THOMAS ATKINS
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] Sta,—I was extremely interested to read in The Spectator of May 6th Mr. Burdon's account of the original Thomas Atkins. Following his suggestion I started to look for evidence to support it. So far I have only consulted Fortescue's History of the British Army and Clode's Military Forces of the Crown. Both historians were thorough and painstaking, which adds to my regret at having found Thomas referred to by both as " a fictitious private," while neither mentions the Duke of Wellington's share in choosing the name which the soldier's ledger perpetuated.
This does not support Mr. Burdon's version, but neither does it destroy the possibility of its truth. There must be past or present members of almost every regiment in the British Army who are both readers of The Spectator and well versed in their own regimental history and tradition. I hope that some of them will be able to throw light on the Peninsular episode referred to by Mr. Burdon ; for the story is so interest- ing that, if it is true, it certainly should be given wide currency among the successors of Thomas Atkins and the officers who are privileged to command them.—I am, Sir, yours
Previous page
