This passage I have not marked in my book of notes as being lord Stuart’s words; it must therefore be only taken as an abstract of the contents of one of his papers; but comparing it with the former passage, and with the facts that your lordship’s words are still very vague and uncertain as to the main point in question, namely, the evidence on which this man was really condemned, I see no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the statement in my first edition, nor the perfect accuracy of it as amended in the second edition of my third volume, published many months ago. You will find that I have there expunged the word “_only_,” and made the sentence exactly to accord with the extract from lord Stuart’s letter. You will also observe, my lord, that I never did do more than mention the simple fact, for which I had such good authority; and that so far from imputing blame to you for the execution of the sentence I expressly stated that the man richly deserved death. Passing now to the subject of the eighth Portuguese regiment, I will first observe, that when I said the eighth Portuguese regiment was broken to pieces I imputed no blame to it. No regiment in the world could have stemmed the first fury of that French column which attacked the mountain where the eighth was posted. If the eighth was not broken by it, as sir James Douglas’s letter would seem to imply, what was it doing while the enemy by their flank movement gained the crest of the position in such numbers as to make it a most daring exploit of the ninth British regiment to attack them there. It is a strange thing that a heavy column of French who were resolute to gain the crest of such a position should have made “_a flank movement_,” to avoid one wing of a regiment of Portuguese conscripts. I should rather imagine, with all deference, that it was the conscripts who made the flank movement, and that some optical deception had taken place, like that which induces children while travelling in a carriage to think the trees and rocks are moving instead of themselves. However, with this I have nothing to do, I have given my authority, namely, the statement of major Waller, a staff-officer present, and the statement of colonel Taylor (for he is my nameless eye-witness) of the ninth, the very regiment to which sir James Douglas appeals for support of his account. These are my authorities, and if their recollections are irreconcilable with that of sir James Douglas it only shows how vain it is to expect perfect accuracy of detail. I knew not of sir James Douglas’s negative testimony, but I had two positive testimonies to my statement, and as I have still two to one, I am within the rules of the courts of justice to which your lordship would refer all matter of history; moreover, some grains of allowance must be made for the natural partiality of every officer for his own regiment. The following extract from sir James Leith’s