The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-25 00:00:00

RUSSIAN ACCOUNT OF THE MASSACRE

AT HANGO-UDD.

(Prom the Journal de St. Petersbourg. )
The Government of her Britannic Majesty has published
the despatches of Vice-Admiral Dundai and Capt. Fanshawe,
relating to the loss of the officers and crew of a boat belong-
ing to the Cossack man-of-war. This boat was captured on
the sth- of Jane, at Hango, on the coast of Finland.
The, circumstances connected with this incident require a
most serious examination on the part of the Imperial Govern-
ment, because public opinion, the press, and the English Go-
vernment, trusting to an incorrect representation of the facts,
have formed a most erroneous judgment on the affair. We
are bound in honour to expose the falsity of this judgment.
For this purpose we shall commence by correcting— the
errors of the version given by Captain Fanshawe to the
Commander-in-Chief of- the naval forces of her Britannic
Majesty.
This officer was not present at the action. He was out at
sea, at a distance of 21 miles from Hango. The account which
he delivered to Admiral Dundas on the 6th of June, the morn-
ing after the event, does not contain, therefore,' any'relation
of facts attested by himself of his own private knowledge.
This version depends solely on the verbal deposition of John
Brown, a common sailor, who was • the only witness of what
took place.
According to his testimony 500 Russian chasseurs, armed
with muskets, appeared on the landing-place at the moment
when Lieutenant Geneste, with a flag of truce in his hand,
stepped on shore to explain the object of his mission. The
first allegation is false. , This is contradicted by Lieut.Geneste
himself. We shall prove this in a way that cannot be disputed,
inasmuch as the testimony is derived from a written commu-
nication by the lieutenant himself.
The second assertion of the sailor Brown is as much a fabri-
cation as the other. .He affirms that the English officers were
all killed by the discharge of musketry. Of this fact he de-
clares himself certain. Fortunately the falseness of this de-
claration is established by a proof which cannot be contro-
verted, for it depends upon living testimony. Lieut. Geneste,
Doctor R. Easton, and Mr. Sullivan are neither killed nor
wounded. All three are safe and sound. Four other persons
of the crew.were taken unhurt. 'Four were wounded. One
of this number is a man named Glidden, who, according to
Brown, was killed by the bayonet before his eyes.
Allowing that the incorrectness of the first deposition of the
sailor is 'excusable, inasmuch as it was taken down the morn-
ing after the action, when he returned wounded froth the con-
test of the morning of the 6th of June, still we have a right to
expect that a second declaration made deliberately on the 11th
should have been more truthful,.inasmuch as he had then re-
covered from his wound. Nevertheless, he for the second time,
positively swore to the death of Lieut. Geneste, of Doctor
Easton, and of all the boat's crew. He declared that he saw
them all, without any exception, fall one after the other.
On the faith of this deposition, brought forward for the
second time, Captain Fanshawe, we cannot doubt, thought
that he was only fulfilling his duty in laying before his com-
mander the facts as they had been represented to him.
These facts, transmitted to the Admiralty, without any
previous verification, have acquired in England the odious
name of " the Massacre at Hango."
We abstain from passing any opinion on the commentaries
which, at a Parliamentary sitting, conferred on a narration,
unsupported by any proof, the dignity of a question of inter-
national law.
We might content ourselves by meeting this narration by a
simple denial. But we cannot stop here when a question
arises concerning the military honour of our officers, who are
called upon to fulfil their duty in all due faith in the defence
of their country, invaded by the enemy. We consider, more-
over, that, out of respect for the opinion of all friendly
powers, we are bound to defend the true principles upon
which reposes—according to the law of nations—the impre-
scriptible right of a legitimate defence.
In the fulfilment of this duty, we will specify the facts ac-
cording to the exact truth.
For this purpose let us first confront the version of the sea-
man Brown with the account given to Captain Fanshawe by
Lieutenant Geneste himself. This officer, after being made
prisoner, placed a written account, unsealed, in the hands of
our authorities, in order to be transmitted to his commander
at the first convenient opportunity.
The following are the details contained in this account :
The ostensible object of the mission entrusted to this officer
was to land five Finlanders belonging to our merchant navy,
and taken prisoners by the English cruiser.
With this intention he directed his course, on the 12th of
June, to the landing-place at Hango-Udd. He sailed, ac-
cording to his own account, in a cutter, healing a flag of
truce. Having arrived at the landing-place, "he saw no
persons on the shore, with the exception of two or three
women, who kept close to the houses." Here, then, is a
proof, by the lieutenant's own testimony, that the deposition
of the seaman Brown was false. The latter declared that the
boat on its arrival was attacked by 500 armed men.
After having put the Russian prisoners on shore Lieut.
Geneste, instead of terminating -thus the object of his mission,
without meeting any opposition, went beyond this. He went,
he says, towards the houses, in order to communicate with
the people and with the officer of the telegraph.
He then set out with Dr. Easton and several of the crew
"to buy, if possible, fresh provisions." This recital, which
we reproduce word for word, proves incontestibly that there
was no question of a " parley." In other words, there was
no official proposition to be transmitted from one military
authority to another, in war time, under the protection of a
white flag. The object, to say the least, was to forage in an
enemy's country, and it might have been to push forward a
reconnaissance, eitther for the purpose of becoming.acquainted
with the ground or surprising an advanced post near the
telegraph.
Whatever was the object of this enterprise, in no case could
it or ought it be supposed to be under the protection of a flag
of truce, which can only be legally employed for an avowed
num.... in nflit,l.l oarhsYs. In spite of• this rule. which is
universally recognised, Lieutenant Geneste declares that he
caused one of his crew to carry a flag of truce attached to a
staff. •
Having advanced in this manner in a hostile country, this
officer, at a distance of 50 yards from his own boat, accord-
ing to his own confession, was surprised by our soldiers, of
whose presence he was ignorant, as they were in ambush
behind the rocks. To defend himself from this unforeseen
attack he endeavoured to shelter himself under the protec-
tion of the white flag. But by this stmtegem he could not
repair the fault he had committed in advancing into a hostile
country, without having previously, as he ought to have done,
made himself certain that his flag of truce was legally recog-
nised and admitted by our authorities. Surrounded on all
sides, he surrendered. Dr. Easton, Mr. Sullivan, and eight
of the crew shared his captivity. Six persons died in this

