In the Life of Lord Lawrence, which has recently appeared, his biographer has gone out of his way to assail the reputation of a man whose brilliant services and romantic exploits have taken a wonderful hold on the popular mind, and raised him to the position of one of his country’s heroes – Hodson, of Hodson’s Horse. It is difficult to account for the animosity which Mr. Smith has exhibited towards one with whom he could have had no personal relations. Those who knew Lord Lawrence best felt assured that he would have been the last man to sanction his biography being made the vehicle of so cruel an attack on the memory of a brave soldier long dead, and who had done good service to his country.
Many who were themselves prejudiced against Major Hodson, condemned Mr. Smith’s ungenerous conduct, in raking up old scandals without any regard to the feelings of his family and friends. Even if the charges themselves had been true, instead of being, as I hope to show, either utterly unfounded, or gross misrepresentations, the line which Mr. Smith has taken would be quite indefensible.
Not contented with what he could find in the papers and correspondence of Lord Lawrence, he appears to have gone
round to those whom he knew to have been ill-affected to Hodson in India, and collected all the stories to his discredit which had ever been circulated, with the embellishments which they had received in passing from one to another during the course of twenty-five or thirty years.
It might have been supposed that at any rate he would have felt bound to be scrupulously accurate in retailing what he heard. So far from it, when I have had access to his sources of information, I have been able to convict him of the grossest exaggerations, and of losing sight of the all-important distinction between the evidence of an eyewitness and mere scandalous report. In one case in which Mr. Smith states that a “high official of scrupulous accuracy” had himself seen an act of atrocious cruelty committed, which in fact only rested on a story told by a discharged servant and was utterly untrue, he has been obliged, when challenged by me, to modify his statement in a later edition, but without any apology for the slander.
The same entire want of honourable feeling has been shown by Mr. Smith with regard to my refutation of one of his cruellest calumnies, viz., that “Hodson was killed in the act of looting in a house at Lucknow.” The evidence which I brought forward of its falsehood was so convincing that he could not resist it, but instead of any expression of regret he aggravated his original offence by a number of insinuations, and by repeating other accusations, which, in due course, I shall prove to be equally unfounded.
He defended himself by saving, “that three highly distinguished officers, who, if they were not eye-witnesses, had at least considerable means of learning the truth, told me independently of each other that he was killed in the act of looting.” I wish especially to call attention to this statement, as it throws great light upon the whole subject.
If three distinguished officers, with such opportunities, could have themselves believed, as doubtless they did, and reported to Mr. Smith so outrageous a falsehood as to a simple matter of fact, what weight attaches to the other stories of the same character brought forward by him? May they not all be equally false? Even if they cannot be disproved by such conclusive evidence as in this case, is it not at least probable that they owe their origin to the same source – the malignant invention of a party who, both during the siege of Delhi and afterwards, were bent on ruining my brother’s reputation by tales “of envy born,” to which others lent too easy a credence?
That such tales were told, and such enmity did exist, is no imagination of mine, as Mr. Smith insinuates. It was well known, as regards Delhi, to such men, for instance, as Colonel Baird Smith, then in command of the Engineers, who in a letter before me, speaking of those stories, says that he is “very sceptical regarding them, as there was certainly a strong party employed in throwing as much moral dirt at him as possible.” To the same effect Sir James Outram, shortly after his death, wrote – “I was a great admirer of Hodson, and gave no credit to the stories against him.”
I am quite aware of the disadvantages under which I labour in taking up my pen in vindication of my brother. I shall naturally be suspected of undue partiality, and being influenced by fraternal affection, in the view I take. To avoid this suspicion I shall as much as possible use documentary evidence, and quote the opinions of others, not my own. Mr. Smith refers to a Life of my brother which I published some years ago, “doubtless,” he says, “in entire ignorance of the facts of the case.” I beg to assure him that I was perfectly aware of all that was said then, and of all that Mr. Smith has said now, against him
that I investigated, and was able to disprove all the charges on the authority of those who were most intimately acquainted with the facts, when they were fresh in remembrance, especially Sir T. Seaton, who shared his tent during the siege. Many of these, unhappily, are now dead, but some remain: among the foremost, Lord Napier of Magdala. No one knew my brother more intimately. He had been on terms of unbroken friendship with him from the time of his first employment in the Punjab in 1846, till his last hours at Lucknow. To him I am indebted for much valuable assistance in this vindication, to which I shall refer hereafter in detail. I will only quote now his general verdict on Mr. Smith’s “shameful publication,” as he calls it in a letter to me. “The whole of the paragraphs relating to your brother contained in pages 216-220, vol. ii., appear to me most cruelly unjust. ... My poor friend Hodson has been greatly misjudged and misrepresented by people who have no knowledge and no cause for malevolence.”
There is still another disadvantage in this case. To enter into controversy with one who has all Lord Lawrence’s papers at his command, is somewhat akin to arguing with the master of thirty legions. However, I take comfort from the very fact of Mr. Smith’s manifest animosity, feeling assured, notwithstanding his hints of what there is behind, that if he could have found anything more unfavourable to my brother in Lord Lawrence’s papers he would certainly have published it. Nothing is more remarkable than to find that, with the exception of two or three expressions, the exact weight of which depends very much on the context or on the occasion of writing, no charges are made by Lord Lawrence himself. Mr. Smith is obliged to have recourse for his more serious accusations to his “distinguished officers,” or to the remembrance of long bygone conversations.
Before I proceed to deal more in detail with the counts of Mr. Smith’s indictment, a few prefatory remarks may be expedient.
The question may be asked, How came such stories as Mr. Smith has collected against Hodson to have been invented and believed? How came he to have made for himself so many and such bitter enemies? The explanation is not difficult. Partly, doubtless, it was owing to jealousy excited by his rapid promotion over the heads of his seniors in standing, and by the unprecedentedly high position to which as a subaltern he had attained. Human nature is human nature in India as elsewhere. Partly too, and perhaps in great measure, he was himself to blame. I do not at all wish to represent my brother as a faultless character.
Coming out to India at a more advanced age, with greater advantage of education, and greater natural abilities than most of his compeers, he was quite conscious of his superiority, and took no pains to conceal it, but, more especially in his earlier days, was overbearing and unconciliatory. His best and dearest friend, Sir H. Lawrence, was quite aware of his failings in this respect, and in one of his published letters, gives an amusing account of the way in which he would lay down the law. Besides this, he had no toleration for meanness or inefficiency or cowardice in others, and would express himself in language which stung deeply at the time, and was never forgiven. Nor was he less outspoken in criticising the conduct of his superiors, and he thus incurred the enmity of those whom it would have been most his interest to propitiate.
Added to all this, the unhappy differences between Sir H. Lawrence and his brother, which drove Sir Henry from the Punjab, had a most injurious effect on his fortunes.
There was much strong party feeling, and my brother was not a man to conceal his sentiments.
And now to return to Mr. Smith. He says of the shooting of the Shahzadahs:– “The deed was worthy of the man, and the man of the deed” (vol. ii. p. 219).
