in history
of "Lines of La Bassee."

[2] As is common in the history of military affairs, the advocates of
either party present these confused movements before the lines of La
Bassee upon the eve of the siege of Tournai in very different and indeed
contradictory lights.

The classical work of Mr Fortescue, to which I must, here as elsewhere,
render homage, will have the whole movement, from its inception, to be
deliberately designed; no battle intended, the siege of Tournai to be the
only real object of the allies.

The French apologists talk of quarrels between Eugene and Marlborough,
take for granted a plan of assault against Villars, and represent the
turning off of the army to the siege of Tournai as an afterthought. The
truth, of course, is contained in both versions, and lies between the two.
Eugene and Marlborough did intend a destructive assault upon Villars and
his line, but they were early persuaded--especially by the reconnoitring
of Cadogan--that the defensive skill of the French commander had proved
formidable, and we may take it that the determination to besiege Tournai
and to abandon an assault upon the main of the French forces had been
reached at least as early as the 26th. There is no positive evidence,
however, one way or the other, to decide these questions of motive. I rely
upon no more than the probable intention of the men, to be deduced from
their actions, and I do not believe that the Dutch would have had orders
to move as early as they did unless Marlborough had decided--not later
than the moment I have mentioned--to make Tournai the first objective of
the campaign.

[3] Mr Fortescue in his work makes it the 23rd. I cannot conceive the
basis for such an error. The whole story of the 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th,
28th, and 29th is in the French archives, together with full details of
the capitulation on the 29th and 30th.

[4] As usual, there is a contradiction in the records. The French record
definitely ascribes the proposal to Marlborough. Marlborough, in a letter
to his wife of 5th August, as definitely ascribes it to Surville; and
there is no positive evidence one way or the other, though Louis'
rejection of the terms and the ability of calculation and the character of
the two men certainly make it more probable that Marlborough and not
Surville was the author of the proposition.

[5] The dispute as to who was the author of the suggestion for an
armistice is further illumined by this refus