Six,—Your review of my book (Spectator, March 11th) states that
I am " constantly unjust " to Wellington, whose personal character, in its political aspect, has always seemed to me as precious a possession for England as his military fame. The latter, of course, is highly praised. I suggest that Wellington did not shine in the lesser arts of diplomacy, and every one knows Metternich, his close friend, never rated him a states- man till Verona, where he was but the mouthpiece of Canning. His conduct there is highly praised, as is in the main his Petersburg Mission. Even while condemning his Turkish policy I call him "a man of the firmest character, his grand sincerity," &c. In the struggle of 1827 I speak of him as "so sincere a truth-teller," "of his love of truth and simplicity which erected even his obstinacy and bigotry into virtues." Many contemporaries and some historians charge him with personal ambition, which charge I indignantly repel. " If in the unhappy misunderstandings which now arose, the evidence were equally balanced, the decision would go against Canning or any other man, for in a sincere and honest desire to serve the public, in any position however humble, and always without thought of self, no one ever equalled Wellington !" (p. 227). If the reviewer had thus prefaced his criticisms, I should not have ventured to suggest that he had been "unjust," " constantly " or otherwise, to my little book.—I am, Sir, &c., H. W. V. TEMPERLEY.
Previous page