I accept the words, though in a very different sense from Mr. Smith. The deed was worthy of the man. Instead of my own judgment, which is worthless, I will give that of a writer in the Edinburgh Review, well known as one of the highest legal authorities of the day:– “No more righteous act was ever done. No history in the world records an instance of more heroic courage 1.” I may add that of the author of “Tom Brown’s School Days,” a true representative Englishman:– “As for defending the shooting of the Princes, let those do it who feel that a defence is needed, for we believe that no Englishman worth convincing now doubts as to the righteousness and policy of the act. He who did the deed and is gone cared not for hasty or false tongues. Why should we2?”
Yet Kaye, whom Mr. Smith follows, has the audacity to say that he never in England heard the act approved. “I never heard it even defended,” though he is forced to confess, what he could not deny, that “some of the best and wisest of our countrymen in India looked on it with approval,” and surely they were the best judges. Sir Robert Montgomery, for example, wrote, on receiving the news:– “My dear Hodson, – All honour to you, and your Horse, for catching the King and slaying his sons.” Why, then, is Hodson to be branded as a murderer for that which good and wise men in their calmer judgment approved? Is this justice?
There probably never was a more remarkable instance of the power, I may say the fascination, exercised by one man of resolute will over a multitude, than that exhibited in the capture of the Princes by Hodson on September 22, 1857. I am tempted, for the benefit of those who may have forgotten or never seen it, to reproduce the narrative of Lieutenant Macdowell, the only other Englishman present:– “On the 10th the King gave himself up, and was lodged securely in Delhi under a guard. On this day all had evacuated the place, of which we were complete masters. On the 21st a note from Hodson, ‘Come sharp, bring one hundred men.’ Off I went; time, six o’clock A.M. He told me he had heard that the three Princes (the heads of the rebellion and sons of the King) were in a tomb six miles off, and he intended going to bring them, and offered me the chance of accompanying him. Wasn’t it handsome on his part? Of course I went. We started at about eight o’clock, and proceeded slowly towards the tomb. It is called Humayoon’s Tomb, and is an immense building. In it were the Princes and about three thousand Mussulman followers, in the suburb close by about three thousand more, all armed; so it was rather a ticklish bit of work. We halted half a mile from the place, and sent in to say the Princes must give themselves up unconditionally, or take the consequences. A long half-hour elapsed, when a messenger came out to say the Princes wished to know if their lives would be promised them if they came out. ‘Unconditional surrender’ was the answer. Again we waited. It was a most anxious time. We dared not take them by force, or all would have been lost, and we doubted their coming. We heard the shouts of the fanatics (as we found out afterwards) begging the Princes to lead them on against us. And we had only one hundred men, and were six miles from Delhi. At length, I suppose,
imagining that sooner or later they must be taken, they resolved to give themselves up unconditionally, fancying, I suppose, as we had spared the King, we would spare them. So the messenger was sent to say they were coming. We sent ten men to meet them, and by Hodson’s order I drew the troop up across the road ready to receive them, and shoot them at once if there was any attempt at a rescue. Soon they appeared in a small ‘ruth,’ or Hindustani cart drawn by bullocks, five troopers on each side. Behind them thronged about two thousand or three thousand (I am not exaggerating) Mussulmans. We met them, and at once Hodson and I rode up, leaving the men a little in the rear. They bowed as we came up, and Hodson, bowing, ordered the driver to move on. This was the minute. The crowd behind made a movement. Hodson waved them back; I beckoned to the troop, which came up, and in an instant formed them up between the crowd and the cart. By Hodson’s order I advanced at a walk on the people, who fell back sullenly and slowly at our approach. It was touch-and-go. Meanwhile Hodson galloped back, and told the sowars (ten) to hurry the Princes on along the road, while we showed a front and kept back the mob. They retired on Humayoon’s Tomb, and step by step we followed them. Inside they went up the steps, and formed up in the immense garden inside. The entrance to this was through an arch, up steps. Leaving the men outside, Hodson and myself (I stuck to him throughout), with four men, rode up the steps into the arch, when he called out to them to lay down their arms. There was a murmur. He reiterated the command, and (God knows why, I never can understand it) they commenced doing so. Now you see we didn’t want their arms, and under ordinary circumstances would not have risked our lives in so rash a way, but what we wanted was to gain time to get the
Princes away, for we could have done nothing had they attacked us but cut our way back, and very little chance of doing even this successfully. Well, there we stayed for two hours, collecting their arms, and I assure you I thought every moment they would rush upon us. I said nothing, but smoked all the time, to show I was unconcerned; but at last, when it was all done, and all the arms collected, put in a cart, and started, Hodson turned to me and said, ‘We’ll go now.’ Very slowly we mounted, formed up the troop, and cautiously departed, followed by the crowd. We rode along quietly. You will say, Why did we not charge them? I merely say, we were one hundred men, and they were fully six thousand. I am not exaggerating; the official reports will show you it is all true. As we got about a mile off, Hodson turned to me and said, Well, Mac, we’ve got them at last; ‘ and we both gave a sigh of relief. Never in my life, under the heaviest fire, have I been in such imminent danger. Everybody says it is the most dashing and daring thing that has been done for years (not on my part, for I merely obeyed orders, but on Hodson’s, who planned and carried it out). Well, I must finish my story. We came up to the princes, now about five miles from where we had taken them, and close to Delhi. The increasing crowd pressed close on the horses of the sowars, and assumed every moment a more hostile appearance. ‘What shall we do with them? ‘ said Hodson to me. ‘I think we had better shoot them here; we shall never get them in.’
“We had identified them by means of a nephew of the King’s, whom we had with us, and who turned king’s evidence. Besides, they acknowledged themselves to be the men. Their names were Mirza Mogul, the King’s nephew, and head of the whole business; Mirza Kishere Sultamed, who was also one of the principal rebels, and had made himself
notorious by murdering women and children; and Abu Bukt, the commander-in-chief nominally, and heir-apparent to the throne. This was the young fiend who had stripped our women in the open street, and, cutting off little children’s arms and legs, poured the blood into their mothers’ mouths. This is literally the case. There was no time to be lost. We halted the troop, put five troopers across the road behind and in front. Hodson ordered the Princes to strip and get again into the cart. He then shot them with his own hand. So ended the career of the chiefs of the revolt, and of the greatest villains that ever shamed humanity. Before they were shot, Hodson addressed our men, explaining who they were, and why they were to suffer death. The effect was marvellous; the Mussulmans seemed struck with a wholesome idea of retribution, and the Sikhs shouted with delight, while the mass moved off slowly and silently.”
Mr. Smith calls it “a stupid, cold-blooded, threefold murder.” I am quite ready to admit that it may have been a fair subject of controversy, on which different opinions may have been held, whether Hodson was justified in shooting the Princes. It was an exceptional act, only to be justified by exceptional circumstances, and of these circumstances no one could judge but himself. At any rate, Mr. Smith was bound to state the facts fairly, but with his usual animus, he implies that the excuse of necessity was an after-thought. He says, “When Hodson found that the deed was condemned, he attempted to justify it on the plea that he feared an attempt at rescue would be made by the crowd.”
