Completed British 19th C, except portraits, Military History 45 Is it possible to prove that this is Samuel Drummond’s painting 'Field of Waterloo' he exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1836?

Drummond was one of thirteen artists who submitted paintings of the Peninsula campaign and Waterloo to the British Institution competition in 1815. His painting depicted the evening of the battle. This scene from Bradford M&G does suggest evening although the battle is still raging. The RA catalogue description of the 1836 painting suggests a composition similar to John Heaviside Clark's 1817 picture: https://repository.library.brown.edu/studio/item/bdr:238423/

I don't think that this painting is likely to be Samuel Drummond's 'Field of Waterloo', 1836, as the quotation next to that work in the RA catalogue refers to a wife finding the bleeding body of her husband on the battlefield, which closely fits the subject of a painting sold as 'After Waterloo' by Sammuel Drummond, oil on board, 55 x 67 cm - perhaps a study or copy rather than the exhibited painting. https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/samuel-drummond-808-c-a64408ab15

Samuel Drummond's 1816 painting was entitled: General advance of the British lines, driving in the broken columns of the French army, after Buonaparte’s last desperate effort to break through our right centre with his Imperial guards … Painted from sketches made on the ground a few days after the Action; and from information from the Duke of Wellington and Marquis of Anglesea’s Staffs, Royal Engineer department, &c &c &c”
See: https://chronicle250.com/1816#footnote_chapter__text-6

It looks to me that this painting depicts a charge by the Household Cavalry.Bottom Left.I may be wrong.Anyone else agree??
If so this could depict the battle of Genappe two days before Waterloo.
At Waterloo the Household Cavalry charged at midday towards la Haye Sainte.But I see no buildings in this painting-just what look like French Cavalry in the centre of the painting.

Gemappe was a comparatively minor cavalry action on the retreat from Quatre Bras and did not involve troops on the scale shown here. This canvas clearly shows the massed advance of Wellington's troop at the climax of Waterloo with lines of infantry at the centre and cavalry on the left. At the point of focus of the picture are Wellington and his staff with Lord Uxbridge to the left, about follow the troops off the ridge into the valley, where Uxbridge was hit, supposedly by one of the last salvos of French artillery, his shattered right leg -suitably highlighted here-subsequently being amputated. As for 'information from Wellington's staff', the Duke's horse 'Copenhagen' was a dark chestnut not a grey. I think they would have got that right.

The trouble with this picture is that the varnish has gone off and combined with the grime of ages one cannot see detail and especially the colours of the uniforms.
If this is the charge of the Heavy Unified Brigade at Waterloo(Towards la Haye Sainte), we can see either the Household Cavalry or The Inneskillins-indicated by what appear to be light coloured trousers.After they were practically destroyed they took no further part in the battle.The Light Brigade was not deployed in the battle,but kept in reserve.Wellington was cautious with his cavalry ,especially in the muddy conditions on the day.

There is a building on the centre right. From its position on the British right, its location below the height of the ridge and it being on fire strongly suggests it is Hougoumont Chateau/Farm. The fire was started by shell-fire some time after 3pm when Napoleon lost patience with his brother who commanded a whole army Corps against a regimental-strength defence. The amount of smoke that can be seen suggests that this was 4pm at the earliest. Wellington later said that the success of the battle hinged on the gallant closing of the chateau gates in the face of overwhelming odds.

Yes Keith-I see what looks like flame and smoke. The Heavy Brigade charged at 2.45pm-either side of La Haye Sainte.Losses were half the horses and 60% of the Troopers. Hougoumont was off to the right and in front of Haye Sainte as we see it .So that could be Hougoumont on fire with a bit of fore-shortening. The Dutch -Belgian Cavalry charged a bit later to the left of Haye Sainte to support the remnants of the Heavy Brigade, but this is not them-wrong coloured uniforms.

This discussion, "Is it possible to prove that this is Samuel Drummond’s painting 'Field of Waterloo' he exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1836?" was begun in February 2021.

