ment of the first, but it was too far to the rear. He owned afterwards that it was a mistake on his part to lead the attack himself—a mistake, too, which he had made once before, and had had reason to regret. The household brigade, like the union brigade, while brilliantly successful, lost nearly half its strength, mainly from having to defend itself, when scattered and exhausted, against fresh cavalry. Uxbridge claimed that the effect of this charge was such that for the rest of the day, ‘although the cuirassiers frequently attempted to break into our lines, they always did it mollement, and as if they expected something more behind the curtain;’ but other observers hardly bear out this impression.
He received a wound in the knee from one of the last shots fired in the battle, and his leg had to be amputated. The limb was buried in a garden in the village of Waterloo; a monument was placed over it, and it is still a source of income to the proprietor. A more genuine memorial was erected on the summit of Craig y Dinas, Anglesey, ‘in commemoration of the consummate skill and undaunted bravery’ displayed by him at Waterloo. The first stone of the column was laid on the first anniversary of the battle. He was created Marquis of Anglesey on 4 July 1815, in recognition of his services. He was made a knight of the Garter in 1818, and acted as lord high steward at the coronation of George IV. He became general in the army on 12 Aug. 1819.
When Canning formed his ministry, and the Duke of Wellington resigned the master-generalship of the ordnance, as well as the commandership-in-chief, Lord Anglesey was appointed to succeed him in the former post, which carried with it a seat in the cabinet. He was master-general from 30 April 1827 till 29 Jan. 1828. He then succeeded Lord Wellesley as lord-lieutenant in Ireland (27 Feb.). The Duke of Wellington had become prime minister in January, and the change was supposed to be of his making, but in fact the appointment had been settled before the new ministry was formed, and they merely confirmed it. Anglesey's sympathies were with the Canningite portion of the government, and when they seceded in May he intimated to the duke that he might find it necessary to follow their example. His relations with the duke and Peel, not thoroughly cordial to begin with, soon became strained. Ireland was in a ferment, and the Catholic Association, under O'Connell's guidance, was forcing forward the question of catholic emancipation, which the king would not hear of, and which the ministry was pledged to him not to enter upon. ‘God bless you, Anglesey! I know you are a true protestant,’ the king had said, when Anglesey took leave of him before going to Ireland. ‘Sir,’ he replied, ‘I will not be considered either protestant or catholic; I go to Ireland determined to act impartially between them, and without the least bias either one way or the other’ (Greville Memoirs, i. 154). He soon came to the conclusion that some concession must be made. Writing to the new chief secretary on 2 July to explain the situation, he said: ‘I abhor the idea of truckling to the overbearing catholic demagogues. To make any movement towards conciliation under the present excitement and system of terror would revolt me; but I do most conscientiously, and after the most earnest consideration of the subject, give it as my conviction that the first moment of composure and tranquillity should be seized to signify the intention of adjusting the question’ (Wellington Despatches, Suppl. iv. 521).
With these views he tried to calm the public feeling. He was averse to interference with processions and meetings; and in his conversation and his answers to addresses he showed his wish to have the question settled. The king wanted to recall him in August, but the duke was unwilling to take that step without such reasons as would satisfy the public, and on 11 Nov. wrote a strong letter of remonstrance to him, complaining especially of the countenance shown by the lord-lieutenant to members of the Catholic Association. A correspondence followed, which the duke regarded as ‘intemperate’ on Anglesey's side, and on 28 Dec. the duke informed him that, as this correspondence had left them in a relation which ought not to exist, the king had decided to recall him. Anglesey's departure from Ireland was hastened, but it was not caused, by his letter to Dr. Curtis, the Roman catholic archbishop of Armagh. Dr. Curtis had drawn from the Duke of Wellington a letter, in which he said that he should not despair of seeing a satisfactory remedy if party spirit disappeared, and recommended that the question should be buried in oblivion for a time. On seeing this letter, Anglesey wrote to Dr. Curtis dissenting from the duke's opinion, and advising, on the contrary, that ‘all constitutional (in contradistinction to merely legal) means should be resorted to to forward the cause; but that, at the same time, the most patient forbearance, the most submissive obedience to the laws, should be inculcated’ (Annual Register, 1828, p. 150). This letter, written on 23 Dec., was published
