| | | The Times has completely failed in its attack on | Mr. Kinglake’s accuracy; and though it retracts none of its | charges against him, it betrays its consciousness of the | failure, by covering him with personal abuse. Mr. Kinglake | has been clearly found guilty of being in the right when the | times was in the wrong. His labour of nine years | has not fallen at once, as it ought to have done, before the | hasty attack of a slashing critic. Therefore, he must be run | down and crushed, no matter by what means. Such | censors can hardly be said to grace the literary | judgment-seat. | Mr. Kinglake’s statement as to Lord Palmerston’s | resignation of office after the affair of Sinope was | pronounced by the Times to be a

“figment” |

of the historian’s own

“manufacture.”

We | cited the announcement of the resignation by the | Times itself at the date of the event, together with a | discussion which ensued upon it in the House of Lords, | and which is recorded in Hansard. To this the Times, | in its article of Monday the 23rd on Mr. Kinglake’s | history, can make no reply; but it makes no retraction. So | that, wherever the Times exclusively circulates, | Mr. Kinglake lies under a charge most gravely affecting his | character as an historian, which those who have made it | now know to be utterly false. | The times scouted the account of the | conference between Lord raglan and Sir G. Brown as

| “unmitigated nonsense,”

the production of the author’s | ingenuity. It turns out to have been copied from a note by | one of them. | The Times declared Mr. Kinglake’s story of the | misplacement of the buoy by the French, in the night | before the landing in the Crimea, to be

“a sick man’s | dream.”

We produced the testimony of Lord Raglan | (which, of course, in effect, includes that of Lord Lyons) | confirming the story in all its features. To save the trouble | of reference we will give Lord Raglan’s words again: ~~ | | This was written on the 18th of September, four days after | the transaction. | We thought this was enough. If Mr. Kinglake may not rely | on a deliberate statement in writing by Lord Raglan, on | what can he rely? But Captain Mends, who says he was | charge with the details of the disembarkation, has since | written a letter to the Times, plainly indicating his | disbelief of Mr. Kinglake’s story; and the Times, | in its last article, again calls that statement

“a creation | of Mr. Kinglake’s fancy,”

which, it says,

“Captain | Mends has amply exposed.”

Neither Captain Mends | not the Times makes any mention of Lord | Raglan’s testimony, though it was plainly the production of | that testimony by us, and the difficulty in which it had | placed the Times, that led to the publication of | Captain Mend’s letter. The readers of the Times | are left, so far as that journal is concerned, in entire | ignorance of the fact that this conclusive piece of evidence | in Mr. Kinglake’s favour is in existence. Such a mode of | carrying on a controversy will be duly appreciated by the | good sense of the public. | Captain Mends, who comes forward to assist the | Times in destroying Mr. Kinglake’s reputation for | accuracy of statement, begins his own letter with an | inaccuracy of a very culpable kind: ~~ | | These words, given between inverted commas as Mr. | Kinglake’s are not his. He carefully avoids saying that the | act was wilful, and says that it occasioned much less delay | and confusion than might have been anticipated. Captain | Mends proceeds: ~~ | This is the first time we ever heard want of knowledge or | memory on the part of persons not necessarily possessed | of it, put forth as a decisive answer to the positive | statements of trustworthy persons speaking of matters | peculiarly within their own knowledge. If Sir Edmund Lyons | entered into a confidential arrangement with the | French Admiral for the performance of an act by the | French which it was vitally important to keep secret, | was it passing strange that he gave no instructions to | Captain Mends or any other English officer relative to it? | On the contrary, it would have been passing strange if he | had done so; and if there be one thing clearer than another | from Captain Mend’s statement, it is, that he was not in Sir | E. Lyons’ confidence touching the place of disembarkation, | or has forgotten it as well as the buoy. He says that the | Agamemnon, . In the French map the | lake is clearly marled, and so in the Russian; in the English | map, copied from the Russian, the engraver has done his | duty by giving the lines, but the colouring is wanting, which | has probably misled Captain Mends, the officer who would | have us believe that everything relating to the | disembarkation was familiar to him. Even Bazancourt could | set him right. Describing the French encampment at Old | Port, he says, . The lake, forming a | complete protection on the land side, was the great | recommendation of the locality. Captain Mends states in | this same letter that there were three lakes. He is only right | by accident, and then he contradicts himself. Now, lake or | no lake, for what purpose was the Agememnon |

“followed by all the transports,”

brought so far to | the southward of what was eventually the English landing | place? Let Captain Mends, who was so deep in Sir E. | Lyons’ confidence, declare. This is just where he leaves us | in the dark; but everyone | else may collect it from his statement, although he cannot: | ~~ | This account does not agree with one printed by Captain | Mends in the Journal of the Operations of the | Engineers: but let that rest for the present. Sir | Edmund stopped, as well he might, on seeing the French | Admiral, heading his fleet, in the act of engrossing the | English landing-place. A communication takes place | between the Admirals. Then plainly it was that Sir E. Lyons | learned that the buoy had been misplaced. Then plainly it | was that (to borrow Lord Raglan’s words) he

“wisely | resolved to make the best of it.”

