THE COUNSELS OF THE ALLIES. 2.03 The duty of thus submitting lor considuratiuu chap, the expediency of an assault, was one which had to be performed with exceeding care, and, if pos- d'ency^'oT sible, in such a way as to guard against the evil If&icts that must result from au overt difference between the^Frtuch the French and the English Commanders. Sup- H"hconw"°" posing — and this is what happened — that the "'"""'• alternative of entering upon siege-work should be the one adopted, it would obviously be peril- ous to the good understanding of the two allied armies, if the English soldiers, when enduring the toils and the hardships of protracted siege duties, .should be able to say : ' Our Commander has ' brought this upon us by letting the foreign-
- ers have their way. He himself was for assault-
' ing the place; and because the Frenchmen would ' not agree, here we are on the clay and the snow.' But, if this was a danger attending the crisis. Lord Rag- no one living could be more competent to guard oTsubmft- against it than Lord Piaglan. Even in eliciting question oi .. 11-1 j'i_ Ti assaulting. Burgoyne s opinion, he did not, it seems, disclose his own;* and although, as we have seen, he twice over elicited the opinion of Canrobert upon the expediency of an assault, he found means to stances under which they were imparted to Lord Iiaghm and the Queen's Government, I am not sure that it would be right for nie to publish them without the assent of the French Emperor. The instructions were commuuicated to Lord Rag- lan at the Tuileries so early as the 13th of April, and almost im- mediately afterwards the English Government became apprised of their contents. Our state.smen were therefore forewarned.
- Sec the words, 'No one,' &c., quoted ante, p. ]8], note,
fnnu Burgoyne's Memorandum of 20th November 1S54, and 'ililitary Opinions,' p. 199.