On day one of the discussion Thomas Ardill (12/02/2021) showed that the painting is NOT that exhibited in 1836.

Over the next three weeks of the discussion this somewhat confusing battle scene attracted a few comments including by
Arthur Mcclench (18/02/2021).

I suppose that there are three ways one might develop this discussion: by artist, by subject and by provenance, but the way forward is not obvious. However, at least we have answered the discussion question and, as such, we could choose to retire from the scene of battle.

Drummond’s exhibited ‘Waterloos’ were only as follows, in chronological order of first display:

BI 1816 (170), ‘The Battle of Waterloo’ (3ft 6 x 4 ft 11 [framed dimensions]). This was presumably his BI competition entry and also presumably, from its framed size (as BI dimensions when cited generally are) a study only.

RA 1816 (275), ‘The Battle of Waterloo, on the eve of the 18th’

BI 1829 (170), ‘The Morning after the Battle’, plus description making it clear that the subject is ‘Mrs ----’ finding the body of her husband after the event, (4 ft x 5 ft [framed dimensions])

RA 1836 (309), ‘Field of Waterloo’, plus the same description as at the BI in 1829. This is therefore either the same canvas or another version. It might just be the 55 x 67 cm oil on panel already mentioned as sold in Barcelona in March 1815, which also cannot have been the version shown at the BI in 1829 since certainly too small.

As I read the discussion so far, the assumption is that Drummond’s BI no.170 and RA no.275 were the same item and therefore showed (see Thomas Ardill, 12/02/2021 17:42, citing an online footnote by Martin Myrone) the ‘General advance of the British lines, driving in the broken columns of the French army, after Buonaparte’s last desperate effort to break through our right centre with his Imperial guards …' [etc].

There are two problems arising, the first being that there is no evidence for the 1816 BI and RA entries being the same canvas or for them showing the same image, despite the (at least) ‘image-congruity’ of Drummond’s BI 1829 and RA 1836 paintings.

The second is that Martin’s footnote, taken from the original 1816 RA catalogue (since omitted in Graves) and read - at least here - as applying to Drummond’s 1816 BI entry as well, is a copying slip.

It does describe any 'Waterloo' by Drummond but Denis Dighton’s ‘The Battle of Waterloo’. This was no. 206 in the 1816 RA show and hung in the Inner Room there. Drummond’s no. 275 was also in that room but without further catalogue text than ‘…on the eve of the 18th’ [June] that concludes its title.

The large canvas dimensions of our current puzzle painting – 5 x 7 feet in round terms – demonstrate it is not Samuel Drummond’s presumed competition ‘study’ seen at the BI in 1816, of which we now have no further description. It self-evidently shows the ‘evening’ of battle, however, so if it is by Drummond – which is credible on general style despite its poor condition – it could be his no. 275 at the RA that year.

There was certainly no ‘J. Drummond’ who might have painted it. Apart from ladies (inc. Jane Drummond), who certainly didn’t, the only even near-contemporary of that initial was James Drummond RSA (1816-77) who only started to exhibit from 1839.

Sorry: 'It does NOT describe any 'Waterloo' by Drummond....' at start of third para from end above

... and to note that the 1829 one at the BI was no. 370, not 170.

The attached article from 1816 describes one of Samuel Drummond’s Battle of Waterloo pictures at the BI in 1816. The article does mention that most of the pictures were already exhibited at the RA in the spring.

Not “in the spring”.

The donor might instead have been T. H. Hebden of Bradford.

There is a 19th century copyist Julian Drummond 1823-1903. Was he a relative of Samuel Drummond?

No idea, but given the general manner it doesn't look like a copy by someone probably only working from about 1840 at earliest. Given the size too: this is a 'gallery scale' piece, either for public exhibition or/and (hopeful) sale into a very large house or other building. Why would anyone - even a military enthusiast - want to ask for a full-size copy of something like this, even by a greater artist than seems the case, in the mid-century? Something tighter and more like 26 x 36 ins (roughly the same 5:7 ratio) would make a better argument for such a scenario.

