This work was written by Lord Raglan's kinsman and staff officer Somerset John Gough Calthorpe (1831-1912). It was published anonymously in 1856 in two volumes by John Murray of Albemarle Street, London, as Letters from head-quarters; or, The realities of the war in the Crimea
"Here is a book more dreary, more empty, more ungrammatical than the worst that has been published since the war began, and which, furthermore, comes out at a time when immediate interest in the Crimean campaign has ceased."
Not a particularly good review!
This work caused Calthorpe no end of trouble. Not only did The Times (A below) and others (B below), pan it, Lord Cardigan considered it libelled him and was not slow in seeking redress. He took exception to the passage below - which treats of the moment he and some of his brigade reached the Russian lines:
This was the moment when a General was most required but unfortunately Lord Cardigan was not then present - on coming up to the Battery (as he afterwards himself described it) a gun was fired close to him and for a moment he thought his leg was gone. Such was not the case as he remained unhurt, however his horse took fright swerved round and galloped off with him to the rear, passing on the way by the 4th Light Dragoons and 8th Hussars before these Regiments got up to the Battery.
First, he tried to have Calthorpe brought before a court-martial, but this was refused by the Duke of Cambridge, the Commander in Chief. Next he asked the Earl of Carlisle, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to dismiss Calthorpe from his staff, but this was also refused. Then, on February 5, 1857 (C below) he raised the matter in The House of Lords and was met by this response from Lord Panmure:
Although the noble earl charges a particular officer with being the writer of the book to which he has referred, let me remind him that, as far as the authorities at the Horse Guards are acquainted with the facts, that book was written under an anonymous signature. The Commander-in-Chief ... upon receiving an application from the noble earl to redress through the means of a court-martial the injury which he had sustained from that book, stated that he did not conceive that it was his province to take notice of anonymous military publications, because such a precedent once established would lead to inevitable confusion in the administration of the discipline of the army;... I think, under all the circumstances, that the only answer I can give the noble earl is to say that it is not the intention of the Commander-in-Chief to bring the officer who is supposed to be the author of the work in question to a court-martial;
He did at least see a helpful letter by William H Corry, late of the 11th Hussars published in The Times (E below) on February 10, 1857.
Although Calthorpe publicly identified himself as the author of the work two days later (D below), here the matter rested until, it is said, owing to the commencement by Alexander Kinglake of the publication of his multi-volume history of the war, Lord Cardigan brought the matter before the common law Court of Queen's bench, seeking redress for libel. He was successful in placing his position in this way into the public domain - three detailed accounts appeared in The Times on June 10 and 11, 1863, but he was not able to secure a verdict and damages.
Curiously, the papers of the proceedings are not archived at the National Archives, Kew. The late Tony Lucking, a fondly remembered member of the CWRS said some at least (affidavits) were housed in the archives of the House of Lords. Dr Douglas Austin tells me that affidavits are also arrived in the Northampton Record office. They do not appear in the archives (incomplete) on-line catalogues. The papers were published by John Mitchell, in 1863, as Complete Report of the Proceedings in the Queen's Bench taken by Lieutenant-General The Earl of Cardigan, on applying for A Criminal Information for Libel against Lieut.-Colonel the Honourable Somerset John Gough Calthorpe. With an Appendix containing the Affidavits Filed by Both Parties in the Case. The book is extremely rare.
(A)
It must be encouraging to publishers to consider how many things make a book worth looking into. Were it not from the hope that the words "An Officer on the Staff" would delude the unsuspecting into the belief that strategical plans would be soundly criticized or some hidden mysteries unveiled, this author's letters would, doubtless, have still remained in the desks of his friends. Who has not had enough of Crimean books? Who does not shrink from the unutterable dreariness of the tourist or officer's adventures, his jocose first chapter, beginning, "Here we go- off at last," his novel descriptions of Gibraltar, Malta, and the Dardanelles, his version of the Alma and Inkermann, and the tribute which he tells us he cannot avoid paying to the gallantry of all who fought round the "beleaguered city." Here is a book more dreary, more empty, more ungrammatical than the worst that has been published since the war began, and which, furthermore, comes out at a time when immediate interest in the Crimean campaign has ceased. And yet it will find readers; indeed, we would advise anyone to read it who may find it thrown in his way. For it is by "an Officer on the Staff," an officer who was chosen for some qualities deemed meritorious to be near the person of the Commander-in-Chief, and who had " many opportunities of hearing and judging the opinions given and the difficulties to be over- come by the generals of the allied armies." Now, it is worthwhile to learn what was the calibre of an officer on the head-quarter staff during the most terrible campaign of our own time. We know what works Staff Officers of continental armies have from time to time written, and that there is hardly a series of operations from the days of Louis XIV to the present which has not been accurately, and yet picturesquely, recorded. We know that at the closing struggle, a few months since, Pelissier and Niel sent home narratives which were full and graphic, and interesting to everyone. We also know, unhappily, the style of our own generals. It is interesting to find that the same relative intellectual position is preserved by our Staff Officers as by our commanders. If the author of this book should ever have military greatness thrust upon him, he will, we may predict, astonish the world with just the same kind of despatches as described the repulse at the Redan or the blowing up of Fort St. Nicholas.
