ever he liked, and that want of success could arise only from his want of brains. John, Lord Haversham, speaking on Lord Peterborough’s side, said, on the 21st December 1707 (or on 29th January 1708), “It was no wonder our affairs in Spain went so ill, since the management of them had been entrusted to a foreigner.” The Anti-government papers took up the cry, saying that English troops fight best under an English General. But Peterborough knew well that it was not for want of the greatest ardour in fighting on the part of the English that the Allies ever missed a victory. As to the delusion that an English commander in the Confederate War had always the ball at his foot, Peterborough knew also what it was to be thwarted by foreign generals and ministers, and that from such men’s uncontrollable misconduct Gahvay’s misfortunes had arisen. He had written, in 1705, after his visit to Lord Galway in Lisbon, “Either pride, ignorance, laziness, or disaffection make the Portuguese wholly useless;” and in 1706, “I am almost expiring under the thoughts of German folly;”[1] and yet now he spoke of Lord Galway as if neither he nor any other general could have anything but cordial co-operation from the Portuguese and Germans. Still (as I have said) Lord Peterborough made little impression on impartial Englishmen, as appears from some proceedings in Parliament, noted in Vernon’s Letters, from which I am about to quote:—
“January 13, 1708. — The Lords were again on the Spanish business on Friday last. The subject was an account given by the Post-Boy that the battle of Almanza was fought by positive orders. He was examined upon it, but could name no author. Some were inclined to suppose it, and grounded it upon the known prudence and wariness of my Lord Galway, who was loaded with commendations.” “17th January. — The preceding years ought to give them the best lights how they came to have no better success at Almanza, which was a misfortune owing to the neglect of the past year, when they lost Madrid after being in possession of it six weeks. Mr Walpole said, that the world was under a great mistake as to the great conduct of a certain lord [Peterborough] who had been mentioned in that House [of Commons] as if everything that had been well done in Spain was solely owing to him, and all misadventures were to lie at other people’s doors.” “February 24. — Major-General Stanhope and Lieut-General Erie had an opportunity to do the public good service by giving an account how matters stood in Spain, that by my Lord Galway’s conduct the enemy was kept from making that progress there was reason to fear after so great a defeat, and, if he was supported, they might hope to see a happy turn there.”
Stanhope’s and Erie’s speeches imply a plan to continue Lord Galway in Spain, to serve with his wonted public spirit under an Austrian Field-Marshal. The policy, which was now agreed to, was Lord Galway’s, and, as such, he could work it out heartily. But he knew Stanhope to be equally hearty as to the true British and Anti-Bourbon programme. And, besides, Austria was probably too late in its zeal to occupy Madrid; for not only had Philip’s steadiness somewhat pleased the Spaniards, but an heir had been born to him;[2] the people (all except the Catalans) had publicly hailed the infant as the Prince of the Asturias, and were not likely to turn again. Lord Galway had, therefore, no real opening for again attempting his original plan, the only good opportunity for which had been missed and lost by King Charles and Lord Peterborough. His personal wish was to return to England, as appears from the following letter:—
To the Earl of Manchester.
Barcelona, Feb. 4, 1708.
“My Lord, — I am honoured with your Lordship’s of the 29th of November, and I have delivered the Memorial enclosed to the king, having first engaged the Duke de Moles in the affair, which I hope will succeed to your lordship’s satisfaction, for the Duke says he knows the gentleman; and since he had the good fortune to be recommended by your lordship, he could not fail of the little interest I have here. This not being the season for action, we have nothing of greater importance to acquaint your lordship with, than the arrival of part of those forces from Italy we have so long expected. But our fleet, wanting both stores and provisions, cannot return to fetch the rest, till they have been to Lisbon to victual and refit. I take the opportunity of this fleet to go for Lisbon with the Marquis das Minas, and from thence, I hope shortly after, for England. But wherever I am I shall always be proud to receive your lordship’s commands. — Being, with great respect, &c.
“Gallway”.[3]
Lord Peterborough was obliged to ride off from the field of controversy, saying
- ↑ Hill’s “Diplomatic Correspondence,” vol. i., p. 217; “Duchess of Marlborough’s Correspondence,” vol i., p. 62.
- ↑ “1707. Aug. 25 n.s. King Philip’s Consort was delivered of a son, who was styled the Prince of the Asturias, and who seemed to be critically born to be a prop to his father’s unsettled throne, so that there were rejoicings likewise at the Court of France on this account.” Pointer’s “Chronological History of England,” vol. ii., published in 1714.
- ↑ Cole’s “State Papers.”