ill-advised expedition.
We need not say that the wounded obtained all the assist-
ance which they wanted. Lieut. Geneste does justice to the
care and attention paid to him, as well as to his crew.
This confession releases us from the necessity of saying a
single word more for the purpose of denying the lying recital
of Brown as to the pretended massacre of the English officers
and sailors, all of whom, he asserts, he saw killed one after
the other without exception.
After having confuted the verbal version of the sailor by
the written testimony of the English officer, it is our duty to
affirm that, on the, arrival of. the news of the incident at
Hango, the Governor-GenuaL Commander-in-Chief of the
Imperial Troops in Finland, without waiting for direct orders
from St. Petersburg, hastened to institute an inquiry on the
spot, in order to make himself acquainted with the exact

truth.
General de Berg entrusted this mission to Captain Tchert-
koff, an aide-de-camp of his Imperial Majesty. The report
of this officer, dated the 30th of May (11th of June), is now
lying before us. The following is an abstract of the report :
" The flag of truce was not seen either on board the Cossack
or on the boat which made for the landing-place, or iu the
hand of the officer who landed and advanced into the Russian
territory. This declaration has been unanimously confirmed
by all the witnesses of the action.
" During the engagement the sailors who remained in the
boat had time to throw into the sea a gun of small calibre.
Among the muskets taken in the action, there were three
which it is certain, in spite of assertions to the contrary, had
been discharged. Three others, loaded with ball, fell into
our hands. In addition to this the crew were found to have
360 cartridges, 400 caps, and two explosive tubes, with
matches. These warlike implements taken on the enemy
are sufficient to prove that the expedition of Lieutenant
Geneste, although ostensibly under the protection of a flag
of truce, was not intended merely to put on shore the Fin-
land sailors who had been made prisoners.
This circumstance was not forgotten by General De Berg
in his answer to the official communication addressed to him
on the 15th June by Admiral Dundas. The Journal de St.
Petersbourg having been authorised to publish these docu-
ments, we content ourselves with referring to that publica-
tion.
However, we think it our duty to add a few reflections,
which appear to us to be the more valuable, inasmuch as
they are suggested by the experience of Admiral Dundas
himself. In a document addressed to Captain Fanshawe,
bearing date the Sth of June, published afterwards in Eng-
land, he thought it necessary to ask the following questions
" What means were afforded the enemy of accepting or
refusing a flag of truce before the crew lanclod ?
" At what distance from shore was the flag of truce hoisted ?
Was a blank shot fired as a signal ? Had the officer in com-
mand of the vessel sufficient reason for believing that the
enemy recognised the flag ? Lastly,
" Did the disembarkation of the prisoners take place with
the consent of the Russian officer on the coasts, or had they
grounds for supposing that this consent was granted or un-
derstood ?"
To these questions Captain Fanshawe has absolutely no-
thing positive or conclusive as a reply. The fact is that he
possessed no other information on what had passed than the
verbal testimony of the seaman Brown, and we have shown
above what was the value of that testimony.
When the report of Lieutenant Geneste comes before Ad-
miral Dundas, we are certain that this document will be suffi-
cient to enlighten him as to the nature of the facts. The
answer to the questions proposed by himself will show that
all the precautions, the necessity of which he has asserted,
