pelissier's dominant letter. 287 he was substantially addressing the Emperor, he chap pressed this conclusion in language that might J — well be called peremptory. Now, whilst so pointed out by Pelissier as an wholesome <?ii bearing of absolutely needed preparative for any field oper- the letter ations, this measure of reconquering the counter- counsels of t ho A.111C3, approaches was also the one he pronounced to be no less essentially requisite for duly pressing the siege ; so that, whether the Emperor's instructions should be maintained or revoked, the course to be taken at once, unless Pelissier erred, would in either event be the same.* And this, as we have seen, was the very same course which Lord Rag- lan had already advised. Thus, supposing him to stand unresisted in the argument he based upon Vauban, Pelissier was paving the way for a happy convergence of opinion which would serve at the least to provide for the immediate future of the Allies, and — without con- travening too flatly a sovereign's plan of campaign — might cause the preparatives made towards rendering it eventually feasible to be absolutely the same as those needed for pressing the advance of the siege. From reasons thus offering guidance for the immediate future there also resulted a Corollary corollary which applied with bitter force to the from the t^ to i • i • t letter in its Past. It the reasoning was sound, it appeared bearing , . irponthe that the way in which the Emperor had clan- i J ast destinely prepared for the execution of his plan was in point of warlike expediency, so wildly, so glaringly wrong as to be almost the actual op-
- Rousset, vol. ii. p. 168 et seq.
