Chapter XXVIII: Appendix: A

THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON, AND THE ARTILLERY AT WATERLOO.

[Sidenote: Jones’s Sieges, vol. i., p. 222.]

In the first volume of Sir J. T. Jones’s ‘Sieges in Spain,’ edited by Lieutenant-Colonel H. D. Jones, the following passage occurs: “It becomes the duty of the Editor to remove the very injurious and unmerited censure cast upon the officers of Engineers who were employed at the Siege of Badajoz, and which is contained in a letter from the Earl of Wellington to Major-General G. Murray, a copy of which is published in the collection of the Despatches of the Duke of Wellington.”

The Editor then proceeds to prove, most clearly and successfully, that the hasty language used with reference to the Engineers was not only injurious, but also unmerited.

The same great General is also convicted by his admirer, Napier, of hasty inconsistency in his private correspondence. It was of the very same troops, and referring to precisely the same time, that the Duke of Wellington wrote in one [Sidenote: Napier’s ‘Peninsular War,’ vol. vi., p. 166.] letter: “The soldiers are detestable for everything but fighting; and the officers are as culpable as the men:” and in another, “that he thought he could go anywhere, and do anything with the army that fought on the Pyrenees.”

Well might Napier say that the vehemence of the censure in the former of the quotations is inconsistent with the latter, and now celebrated, observation.

It now becomes the painful, and yet necessary, task of the chronicler of the services of the Royal Artillery, as of the member of the sister corps already quoted, “to remove a very injurious and unmerited censure” cast upon the Regiment, in a private letter, written by the Duke of Wellington, with reference to its conduct at the battle of Waterloo. Of this letter’s existence the world was ignorant until the year 1872, when it made its appearance in a volume of ‘Supplementary Letters and Despatches of the Duke of Wellington,’ published by his son. The sensation which it was certain [Sidenote: ‘Athenæum.’] to produce was foretold by one of the reviews, and was anticipated by the noble Editor. As, however, his object was to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, the present Duke did not feel justified in withholding from publication any letter, which was found among his father’s papers, merely because it might wound the feelings of its readers, or give a new interpretation of historical events. And although the indiscriminate publication of a man’s private correspondence is a doubtful tribute to his memory, and a severe test of his reputation, it is, on the whole, fortunate for the Royal Artillery that this letter made its appearance, while officers were yet alive, who had taken a part in the battle referred to in its pages, and clearly remembered its details.

The original letter was written by the Duke of Wellington to Lord Mulgrave, then Master-General of the Ordnance, on the 21st December, 1815. The published letter was from a copy, or draft, of the original, which was found among the Duke’s papers. The hope that perhaps there may have been modifications in the original, which did not exist in the draft or copy, disappears before the fact that Lord Mulgrave’s answer was also found among the Duke’s papers, expressing his amazement at the letter he had just received. The harsh statements in the published draft, or copy, were doubtless, therefore, left in the original when forwarded. The circumstances under which the letter were written were as follows. The field officers of the Royal Artillery, who had been present at Waterloo, applied to the Master-General [Sidenote: ‘Hist. R. A.,’ vol. ii. p. 356.] of the Ordnance for the same pensions for service as had been given after Vittoria. The indignation with which the Duke of Wellington had heard of the Vittoria pensions was well known in the Regiment: nor can one avoid sympathising with him. Discipline must suffer if the power of rewarding, or recommending for reward, be independent of the commander of the forces as a channel. The special interference of the Ordnance on behalf of the Corps, which was their _protégé_, was not merely a breach of discipline, to which a man like the Duke of Wellington was not likely tamely to submit, but must have had an irritating effect on the rest of the army. When, therefore, the field officers of Artillery present at Waterloo resolved to apply for the same reward as had been given after Vittoria, they had the alternative before them of making their request through the Duke, basing it upon a precedent which was detestable in his eyes, or of availing themselves of the dual government, under which they served, by making a direct application to the Ordnance. Of these alternatives, the former would have been the more soldierlike, but was not likely to succeed: the latter, therefore, was unfortunately adopted.

The application was not couched in a very official form, nor was it officially pressed by Sir George Wood. The only reference to it which can be traced in that officer’s correspondence is in a letter announcing Major Lloyd’s death, [Sidenote: Dated Paris, 3 Aug, 1815.] in which he writes:--“Should Lord Mulgrave, in his goodness, be inclined to grant pensions to field officers and captains commanding brigades, similar to the battle of Vittoria, I hope and trust that the late Major Lloyd’s family may receive the benefit his service deserved.” The precedent of Vittoria was not quite a parallel case to that of Waterloo: in the former every brigade with the army had been in action; while, in the latter, some had been detached. It seems to have been on this distinction, mainly, that Lord Mulgrave based his refusal to grant the reward. To justify himself, he referred the matter to the Duke of Wellington, who approved of the refusal, as might have been expected, but did so in terms which reveal an inaccuracy, and a hastiness, unparalleled in his Grace’s correspondence. He wrote as follows:--

“TO THE EARL OF MULGRAVE.

