flim//public domain article
July 13, 2005: Week 2 Laundry Therapeutics Week
from Concerning the Convention of Cintra
And this leads me from the contemplation of their errors in the estimate
and application of means, to the contemplation of their heavier errors
and worse blindness in regard to ends. The British Generals acted as if
they had no purpose but that the enemy should be removed from the
country in which they were, upon any terms. Now the evacuation of
Portugal was not the prime object, but the manner in which that event
was to be brought about; this ought to have been deemed first both in
order and importance;—the French were to be subdued, their ferocious
warfare and heinous policy to be confounded; and in this way, and no
other, was the deliverance of that country to be accomplished. It was
not for the soil, or for the cities and forts, that Portugal was valued,
but for the human feeling which was there; for the rights of human
nature which might be there conspicuously asserted; for a triumph over
injustice and oppression there to be achieved, which could neither be
concealed nor disguised, and which should penetrate the darkest corner
of the dark Continent of Europe by its splendour. We combated for
victory in the empire of reason, for strongholds in the imagination.
Lisbon and Portugal, as city and soil, were chiefly prized by us as a
language; but our Generals mistook the counters of the game for the
stake played for. The nation required that the French should surrender
at discretion;—grant that the victory of Vimiera had excited some
unreasonable impatience—we were not so overweening as to demand that
the enemy should surrender within a given time, but that they should
surrender. Every thing, short of this, was felt to be below the duties
of the occasion; not only no service, but a grievous injury. Only as far
as there was a prospect of forcing the enemy to an unconditional
submission, did the British Nation deem that they had a right to
interfere;—if that prospect failed, they expected that their army would
know that it became it to retire, and take care of itself. But our
Generals have told us, that the Convention would not have been admitted,
if they had not judged it right to effect, even upon these terms, the
evacuation of Portugal—as ministerial to their future services in
Spain. If this had been a common war between two established governments
measuring with each other their regular resources, there might have been
some appearance of force in this plea. But who does not cry out at once,
that the affections and opinions, that is, the souls of the people of
Spain and Portugal, must be the inspiration and the power, if this
labour is to be brought to a happy end? Therefore it was worse than
folly to think of supporting Spain by physical strength, at the expence
of moral. Besides, she was strong in men; she never earnestly solicited
troops from us; some of the Provinces had even refused them when
offered,—and all had been lukewarm in the acceptance of them. The
Spaniards could not ultimately be benefited but by Allies acting under
the same impulses of honour, roused by a sense of their wrongs, and
sharing their loves and hatreds—above all, their passion for justice.
They had themselves given an example, at Baylen, proclaiming to all the
world what ought to be aimed at by those who would uphold their cause,
and be associated in arms with them. And was the law of justice, which
Spaniards, Spanish peasantry, I might almost say, would not relax in
favour of Dupont, to be relaxed by a British army in favour of Junot?
Had the French commander at Lisbon, or his army, proved themselves less
perfidious, less cruel, or less rapacious than the other? Nay, did not
the pride and crimes of Junot call for humiliation and punishment far
more importunately, inasmuch as his power to do harm, and therefore his
will, keeping pace with it, had been greater? Yet, in the noble letter
of the Governor of Cadiz to Dupont, he expressly tells him, that his
conduct, and that of his army, had been such, that they owed their lives
only to that honour which forbad the Spanish army to become
executioners. The Portugueze also, as appears from various letters
produced before the Board of Inquiry, have shewn to our Generals, as
boldly as their respect for the British Nation would permit them to do,
what they expected. A Portugueze General, who was also a member of the
regency appointed by the Prince Regent, says, in a protest addressed to
Sir Hew Dalrymple, that he had been able to drive the French out of the
provinces of Algarve and Alentejo; and therefore he could not be
convinced, that such a Convention was necessary. What was this but
implying that it was dishonourable, and that it would frustrate the
efforts which his country was making, and destroy the hopes which it had
built upon its own power? Another letter from a magistrate inveighs
against the Convention, as leaving the crimes of the French in Portugal
unpunished; as giving no indemnification for all the murders, robberies,
and atrocities which had been committed by them. But I feel that I shall
be wanting in respect to my countrymen if I pursue this argument
further. I blush that it should be necessary to speak upon the subject
at all. And these are men and things, which we have been reproved for
condemning, because evidence was wanting both as to fact and person! If
there ever was a case, which could not, in any rational sense of the
word, be prejudged, this is one. As to the fact—it appears, and sheds
from its own body, like the sun in heaven, the light by which it is
seen; as to the person—each has written down with his own hand, I am
the man. Condemnation of actions and men like these is not, in the
minds of a people, (thanks to the divine Being and to human nature!) a
matter of choice; it is like a physical necessity, as the hand must be
burned which is thrust into the furnace—the body chilled which stands
naked in the freezing north-wind. I am entitled to make this assertion
here, when the moral depravity of the Convention, of which I shall
have to speak hereafter, has not even been touched upon. Nor let it be
blamed in any man, though his station be in private life, that upon this
occasion he speaks publicly, and gives a decisive opinion concerning
that part of this public event, and those measures, which are more
especially military. All have a right to speak, and to make their voices
heard, as far as they have power. For these are times, in which the
conduct of military men concerns us, perhaps, more intimately than that
of any other class; when the business of arms comes unhappily too near
to the fire-side; when the character and duties of a soldier ought to be
understood by every one who values his liberty, and bears in mind how
soon he may have to fight for it. Men will and ought to speak upon
things in which they are so deeply interested; how else are right
notions to spread, or is error to be destroyed? These are times also in
which, if we may judge from the proceedings and result of the Court of
Inquiry, the heads of the army, more than at any other period, stand in
need of being taught wisdom by the voice of the people. It is their own
interest, both as men and as soldiers, that the people should speak
fervently and fearlessly of their actions:—from no other quarter can
they be so powerfully reminded of the duties which they owe to
themselves, to their country, and to human nature. Let any one read the
evidence given before that Court, and he will there see, how much the
intellectual and moral constitution of many of our military officers,
has suffered by a profession, which, if not counteracted by admonitions
willingly listened to, and by habits of meditation, does, more than any
other, denaturalize—and therefore degrade the human being;—he will
note with sorrow, how faint are their sympathies with the best feelings,
and how dim their apprehension of some of the most awful truths,
relating to the happiness and dignity of man in society. But on this I
do not mean to insist at present; it is too weighty a subject to be
treated incidentally: and my purpose is—not to invalidate the authority
of military men, positively considered, upon a military question, but
comparatively;—to maintain that there are military transactions upon
which the people have a right to be heard, and upon which their
authority is entitled to far more respect than any man or number of men
can lay claim to, who speak merely with the ordinary professional views
of soldiership;—that there are such military transactions;—and that
this is one of them.
|
All texts ©1996-2005 the authors. Edited by Chris Piuma. Calendar by Maryrose Larkin. |