THE
PRIVATE JOURNAL
OF
JUDGE-ADVOCATE LARPENT,
ATTACHED TO THE HEAD-QUARTERS OF
LORD WELLINGTON DURING THE PENINSULAR WAR,
FROM 1812 TO ITS CLOSE.
EDITED
By SIR GEORGE LARPENT, Bart.
THIRD EDITION.
LONDON:
RICHARD BENTLEY, NEW BURLINGTON STREET,
Publisher in Ordinary to Her Majesty.
MDCCCLIV.
The Author and Publisher reserve to themselves the right of Translating this Work.
LONDON: W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.
PREFACE
TO THE SECOND EDITION.
It has been very gratifying to me to witness the flattering manner in which this Journal has been received by the Public, and, with one exception, by the several writers who have noticed it.
As my own part in the Work is so small, the risk I ran in publishing it was small in proportion; but I confess that I did feel anxious not to damage the fair fame of my late brother.
The exception to which I allude is that of the Reviewer in the “Athenæum,” a paper which (having been a subscriber to it for many years) I hold in high estimation.
The writer must pardon me for observing (whilst fully admitting his right to state his conscientious opinion of the work itself), that the sneers at Mr. Larpent’s having been Fifth Wrangler, and at his slow progress at the Bar, are strangely misplaced. Surely a person attached to literature cannot seriously deprecate academic honours, or deny their primâ facie evidence of ability. And as for the slow progress in the laborious pursuit of the law, the Reviewer must have been aware that such has been the fortune of many eminent Lawyers who have afterwards risen to the highest honours of the profession. Legal or political connexions, or a fortunate opportunity of displaying latent talents, are in truth the chief causes of rapid success at the Bar. None of these did my brother possess or obtain.
Is it not, therefore, somewhat severe to argue from this admission of mine, that he was a person not above mediocrity, and to represent him as merely a respectable sort of second-rate plodding official? The writer in the “Athenæum” may have had peculiar opportunities of judging, and it is not for me to contest the opinion he may have thus formed, but it certainly was not the opinion of my brother’s contemporaries. The observations of the writer in the “Athenæum” involve also charges of more importance than his remarks upon my brother’s abilities—
“We see,” he says, “in the sweeping and unqualified charges against the soldiers of England, Scotland, and Ireland, the censorious habits of one who filled the post of Judge-Advocate General, and the passage,” he adds, “comes with bad grace from one who narrates his own discomforts ad nauseam.”
I had allowed every passage to stand which expressed the opinion of the Author upon public matters, nor did I expunge those complaints of personal inconveniences which a man, for the first time placed in my brother’s situation, naturally feels, and as naturally describes in his letters to his family.
It has been too much the fashion to garble such Journals to suit the public taste; but my aim was to give the truth, and the whole truth, of all that my brother witnessed and described in his Journal.
This rather uncommon fidelity is, I believe, one of the chief merits of the work, and one of the chief causes of its success.
If my brother, in commenting upon the want of selfcontrol and irregular habits and propensities of the British soldiery (defects which the Duke’s own Despatches, his proclamation upon the retreat from Burgos, and the uniform testimony of the writers upon the Peninsular War unfortunately confirm), had omitted to notice their many redeeming qualities, he might have been partly open to the rebuke of the writer alluded to; but throughout his narrative Mr. Larpent bears the strongest testimony to the undaunted courage, the immoveable steadiness of the British soldiers under the severest fire, and the perfect reliance the Duke always placed upon the bravery of his army.
The truth is, that the conscription in France forced into the ranks of its army a more intelligent and more intellectual class of persons than those who volunteered into our service.
Thus the moral conduct of the French soldier was perhaps more correct; but the stubborn courage, the pluck, if I may use such an expression, of the British soldier, guided by officers taken from the élite of our gentry, and almost fastidiously alive to the sense of honour and of duty, enabled them in the Peninsula, at Waterloo, and wherever British troops have been called into action, to maintain a decided superiority over their opponents.
It has been remarked, that I have never mentioned the lady to whom these Letters were addressed.
She was my much honoured and loved mother; but I deprived myself of the pleasure of noticing her many excellent qualities, lest it should be thought that, in praising her, I sought to confer credit upon myself, or to gratify my own vanity.
She was the daughter of Sir James Porter, in his day a distinguished diplomatist, successively employed in the Netherlands and Germany, and for many years ambassador to the Ottoman Porte. She married my father when my brother was very young, and became a second mother to him. There never was the slightest distinction between him and her own children, and had we not been told that we were by different mothers, we should never have known the fact from her conduct. That she possessed my brother’s warmest affections, these letters would have abundantly shown, had I not thought it better to omit many passages, which, however gratifying to her to whom they were addressed, could be of no interest to the public.
George Larpent.
London, June, 1853.
PREFACE
TO THE FIRST EDITION.
The Letters now laid before the Public were addressed by my brother to Mrs. Larpent, his step-mother, and my mother.
