VI 7 th Period. 440 THK BATTLK OK INKKUMAN. CHAP, the right, aided by the English in front, should make a forward movement, and hurry the depart- ure of the Eussian troops ; but to this, for some reason, General Canrobert would not consent.* No pursuit The existing conditions were such that a move- uiKlertalxen • i i • i i '>ytiie ment of the kind thus proposed must have put Allies. . ^ . . .. ^ ^ ^ the Russians in peril of an almost overwhelming disaster ; but it would have been obviously un- warrantable for Lord Eaglan to launch his weary troops in pursuit, unless he were to be supported on his right by a corresponding advance of the French. So in spite of all the reasons there were for endeavouring to make their victory signal, the Allies abstained from pursuit. The gunners of the Allies on the Home and Fore Ridges did all that they usefully could to follow the retreating enemy with artillery mis- siles ; and it may be added that from the Lan- caster Battery on the other side the ravine, our
- lu a private letter addressed to the Duke of Newcastle,
Dec. 31, 1854, Lord Kaglau says: 'Towards the close of the 'battle [of Iiikerman] Major- General Peniiefather pro])Osed ' that the French troops on the right, aided by the English in ' front, should make a forward movement, and hurry the de- ' parture of the Russians. General Canrobert was unwilling ' to act upon the suggestion, and has often since, as I undi'r- ' stand, expressed his regret that he did not attend to it. ' Pennefather's recollection was rather to the effect that Lord Raglan himself had personally made the proposal ; but relying on Lord Raglan's accuracy, 1 feel sure that Pennefather must have been the spokesman, though I also regard it as certain that he received his impulse from Lord Raglan. Lord Raglan from policy, and to avoid the mischief— nay, danger — of a re- fusal given direct from one chief to the other, was ac(;ustometl to adopt this method of imparting a jjrojiosal to the Frencli.
