The magnificent achievement of maintaining for a considerable period a fire from our whole artillery, against the curtain wall, over the heads of the storming party, is thus coldly, but (on the whole) accurately, described by General Jones:--“From the superior height of the curtain, the artillery in the batteries on the right of the Urumea, were able to keep up a fire on that part during the assault, without injury to the troops at the foot of the breach, and being extremely well served, it occasioned a severe loss to the enemy, and probably caused the explosion which led to the final success of the assault.” The General’s coldness is owing to the departure from the rules of art, and to the contempt of the maxims of “Marshal Vauban, who had served and directed at fifty sieges,” as he triumphantly describes him. Vauban’s maxim was certainly not British: “At a siege never attempt any thing by open force, which can be obtained by labour and art.” Gen. Jones is incorrect in stating that the fire on the curtain was “without injury to the troops.” Napier says: “A sergeant of the ninth regiment was killed by the batteries close to his commanding officer, and it is probable that other casualties also had place.” _Hist._ book xxii. chap. 2. The impassable chasm beyond the breach is thus described by Jones: “At the back of the whole of the rest of the breach was a perpendicular wall, from fifteen to twenty-five feet in depth.” (_Journals of Sieges_, Sup. Chap.) He thus describes the advance of the Portuguese column: “Five hundred Portuguese, in two detachments, forded the river Urumea near its mouth, in a very handsome style, under a heavy fire of grape and musketry.” (Jones, _Journals of Sieges_, Sup. Chap.) This does not quite do justice to the gallantry of the party. “When the soldiers reached the middle of the stream,” says Napier, “a heavy gun struck on the head of the column with a shower of grape; the havoc was fearful, but the survivors closed and moved on. A second discharge from the same piece tore the ranks from front to rear, still the regiment moved on.”--_Hist._ book xxii. c. 2. The following account is from Gleig’s _Subaltern_:--