“Paris, _21st December, 1815_.

“MY DEAR LORD,

“I received yesterday your Lordship’s letter of the 10th,
regarding the claim of the field officers of the Artillery,
present in the battle of Waterloo, to the same measure of favour
granted to those in the battle of Vittoria.

“In my opinion you have done quite right to refuse to grant this
favour, and that you have founded your refusal on the best
grounds. I cannot recommend that you should depart from the ground
you have taken. To tell you the truth, I was not very well pleased
with the Artillery in the battle of Waterloo.

“The army was formed in squares immediately on the slope of the
rising ground, on the summit of which the Artillery was placed,
with orders not to engage with artillery, but to fire only when
bodies of troops came under their fire. It was very difficult to
get them to obey this order. The French cavalry charged, and were
formed on the same ground with our Artillery in general, within a
few yards of our guns. In some instances they were in actual
possession of our guns. We could not expect the artillerymen to
remain at their guns in such a case. But I had a right to expect
that the officers and men of the Artillery would do as I did, and
as all the staff did, that is, to take shelter in the squares of
the Infantry till the French cavalry should be driven off the
ground, either by our Cavalry or Infantry. But they did no such
thing; they ran off the field entirely, taking with them limbers,
ammunition, and everything: and when, in a few minutes, we had
driven off the French cavalry, and had regained our ground and our
guns, and could have made good use of our artillery, we had no
artillerymen to fire them; and, in point of fact, I should have
had no Artillery during the whole of the latter part of the
action, if I had not kept a reserve in the commencement.

“Mind, my dear Lord, I do not mean to complain; but what I have
above mentioned is a fact known to many; and it would not do to
reward a corps under such circumstances. The Artillery, like
others, behaved most gallantly; but when a misfortune of this kind
has occurred, a corps must not be rewarded. It is on account of
these little stories, which must come out, that I object to all
the propositions to write what is called a history of the battle
of Waterloo.

“If it is to be a history, it must be the truth, and the whole
truth, or it will do more harm than good, and will give as many
false notions of what a battle is, as other romances of the same
description have. But if a true history is written, what will
become of the reputation of half of those who have acquired
reputation, and who deserve it for their gallantry, but who, if
their mistakes and casual misconduct were made public, would not
be so well thought of? I am certain that if I were to enter into a
critical discussion of everything that occurred from the 14th to
the 19th June, I could show ample reasons for not entering deeply
into these subjects.

“The fact is, that the army that gained the battle of Waterloo was
an entirely new one, with the exception of some of the old Spanish
troops. Their inexperience occasioned the mistakes they committed,
the rumours they circulated that all was destroyed, because they
themselves ran away, and the mischief which ensued; but they
behaved gallantly, and I am convinced, if the thing was to be done
again, they would show what it was to have the experience of even
one battle.

“Believe me, &c.,

(Signed) “WELLINGTON.

“P.S.--I am very well pleased with the field officers for not
liking to have their application referred to me. They know the
reason I have not to recommend them for a favour.”

In discussing this letter, it is proposed to examine what may be termed the internal and external evidences of its inaccuracy, commencing with the former.

In his despatch of the 19th June, 1815, announcing the victory, the Duke wrote: “The Artillery and Engineer departments were conducted _much to my satisfaction_ by Colonel Sir George Wood and Colonel Smyth.” Evidently, then, the fact “known to many” of the Artillerymen running off the ground had not been known to him when he wrote his despatch, or he could hardly have described the Artillery department as having been conducted much to his satisfaction. Nor does the fact, even when made known to him, seem to have produced the effect upon his Grace’s mind, which misconduct among the troops under his command, in the face of an enemy, would at any other time have instantly created. Were not the genuineness of the letter beyond all question, some of the contradictions and inconsistencies in it would have justified the reader in pronouncing it a forgery, invented to throw discredit on the reputation of England’s greatest General. Was it the Duke of Wellington who, after writing the words, “They ran off the field entirely, taking with them limbers, ammunition, and everything,” proceeded to say, “The Artillery, like others, behaved most gallantly”? Was it the Iron Duke who, after saying, “In point of fact, I should have had no Artillery during the whole of the latter part of the action, if I had not kept a reserve in the commencement,” went on, with the resignation of a martyr, to say, “Mind, my dear Lord, I do not mean to complain”? The inconsistency with his known character is astounding.

