| | | The first article of the Times on Mr. Kinglake’s | History was very favourable in its tone. The book was | described as entitled to a high place in the very best | literature ~~ as one

“every line of which sparkles with | light.”

Afterwards, a change appeared to come over | the spirit of the Reviewer. It was suggested by those who | like to find an explanation for everything, that, when the | first article was written, the Reviewer had only read the first | volume of the book, and that subsequently, taking up the | second volume, he came upon a piquant description of a | certain

“Company,”

which altered his view as to | the merits of the work. We are not ourselves inclined to | embark in these speculations. But, having accepted Mr. | Kinglake’s book as deserving the character of a history ~~ | though without pledging ourselves to all the details, much | less to all the expressions of opinion ~~ we feel rather | bound to show some cause to our readers for not | acquiescing in the conclusion to which the times | in its later articles has come, that the book is a heap of | malignant fictions, overdrawn caricatures, and

“sick | man’s dreams.”

| We will not discuss matters about which, the facts being | admitted, there may be a difference of opinion as to the | inferences or judgments; and in regard to these, we repeat, | we by no means undertake to endorse all that Mr. Kinglake | says. We will come to cases in which the Times | positively contradicts Mr. Kinglake’s statement of facts. If it | should prove that, in important cases of this kind, the | Times is wrong, the history which it impugns ~~ a | history which its author has produced after long labour, and | undeniably with the command of the most authentic | materials ~~ must be regarded for the present as | remaining in possession of the field. | Mr Kinglake says (Vol. I. p. 378): ~~ | Upon this, Mr. Kinglake adds, . | Ten or twelve days afterwards, however, the English | Cabinet acquiesced in the proposal of the French Emperor, | who insisted that the two Powers should adopt the | aggressive measure of warning the Russian fleet off the | waters of the Euxine, and shutting it up in the harbour of | Sebastopol. says Mr. Kinglake, | . In a note Mr. Kinglake adds: ~~ | Upon this the times, in its article of January 27, | says: ~~ | In those words, it will be observed, the Times | not only impugns Mr. Kinglake’s version of the transaction, | which depends upon the correctness of his hypothetical | view as to Lord Palmerston’s motives in resigning ~~ it | contradicts him flatly as to the fact of the resignation. Not | only so, but it declares his statement to be, not a mere | misapprehension, but a

“figment”

of his own

| “manufacture.”

If this be the case, there is an end of | his character as an historian. | A leading article of the Times of December 16, | 1853 (the date of this transaction), commenced with these | words: ~~ . this announcement gave | rise to a remarkable discussion in the House of Lords on | January 31, 1854, the first day of the ensuing Session: ~~ | | In Vol. II. p. 168, Mr. Kinglake makes an important | statement gravely affecting the character of our French | allies, which it would, no doubt, be very discreditable to him | as an historian to have made without foundation. He states | that in the night before the landing in the Crimea, the | French misplaced the buoy which was to mark off the | respective landing-places of the two armies in Old Fort Bay, | and thus engrossed the whole of the Bay for themselves; | and that the English were consequently driven at the last | moment to find another landing-place on the beach of | Kamishlu. This statement is illustrated by a plan of the | ground. | The Times Reviewer, after completely exposing, | as he thinks, the intrinsic absurdity of this statement, ends | by saying confidently ~~

“In short, the whole story is a | sick man’s dreams.”

He says, however that he will | believe the story if Captain Mends, who had charge of the | disembarkation, will come forward to state that it is true. | Ordinary critics, seeing that Mr. Kinglake passes for a man | of honour, and that he writes undeniably from good | materials, would be inclined at least to suspend their | judgment till Captain Mends or some other person entitled | to a hearing came forward to say that the story was false. It | was Lord Lyons according to Mr. Kinglake, who discovered | the misplacement of the buoy; and perhaps, he may not | have communicated the discovery to his subordinate. It | was one which could not fail to breed mischief between the | two armies. However, we shall hear what Captain Mends | has to say when he comes forward. Meantime, we will | produce a witness not less important. A letter from Lord | Raglan, dated “Camp above Old Fort Bay, September 18, | 1854” (four days after the incident), contains the following | passage: ~~ | This prudent forbearance and secrecy observed were | turned against the British, who were twitted with the delay, | and are now turned against the writer who endeavours to | do tardy justice to their commander. | Again, the Times denounces as calumnious the | account given by mr. Kinglake of the French Emperor’s | personal courage. Mr. Kinglake has not said that | the Emperor is

“a poltroon;”

and to put that word, | or its equivalent, into his mouth is to libel him ~~ not to | prove that he is a libeller. What he has said (vol.I., p. 213), | is: | There is nothing in this description inconsistent with the | Emperor’s having shown creditable composure very shortly | after Orsini’s attempt on his life. To say that he

