The first letter in the “Waterloo Correspondence” is from Major-General W Napier of “History of the War in the Peninsula” fame. It is dated November 28th, 1842 and reads as follows:

‘I should not like to give my information to anybody but you, but your fairness about your Model makes me feel that I do not throw away what I am going to tell you, and it is from the Duke’s mouth.

‘He found the Prince of Orange at the Duchess of Richmond’s Ball on the evening of the 15th. He was surprised to see him because he had placed him at Binche, an important outpost, for the purpose of observing and giving notice of the movements of the Enemy. He went up to him and asked if there was any news? ‘No! nothing but that the French have crossed the Sambre and had a brush with the Prussians. Have you heard of it?’

‘This was news. So he told him quietly that he had better go back to his post, and then by degrees he got the principle Officers away from the ball and sent them to their troops. This was done, I think he said, about 11 o’clock.

‘He then went to his quarters and found Müffling there, coming from Blucher with the news; he ought to have arrived long before, but said the Duke to me, ‘I cannot tell the world that Blucher picked the fattest man in his army to ride with an express to me, and that he took thirty hours to go thirty miles.

‘I am in a state of great debility from sickness and pain, being carried about and held up to write this, or I would give more details, but the substance you have.

Thanks to his classic on the Peninsular War, Napier was regarded as a great authority. However, this letter of his is largely untrue. Napier was very ill and on drugs at the time it was written. It would be wrong to rely on his statements. What is most important here is the question of the time at which news of the commencement of the French offensive on 15th June 1815 reached Wellington. According to Napier, the Duke told him that the first he heard of this was from the Prince of Orange shortly before 11 pm on 15th, when the Prince would appear to have abandoned his post without permission.

As the younger Siborne placed this letter first in his selection, for Hamilton-Williams’ accusation that junior omitted anything from his selection that conflicted with senior’s history to be true, then one would expect the very first letter of the collection to be echoing the line taken in senior’s “History”. This is what senior states:

‘Shortly before five o’clock (on the morning of 15th June), he (Ziethen) despatched Courier Jägers to their (Wellington’s and Blücher’s) respective Head Quarters, Brussels and Namur, with letters containing the information that since half past four o’clock, he had heard several cannon shots fired in his front, and that at the time of writing, the fire of musketry also, but that he had not yet received any report from his outposts. ...... His report to the Duke of WELLINGTON arrived in Brussels at nine o’clock in the morning......’ (my emphasis)

The elder Siborne quite rightly presents the facts of the situation which are vastly different from the version of events that the irascible old Napier placed in Wellington’s mouth. The younger Siborne however gave this letter pride of place in his selection.

These facts therefore beg the question as to how much truth there is in Hamilton-Williams’ claims of distortion and omission? Can any other readers find sufficient evidence to support such a serious accusation by Hamilton-Williams or are such claims unjustifiable?

Siborne the Xenophobe?

Whilst on the subject of the accusations Hamilton-Williams makes against Siborne senior, it would be convenient at this point to examine another one of these claims briefly. Hamilton-Williams states:

‘In the first instance, he used only British sources, although even the most rabid ‘patriot’ would be prepared to admit that the other nations were represented on the field. Siborne did not consult any Dutch, Belgian, Hanoverian, Prussian or Brunswick sources. Apart from the letters of British officers, he was content to rely on The Despatches of Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington, edited by Lieutenant-Colonel Gurwood (1836), and Ludlow North Beamish’s History of the King’s German Legion (1832, 1837).’

One great weakness of the elder Siborne’s work is its lack of bibliographical details and proper footnoting. Without such clues as to the relative merit of the work, a historian of any worth would next examine the prefaces and appendices of a work to make an assessment of its value. In the Preface to the Third Edition of his ‘History’, published in 1848, Siborne writes:

‘Through the kindness of His Excellency the Prussian Ambassador, Chevalier BUNSEN, and of the Prussian Generals VON CANITZ and VON KRAUSENECK, and of Major GERWIEN of the Prussian Headquarters Staff; I have obtained additional interesting details connected with the Prussian operations; more especially as regards the opening of the Campaign.