"The Officer on the Staff " is the indignant apologist of Lord Raglan. He cannot "forbear, however feebly, from giving his version of some of the illustrious commander's actions and deeds." He is a violent opponent of newspapers, and sometimes breaks forth into ironical ejaculations, such as "Oh, the benefits of a free press!" He is a severe censor of officers who write home descriptions of the state of the army, or criticisms on the capacity of its chief, though he himself is plain-spoken enough on some in authority, and prints passages about Admiral Dundas which might as well be omitted. But it is impossible to give a notion of this work by mere description. It is chiefly valuable as a photographic portrait of a Staff Officer's mind in the year 1855, as representing a race which is likely soon to become extinct under the new regulations, and any relics of which will in a few years have an interest to the military antiquary. After descriptions of the Sweet Waters, of Varna, of the sailing from Baltshik, which are below the average of what the public has read to satiety, the author comes to the battle of the Alma. We have no intention of inflicting his narrative on the reader, but we may just relate one of his anecdotes to show' the feeling with which two important departments of the army were regarded by the gentlemen who surrounded Lord Raglan. The general had placed himself in front of the troops with his staff, which had been joined by some medical and commissariat officers. Some one - perhaps the author, who thinks the crowding "highly impertinent" - suggested that they should be ordered to move off. Lord Raglan, we are told on the authority of his panegyrist, said, "Let them stay," and added that when they got under fire they would depart, he might rely upon it. In two minutes the first shot was fired, and "you should have seen the hangers-on scattered in all directions. There was no more crowding about Lord Raglan." Thus, we learn incidentally that in the opinion of Lord Raglan and his staff medical officers would run away at the first shot; and now, more than two years after the event, and after so much suffering and sacrifice on the part of the profession, a Staff Officer thinks fit to be the historian of such an anecdote. Does anyone believe that those officers who have since braved death, not only on the field, but in the transport ships and the hospital, for so many months, ceased to follow Lord Raglan from fear of a round shot? Does the author himself believe it? And if in the new fledged vanity of IS54 he wrote this slander, why does he now, after the bitter experience of two years, deliberately publish it to the world?
It would be tedious to follow the commonplace record of well-known or trivial events, which make up the substance of this book. It is chiefly worthy of notice for what it omits, and not for what it contains. Entitled Realities of the War in the Crimea, it rouses expectation, which is most miserably disappointed. The writer is at head- quarters, but sees nothing, knows nothing, understands nothing. The letters and journal might have been written by any private in the camp or any sutler at Balaklava. The remarks on the weather are as constant as those of the Commander- in-Chief used to be. We are told that it was a beautiful day, or that the thermometer was lower, or that last night it began to rain. The arrival of a steamer or the departure of a batch of sick is chronicled with minuteness. But the military details are evidently the merest gossip. What- ever his opportunities of hearing facts and opinions of importance, he certainly made no use of them. As a strategical work the book is utterly worthless. One would think that a man of moderate abilities would be able, from a residence at head-quarters, to gain a kind of bird's-eye view of the campaign, and that his Realities would have a little breadth and a little novelty, and not be inferior in interest to I accounts written at the time by unlettered privates. What do we want with stories of some trifling joke, which he thinks "rather fun l" What do we care for the fact that he, on such a day, had "just heard" something that happened two years ago, and is now forgotten? How such a book should be written by anyone it is difficult to conceive, and the first feeling on reading it is, what must the system be which places a man of such a calibre on the head-quarter staff of a great army?