The very moment in | which he so resolved is marked by Captain Mends himself. | | Surely this is a confirmation, not a contradiction of Lord | Raglan. All the circumstances tally with the hypothesis of | his accuracy, and they are irreconcilable with any other. | But corroborative evidence would not be wanting if | required. Bazancourt, after taking credit for the earlier | landing of the French, says, A gentleman (now a | C.B. for distinguished services, and then Sir E. Lyons’ | guest on board the Agamemnon), wrote thus to a | relative in England: ~~ | Now Captain Mends would have us believe that there was | no complaint of the French proceeding in the matter, | founded or unfounded; that the alleged misplacement was | known to nobody at the time; and that the admiral | mentioned it to nobody, because the flag-captain has | forgotten all about it.

“I think: therefore I am,”

was | the argument of Descartes.

“I do not think: therefore | you are not,”

is the logic of Captain Mends. | It is open to this gallant officer to say or imply that Lord | Raglan and Lord Lyons misapprehended the terms of the | arrangement ~~ that, as he seems to think must always | have been the case, the French were right and the English | wrong. But it is a very different thing to dispute the | truthfulness of either, or for one who served under them to | come forward as the open, eager, uncompromising | supporter of the writer who presumes to call a statement | based on their evidence a

“sick man’s dream.”

| The Time’s writer, when he wrote his first article | alluding to it, may not have known that it was so based. | Will Captain Mends say that, when he wrote his letter, he | did not know that it was? | Let it be remembered that if Mr. Kinglake’s narrative, here | or elsewhere, tends to raise our estimate of the English | army and navy, and of their commanders, somewhat at the | expense of the French, he is not a wanton assailant of the | reputation of our allies. French writers, especially | Bazancourt, have sought to exalt the glory of their own | countrymen by casting imputations on the efficiency and | promptitude of the English, which, if they had been allowed | to go down uncontradicted to posterity, would have brought | undeserved discredit on our name. The wise and | magnanimous silence which our commanders observed at | the time facilitated these misrepresentations. The English | writer who endeavours to do justice to our army and navy | before it is too late may at least claim fair play at our | hands. | Together with the letter of Captain Mends, there was | published in the Times a letter from Colonel | Norcott addressed to Mr. Kinglake respecting a point in his | description of the battle of the Alma. The point is one on | which an historian might very well be mistaken without | forfeiting his reputation for general accuracy. The details of | battles are the things about which history most despairs of | arriving at certainty. So far as we can see, however, | Colonel Norcott’s letter rather confirms the narrative which | it is intended to impugn. The essential part of Mr. | Kinglake’s statement is, that Codrington’s brigade was not | covered in front by skirmishers. Colonel Norcott says it was | not his duty to cover it. Mr. Kinglake does not say it was; | though he states, as a matter of fact, that | If the gallant Colonel did not cover the front of Codrington’s | brigade, he has, by sending this letter to the Times | without waiting for Mr. Kinglake’s answer, helped to | cover the rear of that journal in its escape from other | charges which it has made against Mr. Kinglake, and which | it cannot make a show of substantiating. When people see | a long letter assuming to be a contradiction, they naturally | fancy that it is as important as it is long. | For want of worthier weapons to avenge its wounded | infallibility the Times is fain to print an extract | from Colonel Somerset Calthorpe’s Letter of a Staff | Officer from head Quarters, casting ridicule on Mr. | Kinglake’s horsemanship. The extract also casts ridicule | and contempt on

“newspaper reporters;”

but the | times cannot afford to be particular about this ~~ | it must have a stone to fling, no matter out of what mud it | picks it. We do not see that the horsemanship of an | historian has much to do with his veracity; but, if we are | rightly informed, the fact happens to be that Mr. Kinglake is | a practised horseman, having constantly travelled in that | way in the East. His English saddle was too large for the | horse which he had bought on landing in the Crimea; it | slipped off, and of course dismounted him. The accident | might have happened to the best rider in England. The | idea that this incident was Mr. Kinglake’s first introduction | to Lord Raglan is, we are assured, quite erroneous. Mr. | Kinglake had made his lordship’s acquaintance a week | before, and seen him daily. During the entire battle he rode | close to Lord Raglan, and dined with him the same | evening. In the passage quoted, the

“one | man”

is described as the lively and entertaining guest, | the traditional diner-out, of a dinner party. Colonel | Somerset Calthorpe, being a man of honour, and finding | that he had been betrayed into error, expressed his regret, | and the passage is omitted in the corrected edition of his | book. It will probably be reproduced as uncontested truth in | the next article of the Times. | If Lord Raglan had conceived a contemptuous idea of Mr. | Kinglake, it is not very likely that the acquaintance would | have been kept up, or that the Raglan Correspondence | would have found its way into Mr. Kinglake’s hands. | When the Times goes on to say that Mr. | Kinglake has and when it screams out this | petulant absurdity, as though by dinning it into people’s | ears they could be made to believe that it was sense, we | can only recognise the usual notes of a man in a great | passion which has, for the moment, quite got the better of | his self-control. We can only express a hope that, in the | course of time, reason will regain her sway.