were neglected. No signal was made to give proper warning
to oar authorities of the approach of a flag of truce. No con-
sent was asked or obtained to authorise the disembarkation.
The boat approached the shore ; the crew landed; the officer
advanced into a hostile territory without explanation, with-
out permission, without any recognition of his flag of truee;
In a word, he came at his own risk. He thus fell ioo the
n_
power, exposing his own life and that of his crew t
hazard of a surprise.
Such is the pure and simple narration of We Itstepaassoeedr:
This also is the only answer to be made to t '
tions which have obtained currency in Englalnd_hth
to what has been cAlled " the massacre at Rang
th espect, even
As governments should pay
- - each e- •esi Cabinet considered
relation
although they may be at war, the impeori_nit.lt was bound
that a serious obligation WAS iMP°Se:O aPdireet understanding
to seize upon this occasion to come_ of her
in order to prevent all the
Britannic Majesty in the Baltic,ron,
with the Commander-in-Cl
f the manner in which the
mistakes which might arfiseo flag
of truce.
in-Chief the Naval Forces
English navy made use; • ter of War (Prince Dolgorouki)
Emperor to address to Admiral Dundas
was ordered by
üblished below. It bears date undas
the communication P
With this
this the answer of the ad •
We add to admiral received
of June. teethe the inis
we give b these
The publicity which y documents will at-
test loudly to all friendly powers the ear •
of Juno.
the 30th
Imperial Government watches over the e with which the
prine • iples which international law prescribes preservation of the
happily engaged in a war which humanity to nations
Russia will will always respect these •
deplores.
as it will cause them to be respected,Principles in the same way
deviation from thorn under any 7441°14 ,alleling any
Noi? We %UM Iv mow; 51414412p twiatttavpr.
_ . _ . s 44913 *AP 4. 411413g* illO etoti 4
..._ _ _ _.

NEWS Ap EJI
7 . •-- 2.,..._. - .--4\ ,
- ' -`t4
wo campaigns in the ack Sea and the Balkic that on more ... ~1! .
1
use
one occasion the officers of the Englis.'irsiVY have made -‘11,;01:14
use f the stratagem of hoisting a white fie: , lifer for the :“1,1-4. 1
purp'ose of taking soundings, or of capturi. `*OV-,merchant :', "9'.74
y I`
vessels. We will not dispute the right of the ... , .. .. ent of; z
stratagems in war time. We do, however, insist-6= part., se:
on the incontestible right of every belligerent po pre-I
vent the success of these stratagems, and to turn them, if pos-
sible, against the enemy which makes use of them. This rule
of precaution, and, in case of need, of repression, comes with"
in the limits of legitimate defence, which is the supreme law
when the safety of states is concerned. In this way the law
of nations has put certain limitations to the 'immunities en-
joyed by a flag of truce, limitations clearly defined by. custom;
and which no one must transgress with impunity. Applying 7.'
this rule to the circumstances which have just happened at
Hango, we will appeal to the maxims consecrated by the law
of nations, according to the acknowledged authority of
Vattel. ; ,

" I speak, now," he says, " of herald's trumpeters, drum-
mers, who, by the law of nations, are sacred and inviolable
when they make themselves known, and as long as they keep
within the terms of their commission, the functions of their
employment. This must of necessity be the case ; for with-
out dwelling upon what we have just said, that means must
always be reserved to bring about peace, there are even
during the continuance of hostilities a thousand occcasions in
which the public safety and the advantage of the two parties
make it necessary thati they should have the power of com-
municating messages and propositions." Book iv. chap. vii.
sect. 87.