After describing the disappearance of his Artillerymen, and the straits to which he was consequently reduced, he proceeds in this letter to say: “It would not do to reward a corps under such circumstances.” If he were correctly informed as to these circumstances, there would not have been a single individual in the whole of his army who would have differed from him as to his conclusion. But, unfortunately for him, he endeavoured to prove too much. Not content with giving, as a reason for withholding rewards, an assertion which, if accurate, would have more than justified him, he must needs strengthen an already overwhelming case by a mysterious insinuation in the postscript of the letter, respecting some other unexpressed ground of his displeasure, with which the field officers must be familiar as a cause for his refusing to recommend them for reward. Was there not, in this piling of Pelion upon Ossa, some consciousness of the necessity of self-justification?

But these are merely striking self-contradictions and inconsistencies in style. It is when the truth of the statements made by the Duke in this letter is inquired into, that one stands astounded at the inaccuracy of his informants, and the hasty assumptions of the writer himself. The letter is so involved,--so confusing in its mixed references to the Artillery and to the army generally,--so laden with marvellous didactic sentences as to the propriety of writing a history of the battle of Waterloo,--that it is not always easy to ascertain the connection between argument and conclusion. So slovenly, indeed, is the style at the end of the letter, that it reads as if the whole army ran away! Let two sentences be reproduced: “The fact is, that the army that gained the battle of Waterloo was an entirely new one, with the exception of some of the old Spanish troops. Their inexperience occasioned the mistakes they committed, the rumours they circulated that all was destroyed, because they themselves ran away, and the mischiefs which ensued; but they behaved gallantly.” ... One rises from a perusal of these words with a bewildered feeling that gallant behaviour among troops is identical with running away;--and that the whole army, with the exception of some of the old Spanish troops, exhibited their gallantry in this singular manner. But, as the statement, that the army was entirely a new one, is used apparently in the first instance to account for the Artillery running off the field, it may be interesting to glance at the troops and brigades, whose inexperience seemed--in the Duke’s mind as he wrote--to have made their flight almost natural.

Of the eight troops of Horse Artillery present at the battle of Waterloo, five were the old tried troops of the Peninsula, whose gallant services had been recorded year after year by the Duke’s own hand: Sir Hew Ross’s, Sir Robert Gardiner’s, Colonel Webber Smith’s, Major Beane’s, and Major Bull’s. A sixth, Captain Whinyates’s, was the famous Rocket Troop of Leipsic; and of the other two, one had fought at Buenos Ayres, and the other in Walcheren. It was to one of these latter and more inexperienced troops, Captain Mercer’s, that the victory at one period of the day [Sidenote: Battalion Records of the Royal Artillery.] was due. With regard to the field brigades of this new army, it would seem that Major Rogers’s company had been engaged for two years past in the operations in Holland, and had been in the Walcheren Expedition previously; that Captain Sinclair’s brigade had been at Copenhagen, Corunna, and Walcheren; Captain Sandham’s at Copenhagen and Walcheren; Major Lloyd’s at Walcheren; and that Captain Bolton’s, the only brigade without war service, happened to be the one whose effect in breaking the head of the columns of the Imperial Guard has become historical,--and whose inexperience would therefore hardly appear to have been very detrimental. From this statement it is evident that the Artillery element in the Duke’s army at Waterloo was veteran, rather than new;--for, if the troops and brigades possessed such records as are given above, much more did the majority of the field and staff officers present deserve the title of veterans.

But the next inaccuracy is more unpardonable; and the informants of the Duke on the subject were guilty of errors for which there was no excuse. “In point of fact,” wrote the Duke, “I should have had no Artillery during the whole of the latter part of the action, if I had not kept a reserve at the commencement.” Fortunately for the exposure of this grave inaccuracy, there is no point on which there is more full and official information both in Sir George Wood’s and other despatches, and more detailed notice in private correspondence, than on the subject of the Artillery reserves at Waterloo. As stated in the last chapter of this volume, it was composed of Sir Hew Ross’s and Major Beane’s troops of Horse Artillery, and Captain Sinclair’s Field Brigade. So far was this force from being kept in reserve, and being brought forward providentially at the end of the action to replace the runaways, that it was actually in action--every gun--almost at the _commencement of the day_, and suffered the heaviest losses before half-past one. By a happy coincidence, the Artillery, which must have been represented to the Duke as his reserve, is mentioned by [Sidenote: Frazer’s Letters, p. 559.] Sir Augustus Frazer: “Some time before this--i.e., the massing of the second line _during the cavalry attacks_--the Duke ordered me to bring up all the reserve Horse Artillery, which at that moment were _Mercer’s_ and _Bull’s troops_.” But, instead of these troops being a reserve kept, as the Duke’s letter says, “from the commencement,”--they also had both been in action from the beginning of the day, and Bull’s troop had actually been sent to the [Sidenote: Ibid. p. 557.] centre of the second line “to refit and repair disabled carriages!”

