66

66

having got up from the place where he was cut down, he found a musquet, fired fif teen rounds with it, and took six French dismounted borsemen prisoners!!!!! " While conducting in these prisoners, he per"ceived a soldier of General Stuart's corps" [the Queen's German Regiment], "carrying into the rear the INVINCIBLE STANDARD, aubich be bad PICKED UP, while "the Serjeant lay as already described." That is to say, according to his own words, "in "a state of insensibility." How a man could, while he himself was in a state of insensibility, know and see what was passing by his side, neither the Serjeant nor his historians thought proper to explain. The fact is, that, previous to the meeting of the Highland Society, the true story had partially got abroad; people had said, that it was a soldier of the German Regiment who took the Standard which was brought bome, in proof of which divers public orders and certificates were appealed to, and, as there was but one Standard brought home, it was necessary for those who were resolved that nobody but the Highlanders should have the honour of taking it, to find out some way or other of making the world believe, that, though the Standard was brought in to head quarters by ANTHONY LUTZ, a soldier of the German Regiment, yet that the said Lurz did not take it from the enemy, but PICKED IT UP, that is to say, found it, or stole it from the 42d Regiment. Hence the story of Serjeant Sinclair, or of the Highland Society; for I pretend not to say which of them had the honour of inventing it.

The matter remained very quiet 'till the month of December last. The Highland Society were preparing a medal to immortalize the achievement; a cup of great value was ordered to be made, as a present to the 42d Regiment, ornamented with appropriate devices, one of which was, a Highlander taking the Standard-Ker Porter's Panorama, the Print-shops, the Play-houses, the Circus, Sadler's-wells, with almost every other place of exhibition or amusement, lent their most powerful aid; while the Scotch newspaper editors, of whom London has to boast of no scanty provision, bent the whole force of their "infernal machines" against every gleam of truth that threatened hostility to the deception. Notwithstanding, however, the watchfulness of these numerous and zealous supporters, means were silently preparing for wresting the laurel from the brow of the Highlanders, and restoring it to its rightful owners. I had, during the summer, discovered the real state of the case; and,

when the proper time came, I published my Narrative, which, with all its interesting documents, will be found in the Regis ter, Vol. II. p. 801. The taking of the Standard by LUTZ was thus made out. 1. LUTZ, who was sent for to London, wore (and still wears) upon the breast of his coat, a representation of the Invincible Standard. 2. This badge is worn in consequence of a public order, issued by General Stuart, on the 4th of April, 1801, as a mark of honour conferred on him for hav

ing "taken the standard FROM THE "ENEMY, in the battle of the 21st of "March." 3. That this badge of honour was not given without just pretensions, is proved by the certificate of the Assistant Adjutant-General, which proves the bringing in of the Standard to head-quarters by LUTZ, and which states, that LUTZ "took "the said Standard FROM THE ENE"MY." 4. I next relate the evidence of Lieutenant MON CRIEFF, of the Queen's German Regiment, to whom Lutz first presented the Standard, when he brought it to the ranks of his regiment, in the heat of the battle. 5. The proof is closed and completed by the evidence (taken upon oath) of Corporal Schmid and Private Wohlwend, who state, that they saw the Standard in the hands of the flying enemy, that they saw Lutz fire at the person who carried it, that they saw him rush into the smoke after his fire, and return again, almost immediately, with the Standard in his hand *.-Thus the Standard was traced from the hands of the enemy to those of the English Commander in Chief; and thus was it clearly and incontestibly proved, that this symbol of victory was taken, carried in, and delivered at head-quarters by Lutz, and by nobody but Lutz.

Now, what has been produced in opposition to this proof? Much declamation, much calumny; but no evidence, and no argu ment. My Narrative with its accompany. ing documents were published on the 25th of December; a "complete refutation" was instantly promised by the Scotch editors; day after day this promise was renewed, always accompanied with most violent abuse on me and on my poor friend Lutz, who might, we would think, have been spared, were it only for his having had the presence of mind to "pick up" and to keep the famous standard. + At last, after six weeks consideration, out came the "Narrative, by authority," of the Field Officers of the 42d regiment, signed by A. STEW

See all these documents, Register, Vol, IE p. 814, 815, and 816.

