462 APPENDIX. Uic comments proceed, I am liappy ia being able to believe tbat, so far as concerns those facts -wbich came ■within the personal observation of Sir John Burgoyne, his statements tally with mine. Certainly when I wrote I had the advantage of knowing what Sir John Bur- goyne's recollections were ; and believing those recollec- tions to be in the main accurate, so far as concerned the matters of fact which had come within the range of his personal observation, I was careful, as I thought, to avoid all assertions, which would place nie in contradiction to his testimony. Sir John Burgoyne, at the time in question, was a General Oflicer upon the Staff of the British army in the Crimea ; he was a senior officer of the Engineer Depart- ment ; he had hail vast experience ; he was gifted with high intellectual powers ; he was present at Headquarters. It would have been strange indeed if Lord Eaglan had proceeded to undertake the siege of Sebastopol without first informing himself of the opinion of such a man. Well, Sir John Burgoyne's opinion was, as he frankly ac- knowledges, that an assault at the time in question would have been 'unjustifiable;'* and he does not, of course, say — it would have been impossible for him to do so — that he concealed his opinion at the time from men at the English Headquarters. Where, then, is the difference, so far as concerns this question, between Sir John Bur- goyne's statements and mine 1 and what is the matter of fact npon which he desires to correct me ] He says he was not ' considted ' upon the question of assaulting, and that it ' would not have been his business, as a General
- Officer on the Staff, to volunteer advice on so important
'a matter to the Commander-in-Chief ; ' but neither do I
- ' Utterly unjustifiable' he says in one of his Memoranda, and in
the letter M'hich -will be afterwards quoted he says it would have been ' madness.'