We have said that the writer is bitter against the press. His correspondents have enough of his denunciations of The Times, which are printed with a profusion of italics, to indicate the point of his argument. There is an entity -which is always most indignant at the calumnies of this journal. It is "We all." Now it is as well to fix what "we all" signifies. "We all" are angry with The Times, with the officers who write letters home, with everyone who says there is mismanagement, with everyone who believes it. "We all" may write home ourselves sneers at " medicoes" and commissariat officers; we may impute to Admiral Dundas such a dereliction of duty as that "he has predicted all sorts of disasters, and now that he sees everything is likely to go well he does all in his power to thwart and annoy Sir Edmund Lyons and Lord Raglan," and therefore will not help to land the men; "We all" may attack Sir De Lacy Evans; we may so far coincide with public opinion as to pronounce unfavourably on Lord Lucan and Lord Cardigan; we may be indignant at Bosquet, and sarcastic on the French generally; but we will not hear one word that reflects on headquarters and the headquarter staff. From these characteristics of the body expressed by the writer's "We" it is impossible not to conclude that he merely gives the sentiments of the small knot of cousins who unhappily surrounded the late Lord Raglan. The letters are revised or rewritten as a piece of pleading in his favour; and the Commander's memory, which the nation sufficiently respects, is again dragged into debate by a flimsy, ill-written, and narrows-minded book.
It is easy to put at the beginning of a chapter such a heading as " False statement of The Times," but if the author really wishes to defend the administration of the war, which everyone else has given up, he must learn to do something more than republish old letters which were uninteresting when new, and are perfectly out of date now. The author, like the Chelsea Commission, acquits everybody, or, at least, everybody at headquarters. Now, unfortunately for him, the most striking facts and the heaviest charges came from officers of the army. For three weeks our " Special Correspondent," who is made responsible for the all " calumnies" on military men, was compelled by sickness to be absent from his post. It was precisely during this time that the storm of disaster burst on the army, and hundreds of officers' letters were addressed to England containing the terrible intelligence, and duly forwarded to us. Therefore he has to settle matters with his brother officers. All he can do is to complain of officers writing letters reflecting on those in command, a fine sentiment, truly, for a man who not only brings the heaviest charges himself in his own letters, but prints them two years after, when the whole importance of the question has passed away though the men live whose reputation is thus stained. As for the details of the author's apology we must ask our readers to spare us entering into them. All the questions relating to Lord Raglan's activity, the judgment he displayed in neglecting fortifications at Inkermaun, the supply of boots and greatcoats, and the number of sick at various times, have been exhausted, and the world is tired of the whole miserable history. Suffice it to say that the "Officer on the Staff's" explanations are the weakest and most tedious cavilling. "Such a thing is stated in The Times; now, that it is quite untrue you will have seen from my last letter." Such is the kind of reasoning with which it is expected to refute the testimony of scores of officers, a number of impartial travellers, the report of a commission, the acquiescence of Government, and, more than all, the great result of events.
We had anticipated a close of these long discussions, which can serve no useful purpose now. The details of the Crimean campaign have been studied so far as to admit of proper conclusions from them, and any further examination is needless. The fact, however, that a writer, claiming exclusive opportunities of judging, should come forward to contest the unanimous verdict of the nation, is a sufficient excuse for recurring to the subject. But the trouble in the present case has been thrown away. The matter remains where it was. The author proves nothing but his own incapacity to form opinions and his own negligence in collecting facts. Therefore, as it is always our endeavour to turn a subject to a practical use, and not to indulge in merely retrospective controversies, we would recommend the book as a proof of how much the service needs improvement. The perusal of it will go far to confirm a sensible man in his anxiety for that military education which has been promised to the country.
