Page:The invasion of the Crimea vol. 1.djvu/468

426 APPENDIX. judged to be the very truth, and therefore it is that, by a qualifying note, I wilfully mar and deface the sentence to which I appended it. This is only one example of the rigour with which the hook is treated by its author. And here I may say that, in order to substantiate dis- puted statements, I have not been always obliged to reopen the stores of information on which I founded my assertions. In many, and I think in most instances, I was saved the need of going back to papers long out of my sight, by the firm love of justice which brought men who had observed that I was wrongly contradicted to come forward of their own accord and lay before me the private letters and jour- nals of eyewitnesses in support of the statements I had made. Of the written documents on which I based the narrative, I can say that, for the most part, I have hitherto kept them in reserve. Until after the publication of the book, I think I was as much inclined as the generality of men to be doubtful of the possibility of getting very close to historical truth; and I knew, of course, that the occurrences of a battle-field are especially hard to seize ; but I must acknowledge that the supply of fresh confirming proof by which I now find my- self supported, has done something towards lessening any tendency 1 had towards this kind of historical scepticism. When the first edition of the book was published, I had never seen the private journal and letters of Colonel Hood, the officer who commanded the Grenadier Guards at the Alma, nor the clear and straightforward narrative of Sir Charles Russell, of the same regiment. T was without that letter of Colonel Percy of the same regiment, to which (as will be gathered from the notes) I attach great worth. I had never seen that journal of Colonel Annesley of the Fusilier Guards, which tells me the story so naturally and so well, that to glance through the written words is more like listening than reading. I had never seen the rough,