Now, what are the facts? So far from it being an afterthought, in a letter to his wife written the very next morning, he says, “I came up just in time, as a large mob had collected and were turning on the guard. I intended to have had them hung, but when it came to a question of
‘they’ or ‘us,’ I had no time for deliberation.” In another letter of the same date, he says, “We should all have been cut in pieces in another moment;” and, again, a few days later, while still the hero of “the crowning mercy,” as some called it, “I am much gratified at the congratulations I receive on all sides regarding the capture of the King and the retribution on the Shahzadahs. Their execution could hardly be called one of unresisting enemies, since we were surrounded by an armed host, to whom we should have been most unquestionably sacrificed if I had hesitated for a moment. It was ‘they’ or ‘we.’ ”
Sir Hugh Gough, V.C., in a letter just received from him, tells me that he heard both from Macdowell and the native officers that it was a “touch-and-go” affair; that Hodson’s own men were wavering; and that nothing but his prompt and decisive action could have saved them. More than this, I afterwards heard from Dr. Anderson, the surgeon to the regiment, that the attack had actually begun. “All I can say is, that I dressed the wounds of my own orderly, who came back with his ear half cut off.”
It is very easy for men at a distance, and unacquainted with the circumstances, to sit in judgment and pass sentence. Speaking of the affair afterwards, Hodson said, “I recommend those who might cavil at my choice to go and catch the next rebels themselves.”
Mr. Smith, writing in his house at Harrow, with his usual self-confidence expresses his opinion that it would have been quite easy to carry the Princes in safety into Delhi. The leader of “Hodson’s Horse” on the spot thought it impossible. With the same self-confidence, he takes upon himself to assert that there was no evidence worthy of the name of the Princes’ guilt. Here, again, some may be inclined to believe that Hodson, who as head of the Intelligence
Department had more accurate information than any other man of what was going on in Delhi, and was said in camp to know every day what the King had for dinner, may have been a better judge of the evidence than Mr. Smith, not to mention that the facts were notorious, and that the Princes owned their identity.
Mr. Smith does not appear to see that in his anxiety to prove Hodson guilty of murder, he overshoots his mark. If the deed were cold-blooded murder, then all the authorities, civil and military, including his own hero, Lord Lawrence, were accessories before or after the fact.
Hodson ought to have been tried by court-martial and dismissed the service at least. Was anything of the kind done? Was there any official expression of disapproval? Nothing of the kind. He was called to account officially for sparing the King’s life, but never for shooting the Princes. So far from it, he had congratulations on all sides. I have already quoted Sir R. Montgomery’s letter: Sir A. Wilson, to whom blame, if blame there were, would have attached, for he had stipulated that he was not to be bothered with them, in a letter which I have seen, after mentioning that the Princes were shot, so far from expressing censure, goes on, “Hodson, as a partisan officer, has no equal.”
Afterwards, when all resistance had ceased, and undoubtedly great severities were practised on the natives without sufficient justification, the tide of feeling began to turn. No distinction was made between such acts done in cold blood and one totally different in character done by a man who had taken his life in his hand.
Again Mr. Smith, following the lead of Kaye and Malleson, endeavours to fasten on Hodson the charge of being bloodthirsty, and “as much a stranger to pity as a tiger with
his prey in his talons” (sic), on the strength of certain expressions in his letters, such as, “I am not cruel, but I confess I did rejoice at the opportunity of ridding the earth of these wretches.”
But surely in judging a man’s words the circumstances under which they were spoken or written ought to be taken into account. I do not suppose that there was a man in the army before Delhi who would not have felt the same. Malleson’s own words afford the best justification – “The cries of helpless women and children, ruthlessly butchered, had gone home to the heart of every individual soldier, and made their cause his own. There was not an Englishman in those ranks, from first to last, who would have consented to turn his back on Delhi without having assisted in meting out to those bloody rebels the retributive justice awarded them by his own conscience, his country, and his God3.”
Why, in the name of justice, is Hodson to be condemned for that which is deemed worthy of praise in others? There was no one who had a fuller knowledge of the atrocities committed by the rebels, and especially by their leaders, the Princes. He had not only public but private wrongs to avenge, for some of his dearest friends had fallen victims. Why, then, is he to be singled out for execration because he expressed his satisfaction at the punishment of such wretches?
So far from being by nature cruel or bloodthirsty, those who study his letters will come to the same conclusion as that arrived at by Dr. Russell of the Times, that “he was of a humane and clement disposition, but firm in the infliction of deserved punishment.”
Mr. Smith, in his anxiety to throw dirt at Hodson, is not ashamed to repeat the stupid slander, originally of French
origin, that in ordering the Princes to strip he had an eye to their clothes as booty. It may be enough to say in reply, on evidence that cannot be gainsayed, that whatever the value of the garments may have been – and they were of no value at all – they were left behind.
I do not expect to convince Mr. Smith, of whom it may be said, with equal justice as of Colonel Malleson, by his reviewer in the Times, “His mind has evidently been poisoned by those who, envious of Hodson’s glory, were base enough for that reason to pursue him with their rancour even beyond the tomb, or by those strange philanthropists who prefer every race to their own;” but I do expect that every unbiassed reader will agree with the same reviewer, “that Hodson deserved honour instead of censure for his act.”
I proceed now to examine in order the several counts of Mr. Smith’s indictment against the man who had done the deed.
1. “During his visit in early times with Sir Henry Lawrence to Cashmere, his management of the public purse, which had been intrusted to him, and his money dealings with the native merchants, had been of such a character that Sir H. Lawrence lost all faith in his personal integrity, and told his most intimate friends so” (vol. ii. P. 219).
And in another place, “Hodson’s daring and unscrupulous character came out at every step of the journey” (vol. i. P. 358.)
Now, let us hear Sir Henry’s own account of the matter in a letter to his brother, Sir George, published in his Life:– “I have had a very nice tour with Hodson, who makes a good travelling companion, energetic, clever, and well-informed. I don’t know why you did not take to him at Peshawur. He has his faults, positiveness and self-will
among them, but it is useful for us to have companions who contradict us, and keep us in mind that we are not Solomons.”
So far from having lost all faith in him, Sir Henry continued not only to write to him in the most affectionate terms, though never hesitating to tell him of his faults, but wrote of him to others with strong commendation, and did everything in his power to promote his interests. It was by his influence that the command of the Guides was given to him two years afterwards in 1852. No one who knows anything of Sir Henry’s high and honourable character will for one moment believe that this would have been the case had he lost faith in his integrity.
I quote in preference to any private letters one written by him to Lord Hardinge in July 1853, and published in his Life.
“The Guide Corps which you raised at my request has held its ground as the best irregular corps in India. The present commander is a young fellow, Hodson by name, whom you gave me at Lahore in 1847. He is a first-rate soldier, and as your Lordship likes young officers in command, I beg to bring him to your notice for a brevet-majority. Sir Charles Napier thinks highly of him, and I believe held out hopes of the rank. Hodson is a most ambitious and most gallant fellow, and very able in all departments. He was through both the Sikh campaigns, in the latter with the Guides.”