† See Vol. II. p. 868 to 870.

ART and JAMES STIRLING, Majors and Lieutenant Colonels. This Narrative, which will be found at full length in page 164 of Vol. III. of the Register, says nothing, positively, to invalidate. the claim of LUTZ, but, on the contrary, it does, as far as negative evidence can go, establish and confirm the justice of that claim. "The "42d regiment," say the narrators, "it "this time, closed in with them" [the enemyl," and their standard was taken from "the bearer by Major Stirling, who con"signed it in charge to a non-commissioned "officer."-" The non-commissioned offi66 cer (Serjeant Sinclair) to whom the stand"ard was given in charge, was wounded "in the rear of the regiment, and by him the "standard was LOST!" This is all. Here is nothing controversial; but the simple statement of two facts; to wit, that Major Stirling took a standard, and that Serjeant Sinclair lost it again. Facts, which, as I said before, I have never called in question, and which I have not the least inclination to deny. Repeating what I said, at the time when this "Narrative by authority" was published, I shall here just point out the disagreement between the narrative of Serjeant Sinclair, as published by the Highland Society, and that which Colonels Stewart and Stirling submitted to the public. Serjeant Sinclair said (or was made to say), that the standard which Major Stirling took, was the Invincible Standard. The Narrative, signed by the field officers, affixes to it no such epithet. Colonels Stewart and Stirling do, indeed, refrain from stating, that the standard, taken by the 42d regiment, was not the Invincible Standard; and, though Major Stirling himself took it, it is possible, that, at the time of drawing up the narrative, he might not recollect, or might never have been able to distinguish, whether it was, or was not, the Invincible Standard finally brought to England; but if Major STIRLING was not, from want of recollection, or from whatever other cause, able to say, that the standard he took was not the Invincible Standard, it inevitably follows, that he was not, and that he is not, able to say that it was the Invincible Standard. Then again, Serjeant Sinclair asserted (or he was made to assert), that the standard, committed to his charge, was "PICKED UP," by his side, "while he lay in a state of insensibility." But, Colonels STEWART and STIRLING say nothing about the standard's being picked up from the side of the serjeant. They say he lost it, and that is all. The circumstance of picking up, was the most material of his whole narra. tive, as its evident tendency was to rob

Lurz and his regiment of the honour of having taken the standard from the enemy. This circumstance was dropped in the narrative, though be it observed, Serjeant Sinclair must, of course, have been examined, previous to the drawing up of the regimental statement. Thus it appears, then, that, according to the narrative, there was not only no ground for stating that LUTZ picked up and brought in a standard, which was the prize of the 42d regiment, but that Colonels Stewart and Stirling were quite uncertain whether the standard brought in by LUTZ was the same standard that was lost by Sinclair. That there is, in England, but one French standard, which was taken in the battle of Alexandria, is well known; it is equally well known, that that standard was taken from the enemy by LUTZ; and, all that is made appear by the narrative, is, that the 42d regiment themselves do not know, that they ever had this standard, even for one moment, in their possession, though the justly indignant Public will not fail to recollect, that it was openly proposed, by the Scotch editors in London, to send it to be kept in the city of Edinburgh!

But, though Colonels Stewart and Stirling said nothing, positively, to weaken the claim of Lurz and the Queen's German Regiment, their narrative was, by the supporters of the claim of the 42d regiment, made to infer a destruction of that claim altogether! And, here, it is necessary to show the connexion between the "Narrative by Authority" and the remarks thereon. The narrative appeared in the St. James's Chronicle of 5th of February, the remarks in the next number of the same paper. That both came from Edinburgh there is sufficient internal evidence; and, as it was absolutely impossible, that the St. James's Chronicle of the 5th of February could have reached that city time enough to enable the writer of the remarks to send them to London for publication on the 8th of February, it follows, of course, that he must, at least, have seen the narrative previous to its appearance in print.-The part of Colonels Stewart and Stirling's narrative, from which an inference has been drawn unfavourable to the claim of LUTZ and the German Regiment, is as follows:-" Or "ders were at that moment given by Lt. "Col. A. Stewart to charge, which was "instantly done, and the French infan

