On this page
-
Text (4)
-
Stft TTHBB ^E^IKElR* [No. %M~ aU.W&3>ky,
-
" THE MASSACRE AT HANGO." Bussia proves ...
-
WHOM SHALL WE HANG?* The pamphlet which ...
-
* Whom Shall we Ilamj t Ridgway.
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
R Almerston On Limited Liability. Lord P...
simple ; These are small capitals , locked , np ; because the commercial l * w ; of this , country has decreed that tha risk shall be equal for all , — the xme measureof total riun , ^ andnot apportioned t o the capital invested . ; tike two bifls would set those capitals free ^ to the benefit both of the owners and of the ^ com * munity ; but capitalists on a grand scale resist the joint measure . It is a " contest between the few and the many " - — " a question of free-trade against monopoly ; " the
grand advocates of free-trade turn round to defeat their own . principles . To confirm ! Lord Eai .: herstow , the opponentsof the bills—free-traders—proceeded exactly in the strain of old Protectionist advocates . Without restrictive laws , capitalists will err , argued Mr . Stuvtt . The French and American laws , said Mr . Whiiam Browne , will not suit us . Without a liability artificially extended beyond the capital , pleaded Mr . Mtjirrz , " Watt would have been the victim
of a Joint-Stock Company under the control of its directors , "ignorant donkeys . " Small capitalists , urged Mr . Spooiteb , will entrust their money to directors who are not trustworthy . "Wild speculation , " cries Mr . Steutt ; " Buin to thousands , " exclaims Mr . Hasteb ; " Buinous litigation , " puts in Mr . Mtjutz ; " Bankruptcy , " groans Mr . GrLTN ; " 3 Jate period of the session , " insinuates Mr . W . Bttsseix . In short , if Parliament does
not stand over the little capitalists and advise them , the little capitalists will not know how to use their own money . It is the great capitalists who say so ; just as the great landlords said it of the working farmers .
Stft Tthbb ^E^Ikelr* [No. %M~ Au.W&3>Ky,
Stft TTHBB ^ E ^ IKElR * [ No . % M ~ aU . W & 3 > ky ,
" The Massacre At Hango." Bussia Proves ...
" THE MASSACRE AT HANGO . " Bussia proves that she is amenable to public opinion t > y the soreness she displays at the application of the phrase " Massacre at Hango" to the massacre at Hango , and the pains she takes to make out that the predatory attack upon Lieutenant Geoteste and his men wafc an " action" fought to defeat an tf ill-advised expedition into the interior , " " perhaps a reconnoissance , " it maybe an attempt to surprise the telegraph station—with
eight or ten unarmed men ! Moved by the censure of Europe , the Imperial Government has directed the Journal of St . Petersburg to publish a defence of that nefarious transaction , the massacre—we repeat- —the massacre at Hango ; and the journal , -faithful to its trust , concocts as much composition as , when translated , fills two columns of small type in a morning journal . The defence set up is curious in the extreme . The glorious action at Hango ,
henceforth as conspicuous as Sinope in the fasti of Russia , was fought by 500 men' against 17 . The result was , that five of this great invading army—to use the euphuism of the Journal of St . Petersburg— " died in this ill-advised expedition ; " four were wounded—how it does not condescend to explain ; and altogether eleven were captured . Let us correct the phraseology 01 the Bussian journal : Five
were set upon and murdered outright ; four were wounded with intent to murder ; and Beyen , including the three officers , were made prisoners—all of whom had come ashore under a flag of truce . ~ . The Bussian journal writes , on the authority of a letter from Lieutenant Geneste , explaining the occurrence , which letter , by-the-by , it does not publish in extenso , but only gives it summarised version of its contents .
According to this statement , I » ietenant Getsteste , having landed his prisoners , and seeing no one near , proceeded up the country to buy ftwrik provisions , carrying with him a flag of twice ; At a distance of fifty yards from the boflt tin ©; Huseiaus suddenly appeared from
tbeiir ambush behind tfoa rocka ; QjsstessB tried . to shield himself : undep ^ thaflag of truce andi being surroundedj he surrendered . Not one word ; does the Journal of St .. Petersburg say of the firing of the Bussians upon unarmed men '; it merely remarks that " persons died in this ill-advised expedition . " Further they state , not however on the authority of Geneste , but of a Captain
Tcblebtkof . p , aide-de-camp of General De Berg , that the flag of truce was not seen either on board the Cossack , or on board the boat , " or in the hand of the officer who landed and advanced into the Bussian territory . " [ Mark , a few lines before the Journal , in the text of its article ,. stated that Geneste " tried to shelter himself , " when attacked , f < under the white flag "—therefore the Bussians must have seen it . ]
Tchertkoff further states that " during the engagement the sailors who remained in the boat had time to throw into the sea a gun of small calibre ; " and the ill-informed , duped , or inventive captain , proceeds to describe the armament of the boat as otherwise formidable ; the object of which is to prove that lieutenant GeStestb had arrived at
Hango , with this redoubtable armada — a cutter and cutter ' s crew—to invade the Bussian Empire and buy eggs and poultry ! The fact is , that there was no gun of small or large calibre in the cutter , no arms , except those which belonged to the boat as part of her regular equipment , lying in the bottom covered with a tarpaulin ; and no " engagement , " but a massacre .