The "silversmith and fine art dealer" Thomas Hoadley Hebden was born in Bradford on 22 February 1837 to Amelia Hebden, a "spinster". Thomas was married on 18 October 1859 to Mary Hebden (née Colby). Mary was one of the seven daughters of Paul Colby, a farmer, and his wife Frances “Fanny” Colby (née Jennings). Thomas passed away on 20 December 1893. I doubt that this painting was a family heirloom. I will not be ordering any wills!

The attached article indicates that the work donated by T. H. Hebden was “by Drummond, R.A.”

To answer Martin, Samuel Drummond had a son named Julian (from his third marriage) who was an artist, so J. Drummond could be he.

I believe Samuel Drummond was ARA rather than RA.

The attached auction notice indicates that “a grand galley picture, The Battle of Waterloo, by S. Drummond, R.A.” was on offer in Leeds in 1875.

The "After Waterloo" https://bit.ly/3kSeaa4 linked by Thomas above is listed as by "Drummond (1846)" which suggests the picture may be signed only with Drummond and dated 1846. If so, it would have to be a posthumous copy (Samuel Drummond died in 1844) by someone also named Drummond (possibly his son Julian). If that Julian Drummond was the copyist mentioned by Martin, it would be both reasonable and likely for him to copy work by his father.

However, it appears that Julian Drummond was primarily a portrait painter (including some copies of older portraits) and, to a lesser extent, a genre painter. See https://bit.ly/3LgHLVx (scroll down to entry on Julian).

Well found Marcie: he was an ARA but the slip is easy enough.

Julian (I see) is listed in Drummond's Wiki entry. ,His dates seem to be c. 1826-1906 and he exhibited 1854-92 according to this Drummond family site:

https://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk/BTNPointerMyra.htm

Five of the six pictures he showed at the RA, 1854-72, were portraits and the sixth and last titled'Just landed'. Its odd his name seems to be involved here but, if he was, it's more likely it was in the provenance chain or perhaps some mid-century restoration rather than being the originator. Even without anything by him the scale and general appearance suggests his father.

Julian Drummond has works on Art UK: https://bit.ly/3EYOlMq

where is the J on the painting, on the front or the back? Please we could have detail photographs. Was the painting unfinished when the elder Drummond died? Did the younger Drummond complete any of his father's paintings? Without the initial one would not think of him playing a part

Odd: when I looked for Julian on Art UK I got his name and dates and a 'No works' message, but they make the point: his involvment, if any, is somehow on the margins.

Even if it's not Samuel's 1816 RA canvas it's unlikely to be much later. The 1829 one of 'Mrs ----' finding her dead husband shows how tastes were moving on, so if he did this and it didn't sell it - or it didn't get finished (though looks so) - it must have cluttered the studio/store a long time for Julian to have had anything to do with it, even if only post-mortem disposal: his father died at 77 in 1844.

As Martin says we need to know why 'J Drummond' is the current attribution, inc. seeing any signature/inscription front or back, but even without that it would be more reasonable to attribute it to his father as the prime hand.

am I right in thinking that there was no auction of Samuel Drummonds' paintings before 1879?

There was an auction in 1845, Martin. The National Archives website (free) has Samuel Drummond’s will, dated 6 August 1844. He mentioned by title the three pictures that he bequeathed to two of his children (Samuel and Jane). Those pictures do not include 'The Battle of Waterloo'. The residue of his estate was to be sold at auction and the proceeds split amongst his children Rosa Myra, Ellen and Julian. I did not see a clause whereby Julian inherited pictures.

Will of Samuel Drummond of Saint Ann Westminster, Middlesex
PROB 11/2004/333
Proved at London 03 September 1844

***

An article from 1845 mentions pictures, including 'The Battle of Waterloo', that were to be auctioned in Brighton following the death of their owner Samuel Drummond.

***

For the record, an article from 1847 mentions Samuel Drummond’s “celebrated premium picture” 'The Battle of Waterloo' at an auction in London.

can the Brighton auction be identified in Lugt? The Robins sale catalogue may well be in the National Art Library

Here’s a Robins auction of 1849 to check, too, if possible.