They came into my possession as Executor to my mother, and being also the sole Executor to my brother, I consider myself at liberty to use my own discretion in publishing them. With the exception of some matters exclusively private, and connected with family affairs, the letters are published as they were written, and not one word has been added.
Until the lamented death of the Duke of Wellington I did not feel myself justified in making these letters public. Not that they contain anything in the slightest degree derogating from the exalted estimate so universally entertained of the character of that great man; for, on the contrary, they tend to confirm the unanimous opinion entertained of his admirable qualities; but motives of delicacy forbad my offering to the world, during his Grace’s lifetime, the many personal anecdotes and opinions with which they abound.
The reader will naturally expect to know who and what the Author was, and give credit accordingly to the statements and observations in his Letters.
Francis Seymour Larpent was the eldest son of John Larpent, Esq., of East Sheen, Surrey, by his first wife, Frances, daughter of Maximilian Western, Esq., of Cokethorpe Park, Oxfordshire. His father, from his earliest youth, was employed in the public service. In 1763 he was Secretary to the Duke of Bedford at the Peace of Paris, and subsequently Secretary to the first Marquess of Hertford, when Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. For many years he was in the office of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and at his death in 1824, at a very advanced age, held the appointments of Secretary to the Lord Privy Seal, and of Examiner of all Theatrical Entertainments.
Francis Seymour was born in 1776. He was educated at Cheam School, under the Rev. W. Gilpin, well known and esteemed as a scholar and man of letters. From school he went to St. John’s College, Cambridge, where he distinguished himself, and took his degree as Fifth Wrangler, and was elected Fellow of that College. After studying the law under an eminent special pleader, Mr. Bayley, he was called to the Bar, and went the Western Circuit. Here he formed friendships with several eminent persons, among others with Lord Gifford, the Right Hon. C. Manners Sutton, afterwards Lord Canterbury, Mr. W. Adam, son of Lord Commissioner Adam, and the lamented Francis Horner—friendships which were extinguished only by death. His success upon the Circuit was slow, but his character as an able man and a sound lawyer stood high.
In 1812 he was tempted by the Right Hon. C. Manners Sutton, then Judge-Advocate General, to leave his profession, and to accept the situation of Judge-Advocate General to the armies in Spain under the command of the late Duke of Wellington, to remain at head-quarters with his Grace, and to manage the Courts-martial throughout the army.
At the close of the war in 1814, Mr. Larpent returned home with the last detachment of the British army from Bordeaux.
Upon his arrival in England he was appointed Judge-Advocate at Gibraltar; and a new Charter of Justice for that dependency having been framed, various civil, admiralty, and judicial duties were annexed to the appointment of Judge-Advocate. Whilst the new Charter was preparing, Mr. Larpent was appointed to carry on the proceedings of the Court-martial on General Sir John Murray, at Winchester; and was subsequently joined with Mr. King, on behalf of the Government of the United States of America, in the inquiry into the unfortunate transactions which had taken place in the prison at Dartmoor.
These several proceedings having been satisfactorily terminated, Mr. Larpent in the spring of 1815 was, at the recommendation of Lord Commissioner Adam, selected by His Royal Highness the Prince Regent to undertake the delicate and confidential duty of inquiring into the allegations of improper conduct abroad, on the part of the then Princess of Wales, afterwards Queen Caroline. This confidential mission was accepted by Mr. Larpent, upon the express condition that his appointment should emanate directly from the Administration, and that his duties (to use his own words) “should consist not in acting a spy upon the actions of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, but in examining and sifting the facts of the case, as stated and discovered by others.”
On this understanding, and after interviews with Lords Liverpool, Castlereagh, and Bathurst, and also with the approval of Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough, Mr. Larpent proceeded ostensibly to his appointment at Gibraltar, but really overland by Vienna, to see and consult with Count Munster, to whom he was accredited by the British Government “as its regularly-authorized, though secret and confidential, agent.”
However strong might be his own persuasion of the worse than improper conduct of the Princess, he felt the extreme difficulty of obtaining respectable parties to come forward with such evidence as would satisfy an English Court of Justice; and he never hesitated to represent the danger of taking public proceedings against her. Having conducted his mission with such prudence and discretion that its object was never known except to his employers, he proceeded to Gibraltar, and there executed his arduous civil and judicial duties to the entire satisfaction of the Governor, Sir George Don, and of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
In 1820, upon leaving Gibraltar, he was again employed by the Government professionally in Italy upon matters connected with the unfortunate trial of Queen Caroline; and he communicated direct with the late Lord Gifford, upon whom, as Attorney-General, the management of the proceedings against Her Majesty officially devolved.
In 1821 Mr. Larpent was appointed by Lord Liverpool, one of the Commissioners of the Board of Audit of the Public Accounts. In 1824 he was transferred to the Board of Customs; and, in 1826, was appointed to the situation of Chairman of the Audit Board, in which he remained until his retirement, in 1843, from ill health.
He enjoyed his release from active official duties only about two years, dying in May, 1845. He was twice married; first, to Catharine, daughter of the late Frederick Reeves, Esq., of the East India Company’s Civil Service; and, secondly, to Charlotte, daughter to George Arnold Arnold, Esq., of Halsted Park, Kent, who survived him, but he left no issue by either.