(B)
Lord Adolphus Vane Tempest, M.P., who it will be remembered was with his regiment in the Crimea in the winter of 1854, has been relating his experience of that sad season in the Athenaeum, at Durham, Professor Chavalier, of the university of that city, occupying the chair. During the course of his lecture the gallant member directed attention to a book that has recently been published under the title of "Experiences of a Staff Officer". This book, he had been told, had created a great sensation in fashionable circles; but, for his own part, having read it himself, he could state that he did not know more complete exemplification of the fable of the "daw in borrowed plumes.' The book contained a great deal of most fulsome eulogy of Lord Raglan, which, though an evidence of gratitude, was by no means a token of discretion. This gentleman, who was no doubt comfortably provided for at headquarters, was pleased to give the British army some advice - and that was, to make the best of everything. In one place he spoke of the had weather, and after expressing his thankfulness that he was not to be sent out, the "Staff Officer" stated that he was about to take possession of a smith's shop. The position of the Staff Officer" was certainly a more desirable one than that of the regimental officer or the private soldier, who had not the chance of taking possession of a smith's shop; but they took the advice of the writer and made the best of it. Again, the "Staff Officer" described the state of the trenches, which he said were so full of wet and mud that it was impossible to wade through them; but the regimental officers and men had to wade through them, and be in them, not for hours, but for whole nights, and they "made the best of it." Further, the "Staff Officer" stated that, on visiting the hospitals in December, Lord Raglan declared them to be in as good order as circumstances could admit of. Good order! Did Lord Raglan call it good order when some of our men were lying ill of brain fever, without so much as a blister to be applied to their heads - when others were suffering under the worst forms of dysentery without proper drinks to assuage their thirst - and when the only alleviations to their sufferings were obtained from a source which, without meaning any reflection upon the parties who had promoted it, he must say England had no right to be dependent on - he alluded to The Times Fund.
The lecturer then stated that about the period referred to a vessel called the Paramatta was lying at Balaklava, and she received a cargo from the John Masterman, that cargo consisting of spirits, wine, made-meats and soups, hospital beds and stretchers, and various other things that, if rendered available at once, might have been instrumental in saving hundreds of lives. Having referred to some other passages in the " Staff Officer's" experience, the lecturer remarked that it was evident the writer had never had green beans served out to him to make coffee of, or to dig his own roots for firewood, through ground covered with two or three feet of snow, and with a had pickaxe. Headquarters were warmer than the soldiers' tents, or the "Staff Officer" would have had some different experiences to write about. From his own (Lord Adolphus') experience, the regimental system was that which stood the severest test. He saw the headquarter system fail, the commissariat system fail, the transport system fail, and every department of the army fail, except the regimental department, and he believed that the soldiers in the army would willingly bear their testimony to the fact that the regimental officers had done their duty from the time they went out to the period of their return, they having acted up to the advice of the " Staff Officer" and made the best of everything, getting the men to do the same.
The lecturer now proceeded to refer to letters written by him during his stay in the Crimea. The first of these contained an account of his arrival at Balaklava, and some allusions to the then recent battle of Inkermann, and others showed the state of the army before Sebastopol. From these it appeared that the English army was deficient in almost everything they required. The officers were not so badly off as the men, because they were enabled by means of money to obtain proper food, though at enormous prices, and had clothes to cover them; but the men in the ranks were in the most destitute condition. As there was nothing like the argumentum ad hominien in these matters, the lecturer put a case to his audience. How, he asked, would any gentleman present, who was accustomed to go home to his comfortable cup of coffee, like to have a few green coffee berries given to him, and be told to dig some roots from frosty ground with a had pickaxe, and then make a fire and prepare his own coffee? (Laughter) Such was the case of the English soldier in the Crimea. After 24 hours' work he had a bit of salt pork, a biscuit, and some coffee berries given to him. The pork he threw away, and after a considerable amount of manual labour he succeeded in getting some roots and in roasting his coffee, with which he made a cup of coffee, or rather discoloured beverage. Lord Raglan was seldom seen out, and one of his aides-de-camp happened to hear by accident that the men were having green coffee served out to them. This was reported to Lord Raglan, and Lord Raglan sent for the Commissary- General and made a great disturbance; but it was quite by chance that he heard of it. He (the lecturer) had frequently seen the men bruising the roasted berries between stones, and a mill that had been sent to him by a friend, though probably not bought for more than 2s., was really invaluable.
