Bastille Day

Friday 14 July 2023 marks 234 years since the storming of the Bastille in Paris in 1789. This was the iconic event of the French Revolution that came to symbolise the overthrow of the Ancien Régime; the name given to the political and social system that characterised France from the late Middle Ages until 1789. Bastille Day is now a public holiday in France.

The French Revolution is arguably the historical event most written-upon and most frequently subjected to the analysis of the historian. It is beyond the scope of this blog post to do justice to the historiography on the causes of the French Revolution, but suffice to say a range of political, economic, social and cultural factors have been offered as responsible for events unfolding as they did at the end of the eighteenth century.

The first episode in the Revolution was the summoning of the Estates General in May 1789, in order to address a financial crisis playing out between King Louis XVI and members of the French nobility. The Estates General was an assembly that represented the three estates of the realm: the clergy (First Estate), the nobility (Second Estate), and the commoners (Third Estate) but it had no true power in its own right, as unlike the English Parliament, it was not required to approve royal taxes or laws. The Estates General served as an advisory body to the monarch, primarily by presenting petitions from the various estates and consulting on fiscal policy. When it opened on 5 May 1789 it was the first time it had met since 1614.

In 1789 the First Estate comprised 100,000 Catholic clergy, owning 5–10% of the lands in France – all property of the First Estate was tax exempt. The Second Estate comprised the nobility, which consisted of 400,000 people, including women and children. By the time of the revolution, they had almost a monopoly over distinguished government service and under the principle of feudal precedent, they were not taxed. The Third Estate comprised about 25 million people (97% of the population), including the bourgeoisie (business owners and merchants), the peasantry, artisans and everyone else. Unlike the First and Second Estates, the Third Estate were compelled to pay taxes, yet the bourgeoisie often found ways to evade tax and become exempt. The greater burden of the French government, therefore, fell upon the poorest in French society: the peasantry and working poor; understandably there existed great resentment towards the upper classes.

The Estates General, instead of concerning itself with the financial crisis playing out in the country at large, began focussing instead on the question of how votes should be cast and how to divide power and representation amongst the three estates. On 17 June 1789 the Third Estate re-named themselves the National Assembly and on 20 June its members took the ‘Tennis Court Oath’ in the tennis court which had been built in 1686 for the use of the Versailles palace – their objective was to draw up a written constitution for France and to begin governing the country, with or without the involvement of the other two estates. A majority of members of the First Estate and many from the Second did in fact join with the new National Assembly. This moment marked the beginning of the French Revolution as it directly threatened the power of the absolute monarch – King Louis XVI. These developments were popular with many in Paris desperate for reform, relief and liberty.

On 11 July 1789 King Louis XVI (upon the advice of conservative nobles as well as his Queen Consort Marie Antoinette) dismissed his Finance Minister Jacques Necker, perceived as relatively favourable to the new National Assembly. This, combined with the fact that the King had brought troops to Paris (including foreign German and Swiss mercenary soldiers) put the people of Paris ill at ease, fearing as they did a conservative attack on the National Assembly. It was within this context that in July 1789 the people of Paris began demonstrating and storming properties to secure food as well as arms.

Front cover of Prince Louis of Battenberg’s postcard album of the French Revolution [MS62/MB2/A19]

Jacques Necker in Prince Louis of Battenberg’s postcard album of the French Revolution [MS62/MB2/A19/74]

The Bastille was a medieval prison-fortress – a symbol of royal power in the heart of Paris. On the morning of the 14 July 1789 it was approached by a Parisian militia and ordered to surrender – a confused struggle then ensued throughout the day in which 98 attackers and one defender died, either in the fighting or subsequently from their wounds. If the Tennis Court Oath of 20 June marked the beginning of a liberal constitutional revolution promoted by the bourgeoisie, then it was the bloodshed and chaos at the Bastille that foreshadowed the violent phase of the revolution and the eventual downfall of the monarchy along with the rest of the Ancien Régime.

The National Assembly proceeded to abolish feudalism on 4 August 1789 and issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on 26 August 1789, as it became increasingly radical. The events of the summer of 1789 were just the beginnings of the social and political revolution that unfolded in the following years, including the execution of King Louis XVI on 21 January 1793 and the rise of General Napoleon as Emperor of the French – his popularity with the French people driven by his victories in Europe and the Mediterranean.

Napoleon in Prince Louis of Battenberg’s postcard album of the French Revolution [MS62/MB2/A19/94]

The significance of the French Revolution was not confined to France or to the battlefields of Europe but was felt further afield; revolutions or social protest inspired by the events of 1789 broke out across Europe in the following years and decades. The great divides of nineteenth-century European politics were often framed in terms of liberal idealism on the one hand and conservative reaction on the other; even the ‘left-wing/right-wing’ terminology we use today has its origins in the seating arrangements for members of the National Assembly. This body was divided into supporters of the Ancien Regime to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left. The Brabant Revolution of 1789-90 being a good example of how the French revolutionaries inspired others to rise up. This armed insurrection briefly overthrew the imperial rule of the Habsburgs and created a short-lived new state named the United Belgian States. In a letter from Henry Temple, second Viscount Palmerston, to Benjamin Mee dated 12 March 1790, the former gives his account of the causes of this dramatic episode in the Austrian Netherlands:

“[…] We were in some respect witnesses of the beginning of the Revolution in the Austrian Netherlands having been at Brussels when the insurgents entered the country. The facility with which they made themselves masters of it is to me incomprehensible. For as their number (I mean of men in arms) was very small, and the quarter from whence they must come, as well as all their motions perfectly known to the government, had the Imperial troops which could have been spared from garrisons been collected and properly stationed so as to have attacked them immediately, I conceive the business must have been ended as soon as it was begun. But as the whole country was on their side the opportunity once lost never was, nor I believe could have been, recovered.”

Letter from Henry Temple, second Viscount Palmerston to Benjamin Mee, 12 March 1790 [MS62/BR/11/15/5]

Palmerston goes on to describe how the poor treatment of the Roman Catholic church by the Emperor was responsible for the outbreak of violence, amidst confused attempts to reform an ancient constitution in need of amendment. He describes three distinct factions in the country: one in favour of an absolute sovereign; another in favour of an aristocratic council; and the third and most numerous in favour of a complete democracy: “In this they are supported by the example and influence of France and seem likely to pursue the same path of confusion and anarchy that their neighbours are treading.”

In the same letter, Palmerston goes on to describe the social unrest in France in disapproving terms, employing racist ideas in the process:

“Nothing I believe can exceed the wretched state of that country. In the capital they are undoing everything and loosening all the bonds of society while the horrors that are committed by mobs in various parts of the kingdom are such as would disgrace the most barbarous savages in the wilds of America. Whether anything like order and government is ever to come out of this chaos nobody I believe at present would venture to predict. Our politicians have been very foolishly debating and indeed quarrelling (that is to say Burke and Sheridan) about the proceedings in France, in our House of Commons, which seems to be the last place to discuss such a subject. Burke however was very fine upon it and is about to publish a pamphlet which I will send you when it comes out.”

The pamphlet Palmerston alludes to would be published by Edmund Burke in November 1790 as Reflections on the Revolution in France, now regarded as one of the most influential political pamphlets in modern history and considered a cornerstone of conservative political ideology.

