The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-12 00:00:00

BATTLE OF TOULOUSE.

WAS WELLINGTON OR SOULT MOST TO BLAME FOR
THE UNNECESSARY EFFUSION OF BLOOD IN THAT
BATTLE, THE WAR HAVING BEEN VIRTUALLY AT
AN END ?

(From the last number of Notes and Queries.)

---~-

In reply to an inquiry under the above heading,
in a recent number of Notes and Queries, as to how
Lord Wellington could justify Soult for having
caused that sanguinary battle, I stated that Lord
Wellington was most to blame, having been the
aggressor, and aware that the allied Sovereigns had
been then in Paris for about a fortnight, and that
they had declared Napoleon dethroned and Louis
XVIIT. Sovereign of France, the war ought there-
fore to have been considered as virtually at an end,
this proclamation of the Allied Sovereigns from the
capital of France having been regarded in the same
light as if Napoleon had actually abdicated.

There were various replies in Notes and Queries
which I did not consider deserving of notice, as they
were from anonymous writers, and did not question
the correctness of my facts, but clung to the fact,
that as the official notification of the abdication of
Napoleon had not reached the hostile armies, then
preparing for battle at Toulouse, this proclamation
was undeserving of notice and the thousands of lives
thus sacrificed justifiable.
I find, however, in a recent number of that
publication, a letter from Col. Ponsonby of the
Guards, containing an extract from the papers of
his father, the late Sir Frederick Ponsonby, in which
it was stated " That he was the first who brought
the intelligence of Napoleon's abdication to Lord
Wellington, having preceded by some hours from
Bordeaux Colonels Cooke and St. Simon, who were
bearers of the official despatches to that effect."
This extract from the papers of so distinguished
an officer as Sir Frederick Ponsonby I consider de-
serving of notice, so far as regards my confirmation
of all the facts therein contained, submitting at the
same time that such facts do not at all disturb my
views of the case—namely, that Lord Wellington
having been aware of the proclamation, already al-
luded to, of the Allied Sovereigns as to the down-
fall of N apoleon, and the succession of Louis XVIII.,
ought to have considered the war as much at an end
as when Napoleon was forced to abdicate, and that
consequently the loss of life in that battle was un-
necessary, it being improbable, if not impossible,
after the destruction of the French army in the
Russian campaign, and the invasion of France by
the Allied Powers of Europe, north and south, the
declarations In favour of Louis XVIII., and the
general outcry for a termination of the war at Bor-
deaux and other cities and towns, that Napoleon
could continue to govern that country.
Even Napier, the historian of that war, who
generally supported Wellington, admits this to have
been "an unnecessary spilling of blood," one re-
giment alone, the gallant 42d, having lost four-
fifths of their number in their endeavour to retain
one of Soult's fortified heights, after being over-
powered by numbers until supported by the 71st
and 91st Regiment, which were also reduced to what
he termed an extended line of skirmishers compared
to what they had been in close contact at the com-
mencement of that sanguinary conflict—a conflict
(in which, as I commanded a regiment, and was one
of the sufferers from a musket ball that has never
been extracted) I am not likely to forget—which
must justify my having a perfect recollection of all
the facts connected with it, and my defence of Soult
from the blame which has been cast upon him when
he was not the aggressor, having only defended him-
self when attacked. His conduct had been, never-
theless, and is still by many, so reprobated in this
country from misrepresentations of these facts, that
the late Lord Aberdeen expressed his surprise in the
House of Lords how any Minister could be on
amicable terms with a man capable of such a crime.
This was noticed by Napier at the conclusion of his
history, and how the Duke of Wellington was com-
pelled to defend Soult, but he did not go so far as
to say that the severity of the expressions used by
Lord Aberdeen were more applicable to himself than
to Soult, or, as expressed by Horace in days of yore,
" Mutato nomine de to Fabula narrator."

The foregoing proclamation could only be regarded
by Napoleon and his followers as their coup de grace,
and therefore more worthy of attention than the act
of abdication which followed as a necessary conse-
quence, an act that could not be either expedited or
retarded by the blood-stained laurels obtained on
that occasion.

There were, moreover, other important facts that
should have operated upon the Duke's mind, and
prevented this effusion of blood, namely, the ground
being so wet in the valley, which was commanded by
Soult's fortified heights as not to admit of the ar-
tillery required to make breaches, and the troops
not being provided with ladders, which ought to
have been looked upon as indispensable for success.
The consequence was that all the attacks made
under the Duke's immediate orders on the enemy's
left failed with the loss of thousands of lives, and
that if it had not been for the almost miraculous
success of the two divisions, 4th and Gth, detached
under Beresford to the extreme right, a distance
exceeding two miles (of which my regiment formed
a part), this battle would not have been added to
the Duke's glorious victories. How dearly it was
purchased may be seen by the manner in which
Napier describes certain regiments as reduced to
their lines of skirmishers, compared to what they
had been before the battle commenced. For the
vain glory arising from laurels so dearly purchased
it might have been justly observed, sic transit gloria
mundi.

Should the foregoing facts not be questioned, no
difference of opinion ought to exist as to whether
Wellington or Soult were most to blame for the
blood shed at Toulouse, nor respecting the fact as
to the result of that battle not having tended, in the
slightest degree, to expedite the abdication of
Napoleon, which followed, as a matter of course,
the proclamation of his dethronement by the Allied
Sovereigns and restoration of Louis XVIII., by
whom, in conjunction with his Allies, not only
France but Europe, might have been justly consi-
dered as then governed.

Fiat Justitia mat Ccelunz.
JOHN SCOTT LILLIE.

Union Club, Nov. 28.

The Coroner's inquiry into the death of the man
Flanagan, who was supposed to have been murdered in
Lisson-grove, terminated yesterday. The jury returned a
verdict of wilful murder against Richard Jones, who had
been quarrelling with Flanagan, and who has since
absconded.
Yesterday, at the Southwark Police-court, the
young man Shirley, charged with the attempted murder
of Mr. Henry Hus on the 2d inst., was committed for trial.
It was proved in evidence that the pistol with which he
shot Mr. Hus had at one time belonged to that gentleman,
but had been abstracted from the premises in August last.
ACCIDENT AT A SAW MlLL.—Last night an
accident happened in the Poplar Saw Mills, by which a
poor man named Andrew Cannon, while attending to the
machinery, was caught by the sleeve and carried round,
and falling on a circular saw had his left arm cut off by
the shoulder. He was removed to the hospital, but there
seems no hope of his recovery.
LAMARTINE is going to publish a novel in the
Constitutionnel, to be called " Ma mere !"