The favourable opinion entertained of Mr. Larpent’s public services will be evident from the following testimonials which he received when he applied to Her Majesty’s Government for his retirement, viz.:—
(Copy.) No. 1.
Treasury Chambers,
23rd March, 1843.
Sir,
I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury to acquaint you that, the First Lord of the Treasury having communicated to the Board your wish to retire from the Board of Audit, their Lordships have been pleased to accede thereto, and will give directions for placing you on a retired allowance of 900l. per annum, to be paid to you in the same manner as the retired allowances of the Audit Office are paid.
In thus acceding to your wishes, my Lords desire me to state, that they feel themselves called upon to express the high sense which they entertain of the integrity, zeal, and ability with which you have discharged the duties of the important situations which you have successively filled, and the deep regret which they feel for the cause which now compels you to retire from the Chair of the Board of Audit.
I am, Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
(Signed) G. Clerk.
To F. S. Larpent, Esq.
(Extract.) No. 2.
Downing Street,
March 3rd, 1843.
My dear Sir,
I have learnt with great regret that we are about to lose your services in the Audit Board, over which you have so long presided, with equal advantage to the public and satisfaction to the Treasury. I only hope that you will reap in the improvement of your health a benefit equal to that which your retirement will deprive you of.
(Signed) Henry Goulburn.
To F. S. Larpent, Esq.
(Copy.) No. 3.
London, February 28th, 1843.
F. M. the Duke of Wellington presents his compliments to Mr. Larpent, and has received his letter, and sends him a copy of a letter he has received from Sir Robert Peel. The Duke regrets much to learn that the state of Mr. Larpent’s health compels him to resign the office which he holds. If referred to, he will state his opinion of the services performed by him, while under his command.
To F. S. Larpent, Esq.
Enclosure in the above Letter.
(Copy.)
Whitehall, February 27th, 1843.
My dear Duke of Wellington,
I return the enclosed letter addressed to you by Mr. Larpent.
I am sorry to hear that the state of Mr. Larpent’s health induced him to contemplate his retirement from the public service.
(Signed) Robert Peel.
To the Duke of Wellington,
&c. &c.
(Copy.) No. 4.
Whitehall, March 3rd, 1843.
Dear Sir,
From my high sense of your public services, I have heard with very sincere regret, on public as well as on private grounds, that the state of your health compels you to contemplate the immediate retirement from the important appointment which you hold, the duties of which you have discharged with great ability and integrity, and with unremitting zeal.
I have been so incessantly occupied by important public business, that I have been unable, since the receipt of your letter, to confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject to which the enclosure in your letter refers, but I will do so without delay, and with every desire to take as favourable a view of it as the state of the law and the usage in similar cases may permit,
I have the honour to be,
Dear Sir,
Your obedient and faithful Servant,
(Signed) Robert Peel.
To F. S. Larpent, Esq.
(Extract.) No. 5.
March 22nd, 1845.
60, Lower Belgrade Street.
I shall feel it due to Mr. Larpent to say at what rate I placed his services.
Never public servant deserved better his hard-earned retirement by honest, zealous, and able services.
(Signed) F. Baring.
I rejoice in having the opportunity afforded me by the publication of these Letters, of recording the public services of an affectionate brother, and of indulging in the remembrance of the many private virtues which were conspicuous in his upright and honourable career.
I have thought it objectionable to alter the language of the narrative, although aware of the many inaccuracies in letters written in the hurry of a campaign (a mode of life foreign to the writer’s habits), and not intended for publication.
I therefore determined to leave the Letters as I found them, thinking that the simplicity of the style and the minute details threw over the Journal a charm of truth and reality which a more studied composition would not have possessed. I have a confident reliance that my brother has related nothing that he did not himself believe to be true, for he was a man of scrupulous veracity, and one not given hastily to record what he had not at the time sufficient warranty to believe to be correct.
The Journal carries the reader, as it were, behind the scenes in the great drama of War. The sufferings of individuals, the hardships endured in a campaign, are scarcely ever recorded by the historian—they are lost in the blaze of glory which surrounds such narratives. In this Journal not only will be seen the miseries which are endured in the attainment of military glory by the soldier, but the still greater miseries of the unfortunate people whose country is the scene of military operations.
Such vivid paintings as are here exhibited must, it is to be hoped, make the most reckless politician and the most ambitious soldier aware of the deep responsibility incurred by all who encourage the passion for military glory, except when war becomes absolutely necessary for the defence of our country, its liberties, and institutions, and for the preservation of the independence of Europe.
It was for these objects that the two great wars in which the Duke of Wellington was so pre-eminent were carried on, and the results—the recovery of their national independence by Spain and Portugal, and a peace of thirty-eight years’ duration—fully warranted the sacrifices made by Great Britain, exalted her national character, and justified her admiration of the Commander, who, under Providence, was the great instrument of her success.
George Larpent.
London, December, 1852.