A few years later in the late summer and early autumn of 1792, Lord Palmerston’s diary entries are quoted in the correspondence of Mary Mee, Viscountess Palmerston, sent to her brother Benjamin Mee during their travels through Europe:

“Paris at present is in the greatest state of insurrection possible. The Jacobins or the violent party carry everything before them and lay all the blame of the mischief that are resulting from their own absurdities on the King and Queen who are certainly in danger of their lives from the violence of the people and the little dependence they can have upon their guard who are only national troops. The assembly are distracted and seem in a mood of Frankish despair […]”

Letters from Mary Mee, Viscountess Palmerston, Boulogne to her brother, Benjamin Mee, 29 Jul – 6 Sep, 1792 [MS62/BR/11/18/6, p.5]

The political chaos and violence described by the Palmerstons led successively to the execution of King Louis XVI in January 1793; the assassination of the revolutionary and Jacobin leader Jean-Paul Marat by Charlotte Corday on 13 July 1793 (the day before Bastille Day); the ‘Reign of Terror’ of the Jacobins from September 1793 – July 1794; and the counter-revolutionary ‘White Terror’ from 1795. Tens of thousands of people died in these outbursts of violence.  

Charlotte Corday in Prince Louis of Battenberg’s postcard album of the French Revolution [MS62/MB2/A19/39]

The Jacobinism of Robespierre and others was strongly denounced by conservatives in Britain, as demonstrated in the political preface from an 1804 edition of The Anti-Jacobin:

“Ever since we commenced our labours, we have uniformly maintained, that the only effectual means of combating the system of usurpation and universal dominion which characterizes the French revolution in all its stages, was firm and extensive concert. The principles whence it sprung, the acts which it exhibited, and the characters which it formed, whatever might be their several diversities, all agreed in seeking the subjugation of mankind. This was a primary object of Brissot and his Girondins, Robespierre and his Terrorists, of Lepaux, and of Buonaparté.”

Rare Books per A, The Anti-Jacobin, Sep-Dec 1804

The Anti-Jacobin, Sep-Dec 1804, Rare Books per A

When Robespierre died on 28 July 1794 he was satirically eulogised in a piece titled ‘Sur la morte de Robespierre’ appearing in the volume Second tableau des prisons de Paris sous le règne de Robespierre, 1794-5; “everything fell under his blows – old age and childhood”:

“Sur la mort de Robespierre – Air – de versaillois – Quels accents, quels transports, en ce jour d’allegresse, Succedent tour-a-tour a la sombre tristesse! Vient de venger la liberte. Le cruel immoloit la timide inncence, Tout tomboit sous ses coups, la vieillesse et l’enfance. Francais! n’obeissez desormais, sosu vos loix, Qu’aux soutiens de la France, aux vengeurs de vos droits.”

[“On the death of Robespierre – Air – from Versailles – What accents, what transports, on this day of joy, Succeed in turn to dark sadness! Just avenged freedom. The cruel immolated timid innocence, everything fell under his blows, old age and childhood. French! henceforth obey, under your laws, only the supporters of France, the avengers of your rights.”]

Rare Books, Hartley Collection, DC140.5

Second tableau des prisons de Paris sous le règne de Robespierre, 1794-5, Rare Books Hartley Collection DC140.5

If we jump forward several years to the eve of the Battle of Waterloo, we find Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, first Duke of Wellington, writing to Louis Philippe, Duc d’Orleans, later King of the French Louis Philippe I, giving his own views on the cause of the French Revolution:

“In my opinion the King [King Louis XVI] was driven from his throne because he never had the real command over his army. This is a fact with which your Highness and I were well acquainted and which we have frequently lamented; and even if the trivial faults or rather follies of his civil administration had not been committed, I believe the same results would have been produced. We must consider the King then as the victim of a successful revolt of his army and of his army only; for whatever may be the opinions and feelings of some who took a prominent part in the revolution, and whatever the apathy of the great mass of the population of France, we may I think set it down as certain that even the first do not like the existing order of things, and that the last would if they dared it oppose it in arms.”

Copy of a letter from Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, first Duke of Wellington, to the Duc d’Orleans, 6 June 1815 [MS61/WP1/470/2/21]

Wellington’s emphasis on the importance of martial power and discipline might not be surprising, given that he was a Field Marshal on the verge of a major battle with Napoleon’s forces, but it echoes the idea expressed much later and by a very different general that ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun’ – at least in the most immediate and pressing circumstances. Wellington’s notion that Louis XVI’s lack of military strength caused the French Revolution adds to a long list of economic, social and political factors held responsible.

It wasn’t until July 1880 that the French government officially adopted 14 July as the public holiday that we now recognise. The date was chosen partly to commemorate the storming of the Bastille in 1789 but also to commemorate the ‘Fête de la Fédération’, which was originally held on 14 July 1790 on the first anniversary of the capture of the Bastille. It was meant as a festival to celebrate the unity of the French people.

Bastille Day is now firmly established as the French national day. The 14 July 1945 marked the first celebration of Bastille Day subsequent to the total victory in Europe over Nazi Germany and it was the impetus for the signal sent from Lieutenant General F.A.M. Browning to the French Military Mission, sending good wishes on Bastille Day, 14 July 1945.

Signal sent from Lieutenant General F.A.M. Browning to the French Military Mission sending good wishes on Bastille Day, 14 July 1945 [MS62/MB1/C64/84]

Whether you spend your Bastille Day at work, at leisure or brushing up on your French history – we in Special Collections wish you liberté, égalité et fraternité this 14 July!

Wellington 40: N is for Napoleon

As we approach the final letter of Wellington, we thought it fitting to focus on Napoleon for N, seeing as we could, on this occasion, give him “the last word”!

A drawing of Napoleon [MS62/BR34/6]

Who was Napoleon

Born on 15 August 1769 with the name Ajaccio, Napoleon was the son of a minor Corsican nobility and attended school in France. His education included attending the Ecole Militaire in Paris in 1784, after which he was appointed as an artillery officer in September 1785. He was elected Lieutenant Colonel in the Corsican National Guard in 1791and later re-joined the army in France and commanded the artillery at Toulon in December 1793.

Napoleon’s military successes included his spectacular victories over the Austrians in Italy during 1796-7 which led to the Peace of Campo Formio in October 1797. During his appointment as Commander of the Army of England, he persuaded the Directory that an attack in the Middle East would be more beneficial than an invasion across the channel.

In August 1799 he left his army in Egypt and returned to France, establishing, with the Coup of Brumaire in November 1799, the Consulate with himself as First Consul. In August 1802, he became Consul for life, Emperor of the French in May 1804, and King of Italy in March 1805. As Consul and then Emperor, Napoleon presided over a vast development of administrative, economic and legal changes.

Napoleon’s catastrophic Russian campaign of 1812 motivated his old enemies and several of his allies to form a new alliance against him and in spite of a fantastic operation in northern France, he was forced to abdicate in April 1814. The most that the allies were willing to accept he have, was his title of Emperor and the island of Elba.

Cartoon taken from the Library of Congress, published by J. Phillips, No. 32 Charles Street Hampstead Road, [London, 1814]

In 1815 Napoleon returned to France and troops sent to arrest him instead approached him, and the restored Bourbons bolted. He promised that the government on his return would be more progressive than the old empire, but military loss at Waterloo forced his second abdication.