"the 42d.-The exertions of this charge ❝had disordered the line, and Lt. Col. A. "Stewart judging that the enemy's ca"valry were preparing to charge in turn, "ordered the 42d to form quickly on the "grenadiers and prepare to receive them. "This moment was selected by the enemy "for a desperate charge. It was doubt

less a moment in which a regiment, "pressing close on a retreating enemy, "cannot be supposed to be correctly in

line. The charge of the cavalry was "made en masse, and in some places pene"trated the intervals which had been oc"casioned by the movements to form on "the grenadiers, an order which in the "continued fire of musquetry could not

be distinctly heard by the whole batta"lion. The right were protected by the "fire of the 25th on the redoubt, and "Brigadier General Stewart bringing up his "brigade AT THIS CRITICAL MOMENT, "his own regiment gave the enemy a close "and well-directed fire, which allowed "time to the 42d to join their efforts to "those of the rest of the reserve, and of "the foreign brigade, in repelling the cavalry. "This service was speedily accomplished "with the effect stated in the dispatches "of the commander in chief. The rest of "the action consisted in sharp shooting "and cannonading as stated in the same "dispatches."-The inference drawn from this statement (in the remarks above alJuded to) is as follows:-" From this nar"rative it distinctly appears, that one bat"talion of the French infantry were de"feated by the 42d regiment; that their

standard was taken by Major Stirling "with his own hands, and consigned by "him in charge to Serjeant Sinclair; that "the 42d regiment afterwards engaged "the other columns of the French infan"try, successively defeated them, and "forced them to seek shelter among their

66

cavalry; that the cavalry then made a "desperate charge en masse on the 42d "regiment, and yet were able to penetrate

it only in the intervals left between the "different bodies of that corps in forming "to receive the charge; that all this was "done before the Queen's German Regiment 66 came into action; that the first fire from "the latter corps was after the 42d had "received the desperate charge of the ca

valry; that consequently THE GER"MAN REGIMENT HAD NEVER "BEEN ENGAGED WITH THE "FRENCH INFANTRY." * — Thus, then, according to this writer, according to

* St. James's Chronicle, Feb. 8, 1803.

the supporter of the 42d regiment, it "distincily appears, from their narrative," that the French infantry corps, engaged in that part of the field, were all successively defeated, "before the Queen's German Regiment came into action," that the first fire from that corps was even "after the "42d regiment had received the desperate charge of the cavalry," and that the German Regiment "had NEVER been engaged with the French INFANTRY," the object of all which is to show, that the claim of LUTZ and his regiment is totally unfounded; because, if that regiment was never engaged with infantry, they could not take the Invincible Standard from the enemy, that standard being an infantry standard.This brings us to the statement of the officers of the Queen's German Regiment. "Queen's German Regiment. Cork, 15th "March, 1803.

"Before we trespass on the attention of "the Public, we beg leave to premise, that, "however repeatedly we may have been "the subject of discussion, it never was our "wish so to be, much less was it, either di"rectly or indirectly, our request; and, "that, it is with a degree of reluctance to be overcome only by a sense of duty to our corps, that we now trouble the public "with a short statement of facts, for the purpose of removing an error circulated "through the St. James's Chronicle of the "8th of February last.

"With this motive it is, that we, the un"dersigned field-officers of the regiment, "at the express desire of the corps, declare, "that the Queen's German regiment was, "on the 21st of March, 1801, in column, "when the alarm, on the right of the Bri"tish line was given, and that our movement, particularly that of the left wing, "which was ordered to support the reserve,

"Colonel Du TENS, who had been pre"viously wounded by a musket ball, fell by "the stroke of a sabre. Captain MISSETT, "Lieutenant HUTTON, and seventy two "rank and file were also wounded by the "sabre. The number of non-commissioned "officers and privates killed and wounded "by the musquetry is, as near as possible, "148. Wounded by the cavalry, and now "present with the regiment, 72. Of com"missioned officers there were 14 killed "and wounded. Total killed and wound"ed, 234.