The importance of this inaccuracy in the letter cannot be overrated. If the Artillery, which the Duke admits having had at the end of the day, was not the reserve, which he had kept in hand,--and it certainly was not,--what was it? The asserted flight of the gunners with their limbers and ammunition hangs upon the truth, or otherwise, of there having been reserves in hand to replace them. But the fact of these reserves having been in action from the beginning of the day is incontestable; and is proved by the correspondence of Sir Hew Ross, who commanded one of the reserve troops, as well as by the official and semi-official correspondence of others. It is possible that the arrival of Sir Robert Gardiner’s troop, with Vivian’s and Vandeleur’s brigades, from the left of the line, at the end of the day, may have deceived the Duke’s informant, and led him to imagine that it was fresh Artillery from the reserve. That it was not so, however, but merely moved with the division to which it was attached, is a matter of fact; and at no time in the day was this troop ever in reserve. Therefore, in a vital point, the Duke’s letter is unquestionably inaccurate.

The next statement in the letter, which demands scrutiny is the following: “The Artillery was placed with orders not to engage with artillery, but to fire only when bodies of troops came under their fire. It was very difficult to get them to obey this order.” Sir John Bloomfield, who was on Sir George Wood’s staff, carried this order to all the troops and brigades, and is confident that, with one exception, it was rigidly obeyed. He remembers that the Duke saw a French gun struck by a shot from one of the English batteries,--and, under the impression that it came from Captain Sandham’s brigade, he sent orders to have that officer placed in arrest. This was not done, some satisfactory explanation having been given,--relieving Captain Sandham of the disobedience. Singularly enough, the offender was never discovered, until, in 1870, with the publication of General Mercer’s Diary, came the confession of the crime. [Sidenote: ‘Mercer’s Diary,’ vol. i. p. 301.] “About this time, being impatient of standing idle, and annoyed by the batteries on the Nivelle road, I ventured to commit a folly, for which I should have paid dearly had our Duke chanced to be in our part of the field. I ventured to disobey orders, and open a slow, deliberate fire at the battery, thinking, with my 9-pounders, soon to silence his 4-pounders.” As Captain Mercer’s troop was placed near Sandham’s brigade at this time, it is evident that this occurrence, and that mentioned by Sir John Bloomfield, are identical. Sir John, whose duties carried him to all parts of the field, and whose recollection of the day is as clear as possible, asserts positively, that in no other instance was the order disobeyed; and it will be seen from accounts, both French and English, to be quoted hereafter, that the order to fire upon bodies of troops approaching was literally obeyed with the most marked results. Was it, then, quite worthy of the Duke of Wellington to reason from the particular to the general, and to visit the disobedience of one officer [Sidenote: Colonel Gardiner, R.H.A.] upon a whole corps? As has been well said by the son of one of the bravest Artillery officers on the field, Sir Robert Gardiner: “If a Regiment of Infantry had run away, and all the others had behaved splendidly,--would the whole arm have been similarly condemned? Would it not have been more just to reward those who deserved it?”

The mention of reward suggests the next amazing inconsistency in the Duke’s letter,--and makes it almost certain that it was written on receiving some subsequent information from another source,--not from his personal observation. In this letter, dated six months after the battle, he wrote: “It would not do to reward a corps under such circumstances;” and again: “The field officers know the reason I have not to recommend them for a favour.” How are these sentences to be reconciled with the following extract from the ‘London Gazette,’ which immediately followed the battle, and was issued while all its details must have been fresh in the Duke’s recollection?

[Sidenote: Dated Whitehall, 22 June, 1815.]