The Wellington Papers contain fascinating correspondence informing Wellington of Napoleon’s actions in the run up to the Battle of Waterloo. A great example is a letter from Lord Castlereagh, Foreign Secretary at the time, to Wellington, reporting the ‘alarming’ reports from Paris and the necessity for European powers to assemble:

“The despatches received this morning from Paris, copies of which I inclose, your Grace will observe give a most unfavourable account of the state of the King’s affairs. Although Paris and the country generally is tranquil, and the population not unfriendly to the government, the progress of Bonaparte appears to have been hitherto unchecked by any opposition from the army, whilst strong indications of disaffection have manifested themselves in particular corps, some of which have actually joined themselves to his standard. You will also use your own utmost influence to terminate amicably the existing differences between Austria and Bavaria, and to secure the effective aid of the latter power at this critical conjecture. Whatever differences of opinion may have prevailed under other circumstances, I trust that ever minor consideration will be buried in the common interest which all must feel, to preserve at least so far as concerns the existing boundaries of France, the glorious result of the late war.“

Letter from Lord Castlereagh to Wellington, regarding the ‘alarming’ reports from Paris and the necessity for the European powers to assemble, 16 Mar 1815 [MS61/WP1/452/18]

Another great example is a letter from Wellington to Castlereagh discussing the resolution of the European Sovereigns to unite their efforts against the ‘common enemy’, Napoleon Bonaparte:

” My lord. We received here on the 7th inst[ant] a dispatch from Lord Burghersh of the 1st

giving an account that Bonaparte had quitted the island of Elba with all his civil and military

officers and about 1200 troops on the 26th of February.

I immediately communicated this account to the Emperors of Austria and Russia and to

the King of Prussia and to the ministers of the different powers and I found among all one

prevailing sentiment, of a determination to unite their efforts to support the system established

by the Peace of Paris. As it was uncertain to what quarter Bonaparte had gone, whether he would

not return to Elba or could ever land on any part of the continent it was agreed that it was better

to postpone the adoption of any measure till his further progress [f.1v] should be ascertained and

we have since received accounts from Genoa stating that he had landed in France near Cannes on

the 1st of March, had attempted to get possession of Antibes, and had been repulsed, and that he

was on his march towards Grasse.“

Wellington to Lord Castlereagh, concerning the resolution of the European Sovereigns to unite their efforts against the ‘common enemy’, Napoleon Bonaparte, 12 Mar 1815 [MS61/WP1/453/7]

The Treaty of Chaumont demanded Napoleon to cease all conquests and so reinstate France to its pre-revolutionary borders in exchange for a truce. If Napoleon failed to do this, the Allies would continue the war. If Napoleon accepted the Treaty, he could continue to preside as Emperor of the French and to keep a dynasty. Napoleon rejected the treaty, thus ending his last opportunity for negotiated settlement.

The 1815 correspondence also features perspectives from military figures as well as political figures, such as a letter from General Donnadieu to Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, first Duke of Wellington, discussing the changing systems of government in France leading to the rise of Napoleon, and stressing the current need for new laws and a strong government.

There is a plentiful amount of material in the Wellington Papers that follow the progress of Napoleon and his campaign from his arrival in France to the Battle of Waterloo.

On 15 October 1815, Napoleon was exiled to St. Helena, a British territory in the South Atlantic, where he defended his actions to a variety of individuals, of which led to the publication of his memoirs. One of the most notable memoirs is the Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène (The Memorial of Saint Helena), written by Emmanuel-Augustin-Dieudonné-Joseph, comte de Las Cases. He served Napoleon under the Hundred Days and accompanied Napoleon with his son to St Helena. Acting as Napoleon’s secretary, Las Cases, carefully recorded all of his conversations with him which led to the publication of the memoir. Pages corrected in the hand of Napoleon can be found at Wisbech & Fenland Museum.

Wellington continued to have a great interest in Napoleon following his exile, which is reflected in his memorandums upon the French campaign of 1812 in Russia, where he critiques Napoleon’s campaign in Russia while riding to Russia to represent the British at the coronation of the Tsar:

“As for Napoleon, he ought to have been aware of his position and of all its consequences from the moment he arrived before the town and found that its inhabitants had quitted it. Moscow was not a military postion. The objects for which he had sought to obtain it were political, and these were lost when he obtained the military possession of the town, the inhabitants [f.39r] having fled from it. The military postion in Moscow was not improved by this flight of the inhabitants from Moscow; on the contrary, it was \ become / more dangerous, and it was obvious, was quite useless. Napoleon ought therefore, before he entered the war to have made all his arrangements for quitting it, to have considered the halt of his army there, as * only * a measure preparatory to retreat, and he should not have allowed a single officer or soldier to enter the town, excepting to obtain and bring from it what was necessary to enable * at * \ the army / to * make its * march.”

Memorandum by Wellington, upon the Comte de Segur’s account of Napoleon’s 1812 campaign in Russia, n.d. c. 1826 [MS61/WP1/873/2]

Napoleon died on the St Helena island on 5 May 1821 and his remains were removed from St. Helena and reinterred in the Hotel des Invalides in Paris.

Correspondence of interest relating to Napoleon received by Wellington after his death

Wellington received interesting correspondence after Napoleon’s death, with one letter enclosing a copy of a note written in French from Napoleon himself! On 14 Jul 1815 Captain Frederick L. Maitland explains to Wellington that he has received a request from Count Las Cases and General Allemond for them to receive Napoleon on their ship in order to deliver him to the Prince Regent to request mercy. The captain states that he has agreed to transport Napoleon to England, intending to dock at Torbay and await further commands. The letter from Napoleon was given to General Gorgand who was charged to present it to the Prince Regent. Written in French, the letter translated into English reads as follows:

“Your Royal Highness,

A victim to the factions which distract my country, and to the enmity of the greatest powers of Europe, I have terminated my political career, and I come, like Themistocles, to throw myself on the hospitality of the British people. I place myself under the protection of its laws, I claim from Your Royal Highness as the most powerful, the most constant and most generous of my enemies.“

A copy of the letter General Gorgand is charged with from Bonaparte to the Prince Regent requesting his mercy and safe passage to England, 14 Jul 1815 [MS61/WP1/473/95]

Other letters of interest Wellington received following Napoleon’s death ranged from J. Sainsbury reporting that he wished to dispose of the contents of the Napoleon Museum in Piccadilly, London in 1844 to Reverend John Winter offering to sell to him a thermometer that once belonged to Napoleon in 1848!

Wellington was even offered a jewel containing the hair of Napoleon and Marie Louise, formerly the property of the Duc de Bellune!

Letter from Gramain to Wellington offering a jewel containing the hair of Napoleon and Marie Louise, formerly the property of the Duc de Bellune, 1844 [MS61/WP2/122/81]

Wellington also received many works of art offers connecting to Napoleon, including a bust of Napoleon as First Consul from Sir Richard Grant of Portsmouth; an inscription for Canova’s statue of Napoleon; a request to be shown a portrait of Napoleon by David; and an offer of a portrait of Napoleon by Gauband!

Other items we hold relating to Napoleon

An item of great interest that we hold relating to Napoleon is the catalogue for the Waterloo Museum [Rare Books DC241 CAT], which refers to several Napoleonic artefacts, such as his coat and hat which he wore in Elba; a grand painting of him in his Coronation robes by Robert Lefevre of Paris; the Foot Board of his State Carriage; his state sword and saddle; his military saddle and holsters; his hunting sword and his favourite walking cane to name but a few!

