| | | Mr. Kinglake has just brought out a third edition of his | History. In the advertisement to this edition he says: ~~ | | We have gone carefully through these notes; and they do | not seem to us to affect the general tenor or tendency of | the narrative. Most of them relate to the brigade of Fusilier | Guards, which was thrown into confusion on its advance by | the retreating troops of the Light Division, and was | consequently described as leaving a

“chasm”

in | the line. This word

“chasm,”

on which an unduly | offensive construction seems to have been put, is | explained to mean . The gallantry of the corps was | never doubted, and its temporary disorder was clearly | owing to the circumstances which neither bravery nor | discipline could have obviated. Having stated that , | Mr. Kinglake adds, in a note (Vol. II., p. 418, 3d Edition): ~~ | . | The note on Colonel Norcott appears conclusive as to the | historical point in issue. After quoting the gallant officer’s | letter to the Times, it continues: ~~ | In allusion to the Colonel’s remark that Codrington’s | brigade had its own skirmishers, Mr. Kinglake adds: ~~ | . | This is the sole point of dispute as regards the History, and | therefore the only point in Colonel Norcott’s somewhat | digressive letter with which we, as critics of the History, are | concerned to deal. | The times has wound up its sustained attack on | Mr. Kinglake characteristically. The first three columns of | the article are eked out by a summary, in which a false | colouring is given to every statement of importance by the | omission of qualifying circumstances or a bold perversion | of meaning. This is an unwise, because utterly ineffective, | mode of dealing with an author whose work is in | everybody’s hands. | Thus, Mr. Kinglake’s argument touching the affair of the | Telegraph is converted into a positive assertion that there | was no fight at all at that place. The real question is, | whether the French infantry encountered the Russian | infantry in force at the Telegraph. He states the | evidence on both sides, and intimates his opinion that | Bazancourt has grossly exaggerated the affair. Even if this | opinion were erroneous, it would no more invalidate his | accuracy of statement than an analogous summing-up | would invalidate that of a judge. | But the peroration is the cream of the composition. We do | not mean that portion of it in which printers’ errors and | mis-spelt names are laboriously enumerated after a careful | study of the Army List; but that in which ~~ better late than | never ~~ the Times makes an evasive apology | for charges which it had repeated with ample means of | knowing them to be unfounded, and which it would have | gone on repeating, had not Mr. Kinglake’s

“obsequious | squires”

dipped their pens in his (or their) ink-bottle in | his behalf. | Mr. Kinglake stated, as an avowed deduction from the | circumstances, and not as a matter of fact, that Lord | Palmerston’s resignation and return to office especially | referred to the decisions of the Cabinet touching Sinope. | (adds the historian> . The times | tells us that it also said, in announcing the resignation, | that it was exclusively based upon Reform; | which, however, would rather weaken than strengthen any | reliance that we should be disposed to place in Lord | Palmerston’s alleged statement, for to say that his sole | motive at that period was an objection to Reform is simply | preposterous. But the times cannot be permitted | to lead the public away on a false scent. Its words were: ~~ | | Were these words meant to apply to a mere inference or | hypothesis, which may or may not turn out well=founded? | No. They were meant ~~ and the political world, startled by | them, knew they were meant ~~ to deny the fact of the | resignation, which the Times had forgotten as | completely as it forgot the entrance of Prussia into the | Zollverein. The next time ~~ and the occasion will not be | long in coming ~~ when the times falls into this | description of a blunder, it had better reply, like Dr. | Johnson when asked by a lady to account for a blunder in | his Dictionary,

“Ignorance, Ma’am; sheer ignorance.” |

| Still worse is the attempt to escape from the denial of the | buoy story, which was first called

“a sick man’s | dream,”

and secondly (after the publication of Lord | Raglan’s letter),

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

The times is now Why did it not | admit as much till after its article of March 23? Because the |

“obsequious squires”

had again dipped their pens | in that acrid ink-bottle. With regard to Captain Mends, it | may be doubted whether he will be grateful to the writer | who tries to make a barricade of him; for, if we are not | misinformed, his memory has received a fillip from an | unimpeachable witness, who cannot be set aside as an | amateur. Yet what is the use of adducing testimony, if Lord | Raglan’s can be set aside by the cool assumption that, | when he awoke on the morning of the 14th (the day of the | disembarkation), he did not know from any | pre-arrangement whether his army was to land at Old Fort | (strictly so called) or at Kamishku? If Sir George Brown | were to come forward to support Lord Raglan’s letter to the | Duke of Newcastle, of course he would be told that he | knew, and could know, nothing about the matter. The | Times cautiously warns the public against believing | that, in admitting itself partially wrong, it is swayed by any | commonplace regard for accuracy, as such. It frankly | ways: ~~ The avowal is candid, and merits entire | credence. There is not the slightest probability that

| “these matters”

would ever have been spontaneously |

“mentioned.”

The implied disclaimer of a regard | for critical fairness and historic truth for their own sake, | comes appropriately from a writer who deems it a sufficient | condemnation of a grave and elaborate History to ask, | ? Mr. Kinglake may well afford to endure the | disapprobation of critics who consider it the first function of | the historian, not to narrate facts as they occurred, but to |

“serve”

some

“man or system.”