“stood | unmoved amid the bombs of the assassin”

is mere | rodomontade. | The details of Prince Louis Bonaparte’s conduct at | Boulogne rest on the best evidence known to history ~~ | the records of a public investigation before a judicial | tribunal of the highest authority. Mr. Kinglake has added | nothing to those details. he has only interpreted them, as | manifestations of a character extraordinarily bold in its | dreams, but liable to fail on coming into collision with the | solid resistance of the real world. However, in this case | also, we have evidence to produce on Mr. Kinglake’s side. | Mr. Kirwan, an English barrister, was an eye-witness of the | French Emperor’s bearing at Boulogne in August 1840; | and he states that his look, when in danger, was so | dejected and crestfallen that the very marketwomen called | him un poltron and un faux brave, | and that one of them, a vehement Bonapartist, greatly | scandalized, exclaimed that he had the colour and | complexion “d’une feuille morte.” This | expression exactly confirms one of Mr. Kinglake’s most | graphic touches, the accuracy of which has been | especially called in question. We have Mr. Kirwan’s | permission to mention this piece of evidence, and to give | his name. | The Moniteur, in its official account of Solferino, | described the Emperor as performing prodigies of personal | courage, and being always in the thick of the danger, so | that everyone but himself | shuddered at the risk he ran. Mr. Kinglake questions the | truth of this description, on the ground that not one of the | Emperor’s escort was killed or wounded. The Times | and other critics think they can confute Mr. Kinglake | out of his own mouth, inasmuch as he himself states that | Lord Raglan and his staff were exposed to an artillery fire | at long-range for some time at the battle of the Alma, and | that none of them were wounded at that time. | The obvious answer is, that Lord Raglan’s staff consisted | of less than 20 men, while the Emperor’s escort consisted | of 250, and not one was hit at any time. The | Moniteur had to resort to the theory of | preternatural agency, and to declare that . Mr. | Kinglake has not found it necessary to account for the | temporary escape of Lord Raglan’s staff (two of whom | were afterwards struck down at his side) by any theory of | the kind. | There are some other cases in which, even if we had not | the means of testing the comparative trustworthiness of the | historian and of his critic in the Times equally | ready at hand, we should be able to see, on the face of the | matter, good reason for pausing before we pronounced the | historian to be a reckless fabricator of fictions and | absurdities, in deference to the dogmatic assertions of the | critic. | In volume II., pages 114, 115, Mr. Kinglake has given an | account of a conference between Lord Raglan and Sir | George Brown upon the receipt of the despatch from the | Government directing the invasion of the Crimea. The | conference ends in Lord Raglan’s determination to | undertake the expedition, against his own military judgment, | in deference to a supposed maxim of the Duke of | Wellington, which enjoined upon a commander in the field | implicit obedience to the directions of a Secretary of State. | The narrative is very circumstantial, the precise words of | Sir George Brown being given between inverted commas. | Circumstantial, however, as it is, the Times | (February 9) treats it, in the most unqualified terms, as a | pure fiction of Mr. Kinglake’s

“ingenious”

fancy: | ~~ Now, what strikes us, and probably has struck | our readers, is this: ~~ Mr. Kinglake is not an insignificant | and unaccredited writer, whose fictions, if they are fictions, | those who are affected by them can afford to pass over in | contemptuous silence. He is accredited to the world as the | trustee of all Lord Raglan’s confidential papers, as well as | of a mass of other information of the most important and | authentic kind. If his narrative of the conference between | Lord Raglan and Sir George Brown is fictitious, and if it is | so injurious to the reputation of those two gallant and | sensible old soldiers, why is it left to the Times | to throw random doubts upon its accuracy? Why is it not at | once demolished by a conclusive contradiction from Sir | George Brown? The impression plainly conveyed by Mr. | Kinglake’s narrative is, that his account of what passed at | the conference has been copied from a memorandum or a | detailed statement of one of the two parties concerned. | Surely this is enough to provoke a more authoritative | contradiction than that of a writer in the Times. | This remark may be extended to other cases. In Mr. | Kinglake’s book there are many statements which are | startling, and some which the persons affected would have | strong inducements to contradict. Why are no | contradictions forthcoming? The torpor of the Cabinet, for | instance, when the despatch directing the invasion of the | Crimea was read, has probably startled the world as much | as anything Mr. Kinglake relates. Now there are eight | persons alive, each of whom could, from his personal | knowledge, give this statement an authoritative | contradiction; yet not one of them has done so, and the | Times is left entirely to its own resources in | dealing with the affair. | As to the internal probability or improbability of Mr. | Kinglake’s account of the conference, the case stands thus. | It is certain that Lord Raglan acted against his own military | judgment; for the Secretary of State, in reply to the letter in | which Lord Raglan had conveyed his acquiescence, uses | these words: ~~ | The most important and startling part of this narrative ~~ | namely, that Lord Raglan acted against his own judgment, | in deference to the wishes of the Government ~~ is thus | placed beyond doubt. And why should we reject the part | which is at once less important and less startling ~~ | namely, that he was influenced in coming to this decision | by a maxim, or supposed maxim, of the great Chief whom, | through his whole life, he had followed, imitated, and | adored? Perhaps this reflection might have occurred to a | critic intent on fairly weighing the historical probabilities, not | on writing down the historian. | Possibly we may have more to say hereafter on this | subject. But we have said enough, as we hope, to convince | our readers that, in accepting Mr. Kinglake’s book as a | history, we have not been so credulous or precipitate as | some of our contemporaries would make us out to have | been. As to what the Times calls its

“most | serious charge”

against Mr. Kinglake ~~ that of

| “having written a most mischievous book”

~~ it is | impossible to deny that the disclosure of facts is often most | mischievous to some of those who are concerned. It has | caused many persons to sink in public estimation. It has | caused some persons to be hanged. But disclosures which | are injurious t personal interests ~~ even to the interests of | Emperors ~~ are very often for the public good.