We also hold items relating to Napoleon in our other collections, such as a manuscript copy of the Byron’s poem ‘Napoleon’s Farewell’ in the hand of Jane Austen, that dates from around 1815, and letters between Lord Palmerston and his father on their counterparts’ meetings with Napoleon.

Manuscript copy of Byron’s poem `Napoleon’s farewell’ in the hand of Jane Austen, c.1815 [MS8]

A book of verse and sketches given to Emily Cowper (Lord Palmerston’s wife) by Matthew (“Monk”) Lewis even contains a poem on Napoleon Bonaparte, written by William Spencer Cowper. The poem is about Napoleon’s marriage to Princess Marie Louise. Here are some lines from it:

“If guardian powers preside above

Who still extend to virtuous love…

Never on noon’s maturer ray

That charm of orient light display

Which morning sun’s impact

To care no later passion prove

That glow which gilds the dawn of love

The day spring of the Heart”

We hope you have enjoyed our series of Wellington blogs running through each of the letters of the Duke’s name. Do visit our blog next week for our post on our level 4 gallery exhibition celebrating 40 years since the arrival of the Wellington Papers.

Wellington 40: W is for Waterloo

The first in our new series of blogs on ‘W-E-L-L-I-N-G-T-O-N’ begins with ‘W’ for ‘Waterloo’. But what exactly happened at the Battle of Waterloo and why is it regarded as so important?

Waterloo marked the culmination of more than twenty years of intense warfare between the major powers of Europe. The French Revolutionary Wars were fought from 1792-1802 in the wake of the French Revolution and France’s ambitions beyond its borders. The Napoleonic Wars followed on from this; they were fought from 1803-1815, their namesake being Napoleon Bonaparte, who had become Emperor of the French. After many years of successful conquest, Napoleon’s armies suffered significant losses after its failed invasion of Russia in 1812. By April 1814 the tide had turned so drastically against Napoleon that he abdicated and France surrendered to the coalition forces led by Austria, Prussia, Russia and the United Kingdom in May of that year.

The Congress of Vienna commenced in September 1814 in order to settle the future balance of power in Europe. In March 1815, however, Napoleon escaped from his exile on the island of Elba to reach Paris and reclaim his imperial title; there then followed a period known as ‘The Hundred Days’ when Napoleon gathered around him a new French army and the Seventh Coalition was formed to oppose him yet again. Meanwhile, deliberations at the Congress of Vienna continued and its final act was signed, with Napoleon still at large, on 9^th June 1815.

This was the context within which the Battle of Waterloo was fought on Sunday, 18^th June 1815. The first Duke of Wellington and Napoleon Bonaparte faced each other on the battlefield for the first and only time.

A French army under Napoleon’s command was defeated by two of the armies of the Seventh Coalition: a British-led coalition consisting of units from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Hanover, Brunswick, and Nassau, commanded by the Duke of Wellington (referred to as the Anglo-allied army or Wellington’s army). The other army fighting Napoleon was composed of three corps of the Prussian army, commanded by Field Marshal von Blücher.

There were a few smaller battles or skirmishes subsequent to Waterloo, but the French fighting forces were not able to keep the allies from moving towards Paris, which was surrendered in early July 1815. Meanwhile, Napoleon abdicated for the second and final time on 24^th June 1815.

The Battle of Waterloo, therefore, effectively marked the end of the Napoleonic Wars and brought to a close more than twenty years of high-stakes warfare amongst the European powers.

The Battle of Waterloo was contemporaneously known as the Battle of Mont Saint-Jean (by the French) or La Belle Alliance, “the Beautiful Alliance”, (by the Prussians).

Detail from a print of “The Duke of Wellington returning from inspecting the field of Waterloo”, printed by Thomas Kelly, London, n.d. [MS351/6/6]

Wellington’s papers, as one might expect, include key documents from this momentous moment in European history.

Wellington’s own thoughts and feelings on the battle were expressed in the correspondence written immediately after the battle had been fought, as demonstrated by this letter from Wellington to the Earl of Aberdeen, informing him of the death of his brother the day before:

“You will readily give credit to the existence of the extreme grief with which I announce to you the death of your gallant brother, in consequence of a wound received in our great battle of yesterday.

He had served me most zealously and usefully for many years, and on many trying occasions; but he had never rendered himself more useful, and had never distinguished himself more, than in our late actions.

He received the wound which occasioned his death, when rallying one of the Brunswick battalions which was shaking a little; and he lived long enough to be informed by myself, of the glorious result of our actions, to which he had so much contributed by his active and zealous assistance.

I cannot express to you the regret and sorrow with which I look round me, and contemplate the loss which I have sustained, particularly in your brother. The glory resulting from such actions, so dearly bought, is no consolation to me; and I cannot suggest it as any to you and his friends; but I hope that it may be expected that this last one has been so decisive, as that no doubt remains, that our exertions and our individual losses will be rewarded by the early attainment of our just object. It is then that the glory of the actions in which our friends and relations have fallen will be some consolation for their loss.”

MS61/WP1/471/4

In a copy of another letter written to Lady Frances W. Webster the day after the battle, Wellington wrote the following lines:

“[…] I yesterday after a most severe and bloody contest gained a complete victory, and pursued the French till after dark. They are in complete confusion and I have, I believe, 150 pieces of cannon; and Blucher who continued to the pursuit all night, my soldiers being tired to death, sent me word this morning that he had got 60 more. My loss is immense. Lord Uxbridge, Lord FitzRoy Somerset, General Cooke, General Barnes, and Colonel Berkeley are wounded: Colonel De Lancey, Canning, Gordon, General Picton killed. The finger of Providence was upon me and I escaped unhurt.”

MS61/WP1/471/6

The significance of Waterloo was understood immediately, as demonstrated in a letter sent to Wellington from the Duke of York, Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, on 23^rd June 1815:

“My official acknowledgement of your dispatch will be conveyed to you by the return of L[ieutenan]t Col[onel] Percy; but I cannot allow the mail of this evening to go without privately expressing my hearty congratulations upon your brilliant and most important achievement. The victory of the 18^th is an event, which in itself and its probable consequences, assumes an importance equal, if not beyond any thing in European history, and tho[ugh] the firmness of the troops is beyond all praise, yet the success must even be, in justice, acknowledged to proceed from your own personal conduct and presence of mind.”

MS61/WP1/469/3

In his correspondence with the Duke of York, Wellington requested that new honours for the Order of the Bath ought to be granted to lower ranks of officers and on a wider basis than originally suggested by the Duke of York. Wellington also supported the issue of the Waterloo Medal to soldiers of all ranks in the British Army who’d fought at Waterloo, as seen in his letter of 28^th June 1815 to the Duke of York:

“I would likewise beg leave to suggest to your Royal Highness the expediency of giving to the non-commissioned officers and soldiers engaged in the battle of Waterloo a medal. I am convinced it would have the best effect in the army; and if that battle should settle our concerns they will well deserve it.”

