‘The major departed with determined soldiers and a Portuguese guide who was tied with the leather slings of the muskets. Arrived within pistol-shot of the bridge he saw the enemy _cutting the last beam_. It was then one o’clock the rain fell heavily and the enemy’s labourers being fatigued thought they might take some repose before they finished their work. The torrents descending from the mountains and the cavado itself made such a noise that the march of the French was not heard, the sentinel at the bridge was killed without giving any alarm, and _Dulong with twenty-five grenadiers passed crawling on the beam, one of them fell into the cavado but happily his fall produced no effect_. The enemy’s advanced post of twenty-four men was destroyed, &c. &c. The marshal, informed of this happy event, came up in haste with the first troops he could find _to defend the bridge and accelerate the passage of the army_; _but the repairing was neither sufficiently prompt or solid to prevent many brave soldiers perishing_. The marshal embraced major Dulong, saying to him, “I thank you in the name of France brave major; you have saved the army.”’ Then follows a detailed account of the Misserella bridge, or Saltador, and its abbatis and other obstacles; of Dulong’s attack; of his being twice repulsed; and of his carrying of the bridge, the Leaper as it was called, at the third assault, falling dreadfully wounded at the moment of victory; finally, of the care and devotion with which his soldiers carried him on their shoulders during the rest of the retreat. And the reader will observe that this account is not a mere description in the body of the work, but a separate paper in the Appendix, written by some officer evidently well acquainted with all the facts, perhaps Dulong himself, and for the express purpose of correcting the errors of detail in the body of that work. Theatrical to the critic, and even ridiculous it may likely enough appear. The noble courage and self-devotion of such a soldier as Dulong is a subject which no person will ever expect a Quarterly viewer to understand. In the foregoing comments I have followed the stream of my own thoughts, rather than the order of the reviewer’s criticisms; I must therefore retrace my steps to notice some points which have been passed over. His observations about Zaragoza have been already disposed of in my reply to his first articles published in my fifth volume, but his comments upon Catalonian affairs shall now be noticed.