It will be well to consider briefly some of the great events which had occurred during the period of his command, as illustrative of his conduct and character during the campaign. In the first place, it must always be remembered that we entered into a war against a great Power after a peace in Europe of nearly forty years, when we had with difficulty collected about 30,000 men for the purpose; and when even these were inadequately provided with commissariat and transport, and there were no reserves existent to replace casualties as they arose. Again, the order to proceed to the Crimea came from home, without any specific knowledge of the resources and preparations of the Russians; it was given at a late season, and when the troops were physically weak; and as the Government did not anticipate a winter campaign, no provision had been made to meet it. In view of these circumstances Marshal Saint-Arnaud, as I have shown, hesitated at the last moment. It is true that he was then very ill—in fact, a dying man—but this must have added greatly to Lord Raglan's responsibilities at a critical time.
When the siege of Sebastopol commenced, the failure of the first bombardment was due in a measure to the weakness of the French siege train, and to the unfortunate explosion of some of their magazines. In the three great battles of Alma, Balaclava, and Inkerman, the English lost about 5,000 men, and as the winter came on, and found the allies with open trenches, it was evident not only that great sickness and suffering must ensue, but that our numbers and means were quite inadequate. In short, the English and French Governments entered into the war apparently under the impression that with a force of 60,000 men they could crush an empire, and that Sebastopol would fall by a coup-de-main. As regards the events which followed, I have quoted official documents which prove that General Canrobert, brave and good soldier as he was, still allowed himself to be constantly controlled and over-influenced by secret orders from Paris, which practically set at naught the plans of the allied generals and at last brought matters to a dead lock; and it is important to bear in mind also that, steadfast as Lord Raglan was in his opinions, yet so loyal was he to his colleague, and so magnanimous, that no word in his public despatches gave a hint of the enormous difficulties caused by the circumstance I have described. He submitted to great personal injustice, rather than say or do anything to weaken the entente cordiale between the two Powers, or to attach blame to others. Again, when the allies landed in the Crimea their numbers were approximately equal, but, as the English had no reserves to replenish their rapidly diminishing ranks, the equality soon disappeared, and early in 1855 the French forces were at least three times greater than ours; and this disparity, whilst it gave increased authority to their views, must have tended to complicate Lord Raglan's position in council.
There is another point to be noticed—namely, that all the commanders of the allied armies and fleets, French, Sardinian, and Turkish, entertained the highest opinion of the ability, high courage, and character of Lord Raglan. I had good means of knowing, and believe there was no difference of opinion on the subject. General Canrobert always expressed these views, and indeed was anxious that Lord Raglan should be appointed to command all the allied forces. Pélissier, from the day he assumed command of the French army, was in complete accord with him, and so stated over and over again. Lord Lyons, I remember well, after the war told me that it was the proudest boast of his life that he should have been closely associated with Lord Raglan, during all the exceptional difficulties and dangers of his position.
I have recapitulated these points because they were by no means known to the people of England at the time; in fact, it was not until years afterwards, on the fall of the Empire, and by the publication of the French despatches, that many of the circumstances were brought to light. Finally, Lord Raglan, during all these months of incessant and harassing anxiety, had to bear a trial even greater than those I have attempted to describe. The English Press at home, and their correspondents in the Crimea, day after day continued to criticise his conduct, and to misrepresent his character in violent and unmeasured terms; describing him as indifferent, incompetent, and unfit for command; and attributing to his supposed incapacity and want of foresight the sufferings of the troops and the delays of the campaign, whilst during the whole time the facts were all the other way. Having been closely associated with Lord Raglan, and knowing a good deal of the circumstances, I feel it a matter of common justice to defend the memory of a great and distinguished man, the close of whose life was embittered by the feeling that the Government at home would not defend him, and that the people, grossly misled as they were, had withdrawn from him their confidence. One day, not long before his death, in conversation with him I expressed a hope that he would soon return to England, and have the opportunity of defending himself against the unjust attacks of which he was the object, when he replied—smiling, perhaps, rather bitterly—'Return home? I shall never return home. Why, I should be stoned to death before I could get to Stanhope Street.'
But there is a still more important aspect of the case than the personal one. It is a great injury to the public service that a Commander-in-Chief in the field, surrounded, as he must be, by constant difficulties and anxieties, should be thus misjudged by violent and erroneous statements, and be attacked behind his back at a time when from absence, want of leisure, and from the nature of his position he is unable to reply. I must add that in almost every campaign in which I have borne a part, the same tendency to hasty criticism has been more or less observable, and always at moments when the people at home, being naturally anxious, are all the more susceptible and easily misled.
The death of Lord Raglan tended, no doubt, to diminish the influence of England in the councils of the war at a critical period of the campaign, and the entente cordiale between the generals of the allied armies which his influence and high character had done so much to maintain, gradually weakened. It was in every sense a calamity. The appointment, however, of General Simpson as his successor at all events prevented any divergence of opinion as regarded the immediate operations against Sebastopol. General Pélissier and himself were in entire accord that the Malakoff was the dominant feature of the situation; and although other parts of the enceinte, such as the Great and Little Redans and the Bastion du Mât, could not be left out of account, still in the final assault the attacks on these points would not necessarily lead to the fall of the place, and would, therefore, be subsidiary diversions, as it were, to the capture of the central position. In one of his first despatches General Simpson said that 'we were repairing and improving our works, to be in readiness to co-operate with the French, when their approaches towards the Malakoff shall be completed.' The opinion given at the beginning of the siege by Sir John Burgoyne, that 'the great tower was the key of the whole position,' had at length become the axiom of all.[41]
FOOTNOTES:
[39] See Lord Raglan's despatch, June 19, 1855. Also Kinglake, viii. 161.
[40] Afterwards Field Marshal Lord Strathnairn.