‘A Dutch work published, apparently under authority, by Major VAN LÖBEN SELS, Aide de Camp to his Royal Highness Prince FREDERICK of the Netherlands, and entitled Bijdragen tot de Krijgsgeschiedenis van NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, of which I was not previously in possession, has enabled me to give additional particulars respecting the movements and dispositions of the most advanced portion of the Dutch-Belgian troops, on the first advance of the enemy; and also to explain particular circumstances and qualify some observations respecting those troops which appeared in former Editions.’

Moreover, in his Preface to the First Edition, Siborne states:

‘Similar thanks are likewise due to the Officers of the King’s German Legion and Hanoverian Subsidiary Corps; as also to the General Officers who respectively furnished me with such information as related to the troops of Brunswick and Nassau.

‘I beg also to express my obligations to the Prussian Minister of War, of the Officers of the Prussian General Staff in Berlin, for the readiness and liberality with which they have supplied me with such details concerning the dispositions and movements of the troops of their Sovereign, as were essential to me in prosecuting the task I had undertaken.’

As Siborne’s statements are clearly in conflict with Hamilton-Williams’ accusation that: ‘Siborne did not consult any Dutch, Belgian, Hanoverian, Prussian, Nassau or Brunswick sources’ one is left wondering which of the two statements is correct. As Hamilton-Williams neither refutes these statements from Siborne, he merely contradicts them, nor explains the reason his thesis is in conflict with them, one feels obliged to question the validity of his thesis. What moreover supports Siborne in this matter is the fact that in his “Waterloo Correspondence”, that is the bound volumes of letters he received from participants and upon which he based his books, are numerous letters and documents from Hanoverian, Prussian and Dutch participants. Siborne’s statement has documentary evidence to support it.

One should also recall that Hamilton-Williams claims that:

‘From 1985 to 1988, therefore, the present author spent nearly eight hours of every weekday in the British Library, laboriously transcribing the more than 700 manuscript letters that had been sent to Siborne.’

Included in these manuscript letters were the various documents sent to Siborne by the Prussian authorities and letters from Hanoverian and Dutch participants. A substantial part of these letters were from non-British participants, and a number of those are in languages other than English.

It is clear from reading certain of these letters that Siborne had good relations with for instance Bunsen at the Prussian Embassy, that he spoke German although he had some difficulties with the script. Furthermore, Siborne had sufficient knowledge of the French language to be able to write it. One must ask the question as to what the basis of Hamilton-Williams’ accusation is when there is significant evidence to the contrary? Hamilton-Williams makes assertions but does not provide us with any credible evidence to support his view. He does not tell us why he has chosen to disregard the evidence of the “Waterloo Correspondence”.

What he does tell us however is that:

‘Siborne even omitted a divisional account of the actions of Saxe-Weimar’s brigade, not because of prejudice but because he did not bother or could not afford to obtain a translation of the German-language account sent to him. On the back of this account he simply pencilled fallaciously, ‘from an unknown K.G.L. (King’s German Legion) officer.’

The reference Hamilton-Williams gives is to the Add MS 34,703 in the British Museum. The writer of this article, after close examination of every folio in this volume has been unable to find such a ‘pencilled note’. On the contrary, the pencilled notes on the relevant folios (ff. 11 - 17) indicate not only that Siborne understood the German text, but also that he was fully aware which unit it was referring to. It would be interesting to know if any other readers have located this ‘pencilled note’.

Siborne the Wellington Worshiper?

This leads us to Hamilton-Williams’ accusation that Siborne was ‘content to rely on’ Wellington’s “Despatches”. It would be convenient here to examine the issue as to the time of the arrival at Wellington’s headquarters of news of the commencement of the French offensive on 15th June 1815. In his “Memorandum on the Battle of Waterloo” dated 24th September 1842, two years before Siborne’s work was released, Wellington states:

‘The first account received by the Duke of Wellington was from the Prince of Orange, who had come in from the out-posts of the army of the Netherlands to dine with the Duke at three o’clock in the afternoon (my emphasis).

