Page:The invasion of the Crimea Vol. 8.djvu/392

 360 APPENDIX. work. See the 'Remarks' column in the aboe - mentioned Trench Journal. Note 4. — Of the Flagstaff Bastion. — The policy followed by Todleben when thus closing the gorges of his defensive works was at one time much questioned by scientific critics ; but on the other hand, was defended by the great engineer with brilliant clearness and vigour. It was my good fortune in 180!) to be with him on the site of the Malakoff, and to learn from him there his full reasons for having closed its gorge. Note 5. — Minor pieces of ordnance. — Three small mortars. The French military authorities at the time endeavoured to keep this loss a secret. — Lord Raglan to Duke of Newcastle, Private, December 13, 1854. Note 6. — Only 290 men. — Journal Royal Engineers, Part I., p. 82. And see the note, from which it results that, to meet the requirement of a calculation ' universally admitted ' as just, the guards of the English trenches should have had a strength of not less than three-fourths of 18,000 — i.e., not less than 13,500 men. Note 7. — At the object kept always in sight. — Journal Royal Engineers, Part I., pp. 51, 52, 5(i, 57, 62, 70, 71, 71-2, 85, 128, 130-7-8, 138-9, 139, 140-1, 141-2, 14.S-4, 144-5. I believe I might add largely to the number of these references by citing the very numerous papers in the handwriting of Sir John Burgoyne which I have before me. Note 8. — Against the Malakoff front. — Journal Royal En- gineers, p. 72; Niel, p. 139. The more recent of the counsels thus tendered by Burgoyne and resisted by the French were sub- mitted in Memoranda dated respectively the 11th and 20th of December. Note 9. — Happily able to accept the condition imposed. — Lord Raglan to Secretary of State, January 2, 1855. There is no mention of this agreement in either of the Official Narratives, the Siege de Sebastopol by Niel, or the Journal of the Royal Engineers. Both the compilers date the new departure — the new resolve of the French to operate against the Malakoff — from the 1st of Feb- ruary (when the French Council sat), or the 2d of the same month, when the decisions of the previous day were put into the form of written Instructions. By happening to remain unac- quainted with the arrangement of the 1st of January, General Niel was of course dispensed from the obligation of explaining