regiments, whilst that of the besiegers decreased by casualties, the outlook assumed very serious proportions. Still more than ever John Lawrence adhered to his resolution at all costs to pierce the heart of the enemy's position. He had had too much experience of the Sikhs not to know that their fidelity depended upon success; that it would be dangerous to prolong indefinitely a situation which already was becoming critical. Impressed with these views, he wrote, on the 9th of June, to Edwardes, suggesting the advisability, under certain circumstances, of relinquishing the British hold on Pasháwar, and withdrawing the British forces across the Indus. Edwardes, Nicholson, and Sydney Cotton replied (June 11) by a joint protest against such a scheme. 'Pasháwar,' wrote Edwardes, 'is the anchor of the Panjáb, and if you take it the whole ship will drift to sea.' Eight days later Edwardes repeated his objections, supporting them with cogent arguments.
But Sir John would not give way. He regarded Dehlí as the decisive point of the scene of action, and argued that the importance of holding Pasháwar must yield to the superior necessity of recapturing Dehlí. 'There was no one thing,' he wrote (June 22d), 'which tended so much to the ruin of Napoleon, in 1814, as the tenacity with which,[1] after the disaster at Leipsic, he clung to the line of the Elbe, instead of falling back at once to that of the Rhine.' So impressed had he been, almost from the first, of the wisdom of making the sacrifice, under certain circumstances, that he, on June 10th, had written to Lord Canning for permission carry his plans into effect should the necessity arise.
On the 25th of June he believed that the necessity had
- ↑ This should surely read 'before.' Napoleon did fall back on the Rhine after Leipsic.
