BATTLE OF JUNE 18 AND DEATH OF LORD RAGLAN
The night of the 17th was passed in concentrating the allied forces
destined for the great assault. Lord Raglan and his staff arrived
in the English trenches shortly before daylight. Two important
circumstances occurred at the very outset, both of bad omen for the
allies. One, that the Russians by some means had become aware of, and
were consequently prepared for, the attack; the other, that one of the
French generals, under a mistaken idea that the signal had been given,
led his troops to the assault prematurely, and before all was ready.
It was, in fact, still dark, when the ground in front of the Malakoff
became suddenly the scene of a terrific conflict, of which for some
time it was not possible to form a judgment, or to forecast the result.
As the day dawned it soon became apparent that the French were in
difficulties, and were not within the Malakoff. Lord Raglan had always
reserved to himself freedom of action as to the proper moment for
ordering the advance of the English. As he wrote to Lord Panmure
afterwards, he felt that there ought to be some hope of the French
success before committing his troops.[39] However, when he observed
the serious condition of affairs, and that his allies were in dire
conflict and suffering great losses, but were still persisting in their
attack on the dominating position of the Malakoff, he felt that it was
impossible for the English troops to remain inactive, and therefore
gave the requisite signal. Our troops, composed of parts of the Light,
Second and Fourth Divisions, accompanied by a storming party of seamen
carrying scaling ladders and of gunners with means for spiking guns,
jumped from their cover and made straight for the Redan; but the whole
ground was torn and swept with grape and musketry from the enemy's
works, both in front and on the flanks, and our men, gallantly as they
were led and bravely as they advanced, were quite unable to enter the
work. Lord Raglan, when the advance commenced, desired his staff to sit
down in the trench; but he and General Jones, R.E., stood up together,
anxiously watching the event. In the midst of the carnage, General
Jones was struck on the forehead with a glancing grape-shot, and for
a moment as he fell back it was feared the wound was mortal. He was
taken away for medical aid, but in a minute or two suddenly returned
with the blood streaming down his face, being anxious to speak to the
Commander-in-Chief on some point which he deemed important; and it was
with difficulty that he could be induced to have his wound attended to.
It was about this time that Captain William Peel, R.N., who had led
the seamen with the scaling ladders, passed us on his return, wounded,
together with a great many other officers and men. The battle continued
for some time, but at length ended in the failure of the allies at
every point, and Lord Raglan then directed the batteries to re-open
fire, in order to cover the retreat and to hold in check the Russian
forces.
Soon after the termination of the various attacks, General Hugh
Rose,[40] the British Commissioner at French head quarters, came to
Lord Raglan with a message from General Pélissier, to ascertain his
views on the situation. Lord Raglan said that in his opinion Pélissier
had made two great mistakes--one, in attacking prematurely before a
bombardment and the other that he had not simultaneously assaulted the
Bastion du Mât. 'However,' he added, 'I will go myself and see him,'
and he then left the trenches with General Harry Jones, who in the
meantime had returned, having tied a handkerchief over his forehead,
making light of his wound. The losses during the day were serious.
Of the English--General Sir John Campbell was killed, with many other
officers of rank, and our total casualties were 1,443. The French
suffered far more, their losses amounting to no less than 3,500. In
fact, during the month that General Pélissier had been in command
of the French army it is estimated that their casualties in killed,
wounded, and missing amounted to upwards of 12,000 officers and men.
The failure of the great assault on Sebastopol on June 18 was
undoubtedly the severest blow which the allies had received since their
landing in the Crimea; and indeed it became difficult to forecast the
future, as the activity, courage, and great resources of the Russians
in men and material apparently rendered the capture of the city a
somewhat remote and uncertain speculation. The British army were,
however, destined in a few days to suffer another great misfortune,
by the death of their beloved Commander-in-Chief on June 28. There is
no doubt that the failure of the attack on Sebastopol, and the great
losses on that eventful morning, had a serious effect upon Lord Raglan,
following, as they did, on the accumulated anxieties of the previous
months; so that his strong constitution at length gave way. Within a
few hours of his death he happened to send for me on some matter of
business, and then complained of illness and of great thirst; but he
made light of it, and I had no idea that his condition was serious, or
that it was destined to be my last interview with one with whom I had
been so closely associated.
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:
[Footnote 39: See Lord Raglan's despatch, June 19, 1855. Also Kinglake,
viii. 161.]
[Footnote 40: Afterwards Field Marshal Lord Strathnairn.]
[Footnote 41: General Pélissier, in his despatch of September 11 on the
fall of Sebastopol, specially says that the Malakoff was the key of the
defences, and that the other attacks were subordinate.]