“His Royal Highness the Prince Regent has further been pleased to nominate and appoint the undermentioned officers to be Companions of the said most Honourable Military Order of the Bath, _upon the recommendation of Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington, for their services in the battles fought upon the 16th and 18th of June last_:”

Lieut.-Colonel S. G. Adye, Royal Artillery.
Lieut.-Colonel R. Bull, ”
Lieut.-Colonel C. Gold, ”
Lieut.-Colonel A. Macdonald, ”
Lieut.-Colonel J. Parker, ”
Major T. Rogers, ”
Lieut.-Colonel J. W. Smith, ”
Lieut.-Colonel J. S. Williamson, ”
Colonel Sir G. A. Wood, Kt., ”

_This list includes the very field officers of whom the Duke wrote afterwards, “They know the reason I have not to recommend them for a favour._” Was it no favour to be recommended for the Order of the Bath?

Again: “It would not do,” wrote the Duke in December, 1815, “to recommend a corps under such circumstances.” Let the reader glance at the following picture of an unrewarded corps.

Out of thirteen troops and brigades, with the requisite staff, the following officers obtained rewards, in addition to the nine appointments to the Order of the Bath, quoted above. It must be remembered that the number eligible excluded subalterns, and was further reduced by the death of Majors Beane, Lloyd, Ramsay, Cairnes, and Captain Bolton.

_Brevet promotion_, for service at Waterloo:

Major R. Bull to be Lieut.-Colonel, dated 18th June, 1815.
Major J. Parker ” ” ”
Captain E. Whinyates to be Major ”
Captain T. Dynely ” ”
Captain A. Macdonald ” ”

Brevet promotion for services at Waterloo was also conferred in January 1819 on

Captain C. Napier,
Captain W. Webber,
Captain W. Brereton, }
Captain R. H. Ord, } Subalterns at Waterloo.

[Sidenote: Dated Paris, 2 Aug. 1815.]

[Sidenote: Ibid. 21 Aug. 1815.]

At the request, also, of the Duke of Wellington, Sir George Wood obtained permission to accept a knighthood of the Order of Maria Theresa, from the Emperor of Austria; and, a few days later, the Order of St. Wladimir, from the Emperor of Russia.

[Sidenote: Ibid. 8 Oct. 1815.]

Yet again, at the request of the Duke of Wellington, the following officers obtained permission to accept from the Emperor of Russia the Order of St. Anne, “in testimony of His Majesty’s approbation of their services and conduct, particularly in the late battles fought in the Netherlands:”

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. May, K.C.B., R.H.A.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir H. Ross, ” ”
Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Gardiner, ” ”
Lieut.-Colonel R. Bull, ” ”
Major A. Macdonald, ” ”

It is unnecessary to add that the boon service granted for the battle of Waterloo, and the Waterloo medals, were given to the Artillery present, without exception. It would, therefore, appear that for a corps which did not deserve to be rewarded, it did not fare badly; and that its merits were only called in question when pensions based on an unpopular precedent were asked for. It is also impossible that the Duke could have been so generous in his original recommendations, had he known of his own personal observation, that which he stated in his letter of the 21st December, and which must now receive grave consideration; the asserted flight from the field of battle of many of the Artillerymen with their limbers, &c.

In ascertaining the unmistakable inaccuracy of this cruel and hasty assertion, which must have been made by the Duke of Wellington on the most worthless evidence, the advantage of the late publication of the letter has become apparent. Much of the evidence, which will be adduced to rebut it, was not written with the view of meeting such an accusation, but is merely extracted from the simple narrative of a battle, in which the facts are stated without any idea of their being questioned. Had the Duke’s letter been published while the writers of many of the letters to be quoted were alive, their answers would not have had half the historical value they now possess, for they would have been regarded as the pleadings of interested defendants. The statements of disinterested historians will conclude this brief argument.