In another published letter he says to Sir J. Kaye: “I was very fortunate in my assistants, all of whom were my friends, and almost every one introduced into the Punjab through me.
“George Lawrence, Macgregor, Edwardes, Lumsden, Nicholson, Taylor, Cocks, Hodson, &c., are such men as you will seldom see anywhere; but when collected under
one administration were worth double and treble the number taken at haphazard. Each was a good man. The most were excellent officers.”
The slight foundation of truth on which Mr. Smith has raised his fabric of calumny is this:–
During the visit to Cashmere, Lieutenant Hodson, carried away, I suppose, by a visitor’s enthusiasm, ordered two expensive shawls to be made for him. When some time afterwards they arrived, he was not in a position to pay for them, and as they could not be returned, he sent them to England to be sold, that with the proceeds he might pay the merchants. Unfortunately from some miscarriage there was considerable delay, and meanwhile the merchants applied to Sir H. Lawrence, who was naturally much annoyed, and, I have no doubt, made use of strong language to Lieutenant Hodson, as he often did. Of course, I do not wish to defend Lieutenant Hodson from the charge of thoughtlessness and extravagance, but surely such a piece of indiscretion in a young subaltern ought not to brand a man’s character for life with dishonesty, or to be brought forward, as it has been, many years after a glorious career is closed. As to Hodson’s unscrupulous character coming out at every step of the journey, I have ascertained from Mr. Smith’s informant that this is only a piece of fine writing, founded on no fact, but betraying Mr. Smith’s animus. I can only say with regard to the whole charge, that if Sir Henry Lawrence, in consequence of this visit, lost faith in my brother, his whole conduct belied his belief. His two most intimate friends, and those to whom he would naturally most often speak of him, Lord Napier of Magdala, and Sir R. Montgomery, have both assured me that they never heard any intimation of the sort, nor did his brother-in-law, the Rev. J. Knox Marshall, with whom to the last
he most constantly corresponded in England. So far from it, that he wrote in indignation at the accusation: “I well remember the way in which Sir Henry used to write respecting your noble and distinguished brother. Among the many whose character for honour, bravery, and courage those trying times developed, no one stood higher, few so high.”
I may also remark, that if it were true that Sir Henry had been estranged from him, it is very remarkable that my brother himself should have had no suspicion of the fact, but continued to write and speak of him as his best and dearest friend, and to mourn his loss as a father.
With regard to another story which was circulated, that Hodson had borrowed money of the Maharajah or his Dewan, I am authorised by Lord Napier to say that he himself inquired of the Dewan, and found that the story was utterly untrue.
2. Again Mr. Smith writes, “In later years his management of the accounts of the regiment had given rise (as I have shown elsewhere) to grave suspicions of a similar kind, to which colour is given by many letters which lie before me” (vol. ii. p. 219).
And in another place–
“ Soon other and more painful questions came to the front connected with the account-books of his regiment. ... The court of inquiry, after protracted examination, arrived at conclusions which were very unfavourable to Hodson’s character” (vol. i. p. 430).
The facts so far are correctly stated, but Mr. Smith has dealt with them in a way which entirely destroys his claim to be considered as an impartial historian. He has suppressed other facts, of which he was fully aware, which had a most material bearing on the subject; and, in so doing, he has done his best to justify the complaints, which I made
some years ago in my memoir of my brother, of the unfair treatment which he had experienced. Mr. Smith forgets to state that Lieutenant Hodson appealed against the verdict of the court of inquiry, on the ground that it had been given on ex parte evidence, and that he had not had the opportunity of producing his accounts; that after some delay the Punjab Government ordered a second inquiry, which was intrusted to one of the most competent and high-minded officers in the service, Major (now General) Revnell Taylor, who, after a patient and minute investigation, drew up a report completely vindicating Lieutenant Hodson on all the charges. A printed copy of this report, addressed to the Military Secretary of the Chief Commissioner, Lahore, lies before me. It is too long and technical to reproduce in extenso. It begins, “I have the honour to report that the result of my examination of Lieutenant Hodson’s accounts has been quite satisfactory;” and concludes, “If I have entered into more details than was absolutely necessary, I am sure, that the fact of Lieutenant Hodson’s honesty and honour having been assailed with regard to his regimental accounts, and my examination of the case having convinced me that there was nothing whatever in the accounts to afford grounds for the imputation, and, moreover, that he had unusual difficulties to contend with, will sufficiently account for my doing my best to show that I have demonstrable grounds for the opinions I have formed.”
The difficulties here alluded to with which my brother had to contend were of no ordinary kind. His predecessor in the command had gone home, leaving the accounts in confusion. There had been no settlement between them, and within twenty-four hours of his taking the command, my brother had started on a campaign which lasted between six and seven weeks. Further than this, as Lord Napier of Magdala
has explained to me, he was engaged in building a fort, and in his anxiety to get his men under cover before the rains – not being able to get the requisite advances from the engineering department – he had borrowed from the regimental chest for the pay of the workmen, which introduced an additional element of confusion. “It is impossible,” to use Lord Napier’s words, “for those who remain quietly in stations with efficient establishments to make allowance for the difficulties and irregularities entailed by rapid movements on service, and want of proper office means in adjusting accounts for which no organised system had been established.”
It was thirteen months after the conclusion of the first court of inquiry before Major Taylor’s report was made, and for the whole of that time Lieutenant Hodson had been suspended from his duties, and had lain under the imputation of malversation. Only those who knew him intimately maintained their confidence in his honour and uprightness. It can easily be understood what an opportunity was thus given to his enemies of assailing his reputation. They had succeeded in their immediate object of getting rid of him, and were not backward in following up their success.
But this is not all. Major Taylor’s official report, which so completely cleared him from the grievous and unjust imputations which during that time had been cast upon him, and which Sir R. Montgomery declared most triumphant, was in some way or other suppressed.
Whether it was that those in authority did not think it convenient to publish it, or whether the delay was owing to the ordinary workings of red-tape in the wanderings of the document from one office to another, the fact is certain that my brother thus suffered a most grievous wrong.
The report was presented to the Commissioner at Lahore
in February 1856. In April 1857 my brother ascertained from General Anson himself, then Commander-in-Chief, that he had not seen it, though the result of the first court had been communicated to him. And in the same month, Mr. Edmonstone, Secretary to Government, informed Colonel Douglas Seaton, who called on him at Calcutta, that the report had never been submitted to Government, who had no official knowledge of it, and that he had not seen it himself. Colonel Seaton then presented him with a copy, and with good results; for I heard in August 1858 from Mr. Bowring, then private secretary to Lord Canning, “Colonel Birch, the military secretary, informs me that Major Taylor’s report was of essential service towards clearing up the cloud which rested on Hodson’s transactions. Government adopted it as satisfactory, and the investigation terminated. Lord Dunkellin, through whose hands the paper passed, expressed himself strongly in favour of your brother.”
