The Press.
London, England, 1856-11-22 00:00:00

GENERAL WILLIAMS AND GENERAL

KMETY.
A PAMPHLET has been forwarded to us by
General KXETY, written in consequence of what
he conceives to be an injustice indicted on him-
self by General Wh.ttAms in his account, both
written and spoken, of the defence of Kars.
The subject is worth attention, as well because
it can never be considered a light matter
whether or no a meritorious officer has been
shorn of his proper meed of praise, as because
the advantage of maintaining a good under-
standing between Turkish and British officers
is, under existing circumstances, of the highest
importance.

The main question at issue between these
two officers is this :—ln his despatches and
speeches General WILLIAMS certainly conveys
the impression that General KMETY performed

'SATURDAY,

only a subordinate part in the battle of the
29th of September. In the present pamphlet
the latter claims credit for the exclusive super-
inteadence of the whole affair. There is also
a second ground of comiAlaint—namely, that
in conformity with the spirit of the above
representations nu mention was made by
the English General of the gallantry of the
Turkish subalterns. As long as General
Kmr.pi was under the idea that General
WlLLiiims' despatch was to be looked upon
merely as a report to his own Government
of the conduct of their own officers, he did not
feel called on to interfere. As soon, however,
as General Wituams affects to speak as
Commander-in-Chief of the Turkish army, it
was necessary for General KNIETY to break
silence.

The river Kars divides the intrenehed:camp
into two nearly equal parts ; on one side is
the town and citadel of Kars, on the other the
fortified heights, which were the exclusive
object of the Russian attack. The head-
quarters of the beseiged were, of course,
within the town, under the direct command
of General WILLIAMS. General KMFTY was
stationed on one of the two ranges into which
the extramural heights were divided, which
was called Tachmas Tabia, and the other, or
Ingliz Tabia—so called from the English
fortifications erected there—was occupied by
subordinate Turkish officers.

Now, in General WILLIAM& despatches we
find General KMETY spoken of as a bravo
General of Division, and in describing the
attack on the Tachmas Tabia, the key of the
whole position, he writes :—" General KMETY,
"a gallant Hungarian officer, commanded the
"division which occupied this eminence;" and
elsewhere, " It was here that General KMETY
"so conspicuously displayed his courage and
"conduct." This language, though scarcely
in General KmEry's own opinion adequate to
the responsible position which he filled, might
nevertheless have passed unnoticed had not
the extraordinary omission of his name in
General WiLuams' speeches induced him to
put an interpretation upon it he should other-
wise have shrunk from. Within little more
than a month from his return to England,
General WILLIAMS delivered four orations, at
various triumphal banquets, in only one of
which, and that the third, was General KMETY
even so much as alluded to. In a speech
delivered at the Mansion-house, on the 9th of
July, General WILLIAMS apologised for hiving
hitherto omitted to mention the names of two
gallant Hungarian generals KMETY and
KotmAN—and immediately, without saying a
word of their exploits, passed on to some
other topic. "You introduced my name," says
General KMETY, in his letter to the Times,
"as if half forgotten, and as if of one who had
"contributed but little to the events of the
" campaign."
We have already described the situation
occupied by General KMETY on the day of the
great battle. He commanded at the post of
danger, and, by General WILLIAMS' own ad-
mission, behaved with distinguished courage.
But the point which he wishes to establish
in this pamphlet is, that he alone fought and
won the battle of Kars. That is, that he ful-
filled all the duties of commander-in-chief,
directed all the field operations, and was solely
responsible for the movements of his troops.
At page 13 of the pamphlet he tells us—" I
"received the command of the whole of the
" troops on the left bank of the river Kars ;" at
page 17—" My command was not interfered
" with, as I received no instruction or coininu-
" nication from head-quarters throughout the
" whole of the contest which ensued." And
the mere fact of General WILLIAMS having
instructed him three months before to hold the
position as long as ho could, will hardly be
deemed any qualification of this statement.
This, indeed, is the clue to the whole pamphlet,
which is a remarkably lucid and concise
narrative of the engagement. The General
enables us to follow him throughout the day,
and modestly, but clearly, sets forth the
leading share which he took in its glorious
result.

