For the first of these strictures there is not the smallest particle of foundation to be discovered in any line of the History. The extracts which are above given from it sufficiently prove that the author, while stating the fact of the absence of military knowledge and discipline, explained that it was impossible the Spaniards should have had those qualities at the commencement of the war. had continued three years, however, and it was apparent that Spain, torn by factions, continued as helpless as at the beginning, and that neither shame for her deficiencies nor any desire to amend them was visible; it would have been to abdicate the functions of an historian if the author had failed to mark with deserved reprobation the indolence and arrogant self-confidence out of which her incapacity

arose.

After it

With reference to the second stricture, let the author speak for himself in his reply to a similar charge urged by the 'Quarterly Review.'

"The critic accuses me of an unnatural bias, and an inclination to do injustice to the Spaniards, because I have not made the report of some outrages, committed by Soult's cavalry, the ground of a false and infamous charge against the whole French army and French nation. Those outrages which I did notice, and which he admits himself were vigorously repressed, were committed by troops in a country where all the inhabitants were in arms, where no soldier could straggle without meeting death by torture and mutilation, and, finally, where the army lived from day to day on what they could take in the country. I shall now put this sort of logic to a severe test, and leave the Reviewer's patriots to settle the matter as they can. That is, I shall give from Lord Wellington's despatches through a series of years, extracts touching the conduct of British officers and soldiers in this same Peninsula, where

they were dealt with, not as enemies, not mutilated, tortured, assassinated, but well provided and kindly treated."

Here follow twelve extracts, extending over three years, from the Duke's despatches, from which the two sentences following are alone quoted

"June, 1809. [To Lord Castlereagh.] There is not an outrage of any description which has not been committed on a people who have uniformly received us as friends, by soldiers who never yet for one moment suffered the slightest want or the smallest privation."

"May, 1812. [To Lord Liverpool.] The outrages committed by the British soldiers have been so enormous, and they have produced an effect on the minds of the people of the country so injurious to the cause, and likely to be so injurious to the army itself, that I request your Lordship's early attention to the subject."

Colonel Napier then goes on to say

"Having thus displayed the conduct of the British army, as described by its own general, through a series of years; and having also, from the same authority, shown the humane treatment English officers and soldiers, when they happened to be made prisoners, experienced from the French, I demand of any man with a particle of honour, truth, or conscience in his composition, whether these outrages, perpetrated by British troops upon a friendly people, can be suppressed, and the outrages of French soldiers against implacable enemies enlarged upon with justice?— whether it is right and decent to impute relentless ferocity, atrocious villany, to the whole French army, and stigmatise the whole French nation for the excesses of some bad soldiers, prating at the same time of the virtue of England and the excellent conduct of her troops; and this too in the face of the Duke of Wellington's testimony to the kindness with which they treated our men, and in the

face also of his express declaration (letter to Lord Wellesley, 26th January, 1811) that the majority of the French soldiers were sober, well disposed, amenable to order, and in some degree educated? But what intolerable injustice it would be to stigmatise either nation for military excesses that are common to all armies and to all wars; and when I know that the general characteristic of the British and French troops alike is generosity, bravery, humanity, and honour."

The truth is, that Colonel Napier, abhorring from his soul every act of cruelty by whomsoever perpetrated, beheld the turmoil from the philosophic height and related it with the impartiality of the historian, while his critics threw themselves into the press, and regarded the various incidents with the eyes of partisans.

As a sample of Spanish ferocity towards their invaders, and as a melancholy cause for the terrible balance of barbarous actions which the French unhappily struck, take the following extract from the History:—

"On the line of march, and in Andujar, he had terrible proofs of Spanish ferocity; his stragglers had been assassinated, his hospital taken; sick men, medical attendants, couriers, staff-officers,-in fine, all who were too weak for defence, had been butchered with extraordinary barbarity; four hundred had perished in this miserable manner since the fight at Alcolea. The fate of Colonel René was horrible. Employed on a mission to Portugal previous to the breaking out of hostilities, he was on his return, travelling in the ordinary mode, without arms, attached to no army, engaged in no operation of war, yet he was first cruelly mutilated, then placed between deal planks and sawed in two!” (Vol. i. p. 74, revised edition.)

Few books that have ever been published afford so true an index of the mind and character of the writer as does

the History of the Peninsular War.' Hatred of cruelty, love of clemency, pity for the oppressed, righteous uncompromising hostility to tyrants, chivalrous appreciation of an enemy, charity to the poor, tenderness to the weak, and general benevolence towards all mankind except the evil-doers, speak out from his pages in ringing accents. His political opinions, notwithstanding their unpopularity in high places, were set forth with the utmost fearlessness and honesty, careless whom he might offend when he was speaking truths, the acceptance of which he believed essential to the wellbeing of his countrymen and of the world. Colonel Napier's radicalism had for its principal characteristics a hearty appreciation of all that is grand and beautiful, and a firm faith in the glorious results to be achieved by the spread of education among the millions and their political emancipation. To raise the many, and not to annihilate the few, was its main object; and the foundation of hist political creed was an undoubting belief in the capacity of human nature for progressive improvement in liberty and virtue.

The following extracts from his work will illustrate his political opinions; they are set forth in the story of his life, because many of them are such as would be little expected from him by those who may have been accustomed to confound him with the great mass of miscalled Radicals or Liberals.

66

EVILS OF ARISTOCRACY.

Napoleon's troops fought in bright fields, where every helmet caught some beams of glory; but the British soldier conquered under the cold shade of aristocracy; no honours awaited his daring, no despatch gave his name to the applause of his countrymen; his life of danger and hardship was uncheered by hope, his death unnoticed."

"In Spain, in 1813, Wellington was inimical to the constitution, because it admitted a free press, and refused to property any political influence beyond what naturally belonged to it-that is, it refused to heap undue honours, privileges, and power upon those who already possessed all the luxury and happiness that riches can bestow; it refused to admit the principle that those who have much should have more; that the indolence, corruption, and insolence, naturally attendant upon wealth, should be supported and increased by irresponsible power; that those who laboured and produced all things should enjoy nothing; that the rich should be tyrants and the poor slaves. But these essential principles of aristocratic government have never yet been, and never will be, quietly received and submitted to by any thinking people-where they prevail there is no real freedom. Property inevitably confers power on its possessors; and far from adding to that natural power by political privileges, it should be the object of all men who love liberty to balance it by raising the poorer classes to political importance; the influence and insolence of riches ought to be tamed and subdued, instead of being inflated and excited by political institutions."

"The emigration of the royal family of Portugal forced men to inquire how subjects were bound to a monarch who deserted them in their need? How the nation could belong to a man who did not belong to the nation? It has been observed by political economists that where a gold and paper currency circulate together, if the paper be depreciated it will drag down the gold with it, and deteriorate the whole mass; yet, after a time, the metal revolts from this unnatural state and asserts its intrinsic superiority; so a privileged class, corrupted by power and luxury, drags down the national character. There is, however, a point where the people, like the gold, no longer suffering such