Probably, if my brother’s life had been spared, full and public justice would have been done him, and it would have been impossible for such charges to have been raked up again as they have been. But unhappily, after his death, though his brilliant services were fully recognised, no steps were taken to obtain a public acknowledgment of his justification.
In order to show that I have not overstated the injury done to my brother’s reputation by the suppression of Major Taylor’s report, I will here give an extract from a letter written to me by the Rev. C. Sloggett, formerly chaplain at Dugshai, on the appearance of Mr. Smith’s book:–
“Early in April 1857, Hodson called upon me at Dugshai, where I was chaplain, and after telling me of the harshness and injustice with which he had been treated, requested me to read a statement which he had drawn up respecting his case, embodying Major Taylor’s report.
“I was so much impressed by the clearness and force of this important document, that I offered to show it to my dear friend, Colonel Chester, then Adjutant- General, with whom I was to stay a few days at Simla. He kindly looked over it at my earnest request, and while doing this, the Judge-Advocate-General, Colonel Keith-Young, came into the room and took part in the conversation. He too, like many men who have made the reputation and greatness of our Indian Government, was possessed of the highest honour and integrity, and at first he spoke to me with scorn respecting the case; the whole matter he said had passed under his own review ere it had been submitted to Government, and the verdict of the court was amply justified by the evidence produced.
“But here Colonel Chester interposed by telling him of this new light thrown upon it, and I left them to go through it together. When they had done so, they were evidently much impressed by it. Colonel Chester promised to show it at once to the Commander-in-Chief, General Anson, and Keith-Young thanked me very earnestly for bringing it under his notice. From that time Keith-Young became one of Hodson’s warmest friends, and General Anson was prevailed on by both of them to give him another appointment. Then, of course, the idea only was that he should write on the matter to Lord Canning, which I believe he did, but the letter was lost in transmission through the sudden outbreak of the rebellion.
“It was, I think, just a week after I spoke to them that the mutiny broke out at Meerut, and for months afterwards there was no direct postal communication with Calcutta. General Anson, therefore, gave Hodson a staff appointment on his own responsibility, and he soon justified the selection, for it is doubtful if there was another man in the whole army who could have supplied his place.”
I have dwelt the more on this subject as it is essential to a proper understanding of the readiness, on the part of many who did not know him intimately, to believe the ill-natured stories which his enemies circulated.
During the whole time of the siege of Delhi, though he held important commands, there had been no public vindication of his character from the stigma cast on it at Peshawur by the court of inquiry, followed by his removal from his command, and I believe that to this day many are ignorant – as Mr. Smith would wish them to remain – that the verdict of 1856 was so triumphantly set aside.
In order that it may not be supposed that in my view of my brother’s character, and of the cruel treatment to which he was subject, I am biassed by affection, I have permission to publish a letter written from Gwalior in 1859 by Lord Napier of Magdala, on the receipt of a copy of “Twelve Years of a Soldier’s Life in India,” which I sent to him:– “Every one here was enthusiastic about your poor brother, who is regarded as a hero. Had he had opportunities, his military qualities were of such an order as must have gained him the highest fame and eminence had his career been prolonged.
“There are in your memoir of him opinions regarding the persecution which your brother underwent, and the persons who were concerned in it, which would of course raise the opposition and criticism of all who are concerned with them. But the book will live and be read with admiration – regretful admiration – of the character it describes, long after the detractors shall have been forgotten. ... I should be very sorry to say that those concerned in the press upon him did not think they were doing their duty. I am very sure some did, and it was one of the sources of my deepest distress that I was forced to judge so harshly of the conduct of some whom I had so many reasons to regard; but I feel sure that
the more that may be known of the particulars of the case, the more will judgment hereafter decide in favour of your brother, and admiration of the fortitude with which he bore such searching trials and punishments, the heroic courage with which he addressed himself to labour in a comparatively humble position, and to show his value as strongly there as in his former high post.
“Nothing made me feel more for him than this, and I wonder that it did not disarm hostility. God knows! perhaps it did.”
3. Another count is this, “In the year 1855 he was deliberately deprived by Lord Dalhousie of all his appointments in the Punjab for his outrageous treatment of a native chief.”
True as to the fact, though “outrageous” is due to Mr. Smith; but it must be remembered that, as Hodson always maintained, he was condemned unheard, on the one-sided representations of an official superior, who had made no secret of his wish and determination to get rid of him from Eusofzai, and that the attack was made upon him at a time when he could least defend himself, and when his case was prejudiced by the unfounded charge with regard to his regimental accounts.
At the worst, he was only guilty of an error of judgment. He had what he thought most convincing evidence that a native chief, Kader Khan, was implicated in the assassination of Colonel Mackeson, and in the unsuccessful attempt some months later on Lieutenant Godby, and he had in consequence arrested him and kept him some time in prison. However, when brought to trial before the Chief Commissioner, he was acquitted, which no more proved his innocence than an acquittal of a Fenian by an Irish jury. Still Hodson had to bear the blame of an unjust prosecution, and this was seized on as a reason for his dismissal.
He continued, however, in common with others, to believe in Kader Khan’s guilt, as appears from a letter written afterwards:– “Since Kader Khan has been out of jail, there has been a renewal of the former state of uneasiness and excitement, and his people and emissaries are most active in intrigue. Tell Godby to look out for his friend, if he is really at Murree, and to remember that whatever Major Edwardes or any one else may say to the contrary, Kader Khan, and no one else, was the author of the attack on him last December.”
I can quite believe that Hodson’s restless energy, outspoken criticism, and hatred to red-tape regulations, made him troublesome at times to his official superiors, and I am far from supposing that he was always free from error in his dealings with the wild and savage tribes of the frontier. He could be severe, when severity was the truest mercy, with those who required a mailed hand, and not a silken glove; but that he was cruel I utterly deny.
The kind of men with whom he had to deal may best be seen from Lord Lawrence’s own letters. One of the complaints made against him when in command of the Guides was, that he was getting rid of his native officers. Hear Lord Lawrence’s own account of one of these, Futteh Khan: “I look upon him as a perfect devil when his blood is up, and that is very often. At such a moment he would murder his nearest and dearest relative or friend.”
However unpopular he may have made himself with such characters, he had the power of inspiring enthusiastic attachment and devotion on the part both of officers and men.
Sir R. Temple, in the Calcutta Review, describes him “as marvellously attaching the Guides to himself by the ties of mutual honour, mutual daring, and mutual devotion.”
The reception given to him by his old regiment on their arrival at Delhi sufficiently proved to those who saw it that the charge of unpopularity which had been brought against him was utterly without foundation.
The following words of an officer of Hodson’s Horse, written after his death (and I have many others to the same effect), exhibit in a striking manner the feeling entertained towards him:– “Allow me to tell you that we, who have served with him through so many dangers, felt his loss like that of a brother. His was the influence that kept us together, and since he has passed away from us we have all broken up, and another officer and I are the only two in the regiment that have served with him at all, and I am about to leave also. Had he lived it would have been otherwise.”