MS61/WP1/471/59

It wasn’t just the Duke of York who thought that Waterloo’s importance was ‘equal to or beyond anything in European history’. In a previous blog-post we explored the influence that the Battle of Waterloo had and the way in which it captured the public imagination in Britain:

“The battle was to exert a powerful influence on the public imagination and commemorations and celebrations ranged from the worthy, such as providing support for those wounded or the families of those killed at the battle, to the frivolous, such as souvenir engravings and maps.”

https://specialcollectionsuniversityofsouthampton.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/waterloo-in-the-public-imagination/

Especially popular with the public were exhibitions of paintings and artefacts connected with the battle. Fascination with Napoleon became even more intense after Waterloo and he was to feature in a number of exhibitions around London: an estimated 10,000 people daily visited a display of his battlefield carriage.

The Waterloo Museum was based at 97 Pall Mall, London in the former Star and Garter Tavern and it opened in November 1815. It was one of a number of establishments set up to meet the insatiable public demand for Waterloo related memorabilia. Staffed by retired soldiers or those ‘gallant young men who were actually deprived of their limbs in that ever-memorable conflict’, this created a sense of authenticity for the Museum and its collection. The Museum housed an assortment of armour and weaponry and other military items collected from the battlefield, together with paintings, objects and mementoes of the Bonaparte family.

Catalogue of the Waterloo Museum, London, 1816 [Rare Books DC241 CAT]

Waterloo became synonymous with Wellington of course, whose legacy became intimately tied to the battle fought on 18^th June 1815. Wellington appeared in many caricatures (up to 5% of the collection at the British Museum in London) 300 paintings and drawings and 180 published engravings. He also appeared on a range of merchandise, everything from tea sets to snuff boxes.

The influence and fame of the Battle of Waterloo is also seen in the frequency with which the name appears throughout the street and place names of Britain today, including a certain London train station. Its entrance into the popular imagination is even demonstrated in the namesake song by Swedish pop quartet Abba!

The Wellington Arms Free House, Southampton

Beyond the immediate mania for all things Waterloo amongst the British public of the early nineteenth century, many historians also regard the Congress of Vienna (and the Battle of Waterloo that reinforced it), as the beginning of the relatively peaceful international system known as the ‘Concert of Europe’; a balance of power was maintained with recognised spheres of influence for the great powers of the day. The European powers would not engage each other in a major war until the Crimean War of 1853-6. The balance of power in Europe was, however, largely founded upon Russia, Austria, and Prussia (the so-called ‘Holy Alliance’) crushing liberal political dissent within their respective nations.

Waterloo and its conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars also symbolised the emergence of Britain as the world’s preeminent colonial power, above France. The remainder of the nineteenth century and the period until the First World War (1914-18) is sometimes referred to as the ‘Pax Britannica’; a balance of power in Europe and imperial ambitions abroad enabled Britain to construct the largest empire in history, the legacy of which is still highly contested today.

Two-hundred years later the legacy of Waterloo endures. The Wellington Papers (MS61) are the obvious place to start but Waterloo’s significance is reflected in two other archives held here in Special Collections: the Papers of the Waterloo Association (MS 436) and the David Miller Waterloo research papers (MS 431).

Poster for a 200th anniversary concert for the Battle of Waterloo held at the University of Southampton in 2015

‘Waterloo’ emerges in a few unexpected places in our archives, in entirely unrelated collections including a river data archive; postcards of Romsey; ‘The Waterloo Dance’ in one of our musical collections; as well as A Story of Waterloo, by A. Conan Doyle, and Madame Sans-Gene, performed at the Royal Lyceum Theatre in July 1897.

Waterloo in the public imagination

It was on this date in 1815 that the first Duke of Wellington and Napoleon Bonaparte faced each other on the battlefield for the first and only time.

Hougoumont, Waterloo [MS 351/6 A4170/7/4]

The battle was to exert a powerful influence on the public imagination and commemorations and celebrations ranged from the worthy, such as providing support for those wounded or the families of those killed at the battle, to the frivolous, such as souvenir engravings and maps.

Waterloo subscription: a printed list of subscribers for the
families of soldiers killed and for soldiers wounded at the battle of Waterloo, 21 September 1815 [MS 61 WP1/487/10]

However, what proved particularly popular with the general public were exhibitions of paintings and artefacts connected with the battle. Fascination in Napoleon Bonaparte became even more intense and he was to feature in a number of exhibitions around London: an estimated 10,000 people daily visited a display of his battlefield carriage.

The Waterloo Museum, which was opened in November 1815, was based at 97 Pall Mall, London, in the former Star and Garter Tavern. It was one of a number of establishments set up to meet the insatiable public demand for Waterloo related memorabilia. Staffed by retired soldiers or those ‘gallant young men who were actually deprived of their limbs in that ever-memorable conflict’, this created a sense of authenticity for the Museum and its collection.

The Museum housed an assortment of armour and weaponry and other military items collected from the battlefield, together with paintings, objects and mementoes of the Bonaparte family.

Catalogue of the Waterloo Museum
(London, 1816) [Rare Books DC241 CAT]

The first room entered was the armoury, which had walls covered with cuirasses, helmets and caps, swords, guns and bayonets all collected from the battlefield. This included the armour in which Napoleon encased his heavy horse to protect it against sword cuts or musket fire. There were two trumpets, one described as so battered that it bore little resemblance to its original shape.

The Grand Saloon housed items belonging to the Bonaparte family together with paintings and other objects. These included a hat and coat worn by Napoleon in Elba, detailed in the catalogue below.

Items in the Grand Saloon of the Wellington Museum

Amongst the paintings was the huge 15 feet by 6 feet Portrait of Napoleon in his coronation robes by Robert Lefévre (1755–1830) produced in 1811 and the 33 inch by 26 inch The Battle of Waterloo by the Flemish artist Constantine Coene(1780–1841). Depicting the battle at dusk, Coene shows Wellington pointing to a distant spot where the smoke of the Prussian cannon is rising in the horizon. He is dressed in a plain manner, unlike the pomp and imperial glory of Napoleon’s coronation robes. At the rear of the army are wounded soldiers and the widow of an artillery man is shown lamenting over her husband.

The Waterloo Museum was one of a number of such institutions that satisfied a general fascination with the battle. When Messrs. Boydell of St James’ Street in London arranged an exhibition of art that included a portrait of Napoleon they were able to charge one shilling admittance, a considerable sum for many workers at that period.

In 1819, Wellington received an account of the enthusiastic reception received by a panorama of the battle created by E.Maaskamp on display in Brussels. [MS 61 WP1/618/19]

Other more formal annual events arose out of a wish to mark the battle, the Waterloo banquet hosted by the Duke of Wellington at Apsley House being one of these. And Apsley House continues to host a Waterloo weekend of events every year.

Wellington and Waterloo events – June 2017

Wellington and Waterloo MOOC
Starting on 5 June 2017 there will be a re-run of the free Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on the Duke of Wellington and the battle of Waterloo.

Over three weeks, the course will cover events from the French Revolution to the decisive battle that finally defeated Napoleon, the significance of the conflict, the ways in which it changed Europe forever and how the battle and its heroes have been commemorated.

Chris Woolgar and Karen Robson will use the Wellington Archive at the University of Southampton to provide an insight into these momentous events from the early nineteenth century.

For further details and to sign up please visit:
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/wellington-and-waterloo

---

Wellington and Waterloo revisited – Special Event
In conjunction with the MOOC, the Special Collections will be holding a Special Event on Saturday 17 June. This will feature a private view of the exhibition Wellington and Waterloo in the Special Collections Exhibition Gallery, a lecture on the Waterloo Despatch, followed by tea and dancing with the Duke of Wellington’s Dancers.