He reported that the enemy had attacked the Prussians at Thuin; ...... While the prince was with the Duke, the Staff officer employed by Prince Blücher at the Duke’s head-quarters, General Müffling, came to the Duke to inform him that he had just received intelligence of the movement of the French army and their attack upon the Prussian troops at Thuin.’

Firstly, a quick aside. The mischievous nature of Napier’s letter mentioned above, written only a few weeks after Wellington’s “Memorandum” and the controversy raised by Clausewitz’s criticism of Wellington’s performance in the Campaign of 1815 becomes apparent here. The “Memorandum” was a rare public statement from the Duke on the Waterloo Campaign. The Duke was embarrassed by certain of Clausewitz’s statements. His answers in places stretched the truth somewhat. Napier would seem to be doing his best to add to Wellington’s dilemma.

Secondly, the Prussian version of the sequence of events is that Ziethen sent his first message to Wellington informing him of the French offensive at 3.45 am on 15th June and that this arrived in Brussels at about 9 am. The German historian Pflugk-Harttung implies that Wellington neglected to mention the dispatch received by him that morning as an excuse for his lack of action until much later that day. Hamilton-Williams accuses Siborne of following Wellington’s line and of not having referred to the German sources. However, Siborne’s account reads as follows:

‘His (Ziethen’s) report to the Duke of WELLINGTON arrived in Brussels at nine o’clock in the morning ....’ (my emphasis)

Clearly, Siborne is supporting the Prussian version of the events and not that of the Duke of Wellington. As both Siborne’s Prefaces and his text conflict with Hamilton-Williams, one feels obliged to wonder if there is any truth at all in his accusation that Siborne used only British sources and relied on Wellington’s version of the events. Furthermore, there is an entire section of letters in Volume 6 of this collection discussing the issue as to at which time Wellington heard from Ziethen of the commencement of the French offensive together with a memo written by Siborne indicating that he found that the available evidence supported Ziethen on this matter and not Wellington.

In this memo, he states that: ‘I find it unnecessary to make any further remark ...(illegible)... that I should no longer hesitate to defend Genl. Zieten (sic) against the unjust imputation which has been made concerning him ...’

Summary

1) Hamilton-Williams’ accusation that Siborne junior manipulated the “Waterloo Letters” to support Siborne senior’s “History” is not substantiated by the first letter in this collection.

2) Hamilton-Williams’ accusation that Siborne senior referred to no sources other than British is contradicted by the Prefaces to the First and Third Editions of his “History” together with the actual content of the text, and of the manuscript letters.

3) Hamilton-Williams’ accusation that in his “History”, Siborne senior toed the line laid down by Wellington is refuted by a comparative examination of the text of his “History” and Wellington’s own writings on the subject.

End Note

The author of this essay is aware that he has dealt with but a small part of the text of “Waterloo: New Perspectives”, although he considers he has examined the core points of its author’s thesis. He would in any case welcome comment from other readers if they have found any substance in Hamilton-Williams’ thesis.

Footnotes

1) ‘Waterloo: New Perspectives’ (Henceforth ‘W:NP’), pp 19-30
2) Summer 1988, vol LXVI, No26, p 78
3) Siborne, W. “History of the War in France and Belgium in 1815” (London 1848), p 99. Henceforth “History”. For Siborne’s sources and discussion of this matter, see his “Waterloo Correspondence” (henceforth “WC”), vol 6, ff. 265 - 282, British Museum, Add MS 34,708.
4) “W:NP”, p 23.
5) “History”
6) “History”
7) “W:NP”, p 21.
8) “WC”, vol 6, ff.265 - 268.
9) ibid., vol 1, ff. 199 - 200. British Museum Add MS 34,703.
10) “Supplementary Dispatches”, vol X, p 524
11) For a full discussion of this matter, see Pflugk-Harttung’s
“Vorgeschichte der Schlacht bei Belle-Alliance - Wellington”, Berlin, 1903) p 46 ff.
12) “History”. p 99.
13) See footnote 3 above.
14) “WC”, vol 6, ff.281, Add MS 34,79