4. I proceed to another count:– “Hodson himself was everywhere to be seen appropriating vast stores of valuables, which were revealed for the first time, in their collective form, to the eyes of those whose painful duty it was to open his boxes after he had met his death at Lucknow” (vol. ii. p. 246).
I will deal with the last part of this charge first, “the vast stores of valuables” found in his boxes after his death.
Probably Mr. Smith would picture to himself several vans going about with Hodson laden with spoils. I must disabuse his mind and the minds of his readers.
I have unexpectedly been able to recover the original report of the proceedings of the Committee of Adjustment (which, as usual in the case of a deceased officer, was formed to settle Major Hodson’s affairs), signed by the president, now Sir Charles Gough, V.C., K.C.B. To this is attached an inventory of every article in my brother’s possession at his death, even to his brushes and sponge.
The effects of the deceased, as Sir C. Gough stated at the
time in a letter to his widow, were opened and examined in the quarters of General, now Lord Napier, who is alive to give evidence. Sir C. Gough is also alive, and can be referred to for the truth of my statement. I have just received a letter from him in India, in which he expresses his indignation at the slanderous attacks made by Mr. Smith, which, he says, “show such animosity and hatred that I cannot but think they will defeat the object of the writer, for they are more likely to rouse a feeling of sympathy.”
It appears from the proceedings of the committee that, with the exception of a few memorials, such as his ring, watch, Bible and Prayer-book, and a miniature, &c., which at General Napier’s request were handed over to him for the widow, all Major Hodson’s effects were sold by auction, and that the whole, exclusive of his horses, consisting of tents, a gig, camp equipage, guns (one rifle valued at £35), swords, telescope, saddles and bridles, &c., realised the sum of R.1774, or less than £170. The only article found in his possession which could possibly have come under the head of “loot” was a native ornament of some flat stones set in silver, worth a few rupees at most, which had probably, as would appear from his letters, been bought from a sowar. This represents “the vast stores of valuables in their collective form.”
5. After this specimen of the veracity of Mr. Smith or his informers, my readers will probably not attach much weight to his assertion that at Delhi Hodson was everywhere to be seen appropriating vast stores, &c.
The following correspondence, however, may throw some light on the origin of such stories. I will only premise that Hodson, as Intelligence officer, was necessarily intrusted with very large discretionary powers, and that in the exercise of them he was peculiarly liable to misrepresentation
on the part of those who, as I have already proved, were watching for every opportunity of “throwing dirt at him.”
“CAMP, DELHI, September 30, 1857.
“My DEAR GENERAL., – I must confess that I am very much hurt at an order being issued, which conveys a certain amount of censure, before I had an opportunity of explaining matters or replying to the charges which seem to have been brought against me. It would have been more manly had these gentlemen waited till my return, or spoken out before I left Delhi; but it is always safer to accuse a man behind his back. I shall hope to see you when I have got my camp pitched and convince you of the utter falsehood of the stories which have been invented to my prejudice. To the best of my memory and belief, I have neither acted without orders or authority, nor protected any one without permission, and most certainly I have protected no property or houses from the prize agents, although I have protected much for them at Colonel Seaton’s request. – Believe me, my dear General, yours sincerely, W. S. R. HODSON.”
N.B. – This Colonel Seaton afterwards fully confirmed.
To which the General replies the same day:–
“My DEAR HODSON, – I had hoped I had worded the order so that not a particle of censure could be conveyed by it. The charges made against you were by a rascally inhabitant of the city, and I did not therefore believe them. Colonel Seaton never mentioned to me that he had asked you to protect houses; hence the mistake. The enclosed is dated September 14, and must, I think, have been given without authority. – Yours sincerely, A. WILSON.”
Writing two days later, my brother says: “I had a long
talk with the General yesterday, and satisfied him that – had imposed on him in saying that I had acted without authority. He produced two papers signed by me which, he thought, I had given con my own hook;’ but, fortunately, I was able to show that he had himself given me the orders to that effect, and that I had written the papers under positive instructions, so that all is clear. But since assumed the government, I have experienced difficulties in carrying out my duties, and a system of backbiting and insinuation has commenced.”
Amongst the other canards circulated was one that he had been bribed by the King of Delhi to spare his life, and others equally monstrous.
I am again indebted to the Rev. C. Sloggett for the following narrative, to the accuracy of which he is prepared to make affidavit: It illustrates the kind of misrepresentations to which he was exposed, and the readiness on the part of many to give credence to them.
Mr. Sloggett says – “Not long after the fall of Delhi, Captain Wriford of Hodson’s regiment (1st B. F.) came up to the station of Dugshai, where I was still living. In course of conversation, I asked him how Hodson was getting on; when he said, ‘Capitally, I think; but it is wonderful how ready people are to say things against him’ He went on to tell me that in the previous week the General (Sir A. Wilson) had ordered him to go with a company to Hodson’s lines and take possession of the regimental treasure chest, and bring it to head-quarters. Hodson himself had been a few days absent on one of his expeditions; but on the morning of the day he left, it had been noticed that twenty troopers of his regiment had brought from the house of a native banker a bag each of 500 rupees, or 10,000 rupees in all, in exchange for an
order signed by Hodson releasing him from the liability of having his premises searched for plunder. Inquiries had been made which proved that this sum had not been paid over to the prize agents, and therefore it was assumed that he meant to keep the money. On his way, Wriford met Hodson coming to report himself to the General, and on hearing his errand, Hodson induced him to return with him. On hearing his report, the General burst forth into warmest acclamations of praise. ‘If I had many like you,’ he said, ‘we should soon see the country settled quietly down.’ Hodson’s reply was, ‘Now, sir, I beg you to place me under arrest;’ at the same time unbuckling and laying down his sword. The General, astonished, asked what he meant, when he alluded to the order just before given to Wriford. ‘Oh,’ said the General, I had forgotten all about it; yes, I am very sorry, but I was obliged to issue it, because you had signed a release from search to the banker, which no one knew anything about, save that you must have had 10,000 rupees for giving it.’ Hodson opened his sabretasch and held out the order for him to do this, signed by the General, and then he showed the second order which had taken him off an hour after on the emergent expedition from which he had that moment returned. The General expressed the deepest contrition; said he believed his mind was going; he could remember nothing from hour to hour, and so on, asked Hodson to forgive him and take up his sword again and continue to give him the benefit of his invaluable services. But (Wriford continued in his story to me), ‘would you believe it? This thing is still brought up against him. Some men envy and dislike him so much, they really don’t care what they say.’”
As a further illustration of my brother’s statement to General Wilson that he had protected much property for
the prize agents and not from them, I will quote one or two passages from amongst many in his private letters, which will show how much prize-money passed through his hands, and how easy it was for maliciously-minded persons to misrepresent his actions:– “Khuda Bux brings me untold money and bullion which he digs up, and is very indignant because I insist on its being handed over to the prize agents.” “I have annexed six chests of indigo, worth about 1000 rupees, and I believe have done as much for prize-money as any man, and shall get little or nothing.” “We have added a little to the store of ‘loot,’ 2000 rupees in coin and silver, and seventeen chests of indigo, which ought really to be mine; but of course they go to swell the prize-money.”
