Wellington was justly displeased with Craufurd for accepting this wholly unnecessary combat: if the Light Division had been withdrawn behind the Coa on the 22nd, as he had advised, no danger would have been incurred, and the bridge might have been defended without the preliminary retreat to the water’s edge. Yet so great was the confidence in which Craufurd was held by Wellington, that their correspondence shows no break of cordiality or tension of relations during the ensuing days[308], though unofficially the divisional general was aware that the Commander-in-Chief had disapproved his action, and felt the blame that was unspoken in the keenest fashion[309]. There was another British general involved in a serious degree of culpability on the 24th: this was Picton, who hearing at his post of Pinhel the firing in the morning, rode up to the bridge of the Coa; there he met Craufurd, who was just preparing to resist Ney’s attempt to cross the river. Picton was asked to bring up the 3rd Division in support, which could have been done in less than three hours, but roughly refused, saying apparently that Craufurd might get out of his own scrape. The generals parted after an exchange of some hard words, and Picton rode back to order his division to get ready to retreat, having committed one of the greatest military sins, that of refusing to support a comrade in the moment of danger, because he did not choose to compromise his own troops[310]. [308] See the letter to Craufurd in the _Dispatches_, dated July 26 and 27. His letter to Lord Liverpool of July 25 offers, indeed, excuses for Craufurd. But in that to Henry Wellesley of July 27, and still more in that to his relative Pole of July 31, he expresses vexation. ‘I had positively forbidden the foolish affairs in which Craufurd involved his outposts, ... and repeated my injunction that he should not engage in an affair on the right of the river.... You will say in this case, “Why not accuse Craufurd?” I answer, “Because if I am to be hanged for it, I cannot accuse a man who I believe has meant well, and whose error was one of judgement, not of intention.”’ [309] See _Craufurd’s Life_, pp. 149-50. [310] This interview was denied by Robinson in his _Life of Picton_ (i. 294) on the mere allegation of some of Picton’s staff that they had not heard of it, or been present at it. But the evidence of William Campbell, Craufurd’s brigade-major, brought forward by Napier at Robinson’s challenge, is conclusive. See Napier, vi. pp. 418-19, for the ‘fiery looks and violent rejoinders’ witnessed by Campbell. Picton had been specially ordered to support Craufurd if necessary. See _Wellington Dispatches_, v. pp. 535 and 547.