The question before the public is now, there-
fore, purely a question of fact. If General
KMETT'S facts are correct, we do not under-
stand how General WILLIAMS' conduct can be

NOVEMBER 22, 1856.

defended. If General WILLIAMS' speeches, or
rather his silence, be justifiable, then must
General KMETY'S narrative be a falsehood.
There must be plenty of persons able and
willing to give an opinion on the subject. Let
them by all means come forward and see that
justice is done upon whichever be the real
delinquent.
With regard to the Turkish subalterns, the
ease is much the same. General KMETY men-
tions by name several who exposed themselves
to the Russian fire with undaunted coolness,
and led on their men with high, soldier-like
bearing. Is this an invention, or is it reality ?
Are we for ever to dw€ll in a region of doubts
and shadows concerning the events of the past
three years? Has the Eastern love of fable
infected the matter-of-fact European mind?
Which of the two generals is romancing on the
present oecasion; is it both, or is it neither ?
Does General WILLIAMS really believe that it
was himself who repulsed the Russians, and
not General KMETY? Exoriare aliquis. Come
forth some eyewitness, and tell us the truth
about these things.

THE WHIGS AND THE IRISH
JUDICATURE.

Ix will not be possible for the Government to
overlook the facts about Irish judicial pro-
motions which have been recently brought
forward in our columns. The subject is not
" a mere Irish one." Its importance makes it
of imperial consideration, for England is pro-
foundly interested in the proper constitution
of the Judicature of the empire. We shall
to-day adduce some new and special views of
this serious case, and we request attention to
facts which cannot be disputed.
Since the year l8:29 the promotions have
been open to Roman Catholics, and not a
solitary instance has occurred of a Roman
Catholic of distinguished ability being passed
over in legal promotion in Ireland. Of that
fact we have never complained, nor are we
displeased with it. But what we do complain
of is this (and until the system be decisively
changed we shall continue to raise our voice
against it), namely,—first, that the possession
of intellectual and legal merits, whatever they
may do in securing private practice to Pro-
testants, has (according to Whig precedents)
not the least influence on public patronage ;
and, secondly, that the profession of the
Roman Catholic faith, and support of the
political creed of the Church of Rome in
Ireland, are held to be sufficient passports to
office for those qualified only by second-rate
claims.

We shall set these two grievances in a
gl.aring light before the public mind. Take
the Bar employed on the O'CONNELL trial.
That case engaged the talents of the men who
were considered to be the most eminent in the
profession. There were retained for the Crown
(along with the law officers) Sergeant WARREN,
Mr. BENNETT, Mr. HOLMES, Mr. NAPIER, Mr.
BREWSTER, and Mr. TOMBE, all gentlemen of
great position in the law—and all those gentle-
men were Protestants. There were also re-
tained for the defence, Mr HENN, Mr. WHITE-
SIDE, Mr. FITZGIBBON, and Mr. MACDONAOH—
aII Protestants.

Not one of those ten Protestants, though
some of them were unrivalled at the bar in
their special qualifications, have since been
advanced to the Bench !

Sergeant WARREN was one of the greatest
ornaments in the profession. Grave, suave,
and dignified, his mariners invited the respect
universally conceded to rare learning and
attnietive eloquence. Mr. HENS, in range of
power, was second to no man at the bar. Mr.
BENNETT, not long deceased, was for twenty
years leader of the Munster Circuit, and
realised a great fortune. Mr. HOLMES Was a
great orator, whose name will live in the annals
of the Irish Bar. The abilities and research
of Mr NAPIER, and the powerful eloquence of
Mr WHITESIDE,are acknowledged and admired
at both sides of the House of Commons ; and
the talents of Mr. BREWSTER are certainly very
considerable. Yet not one of those eminent
persons have been elevated to the Bench.