a

was uplifted, 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 have 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 ananimity 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, I 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 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 au 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 quickly 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 responsibility attaches to his majesty's minis "ters on the one hand, and the commander of the forces on the other It is presumable that when ministers sent "such an immense force to Portugal as "hear 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

66

"

"their general, but left him to obtain "those terms which the greatness of his "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 Coi. Murray, are to be con"sidered as the work of Sir Hew 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

parts have been managed and worded as "the commander-in-chief pleased? It is ob"vious, he had no such power. It is clear, "then, tha, as to the Convention, whether

he proved or disapproved of it, whether he negociated every line, or never real a "word of it, he is in no sense whatsoever responsible. Sir H. Dalrymple was com"mander of the forces; in him alone all "discretion, all authority was placed, and "on him alone all responsibility rests Bat "it is said, if Sir A. Wellesley did not

approve the Contention he ought not to "have signed it. Is it meant g this, that "when an inferior general officer difers in "opinion with his commander, he is to "disobey him? Or if he obeys, is he to

couple that abedience with a public dis

forbidden in the engagement of fideli ty, and in the articles relating to the faithful discharge of duty; bet they, are no where expressly pointed out. The real question is, then, whether the agreeing to the armistice was, or was not, an act, which, to every rational mind, must have manifestty' appeared to be detrimental to the nation. If this question ge decided in the negative, then, not only Wellesley, but all the parties concerned are innocent; but, if it be decided in the ath-mative, they are all guilty, and he the most guilty, because he, who alone could possibly be well acquainted with. aid the local and other circumstances, was the first to set his hand to the agreement. -The writer of this defence says, in anotuer place, that very great mischief might have arisen from an open rupture between our commanders. In the plural, observe, though, but a moment before, we had been told, that there was but one commander. We are told, that if Wellesley had publicly declared his disapprobation of the terms of the agreement, the discord, which must have ensued between him and the commander-in-chief would have unquestionably embarrassed all the future operations of the army." What! the disapprobation of so mild, so gentle, so unassuming, so humble, so submissive a thing as an 66 attor"ney's or banker's clerk"! Could this thing's disapprobation have embarrassed all` the operations of an army, under a chief whose nod was law? Incredible! No; we cannot be made to believe, that a machine, thongh composed of flesh and blood, or of flesh and bones rather, could have produced any embarrassment in the operations of an ny. If it stood in his way, Sir Hew (what a name ') could have put it into an arm chest, or thrusted it into any hole or corner, and amongst any of the dead stock

46

"

of the army. When a man has a bad cause; when he is put to the inventing of reasons, he is pretty sure to contradict Linselt. Hitherto I have proceeded upon the suppoition, that Wellesley really did no more than obey the orders of Dalrymple; that the latter, was the great mover in the affair; and that the former only aided and assisted. The contrary, however, I think, clearly appears to have been the fact; but, first 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

enemy. Sit A. Wellesley neither ap

proved, nor had any concern whatever "in writing the armistice; it w. was negociated "with Kellerinana by Sir H. Dalrymple "himself (indeed it was dictated, and writ"ten in French by Kellermann), and was

afterwards signed by Sir A. Welleney, "in obedience to the positive order of Sir H. "Dalrymple the commander-in-chief—It is

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 Wel"lesley 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. Ma ray "is for the terms of the Convention; or to carry the comparison still further, than an attorney or banker's clerk would be "for signing an obligation of his master. "It has been urged, that Sir A. Wellesley

"

66

66

might have told the commander-in-chief, "that he would sooner go into arrest than put his name to such an instrument, but "under the firmest conviction in his own "mind (which, if coolly considered, will "be found to be the simple fact), that he was merely acting under the positive or "ders of the commander-in-chief, he "signed it as he would have done any "other military order which did not appear " to him to be contrary to the articles of war, or the established laws of his coun

try, 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 "also all agree in stating, that Sir A.

Wellesley most distinctly declared his opinion that the expediency of permitting the French to capitulate at all, was occasioned solely by the di"lemma into which the army had been

66

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

"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 cerfainty, that if Sir A. Wellesley 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

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 app.obation 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 "to the passes, and to concentrate them"selves in the strong forts?" Who would 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 Wellesley to do as he pleased on the 21st; be had all the then army under his command; he might have gone on if he would; and his stupid defender, appearing to forget these really strong and undeniable facts, calls the 21st a fatal day.Now, as to poor ST Hew, when did he come upon the stage? Not till the 22d; not till the day after" the fatal day; not, to use his own words, till a few hours before genera! "Kellerman came." So that, it is, I think, as clear as day-light, that Wellesley was controuled by nobody, that he was held back 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 the moment.- -There remains now to be noticed; what this defender says about prinsic protests and private letters. He asserts t Wellesley privately protested against the mistice, and that Dalrymple turned a ear to his advice. Against this assertion which is quite bare of all authority, lets put the probabilities of the case. And, I ask the reader; I put it to the pain good sense of the public, whether it be probable, (" hardly possible, that Sir Dalrymple, wh had arrived at head quarters but a few hours, and who had been in the country not many hours; who could know little, c nothing, of local circumstances or of othe circumstances to be taken into considera tion; 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 ope rative 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 feet; that he should do this, not only with out advice, but against the advice and the so

lema protest of one notoriously the favourite of the ministers, notoriously backed by a host 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 deigu 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 here 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 Tan old genticman 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, "had 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 de pretend to have had a decided opinion of his gown. Would he have thus spoken, if he tara 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" have 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 property 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

put in that paper against him, the person so accused, whose name was ROBINSON, 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 afixed, 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 perusa' 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 mis