To register and for joining instructions please visit:
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/wellington-and-waterloo-revisited-tickets-33522712335

This event it open to everyone. We would be delighted if you could join us!

---

Wellington and Waterloo exhibition
Special Collections Gallery

The Battle of Waterloo, fought on Sunday 18 June 1815, between allied forces and the French forces commanded by Napoleon, brought to a close more than two decades of conflict. Drawing heavily on the Wellington Archive at the University, this exhibition captures the final act of these wars from the perspective of the Duke of Wellington. It considers the diplomatic background to the military campaign of 1815, the battle itself, its aftermath and the occupation of France and the commemoration of both Wellington and Waterloo. It includes descriptions of the battle in the official reports of Wellington’s commanders, and a poignant letter from Wellington to Lord Aberdeen informing him of the death of his brother Sir Alexander Gordon, one of Wellington’s aides-de-camp. Amongst the items relating to the commemoration of Waterloo and Wellington are the catalogue of the Waterloo Museum, an establishment opened in the immediate aftermath of the battle, exhibiting memorabilia, and a nautilus shell, engraved by C.H.Wood, dating from the 1850s, which contains an image of Wellington on one side and St George on the other.

The exhibition runs from 5 – 23 June during which time the gallery is open weekdays, 10am to 4pm.

For further details visit:
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/archives/news/events/2017/06/05-waterloo-exhibition.page

Napoleon’s empire comes to an end

April 1814 saw the end game of the French Empire under Napoleon Bonaparte, with the abdication of the Emperor and the final military conflicts at Toulouse, Bayonne and Barcelona.

After meeting with his military commanders on 4 April, who urged Napoleon to abdicate, he did so on 6 April. The allies then were faced with the question of what to do with him. They concluded that he needed to be deposed and sent into exile as they feared that any attempt to overthrow him would risk civil war.  As Lord Liverpool, the British Prime Minister noted ‘any peace with Buonaparte will only be a state of preparation for renewed hostilities’. Signed by the allies on 11 April 1814, the Treaty of Fontainebleau set out the conditions of Napoleon’s abdication. In return for his abdication as Emperor of the French, Napoleon was granted the title of Emperor, given the sovereignty of the island of Elba, off the coast of Italy, and granted an annual pension of 2 million francs from the French government.

Cartoon, ‘The journey of a modern hero, to the island of Elba’, by J. Phillips.

This cartoon, by J. Phillips, was published in May 1814, and shows the disgraced emperor riding backwards on a donkey, a typical pose of humiliation, with his sword broken. The poem makes much of the immorality and consequences of his ambition.

Napoleon: A throne is only made of wood and cover’d with velvet

Donkey: The greatest events in human life is turn’d to a puff

Saddlebags: Materials for the history of my life and exploits. A bagful of Mathematical books for my study on ELBA.

The Journey of a modern Hero, to the Island of ELBA

Farewell my brave soldiers, my eagles adieu; Stung with my ambition, o’er the world ye flew; But deeds of disaster so sad to rehearse, I have lived — fatal truth for to know the reverse. From Moscow. from Lipsic; the case it is clear I was sent back to France with a flea in my ear. A lesson to mortals, regarding my fall; He grasps at a shadow; by grasping at all. My course it is finish’d my race it is run, My career it is ended just where it begun. The Empire of France no more it is mine, Because I can’t keep it I freely resign.

Lithograph of after the battle of Toulouse [MS 351/6 A4170/2]

Whist the details of the abdication of Napoleon were being finalised in Paris, in the South of France and northern Spain the war continued. News had started to filter through of the defeat of Napoleon at Arcis-sur-Aube and that the House of Bourbon had been proclaimed at Paris, but until these reports were confirmed neither Marshal Soult, the commander of the French forces, nor Wellington as commander of the allied army, could think of suspending their operations. Thus on Easter Sunday, 10 April 1814, the allied forces attacked Soult’s forces holding Toulouse. Although there were subsequent actions at Bayonne on the 14^th and Barcelona on the 16^th, Toulouse marked the last major battle between the main allied and French armies before the final end of the war. The battle of Toulouse was to inflict heavy losses on the allied forces, with around 4,500 killed. The French retained control of the northern part of the Heights of Calvinet, but recognising that his position as untenable, and concerned that enemy cavalry was moving to cut him off, Soult decided to retreat to Carcassonne and left the city of Toulouse on the 11 April. Jubilant inhabitants invited Wellington to enter the city the following day, where he received news of the abdication of Napoleon that afternoon.

Wellington and Napoleon never faced each other on the battlefield throughout the years of the Napoleonic wars. This was to change in 1815, when they met for the first and only time at the Battle of Waterloo on 18 June.

La Chateau et la Ferme d’Hougoumont, Waterloo [MS 351/6 A4170/7/4]

A MOOC on the Duke of Wellington and the battle of Waterloo, drawing on the Wellington archive at Southampton, and led by Karen Robson, Head of Archives, and Professor Chris Woolgar of the School of Humanities, will be given a re-run from 5 June 2017. Further details of this three week course will be available shortly.

In conjunction with this MOOC, the Special Collections will be mounting an exhibition in its Special Collections Gallery, 5-23 June, and there will be a Special Event on Saturday 17 June.  This will feature a private view of the exhibition, a lecture on the Waterloo Despatch, followed by tea and dancing with the Duke of Wellington’s Dancers.  For further details and to book for the event please go to: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/wellington-and-waterloo-revisited-tickets-33522712335

We hope that you can join us on 17 June.

“Napoleon’s Farewell” by Lord Byron

The Special Collections holds a manuscript copy, in the hand of Jane Austen, of Lord Byron’s poem “Napoleon’s Farewell”, c.1815: a dramatic monologue in three stanzas in the character of Bonaparte.

Byron’s poem, likely written on 25 July, was first published in The Examiner on 30 July 1815 and subsequently appeared in his Poems (1816) where it formed part of a group of poems “From the French” which ranged between condemning Napoleon and praising his bravery.

Extract from Byron’s poem “Napoleon’s Farewell” in the hand of Jane Austen, c.1815 (MS 8)

For Byron, Napoleon was the epitome of the Romantic hero, the persecuted, lonely, and flawed genius and it is believed he considered Napoleon a foil for his own complex personality.  Jane Austen shared a fascination with Napoleon and even contemplated writing his history. In the spring of 1816 Byron left England in a cloud of scandal and debt, never to return. As he journeyed to Switzerland he visited the field of Waterloo as a tourist. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Byron saw the outcome of the battle as a tragedy rather than a victory and it was to have a significant influence on the third canto of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage.

Austen’s version of “Napoleon’s Farewell”, which differs from Byron’s original, seems to have been written from memory, and was produced in 1815 or 1816 while she was writing Persuasion.  References to contemporary literature in Persuasion include those to the poetry of Byron.

Some changes are small, for example, she switches “name” and “fame” at the ends of the second and fourth lines.  Interestingly, in Byron’s original, Napoleon bids farewell to the land where, not the “bloom”, as penned by Austen, but the “gloom” of his glory rose.