There had been a great deal of discussion as to whether the Government at home or the authorities in the Crimea were to blame for the evils to which he had alluded. His own opinion was that a great part of the evil was owing to the expedition having been sent out at so late a period without sufficient provision in the first instance, and at the same time he did not think that so much had been done by the authorities in the Crimea as ought to have been done. (Hear, hear.) There were three great evils from which the British army suffered; One was the issue of green coffee, another was the absence of fresh meat, and the third was the want of bread. He had always held that each of these evils could have been easily remedied by the exercise of the smallest amount of ingenuity or invention on the part of the authorities. With reference to coffee, there was no difficulty in the way of organizing roasting and crushing establishments at Balaklava, where fuel was to be had in abundance, and it would have been as easy to have sent the coffee out roasted as in its green state. (Hear, hear.) Then, as to bread, there was no reason why bakeries should not have been established, inasmuch as there were bakers in every regiment, and many of the houses in Balaklava had ovens. The French met with no obstacles on either of these points, and the French army was regularly supplied with bread, and coffee was served out to the men that had been roasted and crushed. Then, as to fresh meat, there was no earthly difficulty in the way of obtaining an efficient and regular supply. There were many steamers lying for weeks and months in Balaklava harbour that might have been employed in the conveyance of live stock for the use of the troops. One of these ships he mentioned on account of its name; it was called the Propeller, but for two months it lay in the harbour and never once propelled anything. (Laughter.)
(C)
The House of Lords, Thursday, February 5, 1857. The Earl of CARDIGAN. I am anxious, my lords, to take advantage of the earliest opportunity during the present session to put a question to the noble lord the Secretary for War, connected with a subject which, although, I regret to say it, nearly concerns Myself, still is one which is, I believe, connected with the general interest of the army. The question which I am about to put relates to defamation of character by officers holding commissions in the army. Before putting this question allow me to remind your lordships that of late years circumstances re entirely changed with regard to the means which a man has to defend his character by the change of opinion which has taken place with regard to the laws of honour. Your lordships will remember that the great Duke of Wellington, when on a great political question he considered himself unjustly reflected upon, had recourse to the remedy provided by the laws of honour, and a similar course was adopted by Pitt, by Fox, by Canning, by Lord Castlereagb, by the late Sir R. Peel, and indeed by nearly all the great and distinguished men of the past and present century. I, my lords, have been more unfortunate than they were because, in following their example, I have been placed at your lordships' bar to be tried as a felon, and have stool in danger of losing not only my personal property, bat even my personal liberty. The law regarding duelling has gradually become more stringent, and since the event occurred which put me to so much inconvenience only one personal conflict has, I believe, taken place between two gentlemen, and upon that occasion one of those gentlemen lost his commission and was imprisoned for two years. The Mutiny Act also, and the Articles of War, have also been altered, and are now much more stringent and severe, and it is upon the Articles of War that I will found the question which I wish to put to the noble lord, and, in obedience to the Articles of War, I ask the protection of the highest military authority. The facts are these:-My character has been maligned, and my military reputation defamed in a most extraordinary and most uncalled for manner by an officer holding a commission in the army. That officer has published his unfounded statement under the cognomen of a Staff Office, but he in reality is Major the Hon. Somerset Calthorpe, a near connexion of a member of your lordships House. First of all, my lords, it may be necessary for me to say that, with the exception of one statement with regard to a certain number of horses, all the rest of his allegations contain not one single vestige of truth, and are entirely and utterly devoid of foundation. In the difficult position, my lords, in which I was placed by the publication of Major Calthorpo's book, the course which I thought proper to adopt was the following. Almost immediately after the appearance of that book I applied to the Commander-in-Chief, and requested him to bring Major Calthorpe before a general court-martial for conduct unbecoming an officer and & gentleman in disgracefully maligning my character. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge refused to accede to my request on the ground that such a course would be productive of inconvenience to the general interests of the army. The next stop which I took was to request a friend of mine, an officer who had attended me upon several occasions in the different services in which I was engaged by Lord Raglan's orders with the cavalry - he and his brother staff officers never having heard of any foundation for these gross fabrications - to go to Major Calthorpe and point out to him how unfounded his Statements were, and to calmly request him to reconsider the subject, and with draw those misrepresentations in any manner he might think proper. The answer which that officer received was an admission that two out of three of those allegations were totally and entirely devoid of truth, and the others were explained by Major Calthorpe in so flippant and offensive a manner as to be entirely unsatisfactory tone; and he refused to withdraw those statements from his work on the plea of inconvenience to himself and his publisher. I am aware, my lords, that many people, perhaps the majority of people, may say, " Why need you care about it; why take any notice of it?" But, my lords, I think that when a man's character is openly attacked he is bound to defend himself in some way or another. Had I been attacked generally, and in the manner in which a gallant admiral has been attacked, I don't think that I should have taken any notice of it, because I should have considered such attacks ridiculous and absurd; but when an officer comes forward and states that on certain specific occasions I did things which it would have been discreditable in me to do, and brings charges which, to use the words of a gallant lieutenant-general, are preposterous, I do not think that it is for me to allow the matter to pass. If it were merely a question of the present, these allegations might have been passed over on account of the insignificance of the officer by whom they have been brought forward - but, published in a book, they become, if uncontradicted, a matter of history; and I, my lords, do not wish posterity to form an opinion on my conduct upon materials which would lead to a judgment most unfair and unjust. The question which I wish to put to the noble lord is this - whether, after having received a letter from Lord Raglan thanking me for the manner in which I conducted the reconnaissance in the Dobradscha, and for the information which I obtained, which letter I have in my possession- whether, when afterwards my name was mentioned in the despatch written after the Battle of the Alma in a manner which must have been most satisfactory to my own feelings in connexion with the affair of cavalry on the preceding day - when I was fortunate enough to be one of those general officers who had the distinguished honour of receiving the thanks of your lordships' House - after all this, is it right or proper that a junior officer holding a staff appointment should be permitted, two years afterwards, with impunity to malign my professional character? I ask, whether an officer who has thus disgraced himself, by publishing a statement containing allegations so gross and so utterly devoid of a*vestige of truth, should be allowed longer to draw even half-pay from the public purse, and whether he should be permitted to continue to hold an honourable post upon the staff of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland?
Lord PANMURE. Owing to the general terms of the notice which was given by the noble earl who has just sat down I was unable to do more than to guess at the nature of the question which he was about to put to me; and I must be permitted, now that I have heard it, to express my regret at the practice which is growing up of making either House of Parliament a court of appeal upon points of discipline respecting the administration of the army. (Hear, hear.) I cannot, however, find fault with the noble earl for availing himself of his privilege as a peer of Parliament to refute in this public manner the accusations which I cannot but say have been most wantonly brought against his military character; but I think that while he was conscious of being in possession of the approval Of Lord Raglan for his distinguished and gallant conduct in the Crimea, he might well have afforded to pass by in silence the remarks of one so inferior in rank and judgment to the gallant officer under whom the noble earl served. More especially might he have done so, I think, when he considered that he was armed also with a document which showed that he had received the thanks of this and the other House of Parliament.. (Hear, hear.) Although the noble earl charges a particular officer with being the writer of the book to which he has referred, let me remind him that, as far as the authorities at the Horse Guards are acquainted with the facts, that book was written under an anonymous signature. The Commander-in-Chief (who would have been present in his place to-day had he not been in attendance on Her Majesty), upon receiving an application from the noble earl to redress through the means of a court-martial the injury which he had sustained from that book, stated that he did not conceive that it was his province to take notice of anonymous military publications, because such a precedent once established would lead to inevitable confusion in the administration of the discipline of the army; and that moreover it appeared to him, as it appears to me, that the noble earl had a recourse open to him by an appeal to the civil courts of the country, whereby he might have obtained reparation for the defamation of his character. The noble earl has stated the reasons why he did not adopt another course in vindication of his honour and why he did not appeal to what he called the "law of honour." My lords, think that he was perfectly right in making no such appeal, and I am sure that the sooner such a law is abrogated entirely the better it will be for the profession and for society at large. (Hear, hear.) I think, under all the circumstances, that the only answer I can give the noble earl is to say that it is not the intention of the Commander-in-Chief to bring the officer who is supposed to be the author of the work in question to a court-martial; and I would strongly recommend the noble earl to rest upon the high testimonials which he has in his possession to refute the injustice to which he has been subjected. (Hear, hear.)
(D)
To the editor of The Times.