It may perhaps interest Mr. Smith to have an authentic catalogue of the vast stores of valuables which he was supposed to have looted at Delhi. On October 2 he writes to his wife – “I have to-day packed up a lot of odds and ends to go to Umballa, and will send them to you. Bows and arrows; the king’s silver stick (bamboo overlaid with silver); ivory ditto; Cashmere rug; some silver bits, and odds and ends and curiosities; beads and rosaries; two little silver boxes, with bits of Koran in them; lots of silk and gold thread; a pugree, some muslin, and a fur coat. There’s a lot of rubbish for you.” I suppose that no one would grudge Hodson the arms, &c., taken with the King, though, according to strict interpretation, they might be considered loot. He thought them legitimate spoils of war, and General Wilson and his officers recognised the claim. The General, in a letter to his wife, says:– “Hodson has presented me with the King’s sword and dagger and matchlock, I wish I could send them
to you.” Not only so, but the Queen was graciously pleased to accept two swords of historic value, now at Windsor Castle. The King’s shield of steel, damascened with gold, he retained, and it is now in his widow’s possession. I have heard of its being gravely asserted, quite recently, by an eye-witness, that it was of solid gold.
6. Another story told by Mr. Smith is this:–
“In his brilliant raids after Delhi had fallen, he (Hodson) harried the cattle of the neighbouring tribes with perfect impartiality, sold many of them for his own benefit, and with the proceeds bought a house at Umballa, which became known as the Cow-house, a sufficient indication of the belief which the people who knew him had formed of his integrity” (vol. ii. p. 419). Here there is a substratum of truth, but just enough to make the calumny the greater and more unjustifiable on Mr. Smith’s part, who might have known better. What really occurred was this. When attached to Brigadier Showers’s column, which was employed in quieting the country, Hodson had captured and brought into camp a large quantity of cattle, nearly 1700. The General on seeing them was in dismay, and exclaimed, “Hang me! what in the world am I to do with them? I cannot be encumbered with them;” and, as he told Lord Napier afterwards, was never more relieved than when Hodson said, “Sell them to me and I will take my chance.” So the bargain was struck for 2 rupees 4 annas a head, and they were sent off under the charge of two or three of Hodson’s troopers, and then driven to Delhi, where, contrary to all expectation, they arrived safely, and were sold at a very large profit, out of which he bought, at a ridiculously low price, owing to the state of panic at Umballa, a house which had been worth 20,000
rupees. Mr. Smith will be sorry to hear that the name Cow-house was given by Hodson himself as a joke, as appears from a letter written by him, at the time, in high glee at the result of his speculation. I have before me the original receipt given to my brother by the prize agent for R.3417, 12, the price of 1519 horned cattle at 2r. 4a. per head: 148 goats were retained. I have also the authority of Sir Donald Stewart, now Commander-in-Chief in India, for saying that there was nothing secret or underhand in the transaction.
There can be no doubt, however, but that the purchase of this house, as well as that of a carriage and horses which he bought at about the same time for his wife, at an equal depreciation, were seized upon as a proof that he had made money by looting. Many other equally unfounded calumnies were put in circulation at the time, to some of which he refers in his letters to his wife:–
“A report has reached me from Simla that you have got some magnificent diamond rings, &c., taken at Delhi. This is rather good, considering that the only rings I sent you were the Princes’, and not worth twenty rupees altogether, and the only diamonds were in that little brooch I bought from a sowar more than a month before Delhi was taken. So much for the veracity of our good-natured friends.”
It can scarcely be necessary to say more on this subject after so completely refuting all the charges which have taken any specific form; but as I know that there is an impression amongst many who have never taken the trouble to ascertain the facts, that my brother enriched himself by plunder, it may not be amiss to ask the pertinent question, If so, what became of these riches? During the last year of his life he had been in receipt
of large pay. At the time of his death considerable sums were due to him for arrears of pay and “batta,” and his executors were thus enabled to pay off debts which he had incurred during the period when he was reduced from the receipt of a good income, as commanding the Guide corps, to the pay of a subaltern; but when this was done, so little remained for his widow, that, as appears from a letter of Lord Lawrence’s to her, she was necessitated to apply to the Compassionate Fund for a grant to enable her to go home, which was allowed, much to the surprise of some of those who had given credence to the many stories to his prejudice, which, in Mr. Sloggett’s words, “because of his very reputation were too often thoughtlessly repeated and became magnified in the repetition.” Mr. Sloggett says – “The Fund, called the ‘Punjab Special Fund,’ of which I had been made Honorary Secretary, was under the management of a Committee consisting of the Judicial and Financial Commissioners, the Commissioner of Lahore (at that time Mr., now Sir R. Temple), the Civil Surgeon, and H. C. Perkins, Esq., C.S. – to all of whom every application had to be confidentially submitted, with all particulars, before a grant was made.
“It had happened that Mrs. Hodson, in forwarding to me her application, sent also a statement of accounts drawn up by her husband as a private memorandum, the particulars of which she asked me to explain to her. I was much affected on looking at it, for it was dated by him on the very morning of the day on which he met his death. It was a simple statement he had hastily written down of all he owed, and all his available assets. I forget the exact balance, and on which side it stood of the account; but, in fact, both the debit and credit sides were so nearly equal, that I was able to assure the Committee that, from this
most credible source of information, the case was one which required their liberal consideration.”
7. Reference has already been made to the concluding paragraph of Mr. Smith’s indictment, which more than any other, has aroused a storm of indignation against the writer both at home and in India.
“It only remains to be added that early in the following year he was killed in the act of ‘looting’ in a house at Delhi.”
There has been a general expression of opinion that, even had such a story been true, no man of generous feeling would have raked it up after the lapse of so many years.
But it has been most conclusively proved to be an “unmitigated slander.” It is rather remarkable and most fortunate that so many witnesses should have been still alive and ready to come forward and give the details of Major Hodson’s death, all agreeing in the important facts, but with just such trifling discrepancies as may always be expected. In the account given at the time by Brigadier Napier, who commanded the Engineers, he told me that “my brother had ridden up to him just as the assault was about to commence and said jokingly, ‘I am come to take care of you.’ He entered the breach with me as soon as it was practicable, and in a few minutes we were separated in the mêlée, and I saw nothing more of him till I was sent for to him dangerously wounded.”