" The prince, the general of the army, and each comman-
der-in-chief in his. own department, have alone the right of
sending a trumpet or a drum, and they can only send it to
the commander-in-chief. If the general besieging a town
undertakes to send •a trumpet to a subaltern, to the Magis-
tracy or the citizens, the governor of the place may justly
treat the trumpet as a spy." Sec. 94.
These quotations are suffscient to settle that question, which
was specially the object of this explanation. Had Lieutenant
Geneste any proposition to make" He had none to transmit.
He was ordered to land the five Finland seamen. When he
had put them ashore his commissioll was terminated. Foraging
in a hostile- country is not delivering a message. It is an ope- -
ration performed by every one at his own risk. The white
flag cannot be used to protect an employment of this nature.
To use the expression of Vattel, " it does not enter into the
functions of the employment of the messenger."
Did Lieutenant Geneste make himself known? Did he Sig-
nailrlalepaupnpdrasoacinhqbuyirfies ? N
firing a
No
khshot
thing. The white before landing,ite Awt
ni
not perceived by our people either on board the English crui-
sing stearuer, nor on the boat which came up to the landing-
place. The English officer did not assume the character,
since pretended, of a bearer of a flag of truce until he had
fallen intcian ambuscade by his awn want of caution. Finally,
we ask, was he sent in a regular manner by an English Com-
mander-in-Chief
to a Russian Commander-in-Chief ! No. He
says he was sent by Captain Fanshawe to communicate with
the people of Hango, or else with the subaltern officers
stationed at the telegraph. Was that a true message parle-
mentaire, regular, legal, avowed, and such as the law of
nations requires? Nothing could give it such a character,
under the circumstances which caused this officer to fall
into the hands of the detachments that surprised him on our
territory, where he had landed as an enemy, without having
asked, waited for, or obtained authorisation.
It is not our intention to magnify the fault of this officer
in the eyes of his superiOrs: Having been charged with a
hazardous, compromising, ill-conceived commission, he has
paid the penalty by falling into the power of a superior force
of whose presence he was ignorant. Surrounded on all sides,
he suffered the fortune of war. As a prisoner of war, the
uniform he bore renders him inviolable ; but as a non-avowed
parlementaire he was net according to the laws of war. The
white flag is in our eyes too sacred to be degraded so far as
to cover with its protection any abusive stratagem by sea or _
by land.
The Emperor, in defending his country against universal
aggression which he has not provoked, loyally 'sustains,
sword in hand, the dignity of his crown and the honour of
Russia in a fair war, relying on the help of God, If the
enemy resort to artifice, it is for us to destroy its effect by
every means in our power consistent with the law
of nations. We have just done so at Hango. We say
this fearlessly. The enemy has a right to regret his want
of success, when he sees fail an enterprise which he thought
might be attempted with impunity under the white flag.
But he has no right to take a revenge by using injurious
language, and accusing Russia of having violated the laws
of war, which he is the first to transgress. Language so
insulting needs no reply. The same may be said of the
menace of reprisals, which we have heard with regret has
been- employed in the English Parliament. We have been
astonished that, before hearing legal evidence, without veri-
fication, and on the word of a sailor, since denied by the tes-
timony of his commanding officer, the word reprisals should
have been pronounced, and this at a moment when the Eng-
lish press publishes the misdeeds done at Kertch under the
eyes of a general officer of her Britannic Majesty, to a popu-
lation without arms. Certainly, in presence of such cruelties
exercised on our soil by an army of invasion under the British
flag, it is not necessary to remind Russia that in the disastrous
code of war there exists the blood-stained word " reprisals."
We hurl back the reproach of this word to those who have
hail the rashness to pronounce it first.
[The Journal adds to these observations the letter of the
Russian Minister of War to Admiral Dundas, limiting the
number of ports at which flags of truce will be received, as
well as the reply of Admiral Dundas, pointing out the in-
convenience of such a measure. Both of these letters have
appeared in the Deily News, A third letter from Prince
Dolgorouky announces that the Russian Government has
added Libau, Windau, Wasa, mid Torneo, to the number of
places whither flags of truce may be sept. A fourth letter
follows, the connection of which with the foregoing is not
obvious : we, however, append it.]
Extract from a communication addressed to the Minister of
War, Prince Dolgorouky, by the Governor General of Fin-
land.

Helsingfors, July 2,.1855•

The English journals publish that the allied fleet spares
private property in the Gulf of Finland and Bothnia. This
is so little true, that, on the contrary, the enemy's cruisers
destroy daily not only large and small coasting vessels at sea,
but even those which are at anchor and without masts, in the
Scheres, and at the extremity of creeks and gulfs furthest re-
moved from the coast. These little vessels constitute for the
most part the sole fortune of families in but moderate cir-
cuthstances, and even poor. - -
At Nystadt, an open city, and without garrison, au Eng-
lish cruiser has burnt 14 ships and sonic private property.
These vessels were at anchor in the port without masts and
unraueo. othOrg vrefe gi4a.43, by the flames.
At Puterlax, not far from IVyborg, the enemy burnt 3G
coasting vessels ; not content with this exploit the enemy
proceeded to land little detachments of sailors upon different
parts of the coast, who entered isolated hamlets and plun-
dered the poor fishermen.