When the celebrated charges of the French cavalry at Waterloo took place, the English guns lined the crest of the position, and the Infantry was formed in squares in their rear. The order given by the Duke was that the Artillerymen should stand to their guns as long as possible, and then take refuge in the Infantry squares; and that _the limbers should be sent behind the squares_. This order was carried to the various batteries by Sir John Bloomfield, and was obeyed to the letter. “The idea of six limbers,” writes Colonel Gardiner, “with six horses in each limber, going into a [Sidenote: Communicated by Sir J. Bloomfield.] square of Infantry, was of course an impossibility, and never contemplated.” The gunners had cartouche-bags slung round them, containing ammunition, and invariably, with the exception of those of Captain Mercer’s troop, took refuge in the adjacent squares, or under the bayonets of the kneeling ranks. When the cavalry retired, on each occasion the gunners ran out, and, as a rule, the guns were in action against the retreating cavalry before they had gone sixty yards. The delay of a few moments occurred once or twice, while shot were being brought from the limbers; and Sir John Bloomfield remembers an expression of impatience escaping the Duke on one of these occasions. Nor was it unnatural. “To lose,” writes Colonel Gardiner, “an opportunity of inflicting destruction on the French cavalry, directly they turned their backs, and before they could get out of the range of canister, must have been very tantalizing.” But that the delay ever exceeded a few moments, or that a single limber ever left the ground, Sir John Bloomfield is confident is an utter delusion. Such an occurrence as is described in the Duke’s letter could not have happened without being well known. The Duke himself said, “It is known to many;” and yet Sir John lived for three years with the headquarter staff in Paris, and never heard even an insinuation on the subject. Another Waterloo survivor writes on this point: [Sidenote: General B. Cuppage, R.A., to the Author.] “I never did hear, nor any one else, of the artillery misbehaving at Waterloo. Sir Alexander Dickson took me with him into Brussels after the battle. We saw every officer who came in, and the action was in every part the constant theme of conversation, both in our private, as well as more general moments. Had anything bearing such a term taken place, it would certainly have been canvassed. I was in daily conversation with our wounded in the town. Surely I may say, but that the Duke of Wellington says it, it is as cruel as it is unjust.”

If known to many, it could hardly have escaped the commanding officer of the corps most interested. The fact that Sir George Wood did not write his despatches to the Ordnance until the 24th June,--that during the six days’ interval since the battle he had been constantly with the Duke,--and yet that he could write as follows, proves most clearly that the Duke himself cannot have been aware of what he afterwards wrote to Lord Mulgrave, and that his letter must have been based on subsequent malicious and worthless testimony. The wording of Sir George Wood’s letters have an almost providential bearing on the point at issue; and could not have been used, had there been even a doubt as to the conduct of the Corps.

[Sidenote: Dated Le Cateau, 24 June, 1815.]

“I beg leave,” he wrote, “to call the attention of His Lordship the Master-General to the skill and intrepidity so eminently displayed by the British and German Artillery. The accompanying return of their loss will show how much they participated in the action, and I can assure His Lordship the Master-General, that, notwithstanding their being outnumbered by the Artillery of the enemy, _their merits never shone more conspicuous_ than on this occasion. It now remains for me to express with much pleasure and satisfaction that _every officer and man in the field of battle did their duty_.”

With his despatch, Sir George wrote a private letter to General Macleod, in which the following passage occurs: [Sidenote: Ibid.] “I do assure you, I have not words to express the extreme good conduct of the Corps. All exerted themselves, both officers and men, and such a conflict of guns never was in the memory of man.”

But there are recorded, also, the opinions of the Generals of other arms, under whose immediate command various troops and brigades served: and who would have known had any misconduct occurred among them, better than the Duke himself, on account of the more limited field of their observation. General Colquhoun Grant’s complimentary [Sidenote: _Vide_ p. 436.] order with reference to Colonel Webber Smith’s Troop has already been quoted. The following order was issued by [Sidenote: Dated Nivelle, 20 June, 1815.] Lord Hill: “The highly distinguished conduct of the 2nd Division, and Colonel Mitchell’s Brigade of the 4th Division, who had the good fortune to be employed in the memorable action, merit His Lordship’s highest approbation; and he begs that ... Colonel Gold, commanding Royal Artillery of the 2nd Corps, ... Major Sympher, commanding a troop of Horse Artillery, King’s German Legion, Captain Napier (to whose lot it fell to command the 9-pounder Brigade, 2nd Division, on the death of Captain Bolton), will accept his best thanks for their exemplary conduct, and will be pleased to convey his sentiments to the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men under their command.”

The following extract from the 5th Division orders, by Sir James Kempt, speaks equally favourably of another [Sidenote: Dated 19 June, 1815.] brigade: “The British Brigade of Artillery commanded by Major Rogers, and the Hanoverian Brigade commanded by Major Heisse, were most nobly served, and judiciously placed; and these officers and men will be pleased to accept of his--i.e. the Major-General’s--particular thanks for their service.”

