with part of the Dutch who might otherwise have been at the battle of Almanza, was another fatal effect of following Count de Noyelles’ advice.
“In the Earl of Peterborow’s answer to the fourth question,[1] he is pleased to say, ‘That several councils of war were held in the month of January in Valencia, about the time that intelligence was brought that the forces under the Earl Rivers were entered into the Mediterranean, in order to adjust the measures for the ensuing campaign. That the matters therein debated were principally whether the army should march towards Madrid or seek the enemy. In the debates the Earl of Peterborow positively affirms that the Earl of Galway, Mr. Stanhope, and the Lord Tyrawley, supported those measures with the Portuguese general; and that the King, the Count de Noyelles, the Spanish generals and ministers, with himself, argued strongly against those measures as highly dangerous and impracticable; and this in repeated councils of war. Till at last the Earl of Peterborow, solicited by the king to renew the debate, desired the king that he would order all called to the council to bring their opinions in writing, that everybody’s opinion, and reasons for that opinion, might appear and be known to the world; which, according to the king’s commands, were put in writing and delivered at the council.’
“In reply to this assertion I would beg leave to appeal to your lordships’ memories, whether upon the first mention of these resolutions to your most honourable house, the Earl did not as positively affirm, ‘That the conclusive council for the operations of the ensuing campaign was held on the 15th of January, and whether he did not offer to depose on oath that in that very council no person whatever was of opinion for making an offensive war, and against dividing the troops, but the Lord Tyrawley, Mr. Stanhope, and I?’ Soon after, indeed, upon farther recollection, he was pleased to add the Marquis das Minas to our number; and I observe he has since given himself a much larger latitude, both as to the time of holding that council, and as to the persons who voted for an offensive war. His Lordship is now so far from confining himself to a day that he takes in the whole month, and by accusing us more modestly for having opposed only the King, Count Noyelles, himself, and the Spanish generals and ministers, leaves half the council on our side. For, supposing all the Spanish generals and ministers to have assisted at that council, there could only have been twelve persons there, viz., Prince Lichtenstein, Count Oropeza, Count Corsana, Count Cardona, Count Noyelles, my Lord Peterborow, the Marquis das Minas, Count d’Assumar, my Lord Tyrawley, Mr. Stanhope, Monsieur Friesheim, and I. The last six his lordship has plainly left on our side; but my Lord Tyrawley positively affirms Count Corsana was of the same opinion, and believes Count Oropeza was so too. Thus taking the matter as the Earl of Peterborow is pleased to state it, we had an equality, and, as my Lord Tyrawley remembers, the greater number, — of our party.
“Perhaps when my Lord Peterborow contended so positively to prove that council of the 15th of January conclusive, he was led into that error by the mistake in my Lord Sunderland’s letter in answer to one of Mr. Stanhope’s of January 15th. But he has since been pleased to allow that the council of the 15th was not conclusive, and that many more subsequent councils were held, which determined the operations of the ensuing campaign, wherein he voted himself for marching to Madrid by the way of Arragon — which (I should have imagined) had left no farther room to mention our opinions of the 25th. But because he is still resolved to make good his charges against my Lord Tyrawley, Mr. Stanhope, and me, he affirms to your Lordships, ‘That the occasion of that change in the subsequent council was, because the opinion of the majority had been overruled by a minister of her Majesty, assuring that the Queen had given him order to declare in her name, that her positive orders were that they should seek the enemy, march to Madrid, and not divide the troops upon any account whatsoever.’ I must confess I do not conceive that it imports me much to reply to this part of the Earl’s answer, nor shall I attempt to make an imperfect defence of an absent man; for if Mr. Stanhope was here, I doubt not but he would be able sufficiently to justify his own conduct in this affair. Yet I cannot help saying, that even malice has never yet suggested that my Lord Tyrawley, Mr. Stanhope, and I, did not act on that occasion with great integrity according to the best of our understandings. Nor (with great submission to this most honourable house) shall I ever be ashamed to own an opinion which was then not only the common sense of the army, but agreeeble to the desires and interest of the whole kingdom of England.
“In the Earl of Peterborow’s farther question he is pleased to say — ‘That notwithstanding this, the Earl of Galway brought the army into the plains of Valencia, the direct contrary route to that of Arragon, and into all those dangers, which he was to avoid by marching by the head of the Tagus.’ In reply to this answer I shall only observe, that I had not the command of that army (which consisted of three separate bodies, English, Portuguese, and Dutch), but the Marquis das Minas, from whom I always received orders. And the battle of Almanza was fought by the unanimous approbation of a council of war; nor could the resolutions of that council have ever been executed, had there been the least difference of opinion; because
- ↑ Fourth Question: “If his lordship pleases to give an account of the councils of war in Valencia about the 15th of January 1707, upon the notice of the Earl Rivers sailing into the Straits — and upon the projects of that campaign — and what numbers the king took from the army, and an account of his manifesto upon so doing?” Lord Peterborough having touched on the latter portion of this question in his answer to question first, did not return to the subject.]
