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 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 ‘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 ‘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, 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.