The third stanza contains the most differences.  Napoleon asks to be remembered again in France when “Liberty” – rather than victory – rallies and he does not “vanquish the foes” but rather “baffle[s] the hosts” that surround them.  The most significant difference is the third line from the end:  the line in Byron’s original is “And yet may thy heart leap awake to my voice”.

1.
Farewell to the land, where the bloom of my glory
Arose, & o’ershadowed the Earth with her fame
She abandons me now, but the page of her story
The brightest or blackest is filled with my name.
I have warred with a world which vanquish’d me only
When the meteor of conquest allured me too far,
I have coped with the Nations which dread me thus lonely
The last single captive, to millions in war.

2.
Farewell to thee France! When thy Diadem crown’d me
I made thee the gem & the wonder of Earth,
Thy weakness decrees I should leave as I found thee
Decayed in thy glory and sunk in thy worth.
O! for the veteran hearts which were wasted
In strife with the storm, when their battles were won,
Then the Eagle whose gaze in that moment was blasted
Had still soared with eyes fix’d on Victory’s sun

3.
Farewell to thee France! But when victory rallies
Once more in thy regions, remember me then;
The violet grows in the depth of thy valleys,
Tho wither’d – thy tears will unfold it again.
Once more I may vanquish the foes that surround us,
Once more shall they heartless awake to my voice.
There are links that must break in the chain that has bound us,
Then turn thee and call on the chief of thy choice.

[MS 8 AO174]

The Road to Waterloo: Week 20 (6 – 12 July 2015)

The road from Waterloo: The second restoration of Louis XVIII
While the military convention at St Cloud on 3 July brought a formal cessation of hostilities, there remained much to be done if France was to have peace. In particular, decisions still needed to be made regarding the establishment of a credible authority and the fate of Napoleon.

Given that the Bourbons had not managed to establish themselves authoritatively in 1814-15, there was reluctance among the Allied powers to see Louis XVIII restored to the throne of France. However, no credible alternative could be found and, on 8 July, Louis XVIII made his formal return to Paris, the day after the arrival of General Graf von Zieten’s Prussian corps. The return of the King to the capital marked the end of the period that has become known as the Hundred Days (actually a period of 111 days), which began with Napoleon’s arrival into Paris on 20 March. Immediately after his arrival, the King assigned Lieutenant General Dessolles to command the national guard and Lieutenant General Maison to the command of the First Division of the army. A government was announced which was to be headed by Prince Talleyrand, who was also given the role of foreign minister. It was critical at this time for the King to have a strong government and ensure his authority was accepted. Furthermore, an army of occupation, under the Duke of Wellington, was established to support long term security while decisions were made regarding the boundaries of France and the settlement of war debts.

Meanwhile, Napoleon’s hopes to flee to America were prevented by the presence of blockading Royal Navy warships. Unable to either remain in France or flee, Napoleon wrote a brief letter to the Prince Regent, on 13 July, putting himself at his mercy. Two days later he surrendered to Captain Maitland of HMS Bellerophon and was taken on board the vessel. While there were calls for Napoleon’s execution, the British government decided he was to be placed in exile at a location where it was beyond his capacity to disturb the peace of Europe. Maitland’s letter announcing Napoleon’s surrender to him reached London on 24 July and Lord Bathurst, the Secretary of State, immediately wrote to Wellington:

“We have nearly determined, subject to what we may hear from Paris in answer to Lord Liverpool’s letter a week ago, to send Bonaparte to St Helena. In point of climate it is unobjectionable, and its situation will enable us to keep him from all intercourse with the world, without requiring all that severity of restraint which it would be otherwise necessary to inflict upon him. There is much reason to hope that in a place from whence we propose excluding all neutrals, and with which there can be so little communication, Bonaparte’s existence will be soon forgotten.”
[MS 61 Wellington Papers 1/474/9]

If the hope of oblivion for Napoleon was misplaced, the solution did in general meet the Allies’ requirements for the duration of Napoleon’s life — although there was long-running conflict between the former emperor and Hudson Lowe, the governor of the island. Napoleon died on St Helena six years later, on 5 May 1821.

Commemorating Samuel Whitbread, 1758-1815

In this week’s blog post Professor Emma Clery of the Faculty of English discusses an unsung hero of the war with Napoleon.

‘I deny the insane proposition that peace is more dangerous than war’: Commemorating Samuel Whitbread, 1758-1815
In all the buzz surrounding the bicentenary of the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, no mention has been made of the existence of a peace movement in Britain during the long years of war with France. For several years I’ve been exploring the context of the great anti-war poem Eighteen Hundred and Eleven by Anna Letitia Barbauld, a writer well-known in her day. Before I began this research, I confess I wondered what the objection to the war could be, other than moral opposition to all warfare. Napoleon was generally seen by the British as a tyrant with an insatiable appetite for conquest, who must be resisted, right?

WP1/464/29 Copy of a letter from Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, first Duke of Wellington, to William Wellesley-Pole, concerning Mr. Whitbread’s attack on him in Parliament in connection with Napoleon being declared an outlaw, 5 May 1815

But no. There was organised opposition to the war, and a lot of the leadership came from well-educated, prosperous and socially respectable Dissenters, many of them Unitarians like Barbauld. Their arguments were moral and religious, but also pragmatic, economic and political. They judged that Napoleon’s desire for war with Britain had been exaggerated, and condemned the unwillingness of government to listen to diplomatic approaches from France and her allies. They pointed out that ministers and officials were profiting from the war, and had an interest in prolonging it. At various points in the period 1793 to 1815 they saw opportunities for an honourable negotiated peace with Napoleon and launched nation-wide petition campaigns to put pressure on the war establishment. The peace of Amiens, which lasted for 18 months from 1802-1803, had been very popular. In the years 1808 and 1812 in particular, there seemed to be an opening for new peace negotiations.

During the war years the Whig party, the official opposition in Parliament, was lacking in direction and effectiveness. Their policy on the war wavered. Their long-standing leader Charles James Fox favoured peace, but he only gained power briefly during a coalition government immediately before his death in 1806, and no progress was made. His successors, Lord Holland and Earl Grey, gradually came round to luke-warm backing for the war. The anti-war cause was instead taken up in the House of Commons by radical Whigs, first among them Samuel Whitbread. He was brother-in-law to Grey, but came from a non-aristocratic background. He was the son of a wealthy brewer, and was never allowed to forget these lowly origins in trade by political opponents and by satirists.

Everyone has heard of Nelson and Wellington, but Whitbread is an unsung hero of the war with France. There’s been no proper assessment of this prominent figure on the British political scene since Dean Rapp’s 1970 PhD thesis was published as a book in 1987. I stumbled upon Whitbread’s speeches and activities almost by accident, and it struck me that there was something truly heroic about his dauntless championing of a variety of apparently lost causes, but especially his consistent support for the cause of negotiated peace. There is also something poignant about his death less than three weeks after Waterloo. I didn’t want this anniversary to pass without suggesting a couple of avenues for re-evaluation.

Although Whitbread represented a significant and influential tranche of public opinion at the time, he was marginalised by political opponents and even by members of his own party, and his predictions of disaster were mocked in the Loyalist press. This kind of belittling treatment has continued to the present day, with supposedly objective reference sources like Charles Arnold-Baker’s The Companion to British History and the article by D.R. Fisher on Whitbread in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography in fact launching bizarre personal attacks on him. This rubbishing of Whitbread goes hand in hand with an uncritical acceptance that the war against Napoleon was unavoidable and British victory was inevitable.

