ArPE2s'Dix. 479 exposition of the facts and the opposing arguments Learing upon tliis question, I must refer to the text of this vohmie, and in particular to the lOtli and 11th chapters.* In the 26th pavagrajjh, Sir John Burgoyne gives a letter which he has received from ISIarshal Canrobert, purporting to be an answer to a question addressed to him by Sir John, and containing this passage : ' IS'o, Lord Eaglan ' never proposed to General Canrobert to assault Sebasto- ' pol immediately after the arrival of the Allies before ' the place ; and consequent! ij [par consequent] Gene^-al Sir ' John Burgoyne did not have to support by his advice a ' refusal Avhich I was not called upon to give.' It is quite in accordance with my impression that there was no formal proposal by Lord Eaglan, and ' by conse- ' quence,' as the letter very logically says, no formal rejec- tion of such proposal by INIarshal Canrobert. What I have myself said in the text is, that ' Lord Eaglan pro- ' bably did no more than utter the few syllables which ' were necessary for inducing the French General to de- ' clare his opinion' (see p. 264) ;t and that Marshal Canrobert, in expressing an opinion against the plan of assaulting, rested it ' upon grounds of such a kind as to ' leave no opening for persuasion' (ibid.)f There is no- thing in Marshal Canrobert's letter which clashes with that statement. In the opening part of the 27th paragraph, Sir John Burgoyne pronounces an eloquent, and, as it seems to me, a most just eulogium upon Lord Eaglan ; but at the close of the same paragraph he charges me with having at- tempted * to make Lord Eaglan's military views chime in ' with popular fallacies during the war which were rife ' during its prosecution.' I do not understand how opinions upon the strengtli of tiie Sebastopol defences, which have
- Chaps, vi. and vii. of this Edition.
t Chap. vii. of this Edition.