References to the services of other brigades, and of the Horse Artillery, by the officers of the Corps under whom they served, have already been quoted; and in every case commendation of the warmest description was passed upon them. The following quotation from Sir Augustus Frazer’s correspondence is interesting here, as asserting what was denied by the Duke in his letter to Lord Mulgrave, that the [Sidenote: Frazer’s Letters, p. 559.] men took shelter in the squares. “The repeated charges of the enemy’s noble cavalry were similar to the first: each was fruitless. Not an infantry soldier moved; and, on each charge, abandoning their guns, our men sheltered themselves between the flanks of the squares. Twice, however, the enemy tried to charge in front; these attempts were entirely frustrated by the fire of the guns, wisely reserved till the hostile squadrons were within twenty yards of the muzzles. In this, the cool and quiet steadiness of the troops of Horse Artillery was very creditable.” This was written two days after the battle; and no man had better opportunity of seeing the conduct of his Corps than the writer. Every historian of the battle endorses this version: and the testimony of an impartial historian always represents the carefully sifted testimony of many. Sir Edward Cust, the laborious military annalist, writes thus: “Suddenly some bugles were heard to sound, and all the Artillerymen, abandoning their guns and tumbrils, ran back into the infantry squares.... In a moment, the Artillery gunners quitted the protection of the squares, and running up to their guns, which were most of them ready loaded, opened heavily with grape and with every species of projectile.... The cavaliers again mounted the plateau; again the gunners abandoned their guns, and took refuge within the squares.” Creasy writes: “As the French receded from each attack, the British Artillerymen rushed forward from the centre of the squares, where they had taken refuge, and plied their guns on the retiring horsemen.” The same is the account given by every historian of the battle. Were they all dreaming? or were they in some conspiracy to conceal the truth? And if so, did the Duke himself join it? In the thirty-seven years of his life after Waterloo, he never contradicted the numerous accounts of the battle, all of which agreed in their statement of the eminent services of the Artillery. Was it consistent in one, who professed belief in an occurrence “known to many,” and who gave that belief as a ground for the refusal of favours,--to allow such passages as the following to be published without contradiction, unless indeed he had subsequently ascertained the worthlessness of his information?[50] “There,” wrote [Sidenote: ‘Battle of Waterloo,’ by G. R. Gleig, Chaplain-General.] Gleig, “every arm did its duty; the Artillery from the beginning to the close of the day.” Again: “In the course of the day every battery was brought into action; and not even the records of that noble Corps can point to [Sidenote: Ibid.] an occasion in which they better did their work.” Sir James Shaw Kennedy, in summing up his description of the [Sidenote: Sir J. S. Kennedy’s ‘Waterloo,’ p. 179.] battle, says: “Full scope was thus given for the British Cavalry and Artillery to display their surpassing gallantry and excellence; and they did not fail to display these qualities in an eminent degree.”

But it has been admitted that Captain Mercer’s troop was an exception to the others; that his men did not take [Sidenote: Mercer’s ‘Diary,’ p. 312.] shelter within the Infantry squares. Let him tell his own story. “Sir Augustus, pointing out our position between two squares of Brunswick Infantry, left us with injunctions to remember the Duke’s orders (to retire within the squares) and to economise our ammunition. The Brunswickers were falling fast ... these were the very boys whom I had but yesterday seen throwing away their arms and fleeing, panic-stricken, from the very sound of our horses’ feet.... Every moment I feared they would again throw down their arms and flee.... To have sought refuge amongst men in such a state were madness; the very moment our men ran from their guns, I was convinced, would be the signal for their disbanding. We had better, then, fall at our posts than in such a situation.” He accordingly made his men stand to the guns, until the cavalry were within a few feet of them; and on each occasion the havoc he wrought among them--as he drove them back--was frightful. The immense heap of dead, lying in front of Mercer’s guns, was such that Sir Augustus Frazer said that, [Sidenote: Ibid. p. 343.] in riding over the field next day, he “could plainly distinguish the position of C Troop from the opposite height by the dark mass, which, even from that distance, formed a remarkable feature in the field.”

Captain Mercer’s men, therefore, were those who did not obey the Duke’s order. It was a fortunate act of disobedience, [Sidenote: Ibid. p. 313.] and it saved the Brunswickers; but Captain Mercer was severely punished for it. He was not recommended for brevet rank; and, on his appointment by Lord Mulgrave to a vacant Troop, he was deprived of it by the Duke of Wellington, who got it summarily reduced in 1816. Did, however, the limbers of Captain Mercer’s battery ever leave the ground? That they did not, can be shown most clearly. In his diary, he describes the state of his Troop after a heavy fire, to which it was exposed _after_ the charges of the French [Sidenote: Ibid. p. 326.] cavalry. In the description, he says: “The guns came together in a confused heap, the trails crossing each other, and the whole _dangerously near the limbers_ and ammunition waggons.” The same description also proves that the frightful losses suffered by the troop took place during the very time when, according to the Duke’s letter, the men and limbers would have been off the field. In going to take up the position, they moved at a gallop, and in so compact a body, that the Duke cried out: “Ah! that’s the way I like to see Horse Artillery move!” In a short time, such was the havoc committed among men and horses, that Captain Mercer wrote: “I sighed for my poor troop; it was already a wreck.”