The 'premium' (Marcie) probably just refers to Drummond's 'Death of Nelson'. Apart from a 'sketch' for a death of Nelson at the RA in 1806, the first finished version was his first exhibit at the BI -which awarded premiums (cash prizes) - in 1807. There were so many others following, differing in detail, size and format but essentially the same composition, that your press references may not mean the specific 1807 canvas but any version of his 'premium composition'.

Thanks for the clarification, Pieter. It's interesting to see that two of his works kept being offered for sale at the same time. I see that in my comment of 06/03/2023 00:30 I meant to write “a grand gallery picture". This work is so large that perhaps it was difficult to sell it. Perhaps that was also the case with his ‘Death of Nelson’.

***

Neither the will of Rosa Myra Pointer (née Drummond)(d. 1888) nor that of her brother Julian Drummond (d. 1906) mentioned a specific painting.

The inconveniences of 'gallery size' are a good point: the money was often made from engravings based on 'show' pictures, which themselves didn't necessarily find early homes other than the artist's studio.

Drummond had two big 'Deaths of Nelson' at the BI in 1807:
no. 10, was listed at 5ft 8in x 4ft 10in and no. 122 'The Death of Lord Nelson, with portraits' , 10ft x 13ft 6in (usually framed sizes) though which was the 'premium' one I don't know.

The latter may be the one in the Walker, Liverpool given that the the Art UK dimensions (usually canvas size) are 10ft 3in x 13ft 6in (318.9 x 408.9cm). In that case it looks from the acquisition date as going there very early (1808)

The 'Capture of the French Privateer by Captain Rogers' that your 06/03/2023 12:42 Brighton clipping of 2 January 1845 also mentions as still in his studio stock awaiting sale is this one -which was engraved -, also large-ish at (canvas) 5ft 2in x 3ft 11in:

https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/captain-william-rogers-capturing-the-jeune-richard-1-october-1807-173458/search/actor:drummond-samuel-17651844/page/3/view_as/grid

That clipping is also wrong in saying that the 'Death of Nelson' then being sold 'obtained the prize at the British Institution against thirty-eight others in the year 1820'. He did not show a 'Death of Nelson' there in 1820, or at least not in the annual exhibition.

There's clearly a probability that the 'Waterloo' we are discussing was the one sold in Leeds in 1875, simply on proximity to where it ended up four years later, as now, in Bradford.

The matter of the signature (J. Drummond vs. S. Drummond) needs clearing up by the collection. If it is actually S. Drummond, then the authorship is clear, and the date is a more secondary concern.

The smaller ‘Death of Nelson’ was supposedly the ‘premium’ one.

That's interesting as Drummond's two naval titles at the BI in 1825 were just a 'Battle of the Nile' and a 'Battle of Trafalgar', the latter 4ft 2 in x 5ft and the former a little less. That was the year the BI ran a competition to select four artists to paint four large naval action paintings from the French wars of 1793-1815, at 500 guineas each, for presentation to the then new (1824) Naval Gallery in the Painted Hall at Greenwich Hospital. What is less clear is whether the competition was solely based on work submitted to its 1825 exhibition, and it seems not.

Drummond was one of those selected but not for a 'Nile' or 'Trafalgar': he was commissioned to paint Admiral de Winter's surrender to Duncan at the Battle of Camperdown (1797), the result being shown at the BI in 1827 with dimensions given as 9ft x 11ft 6in, The other three Greenwich commission 'selectees' were George Arnald for a 'Battle of the Nile'; George Jones, who did Nelson at Cape St Vincent, and H.P. Briggs (George III meeting Lord Howe after the Battle of 1 June 1794): all are now in the NMM (Greenwich Hospital Collection)

Arnald's study for the Nile was also seen at the BI in 1825 and the finished painting in 1827. Jones appears to have won his on no more (at least known) than an unexhibited watercolour study now in the BM, with the finished oil shown at the BI in 1829: the only thing he showed in 1825 was a Bristol Harbour scene. How Briggs got the last is not clear, since he also showed nothing obviously connected at the BI in advance, only the finished picture, also in 1829.
In other words, only Arnald (who usually did picturesque landscapes and nothing else naval) showed an oil study of the subject that he also exhibited in larger finished form before it went Greenwich.