Much of this defence consists of a most exulting refutation of the statement of John Brown , the seaman who barely escaped with his life . Poor John Brown , with three wounds in his body , told us , as we all remember , that the whole of the crew were killed . And no doubt it seemed so to the desperately-wounded man , who escaped death by shamming death . But the Journal of St Petersburg , in the most triumphant manner , proves that . John Brown ' s statement was false—for how could all have been killed before his eyes when eleven are living to this
day in the prisons of Bussia ? But the Journal goes on to convict the victim who escaped Tchertkoff ' 8 brigands of further falsehood . Johist Brown , he says , declared that the boat on its arrival was attacked by five hundred armed men ; while lieutenant Geneste says he " saw no persons on shore except two or three women . " Here , then , is direct proof that Brown is a liar . Will the reader believe that what Bnowrr did say was , that they saw only one man at first , who ran off towards the telegraph-station , and that the five hundred men did not show themselves until Geneste and the Pinna had
Landed ? We can pardon mistakes in tho declaration of Brown , but not misrepresentations in the Journal of St . Petersburg . We can never believe that the ensign in command did not see the flag of truce flying onboard the boat as it approached tho shore . What says the Journal of St . Petersburg in its first announcement of the massacre , which ifc called a " successful skirmish ? " Why , it said that Ensign Tchertkojtp had been early informed of the " enterprise "—so the
coming of the boat is called—and concentrated and concealed his men for the purpose of cutting off their rotreat . The ostensible defence made by Bussia . is , that Geneste did not wait until his flag was acknowledged before he landed ; arid it is held that he had no right to land until his flag had been acknowlodged . But surely an honourable enemy , refusing to acknowledge a flng- of truce , would , at least , show himself , and warn off the coming party , not hide himself and then massacre those he had seduced by studiously
preserving the aspect- of peace ; Therefore , if we admit thftt the * forms wore not strictly attended to ; that only proves that tho Englishmen trusted too much : to the honour of their enemy , it does not justify the massacre . * But knpwing the weakness of this ground , the Bussian journal takes up another , and this constitutes the real defence , that the Bussians at Hango believed the flag of truce was an artifice—similar to many alleged to have been practised by the English during the- war ; yet how are we to reconcile this lame defence with the assertion that the
flag of truce "was not seen , for if it were not seen , how coujd such a bold descent bo an artifice ! The fact is , that turn it as they may , the " Massacre at Hango" will stick to the Bussian Crown , and will remain the " Massacre at Hango" to the end of the chapter . No sophistry can explain it away : it stands out alone in this war as a cool , deliberately-planned , atrocious murder .
Whom Shall We Hang?* The Pamphlet Which ...
WHOM SHALL WE HANG ?* The pamphlet which has appeared with this title is obviously not a labour of love . It is the anonymous affidavit of Lord Aberdeen's colleagues , drawn up by a mercenary pen . Through all its pages runs a quibbling art , which few but lawyers can command . But the gentlemen , whose public characters arc
here defended will do well to disavow all connexion with a -writer who has so degraded-a serious discussion , and who defiles with scandalous levity the harrowing records of the Sebastopol expedition . It is impossible to believe that the special pleader who has issued this clumsy justification has not been retained , by some one . But by whom ? We do not for one moment believe that the honest Lord
Aberdeen , or the generous Mr . biD ^ rY Herbert , or tho devoted Duke of Xii > vcastle — for these are the names nio < t sedulously washed—can have employed an advocate to sneer at the miseries of the British army , to insult the public and the press , and to deny the truth of statements supported b y irresistible testimony . If they have friends capable of hiring such an apolo gist , those friends have done them an evil office . The pamphlet , while it is supposed to have their countenance , will do them
more injury than the worst of libels . It "Will not disprove one charge that has been fixed upon their administration ; but it will give a colour to the most deadly aspersions that have been wantonly and cruelly cast on their personal honour : that they were indifferent as well as helpless ; that they reduced an army to famine , and ridiculed its forlorn abandonment . This is what we have never believed . But tho pampliletcer , who describes his countrymen as a nation of dupes and liars , mocks at every detail of suffering and jeers at all compassion .
The writer affects a manly scorn of tho malignant practice which imputes a private and venal motive to every public act . lie then proceeds to discover falsehood and selfishness in tho conduct of every public man who assailed tho lato administration , — more particularly tho Poelito section . Tlio majority of tlie House , which voted , for insubservience
quiry , was influenced by a mean to popular clamour . Mr . Boebttck , like tho cannibal god of tho Mexicans , hungered for a victim . Mr , La yard , graceless and mendacious by nature , rushed with savage alacrity tq tho prosecution of tho Government . The Committee was granted . And then , tho pamphleteer seeks to demonstrate that it vindicated stop by stop , the acts of tho Administration , especially thoeo of I ^ prd Aijeh-
* Whom Shall We Ilamj T Ridgway.
* Whom Shall we Ilamj t Ridgway .
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), July 28, 1855, page 718, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/ldr_28071855/page/10/
-