[121] Corresp., vol. 28, p. 333: “L’Empereur a donné le commandement de la gauche au prince de la Moskowa, qui a eu le soir son quartier général aux Quatre Chemins, sur la route de Bruxelles.” This Bulletin was printed in the “Moniteur” of the 18th. App. C, viii; _post_, pp. 369, 370. It is to be found in Jones, pp. 378, 379. [122] Marshal Grouchy, in 1818, only three years after the battle, in the first edition of the pamphlet which he published in Philadelphia, entitled “Observations sur la Relation de la Campagne de 1815, publiée par le Général Gourgaud,” in defending himself for having, on the 18th of June, as he claims, strictly obeyed his orders, instead of marching to the sound of the cannon of Waterloo, says (p. 32):— “Besides, this way of looking at the matter was fortified in my eyes by the disapproval which Napoleon had shown in my presence of the conduct of Marshal Ney. _I had heard him blame him for having suspended the movement of his troops on the 15th at the sound of the cannonade between Gilly and Fleurus_, for having halted Reille’s Corps between Gosselies and Frasnes, and for having sent a division towards Fleurus, where the fighting was going on, _in place of keeping himself to the execution, pure and simple, of his orders, which prescribed to him to march on Quatre Bras_. (The italics are ours.) And again, when speaking of his own refusal to entertain the suggestion that he should march to the sound of the cannon, he says (p. 61):— “Could I, moreover, so soon forget that Napoleon had censured Marshal Ney for having halted at the sound of the cannon which were being fired near Fleurus, for having sent troops in that direction, and for having permitted himself to depart from the literal execution of his orders?” Grouchy must be referring here to the scene at the Emperor’s headquarters on the night of the 15th and 16th (see _post_, p. 116). In the edition published in Philadelphia in 1819, and in the reproduction of the pamphlet from this edition in Paris in the same year, Grouchy omits the statement that he heard the emperor blame Ney, and rests his argument on the censure on Ney’s conduct contained in the Gourgaud Narrative. One may not unreasonably conjecture that, after publishing the edition of 1818, he was informed that Ney’s family denied that Ney had received on the 15th any order to go to Quatre Bras, and that Grouchy was unwilling to give evidence in this controversy against this contention of the friends of the Marshal. Captain Pringle, R. E., in an Appendix to Scott’s Napoleon (Paris edition, 1828, p. 833, n.), is the only author who cites the above-quoted statements of Marshal Grouchy. [123] Gourgaud, p. 48, n. [124] Corresp., vol. 31, p. 200. [125] _Cf._ Jomini, p. 214, to whom the hesitation of Ney to occupy Quatre Bras seems justifiable, “unless the order to rush headlong on Quatre Bras had been expressed in a formal manner.”