114 
HORSE ARTILLERY GUNS AT WATERLOO. 
ten months after the battles of the 16th and 18th of June, when there 
was ample time and leisure to make any necessary inquiries, he should 
have failed to compile a trustworthy detail of the arms employed. 
The object in view was one in view of which it was especially desirable 
to be accurate; and in spite of what Major Murdoch says it is difficult 
to believe that Sir John's statement w r as otherwise. 
With regard to Major Bean's “ D " troop, Major Murdoch 
writes as follows:—“ The return is inaccurate on the 18th of June , for 
it shows Bean's troop with 6-prs." Now the D.-A.-Gf., R.A., on the 
15th of May and 2nd of June, wrote to Sir George A. Wood, “ Ross's 
and Bean's troops will make up the eight demanded by the Duke; 
but have poor horses (Irish) : Bean takes 6-prs., but these can be 
chauged at Ostend for 9-prs." “ Bean's troop arrived at Ostend on 
the 10th of June, and accordingly, at once exchanged its 6-prs. for 
9-prs. ( see ‘ History of the Royal Artillery,' Yol. II., p. 418, and 
f Mercer's Journal ,' Yol. I., p. 158)." 
Now with regard to the above, the question is, did Bean exchange 
his 6-prs. for 9-prs. at Ostend ? It is maintained there is no evidence 
that he did so. At p. 418, of his 2nd Yolume R.A. History, Colonel 
Duncan says, “that Sir Hew Ross's troop arrived at Ghent on the 9th of 
June, and Major Bean's at Ostend on the 10th of June," but no state¬ 
ment on that page is to be found, that he at once exchanged his 6-prs. 
for 9-prs./ as quoted from it by Major Murdoch. There is, however, 
on this page the copy of a return giving the armament of seven troops 
of horse artillery, which was sent to the Deputy-Adjutant-General, 
Royal Artillery, on the 30th of May, to which is appended the follow¬ 
ing note: N.B.—“Major Bean's troop when it arrived was armed like 
Sir Hew Ross's." How a document written on the 30th of May, 
could certify to what happened on the following 10th of June, requires 
explanation. Probably the note is wrongly copied and should state 
what was intended to be done, and not what had taken place. Then 
we come to Captain Mercer's statement, p. 158, Yol. I., which runs 
thus : “At Waterloo, on the 18th of June, there were present eight 
troops of British and two of Hanoverian Horse Artillery. The British, 
f cts far as I can recollect/ 3,1 here he enumerates the various troops and 
the armament of some of them, and then goes on, “each of the others 
(including Bean) had five 9-prs. and one 54-inch howitzer." 
On the other hand, Siborne the historian in his “ History of the 
Waterloo Campaign," p. 513, Yol. II., Appendix, where he enumerates 
the artillery, gives “ Capt. G. Bean's (Major) light 6-prs." Colonel 
J. E. Michell in his “ Records of the Royal Horse Artillery," p. 7, 
gives “ D," Major Bean's—6-prs. 
After weighing the evidence on both sides for and against, is it un¬ 
reasonable to conclude that, although it was the intention to change the 
equipment of “ D " troop from 6-prs. to 9-prs., there is nothing to 
prove such was done, but strong evidence that they had 6-prs. on the 
18th of June. 
We come now to Lieut.-Col. Webber Smith's “E" troop. Major 
Murdoch seems to have read hastily Sir John May's memo, concerning 
1 The italics aye mine.— F.A.W, 