What is fairly clear, however, is that the BI also awarded 'premiums' in 1825 to at least one or two other contenders who showed related naval subjects. Arnald, according to press reports, himself got the 'top prize' of £200 for his Nile study, as well as being commissioned to do the 500-guinea version. The Scottish marine and landscape painter, John 'Jock' Wilson - not one of the Greenwich winners - got £100 for his entry of a 'Battle of Trafalgar' (no. 179 and again unusual since he was also not otherwise a naval actions painter). That was bought by Lord Northwick, a great collector of the day, and was only sold from Northwick Park, Harrow, in the 1960s: it was bought by Oscar & Peter Johnson who resold it into private family ownership until HM Treasury approved acceptance-lieu in 2009. I think it went to East Ayrshire - Wilson having been born in Ayr - though it doesn't seem to be on Art UK yet.

If Drummond did get his cash 'premium' in 1825, it was therefore presumably for the 'Battle of Trafalgar' he then showed. The later press reports, inc. that of 1843, imply it was in fact more a 'Death of Nelson', which does seem a bit odd except that he was already well known for them. The only other options are that the premium date is still wrong, or confusion of exact painting subjects/titles, but Drummond was still alive in 1843 so that seems unlikely.

All incidental of course: whatever the 'Nelson' confusions the issue here is the Bradford 'Waterloo'. Clarication of the signature would help wrap up, though it looks pretty clearly by Drummond senior.

Just re-checking old notes, with correction to the above.

In 1825 the BI offered four 'premiums' at its annual exhibition for representations of either the Battle of the Nile or the Battle of Trafalgar, ONLY.

The selection of four artists to paint 500-guineas paintings for Greenwich (not in the end including a Trafalgar) was a further development from this, not the immediate competition.

It therefore looks a like Arnald (£200), Wilson (£100) and Drummond scooped three of the immediate prizes and just Arnold and Drummond proceeeding to the Greenwich stage (and Drummond on a different subject).

Perhaps the third and fourth sums were £50 and £25, with the fourth winner and which one Drummond got as yet TBC.

Art UK's image is so poor that it is not worth adding any details here. I can't see a signature.

I've emailed the curator to try to clear up the matter of J. or S. Drummond and find out if any more is known about the donor.

This painting is definitely by Samuel Drummond ARA. Find attached link to my 2020/2021 monograph on the subject, which may clear up most of the questions above. The monograph was excerpted from my biography and catalogue raisonne of Samuel Drummond (manuscript still in progress.) It was shared privately with the curators of the Bradford Museum in January 2021, but remains unpublished. The evidence lies in both the painting's archival history and compositional style, as per the attached (and linked) monograph.
See: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wf6a94nteo4tw05/The Battle of Waterloo - by SDrummond, Bradford PDF2.pdf?dl=0

It appears that we have hit pay dirt, as they say in America. The Art UK image, of course, needs to be replaced by the restored picture.

Congratulations to Donald Press for answering the question originally put (albeit applied to the later 'Field of Waterloo').

Of course, since this earlier painting had already been restored by 2016 and he says he gave the text he has attached above to Bradford in January 2021, we might well wonder why someone there didn't say so when the discussion started that February, or at least shortly afterwards. It would have saved a lot of duplicated work.

Before we close, I have attached images of the back of this picture and from the collection register.

Note added 19/4/23: My thanks to Marcie Doran for correcting the donor's middle name from Hoardley to Hoadley, as confirmed by Ancestry and the Charities Commission.

Thanks Marion: looks like just an original registration 'J' for 'S' initialling slip which shouldn't have lasted to get onto Art UK. Pity the price on the stretcher label has been lost (plus lack of where sold) but the overall story's now clear enough.