With regard to the insinuation as to the lack of artillery at the end of the battle, it is shown clearly by Siborne, in his model of the battle as it was at a quarter before 8 P.M., that thirteen Troops and Brigades of the Royal Artillery were in action, when the final attack took place; _this being the entire number with the army_. Of these, some were so crippled by losses--as Mercer’s was--that they were unable to join in the pursuit; and possibly some recollection of this fact may have been in the Duke’s mind when he wrote. That the artillery fire, however, at the end of the day was slack from the cause stated in the Duke’s letter is an utter mistake; nor do the French seem to have found it very slack, as will be seen presently.

One word before appealing to a few other historians. If such conduct had taken place, as is described in the letter under consideration, it would have been bruited over the whole army. Concealment, or collusion, would have been impossible; enquiries would have been officially instituted. To believe that such an occurrence could have been kept quiet, requires a considerably greater stretch of credulity, than to believe that the Duke of Wellington was misinformed. In fact, that such unanimity of testimony to one version, and such a general agreement to be silent to another, should be possible, unless the former were true, and the latter imaginary, would be nothing short of a miracle. One or two miracles of this description would demolish all belief in history.

In the earliest and most detailed account of the Battle of Waterloo, the tenth edition of which was published in 1817, and which is called ‘The Battle of Waterloo, also of Ligny, and Quatre Bras, described by the series of accounts published by authority, by a near observer;’ edited by Captain G. Jones, the following passage occurs: “No account yet published of the battle, seen by the Editor, has mentioned in adequate terms the effect of our artillery at Waterloo--no _English_ account at least. _The enemy felt_ it, and in their manner of expressing themselves have passed the greatest compliments. A French account, given in our preceding pages, says: ‘The English artillery made _dreadful_ havoc in our ranks.’... ‘The Imperial Guard made several charges, but was constantly repulsed, _crushed by a terrible artillery, that each minute seemed to multiply_.’[51] These invincible grenadiers _beheld the grape-shot make day through their ranks_; they closed promptly and coolly their shattered ranks.”... “In proportion as they ranged up the eminence, and darted forward on the squares, which occupied its summit, _the Artillery vomited death upon them, and killed them in masses_.... In an account given by an officer of the ‘Northumberland,’ of Napoleon’s conversation on board that ship, he says: ‘Bonaparte gives great credit to our Infantry and Artillery.’” Again: “The artillery on both sides was well served, but Bonaparte had upwards of 250 pieces in the field. Notwithstanding our inferiority in this arm, which was still more apparent from the size of the enemy’s guns (being 12-pounders, ours only 9 and 6), than from their numbers, ours were so well fought, that I believe it is allowed by all they did equal execution.... See also the account of Captain Bolton and Napier’s Brigade of Foot Artillery, from which it appears the Artillery had turned the enemy, previous to the advance of the Guards. The French displayed the greatest rage and fury; they cursed the English while they were fighting, and cursed the precision with which the English grape-shot was fired, which ‘was neither too high nor too low, but struck right in the middle.’”

From the many writers who have done credit to the exertions and courage of the Artillery at Waterloo, three more extracts will be made.

In proof of the activity of the Corps at the end of the day, the following quotation, from an author already mentioned, [Sidenote: Gleig.] is given. In describing the reception given to the French Imperial Guard, he says: “The English gunners once more plied their trade. It was positively frightful to witness [Sidenote: Kennedy, p. 142.] the havoc that was occasioned in that mass.” Sir James Shaw Kennedy also describes the strength of the British artillery fire at the end of the day.

In a Paper on ‘The Campaign of Waterloo,’ which appeared in the ‘United Service Journal,’ in 1834, the following passage occurs: “If we admit that, during this arduous and terrible day, the British Infantry acted up to the right standard of soldiership, which their long career of victory had established, it must be added that _the Artillery actually surpassed all expectation_, high as, from their previous conduct, that expectation naturally was. In point of zeal and courage, the officers and men of the three arms were of course fully upon a par; but the circumstances of the battle were favourable to the Artillery; and certainly the skill, spirit, gallantry, and indefatigable exertion which they displayed, almost surpasses belief.”

Only one more witness will be called from the ranks of historians. Hooper, in his work on Waterloo, to which he devoted eight years, and in the compilation of which he used every known authority on both sides, made use of words which appropriately close this argument: “The Artillery, so devoted and effective, gathered another branch from the tree of honour.”