“The Times—we say it with regret, because the character of the entire newspaper press is more or less affected by the misdeeds of one of its leading members—has earned for itself an unenviable notoriety by the frequency with which it gives circulation to calumnies against those to whom it is opposed, and then refusing to allow the parties affected to prove that they are calumniated.
“A striking case, illustrative of this, has occurred within the last few days. The Times, by some means or other, becomes possessed of a document purporting to be a proclamation from Kossuth, addressed to the Hungarian soldiers in that portion of the Austrian army employed to put down the insurrection in Milan. We do not charge our contemporary with publishing this proclamation knowing it not to be genuine. We are willing to give The Times credit for believing in the perfect genuineness of the document when it opened its columns to its insertion. Nor do we blame that journal for inditing a leading article, in which the proclamation in question was made the groundwork of a furious onslaught on Kossuth, because we are still assuming that The Times all this while believed the document to be an emanation from the pen of the illustrious Magyar.
“But farther than this, in our allowances for our contemporary, we cannot go. The Times is told that the proclamation to the Hungarian soldiers in the Austrian army was not the production of Kossuth’s pen, and that he was in no wise responsible for its sentiments or its exhortations. Captain Mayne Reid writes to The Times, not only denying the genuineness of the document but producing facts and assigning reasons, which ought to have satisfied that journal that it had preferred a charge against Kossuth as groundless as it was injurious. But instead of giving a ready insertion to Captain Mayne Reid’s vindication of the character of the Hungarian chief from the calumnies which The Times put into circulation, that journal, without assigning, or being able to assign, any reason for still believing that the document was genuine, reiterates the assertion of its having proceeded from Kossuth’s pen.
“Fortunately for the character of the English press, there is not another journal of any reputation in the country that would act in this matter as The Times has done. However much a paper may chance to be opposed to a particular individual, we know of no instance, with this solitary exception of The Times, in which an editor, having preferred a groundless charge against a man whose character is everything to him, would refuse to allow a contradiction and disproof of the accusation. The force of injustice could no further go. To act in this way is to play the part of a moral assassin, and ought to draw down on the head of the journalist who could play so criminal a part the indignation and abhorrence of the public.
“The Times has not yet forgotten its old grudge against the Magyar chief, nor is it likely it ever will. It not only greatly damaged its commercial interests by the system of calumny which it pursued towards the Hungarian exile, but it had also to endure the mortification of finding that all its efforts to injure Kossuth’s character, or to diminish the interest felt in the cause of Hungary, were entirely unsuccessful. Never was the utter powerlessness of a journal more thoroughly demonstrated than was that of The Times on the arrival of Kossuth in this country, and the mortification of its signal failure to prevent the tide of popular feeling from flowing in favour of the ex-governor of Hungary, still rankles in the heart of The Times. The gross act of injustice which we have sought to expose, and which we have so unsparingly denounced, is the consequence of that intolerable mortification.
“The character of Kossuth needed not the able and unanswerable defences which Captain Mayne Reid, a popular author as well as gallant officer, published in the columns of this journal on Thursday. Least of all was it necessary to vindicate the Hungarian chief from the charge of want of courage. The entire conduct of Kossuth, during the most troublous and perilous period of the struggle for the national independence of his country, proved him to be a man possessed of courage, of heroism, and of a disregard of all considerations of personal safety, as his civil administration of the affairs of Hungary showed him to be a statesman of consummate capacity.
“Afterwards came the other, and, in some respects, still nobler display of lofty heroism, which Kossuth made when a prisoner in Turkey. Those are indeed heartless calumniators who would seek to brand with the guilt of cowardice one of the bravest of men, overwhelmed with sorrow and an exile from his country—a country dearer to him than life itself. But for the credit of English journalism be it spoken, there is only one paper amidst the entire press of this country of which he can complain. We need not name that journal. Every one knows we allude to The Times—a journal whose name has for some time past been everywhere regarded as synonymous with all that is unprincipled and ungenerous.
“Since the above was in the printer’s hands, we have received another communication from Captain Mayne Reid, inclosing a letter from Kossuth himself, which completely settles the question of the forged proclamation. No one can read the letter of the illustrious Hungarian without blushing to think that he should be systematically assailed in the most savage manner, and be made the victim of a series of the grossest calumnies by a paper arrogating to itself the title of ‘the leading journal of Europe.’ Captain Mayne Reid deserves, and will receive, the thanks of every lover of justice for his spirited and triumphant defence of the character of Kossuth.”
The Times afterwards stated that Kossuth was storing arms at Rotherhithe. In the issue of that journal on April 18th, 1853, appeared the following editorial note:
“We have received another highly complimentary letter from Mr Mayne Reid—we mean a whole sheet full of abuse—and so long as we continue what we are, and Mr Mayne Reid continues what he is, we shall consider his abuse the greatest praise it is in his power to bestow. A feeling of regard for the English language induces us, however, to refrain from giving publicity to Mr Mayne Reid’s balderdash, which we dare say may be read in another place.”