade, or endeavour to degrade the Deity, for the purpose of giving a sanction to the acts of tyrants, they will never find me introducing religion, or religious subjects, into the Register. But, as long as Napoleon,'or any other despot, though more hypocritical than he, shall put forth his claims’ to obedience, upon tlk- ground of his being upheld by God, so long shall I, as often as the case requires, endeavour to show the folly of all such claims. So long as there are men to call upon us to make war, to spend hundreds of millions of money, and to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives,



in the name of Divine Providence, it will be right and necessary to inquire into the probable share which Divine Providence has in the matter. So much for the general objection to the mixing of religion with p04 litics. It is not I who cause this unnatural mixture; but those vile men, who are continually dragging Divine Providence into the discussion. My reasoning is, too, ale ways, upon these points, hy/mlhelit'ql. I pretend to know nothing at all about the will of God in these political matters. I merely .take the positions of the adversary, and show, or endeavour to show, that they are false; or, that, if true, they make against, instead 'of for, the hateful and bloody'cause of the tyrants of the earth, the enemies of human liberty and happi~~


ness. If, in doing this, I wound the pre- ‘

judices of men, who have never thought for themselves; in oll‘end men, who will have it, that the Bible was dictated by God to be a rule to men, and yet, that men ought to be e'xecrated for imitating the examples there given; men, who will have it, that Napoleon may have been an instrument in the hands of God to do certain things, and yet, that those who adore God, ought to execrate Napoleon l'o'r doing those things; men, who think, or pretend to think, that sent Napoleon to Moscow, and that‘ now, to punish him for going to Moscow, he is sending the Cossacks to burn Paris. IfI olIend men of this sort, I am not sorry for it; for, I am very sure, that such men are utterly incapable of thinking right upon any of the matters, with {regard to which it is my wish to produce an impression on their minds. Such men, though they may talk about liberty, ‘do not, and cannot understand what it means. They are» the creatures of habit, of error, of passion; lit to make part of a rabble, but quite unfit for anything beyond it. I now come to the particular points of my correspondent’s letter.—¢—Gertain writers having denominated Napoleon the “ Scourge of God,” and then imputed to himsell the guilt, the infamy, of the acts committed in that capacity, I showed the inconsistency, the l'olly, the absurdity, of such notions, My corres

« AnteriorContinuar »