[TO THE RD/TOR OP THB "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—It must be incomprehensible to most people of British birth why Mr. Henry Foljambe Hall and some few others who feel as he does can so persistently go out of their way to belittle Wellington's victory at Waterloo. Your correspondent (Spectator, January 2nd) describes the Iron Duke as "eaten up with his own arrogance," Wellington's over-generous testimony in the Waterloo despatch to the services rendered by the Prussians being completely ignored.
I absolutely deny that "the average British account of Waterloo is much further from the facts than the Emperor William's Teutonic bluntness." The general idea of my country- men—and to my mind it is a correct one—is that Wellington made his advance just as the Prussians were attacking Planchenoit. It must be borne in mind that Lobau had thrust the Prussians back, and that the place being recovered by them, the Young Guard again took and held the position (Rose), Lobau's force meanwhile having defeated the Prussians opposed to them. It must have been just at this time that the final French charge against the British was delivered, and certainly the Prussians were not holding Planchenoit when the British crossed the ridge and attacked the French. Surely Mr. Henry Foljambe Hall writes far too much in the ex cathedra, style. He says : " Nothing is more false " than the assertion " that Napoleon had the finest army he ever commanded"; the fact being that there was a general mistrust in the ranks ; that there were few capable leaders; and that his men had "been cowed in Prussian
fortresses or Russian prisons,'or broken at Vittoria," ; while his cavalry were undisciplined, and the horses half starved.
But let us see what this army performed. It advanced with swif t- nese from Paris ; it swept the Prussians out of its way at Ligny, and with great enthusiasm it fought at Quatre Bras, and again at Waterloo. Did Napoleon ever by word or in writing express his fears that his army was not equal to his requirements ? On the contrary, he openly said that the conquering of the Allies would be a mere &leaner. His men were buoyed up by the most loyal ardour, and their gallantry and devotion may not be denied. Half-starved horses also could never have made the magnificent charges with which the French cavalry are properly credited. Then as to the constituents of Napoleon's army. It surely was not made up of the miserable stuff described by Mr. Foljambe Hall. The twenty thousand or so prisoners from England were of the best fighting quality ; then there were also those who had been in garrison and had never seen Russia ; and lastly, there was Soult's fine army, which had fought so gallantly at Orthez and Toulouse. Is it to be supposed for a moment that Napoleon would have made his desperate venture with unreliable troops ? The idea is too absurd to gain credence. As Dr. Rose puts it : " Unclouded confidence is seen in every phrase of the letters that he penned at Charleroi early on the 16th [June]." Lastly, I would ask : Does Mr. Foljambe Hall write correctly when he speaks of Blucher as the " deliverer " of Wellington? Such an expres- sion would not come with much grace from a foreigner, but from an Englishman-- ?
—I am, Sir, &cc., A. F. P. HARCOURT (Colonel).
Junior United Service Club.
Previous page