The details of the short period that intervened have been furnished by an old 93rd Highlander, who gives the following graphic account:–
“I was so near to Hodson when he was killed that my hand was almost on his shoulder, and I positively assert that to say he was looting is an unmitigated slander. His death happened as follows:– Between 2 and 3 o’clock P.M. on
March 11, 1858, Colonel Napier, now Lord Napier of Magdala, reported the breach of the Begum’s palace practicable. My regiment, the 93rd Sutherland Highlanders, was ordered to storm it, and the fighting was without doubt the sternest struggle of the siege of Lucknow. After the palace was carried, many of the enemy took shelter in the dark arched buildings which surrounded the court of the palace, and had to be dislodged by throwing in bags of powder with lighted fuses attached to them. By this time the stormers were broken up, and engaged in a series of such fights all over the palace, and Lieutenant and Adjutant William MacBean, of the 93rd, late Major-General MacBean, got the V.C. for cutting down eleven men escaping out of one of those places. I was at another angle with some sixteen men, several of whom were shot down from a dark room which we tried to enter, for the glare of the afternoon sun was so strong we could not see the position of the enemy when looking into the dark. I made four or five men take post at each side of the door, and sent two back to the breach to bring up a few bags of powder from the engineers, who were preparing and attaching the fuses, to dislodge the enemy from this room. The men sent by me went in search of Colonel Napier, and found Hodson, who was never behind when fighting was to be done, and I believe he had accompanied Napier as his assistant in storming the Begum’s palace. Hodson did not wait for the powder bags, but came running up with his drawn sword, and called to me to show him where the rebels were. I pointed to the doorway, and he was about to rush in when I called out, ‘Don’t, it’s certain death; wait for the powder.’ He took a step forward; and I put out my hand to seize hold of his shoulder to pull him out of the line of the doorway, when he fell, shot through the chest with two or three bullets. He
ejaculated something, either, ‘Oh, my wife!’ or ‘Oh, my mother!’ I really could not say which; but being shot through both lungs he was immediately choked with blood. I assisted to lift him into one of the doolies that had by that time commenced to collect the wounded, and sent him to where the surgeons were at work. By this time some bags of powder were brought up, and we dislodged the men who were in the room, and bayoneted them down without mercy – some eighteen or twenty men. That Hodson was killed through his own rashness, I admit, but that he was looting I would deny, even if every authority of the British army were to say so. No looting had then commenced, not even by Jung Bahadoor’s Goorkhas.”
This account has been confirmed by many in public and private letters, and amongst others by Sir D. Stewart, Bart., Sir Hugh Gough, V.C., Sir J. Hills, K.C.B., V.C. The last says, “I think it my duty, in the interest of truth and honour, to protest against an ungenerous attack on one whose voice can never be heard in his own defence.”
It is quite true, as Mr. Smith says, when attempting to justify his charge, that Major Hodson did not belong to the storming party, which was formed by the 93rd, but was there as a volunteer and a friend of Lord Napier’s. It is the first time, however, that I have heard it cast in a man’s teeth as a reproach that he had volunteered for a dangerous service, though it is much to be regretted that so valuable a life was thus sacrificed.
I have now gone through the various counts of Mr. Smith’s indictment, and I feel confident that my readers will agree with me in thinking that there was never a more cruel and unfounded attempt to blacken the reputation of a brave and honourable man. I have, of course, in this vindication only touched on the points in which he has
been assailed. But I think that the best vindication will be found in his letters, which I have republished. Those who read them will see that he was not only a born leader in war, but a loving husband, a tender father, a devoted friend, one whose great aim it was to go straight forward and do his duty, regardless alike of danger and of praise or blame. Perhaps, for his own sake, too regardless. I will only add two testimonies to his worth, which will carry weight from the position of the writers. One from Mr. L. Bowring, C.S.I., who was private secretary to Lord Canning during the time of the Mutiny, and therefore had the best opportunities of knowing the truth:–
“No one knew better than I did his admirable qualities, and I am not exaggerating when I say that his death has been universally lamented by every one in India ...
“You know that I had a great regard for your. brother, and I believe you will appreciate my testimony to his worth as an officer and a gentleman.”
The other is from Colonel Baird Smith, R.E.:–
“Some of the best and highest qualifications for command were combined in his character; fearless enterprise, resources always ready for use, and admirably adapted to his object, power to win the absolute trust of his agents, ready resolution in difficulties, a cool bead, a strong hand, a quick judgment. These were among the most prominent traits that struck me during the few months we were together at Delhi.”
While writing this I have been shown the following extract from the “Life of Sir F. Roberts”:– “Into the vexed question of the shooting of the Princes by Lieutenant Hodson we will not enter here further than to remark that, after a careful perusal of Hodson’s own account of the affair; of the Memoir of that gallant officer by his brother; of the
description of the scene by his subaltern, Lieutenant Macdowell, the only other European eye-witness, who afterwards died the soldier’s death; after carefully weighing the considerations that guided Hodson (a man of nerve and not given to panic) in the commission of the act, of the necessity of which he must have been the best judge – we cannot but acquit this gallant soldier of needless bloodshedding. His career at Delhi, achieved as the most brilliant of, free lances, was so remarkable, that envy was aroused in breasts where it might least have been expected, and, sad to say, this discreditable feeling was not exorcised even by his death, some months later, in the service of his country, when, surely, any blots in his career – if any there were, and Lord Napier of Magdala denies their existence – might have been buried with him in his grave at Lucknow. This estimate of the character of the late Major Hodson is in agreement with that formed by such distinguished soldiers as Sir Donald Stewart, Sir Frederick Roberts, Sir James Brind, Sir James Hills, and many others of his comrades at Delhi.”
For myself I can only say, that the fresh evidence which has now come before me from many different quarters, and letters of his which I have now seen for the first time, have only served to increase the admiration which I expressed twenty-five years ago for my brother’s character, and I feel assured that, notwithstanding the efforts of his calumniators, his name will be handed down to posterity as one of whom his country may well feel proud.
I must take this opportunity of expressing my obligations to Lord Napier of Magdala, Sir Robert Montgomery, K.C.B., G.C.S.I.; Sir Charles Gough, V.C., K.C.B.; Sir Hugh Gough, V.C., K.C.B.; Sir James Hills, V.C., K.C.B.; General Anderson; Colonel Alexander, late 93rd; Colonel
Sampson, late Hodson’s Horse; Colonel Dyer, R.A.; Captain Verney, R.N.; Lewin Bowring, Esq., C.S.I.; Rev. C. Sloggett, Rev. J. Knox Marshall, Dr. Graves Burton, and other friends, for valuable assistance.
GEORGE H. HODSON.
ENFIELD, Sept. 1883.
P.S. – It has been suggested to me that I ought to take more specific notice of a letter from Sir George Lawrence in the Daily News, in which he comes forward to vouch for the accuracy of Mr. Smith’s statements. But I think that I have sufficiently shown how little weight should attach to the evidence even of “distinguished officers” when they belong to a party who were prejudiced against Major Hodson, and ready to believe anything to his discredit. It appears from a letter of Sir Henry Lawrence, published in his Life, that Sir George took offence at my brother when he was a subaltern of a few years’ standing, and he has now shown that, after thirty-five years, he can neither forgive nor forget.
Blank page
1. No. 222, April 1859.
2. Fraser’s Magazine, No. 350, February 1859.
3. Malleson, vol. ii. p. 85.
This collection transcribed by Chris Gage