But the trend among the best new histories of Britain’s war against Napoleon, for instance works by Charles Esdaile and Rory Muir, is to take a more nuanced and questioning approach. It’s not unusual to be told nowadays that the British war effort appeared to be doomed up to 1811, or even until early 1813. Although Whitbread’s nay-saying hasn’t yet been given its due, it’s surely only a matter of time before a revisionist account of diplomatic relations backs some of his arguments. The memorable words, ‘I deny the insane proposition that peace is more dangerous than war,’ can be found in an impassioned but closely-argued speech which he delivered in the Commons on the 29th February 1808, criticising the rejection by the Tory government of peace overtures from Russia and Austria. The speech take up 50 columns in printed version records of parliamentary debates, and can be accessed online at
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1808/feb/29/mediation-of-russia-and-austria.

Another point arises from Roger Knight’s recent Britain Against Napoleon: The Organization of Victory 1793-1815. The title may seem teleological, as if victory was a foregone conclusion. But actually the conclusions are far more circumspect. Knight goes so far as to argue that possibly the greatest advantage Britain enjoyed seemed to be a weakness: its parliamentary system of government. Napoleon could impose his will without opposition, but, Knight says, ‘while Napoleon had the advantages of continuity and speed of decision, he eventually lost a sense of reality’ (p. 464). The logical consequence of Knight’s argument is that the energetic radical wing of the Whig opposition, the Mountain led by Samuel Whitbread, inadvertently helped in this process of honing the government into a mean and lean fighting machine. By this token even the most hawkish can join in celebrating Whitbread’s contribution.

Whitbread welcomed both the short-lived end of hostilities in 1814, and the victory at Waterloo the following year. But on the 17th June 1815, the day before the battle was fought, he stated in the Commons that, ‘Neither the events of victory or defeat could alter the principle of the war, and his opposition remained unchanged upon that subject’. His view remained that the millions of casualties and the terrible sufferings of soldiers and civilians in the Napoleonic war had been avoidable. On the 5th of July 1815 he committed suicide, aged 57. Speculation about the motive has focused on signs that he was suffering from a mental disturbance at the time, possibly relating to financial difficulties. But there is no doubt that the displays of nationalist triumphalism must have deepened his sense of despair. He would have shared the feeling that Anna Letitia Barbauld described when writing to a friend after the bloodbath at Talavera, Spain, in 1810, from which Wellington emerged as victor:

…I do not know how to rejoice at this victory, splendid as it is, over Buonaparte, when I consider the horrible waste of life, the mass of misery, which such gigantic combats must occasion.

E.J. Clery, University of Southampton

Further Reading:

J.E. Cookson, The Friends of Peace: Anti-War Liberalism in England 1793-1815 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

Roger Fulford, Samuel Whitbread, 1764-1815: A Study in Opposition (London, Macmillan, 1967).

William McCarthy, Anna Letitia Barbauld: Voice of the Enlightenment (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008).

Dean Rapp, Samuel Whitbread (1764-1815): A Social and Political Study (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1987.

The road to Waterloo: Week 19 (29 June – 5 July 2015)

The road from Waterloo: The march to Paris
As June faded into July, the Allies refused to agree to an armistice, determined to take control of France and to re-establish a legitimate government that would afford some chance of peace. Napoleon may have fled Paris for the coast, hoping to reach America, but his supporters were still at large; the Allies advanced, taking the fortresses of the towns along the border, and marching after the remnants of the French army, as it retreated to Paris.

Writing on 2 July, Wellington reported progress to Lord Bathurst, Secretary of State for War and the Colonies:

“The enemy attacked the advanced guard of Marshall Prince Blucher’s corps at Villers Cotterets on the 28th, but, the main body coming up, they were driven off with the loss of 6 pieces of cannon and about one thousand prisoners.

It appears that these troops were on the march from Soissons to Paris; and, having been driven off that road by the Prussian troops at Villers Cotterets, they got upon that of Meaux. They were attacked again upon this road by General Bulow, who took from them 500 prisoners, and drove them across the Marne.  They have, however, got into Paris.

The advanced guard of the Allied army under my command crossed the Oise on the 29th, and the whole on the 30th, and we yesterday took up a position, with the right upon the height of Richebourg, the left upon the Bois de Bondy.

Field Marshall Prince Blucher, having taken the village of Aubevilliers, or Vertus, on the morning of the 30th June, moved to his right, and crossed the Seine at St. Germain’s as I advanced; and he will this day have his right at Plessis Piquet, his left at St. Cloud, and the reserve at Versailles.

The enemy have fortified the heights of Montmartre and the town of St. Denis strongly; and, by means of the little rivers, Rouillon and la Vieille Mer, they have inundated the ground on the north side of that town; and water having been introduced into the canal de l’Ourcq, and the bank formed into a parapet and batteries, they have a strong position on this side of Paris.

The heights of Belleville are likewise strongly fortified, but I am not aware that any defensive works have been thrown up on the left of the Seine.

Having collected in Paris all the troops remaining after the battle of the 18th and all the depots of the whole army it is supposed the enemy have there about 40 or 50,000 troops of the line and guards, besides the National Guards, a new levy called les tirailleurs de la garde, and the Federes.

Under these circumstances I am inclined to doubt the expediency of our attacking the enemy in their fortified position; more particularly as having reason to believe that Marshall Prince Wrede’s corps was at Nancy on the 26th, we suppose it is this day at Chalons, and it may be here in 4 or 5 days…”
[MS 61 Wellington Papers 1/475/9]

That same day, Wellington was at Gonesse, a little to the north-east of Paris, and was again approached for an armistice. He wrote to Blucher:

“It appears to me that, with the force which you and I have under our command at present, the attack of Paris is a matter of great risk. I am convinced it cannot be made on this side with any hope of success … We must incur a severe loss, if it is necessary, in any case. But in this case it is not necessary. By the delay of a few days we shall have here the army under Marshal Prince Wrede, and the allied sovereigns with it, who will decide upon the measures to be adopted, and success will then be certain with a comparatively trifling loss; or, if we choose it, we can settle all our matters now by agreeing to the proposed armistice.”
[MS 61 Wellington Papers 1/475/10]

The Allies were reluctant to destroy Paris, the capital of Louis XVIII, whom they hoped to restore to the French throne. Yet the French army could not be allowed to remain there, and the king could not recover his throne in a way that left him in the hands of the Assemblies, which were seen as Napoleon’s creation and instrument.

Fighting continued around Paris on 2 and 3 July, at Meudon and Issy, to the south-west of the capital, in which the French suffered heavy losses. The Prussians then moved along the left bank of the Seine, in communication with Wellington’s army by way of the bridge at Argenteuil; and the British army was able to move in force along the left bank of the Seine as well, towards the Pont de Neuilly. At this point, the French asked for a ceasefire on both sides of the Seine and to negotiate a military convention.

Agreed at St Cloud on the night of 3 July and ratified the following day, the convention set out the terms on which the French army should evacuate Paris. There was to be a suspension of hostilities, with the French army given eight days to withdraw from the city across the Loire. In return, the Allies promised to respect the rights and property of the present authorities, French citizens and members of the French armed forces. At this stage, the terms of the agreement remained purely military and did not settle any political question.