Sir, In reading over the speech of the Earl of Cardigan in the House of Lords last evening, as reported in the public journals of this day, I feel myself called upon to take notice of a remark made by him on that occasion. His Lordship states that in a reply received from the author of Letters from llead-Quarters, he " admitted that two out of three of those allegations were entirely devoid of truth." This I beg positively and entirely to deny, and it is strange that the Earl of Cardigan in his place in the House of Lords should give vent to such a "preposterous fabrication." I have before me copies of all the letters I have ever written on this subject, and after carefully looking over them I cannot discover a single sentence that could possibly be tortured into an admission that any statement of mine is "totally and entirely devoid of truth." That I may have been in error in certain instances I am perfectly ready to admit, and I think anyone who reads my reply to, Lord Cardigan's objections, as given in a notice in the second edition of Letters from Head-Quarters, will acknowledge my willingness to do so. As but few persons have probably seen the second edition it would be doing me a great favour if you would insert the following somewhat lengthy extracts from the notice above alluded to:-
"The author has received a paper, drawn up by Major-General the Earl of Cardigan, complaining that 'every one of the Staff Officer's statements with regard to himself are slanderous, and totally without any truth or foundation' " In answer to so grave a charge the author feels compelled to notice the points alluded to in detail:
"1. His Lordship asserts that during the patrol in the Dobrudscha (vol i, p. 86), neither men nor horses were unnecessarily harassed, but he does not deny that 90 horses out of 280 returned with sore backs.' This circumstance appears to the author to justify the assertion that there was 'very had management somewhere' - an opinion also held by several cavalry officers present at the time.
"2. Lord Cardigan utterly denies that he ordered an officer of the 8th Hussars to release some Russian prisoners whom he had taken with his troop after the battle of the Alma. (Vol. i, p. 184.) This fact was communicated to the author, immediately after its occurrence, by the officer alluded to; but since then a question has arisen as to the origin of the order, which, it would appear from the earl's statement, did not proceed from him.
"3. His Lordship denies the whole of the statement that Captain Morris, 17th Lancers (vol i, p. 310) advised him to, attack the Russian cavalry in flank during the English heavy cavalry charge at the Battle of Balaklava. He declares it to be 'totally without foundation'; adding, 'that Captain Morris never gave any advice, or made any proposal of the sort'' that 'it was not his duty to do so'; and that he ' did not commit such an irregularity'. The conversation however, has been frequently related by Lieutenant-Colonel Morris, in the presence of several officers, at various times and places; and the matter, therefore, appears to rest between the Earl of Cardigan and Colonel Morris.
"4. His Lordship considers the account given of the part taken by him in the light cavalry charge (vol. i., p- 317), 'unworthy of any reply, as it is well known' that he, led the Light Brigade up to the Russian cavalry in rear of the battery, and 'that the 8th Hussars did not advance as far as the battery, but became engaged with the Russian cavalry short of it'. The author could only rely on statements furnished by officers present on the occasion; and as the excellence of Lord Cardigan's horsemanship is unquestionable, the idea that his horse ran away with him is no doubt erroneous. But it cannot be denied that he retired between the 4th Light Dragoons and 8th Hussars as those regiments were advancing; and it is confidently asserted by the two senior officers of the 8th Hussars who were present, that the latter regiment was not halted until it had gone 300 yards beyond the battery, when it was wheeled about for the purpose of attacking the enemy's cavalry which had assembled in, its rear.
" 5. His Lordship complains of the version given (vol ii p. 6.) of the report made by the medical board on the state of his health. The author, feeling that the expression made use of was uncalled for, begs to express his regret for having inserted it, and with pleasure subjoins a true copy of the report with which he has been furnished by his Lordship:-
"Lord Cardigan is much reduced in strength, and the Board, considering the serious character of his complaints recommend that he may be allowed to proceed to England for the recovery of his health".
" I leave your readers to judge from the foregoing how far Lord Cardigan was justified in his assertions in the House of Lords last night. I wish only further to remark that I should not have troubled you with this long letter had I not been attacked in a place where I was unable to reply.
I beg to remain, Sir, your obedient servant.
SOMERSET GOUGH CALTHORPE
Major Unattached
Army and Navy Club, Pall-mall, Feb. 6.
(E)
To The Editor of The Times.
Sir, I was in the Light Cavalry charge at Balaklava. The assertion that Lord Cardigan retired between the advancing squadrons of the 8th Hussars and 4th Light Dragoons is palpably untrue - and for this reason. His Lordship was in front of the whole brigade leading, and those two regiments, forming the second line, passed the guns almost simultaneously with the first, and, becoming instantly engaged in a hand-to-hand conflict, could not preserve the compact order of their advance for him to retire between them, had it been possible for him to extricate himself so easily. When the brigade, riding for their lives in the retreat, came back the different regiments were so commingled that but for their uniforms no one could imagine that they were more than one corps.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM H. CORY. Late 11th (P. A. O.) Hussars,
Wandsworth-road, Feb. 7.
[Add proper reference to TM's article.]