On the eleventh of March, therefore, the garrison laid down their arms, and were made prisoners of war. The empty stipulation that they should march out by the breach was granted, curiously, as it proved, to the disgrace of those who proposed it, ... for so insignificant was this breach that some time was employed in enlarging it, to render it practicable for their passage! “Thus,” in Lord Wellington’s words, “Olivença and Badajoz were given up without any sufficient cause; while Marshal Soult, with a corps of troops which never was supposed to exceed 20,000 men, besides capturing these two places, made prisoners and destroyed above 22,000 Spanish troops!” 17,500 were marched as prisoners of war to France! Mortier, in his dispatches, endeavoured to gloze over the conduct of General Imaz. “The death of Menacho,” he said, “had possibly contributed to protract the siege for some days; for his successor wished to give some proof of his talents, and thereby occasioned a longer resistance.” This could deceive no one. The Regency, when they communicated to the Cortes Mendizabal’s official account of the fall of the place, informed them that they were not satisfied with the conduct of Imaz, and had given the commander-in-chief orders to institute an enquiry. But the surrender of the city was not the only part of these unhappy transactions which required investigation; and Riesco proposed that rigorous enquiry should also be made concerning the action of the 19th of February, and the consequent dispersion of Mendizabal’s army, in order that condign punishment might be inflicted on those who were found culpable. “The loss of Badajoz,” he said, “was a calamity of the greatest importance at this time: it facilitated to the enemy a free communication with Castille and Andalusia, gave them an entrance into Alentejo, and means for besieging Elvas: it would also enable them to support Massena; so that this fatal calamity might draw after it the conquest of Portugal.” Calatrava proposed that it should also be explained why so considerable a division had been shut up in Olivença, and no attempt made to succour it. “My melancholy predictions concerning Extremadura,” said he, “have been verified. The chiefs of the army of the left, instead of defending that province and preserving the capital, have at length ended in losing army, province, and capital. Well, indeed, may it be wondered at, that the governor, after having himself voted for continuing the defence, should immediately have capitulated, without sustaining an assault, ... a contradiction which can no otherwise be explained, than by supposing that the vote was given insincerely.” He concluded by proposing, that notwithstanding the conduct of the governor, the Cortes should make honourable mention of the heroic inhabitants of that place, and the brave garrison. Del Monte said, it had been remarked on this occasion, that the loss of a battle was followed always by the surrender of a place besieged.