"We do not state these facts for the pur85 pose of arrogating to ourselves more me"rit than is due to every other corps en

gaged. We ask only for an equal por❝tion, and that not at the hands of any par "ticular regiment. "(Signed) JAMES LYON, Lieut. Colonel. "CHARLES GORMOCAN, Major." This statement, then, a statement which I venture to assert will never be contradicted by any one who, if he has a name, will put that name to what he writes; this statement completely does away the last poor pitiful subterfuge of the Sinclairs and their partizans. Here is nothing said about the standard: it was not necessary: the official documents; the general, the brigade, the regimental orders and proceedings were al ready before the public: the field officers of the 42d had not, in their narrative, put in any positive claim to the Standard that was brought bome; but, they had published something, from which their own partizans inferred, and proclaimed to the world, that the Queen's German regiment was not, in the battle of Alexandria, "ever engaged with infantry:" indeed, this seems to be an inference fairly drawn from the statement of the 42d regiment, and to this inference, the Queen's German regiment have here given a clear and positive contradiction. Let the writer of the remarks no longer say, then," that the charge of falsehood now lies "between Mr. Cobbett on the one side, and "the officers of the 42d regiment on the "other, and that the public have to choose "which of these two they will believe;" for, though, were it on any point coming within my own knowledge, I should have no objection to let my word stand its chance against that of the whole corps of the 42d regiment, the public will, at once, perceive, that the charge of falsehood now lies, not between me and the officers of the 42d regiment, but between the narrative of those officers (as explained and inferred from by their par tizans,) and that of the officers of the Queen's German regiment; and, I am very much deceived, if the public will hesitate

one single moment in making their choice. The narrative of the 42d regiment has been drawn up with more than diplomatic precaution. It can hardly be said to affirm, or to deny, any thing. It does not say that Major Stirling did take the Invincible Standard, neither does it say that he did not take it it does not say that the standard was picked up, neither does it say that it was not picked up: it does not say that the regi ment was, according to Sir Robert Wilson's account, broken and overtobelmed, neither does it say that it was not broken and overwhelmed it leaves every thing to inference, and, with characteristic propriety, secures a retreat in every direction. With respect to the Queen's German regiment never being engaged with infantry, however, the inference is somewhat too plain. The narrative makes the 42d regiment repulse the infantry, body after body, and, when the battle is quite over with the infantry, it introduces the Queen's German regiment to assist in repulsing the cavalry, In short, it is impossible that any person, unacquainted with the true history of the engagement, should not believe, from reading this narrative, that the German regiment never was, at any one time, engaged with the French infantry. This is too, the meaning attached to the narrative by the supporters of the 42d regiment; and it is to this part of the narrative, conveying this meaning, that the officers of the Queen's German Regiment have now given a contradiction not guarded by equivocal terms and ambiguous phrases, but clearly and positively expressed, and supported by a detail of killed and wounded. "engaged with infantry," say they, "and "the proof that we were so engaged is,

66

"We were

we had 2 officers killed and 7 wounded, "and 148 non-commissioned officers and "privates killed and wounded by that infan"by."-This assertion, then, the field officers of the 42d regiment must disprove, or they must disclaim the meaning, which their partizans have attached to their own narrative, and which meaning has been cir culated through the very same vehicle chosen by them for the publication of that narrative. That their narrative, thus construed, tends to rob another corps of its due share of honour, is evident, and, indeed, is now so declared by the officers of that other corps: if, therefore, their narrative has, by their own partisans, been miscon strued, let them disavow the construction; if it has not been misconstrued, let them refute the statement of the officers of the Queen's German Regiment.

As to the standard, I mean that