The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-02 00:00:00

TILE BOMBARDMENT OF ODESSA.

The Journal de St. Petersbourg, of the 23d inst.,
has the following leading article :
"It is not without surprise that we have received
(pris connaisance) the manner in which Vice-Admiral
Hamelin describes the bombardment of Odessa, in his
official report to his Government.

"According to the terms of this report the combined
Anglo-French squadrons destroyed the Port Imperial of
that town, the establishments of the Admiralty, its ma-
gazines, barracks, powder magazine, and battery, with-
out the 30,000 men forming the garrison, or the 70
cannon of the fortress, or of.its batteries, being able to
preserve Port Imperial from this disaster. -
"In order to appreciate, the truth of these assertions

it suffices to say (that which cannot besides be unknown
in Europe in regard to a town annually visited by thou-
sands), that there exists neither fortress, admiralty, nor
port devoted to military purposes. That which Admiral
Hamelin designates under the name of Port Imperial
was formerly, in the days of Admiral Ribas, a military
port. It has retained this name up to this day, but in
reality it is nothing but a pratique harbour, destined to
receive ships which have finished their quarantine
in another harbour, into which vessels enter
which are submitted to sanitary measures. Now, the
mole of free pratique has not been destroyed. It still
exists, as can be verified by all inhabitants and foreigners
in the town. Its battery of four pieces maintained
during six successive hours a combat, during which it
had to return the fire of eight steam frigates and one
corvette. It was at last dismounted ; but, if there be
cause for astonishment, it is that it resisted so long, and
that in despite of the number and heavy calibre of the
guns of the frigates, the work of destruction should have
required six hours, in lieu of being accomplished
in a few minutes,* as might be supposed by persons
having any knowledge of projectiles. This result of the
enormous disproportion of force in combat does not in
any way appear to justify the passage of Admiral Hame-
lin s report, wherein he boasts (proue) the immense supe-
riority of the practice of the Anglo-French cannon.
We permit ourselves even to think that public good
sense and historians' impartiality will, on the contrary,
arrive at a totally different conclusion. As regards the
pretended destruction of the Admiralty establishments,
store:houses, barracks, and powder magazine, which
blew up,' amidst the cries of Viva l'Empereur'
from the French crews, accompanied by hurrahs
of the English sailors.' as stated by Admiral Hamelin,
we will merely observe that all reduce itself to the nar-
row (infernies) proportions of the explosion of an ammu-
nition waggon, and of a wooden shed, erected for the use
of the gunners employed at the Mole Battery.
"What remains, then, of all the exploits so compla-
cently narrated by the commander-in-chief of the French
squadron ? Why, the destruction of some coasting
vessels, or the damage which others may have received,
more or less. According to the detailed report, re-
ceived on this subject by the Board ofForeign Commerce,
the greater part of these vessels had, as a measure of
precaution, been sunk (coures) by their own captains.
"The same precaution had been taken by the authori-
ties in regard to the Andie, the only steam-packet be-
longing to the Crown, and the floating light of Olchakoff,
which was at Odessa.

"The Board of Construction had to regret the loss of
the dredging machine, and of some damage done to other
similar machines.

"'lt could not enter into our thoughts,' says Admiral
Hamelin, to do the slightest harm to the towns of
Odessa, or to its commercial port.' We have already ob-
served that the harbour designated by M. Hamelin under
the name of Port Imperial,' and which the Admirals
proposed to destroy, is in fact the harbour of free pra-
tique, especially destined for coasting vessels, and con-
sequently as much a commercial harbour as that called
of 'the quarantine.' There is no difference between
the two, except in a sanitary point of view.
" But let us speak of the town. To judge by the
French reports, this has been spared. In order to
know what to think of this, it suffices to see the houses
struck by the enemy's projectiles, and the shells (frag
ments, it is to be supposed) picked up in the streets,
of which some struck even the most distant quarters.
In the town three men were killed and eight wounded.
These facts, which can be verified on the spot, give the
measure of the truth of the French report. We might
point out other errors.

" The field battery posted at the Pdrecype suburb
was not put to the rout (mis en deroutc, as this report
pastends. It was this battery, on the contrary, which
routed and compelled to a precipitate retreat the enemy's
boats detached under the protection of the steamers, to-
wards the coast, with the apparent intention of effecting
a landing.

"Admiral Hamelin speaks of the disorder which
reigned in the town from the commencement of the at-
tack.' The inhabitants of Odessa and foreigners who
were there can attest that public order was not troubled
for an instant in the town ; that divine service on Easter
Saturday was not interrupted, and that foreigners were
not molested. It is known that foreign consuls have,
by an official document already published by us, ren-
dered the homage of their unanimous gratitude for the
protection their countrymen had received.
" According to Admiral Hamelin, two French vessels
profited by the imaginary disorder- occasioned by the
attack to leave the harbour. We have to state that
these two ships, laden with grain, had received the Em-
peror's permission to depart, in consideration that they
had taken in their cargoes and quitted Odessa before the
export of grain was forbidden, but had been obliged to
put back to repair damage.
"Admiral Hamelin attributes to the disorder prevailing
at Odessa the absence of the Russian standard during the
combat. The cause of this absence can be explained very
simply, because there was no fortress, no admiralty estab-
lishment, no Russian vessel of war at Odessa, whatever
may be said by English journals, who have been still more
liberal, by blowing up a frigate, and by destroying nine
other vessels in dock. The batteries of Odessa are not
permanent works. They have only been raised and
armed temporarily, to protect the port against isolated
Turkish cruisers ; for we must avow that we never
thought of such an eventuality as an attack on a peace-
ful and purely commercial city by the combined squad-
rons of two civilised nations. We will add that it is
not customary with us for detached batteries to have
flags.

"The grand deeds (hauts faits) of the combined squad-
rons upon this occasion suggested to Admiral Hamelin
an observation, thus worded ;—' If the supreme art of
war consists in doing much injury without receiving
any, never did this maxim receive more opposite
application.' This fine phrase would only have had a
logical sense if the Odessa batteries had been unable to
effect the smallest damage to the enemy's vessels.
But if such were the case, let us ask why three frigates
were compelled to be taken in tow on the 22d, and the
Fury next day, in order to get out of the range of fire ?
When frigates moved by the powerful force of steam are
compelled to be taken in tow, in consequence of an en-
gagement, it may be permitted to suppose that the ad-
verse batteries have contributed something tb,ereto.
" The two admirals pretend that they completely ef-
fected the proposed object by inflicting the destined
chastisement upon the military authorities of Odessa.
Nevertheless, their summons bespoke in imperious terms
the pretension to obtain forthwith' the restoration of
all French, English, and Russian vessels at Odessa. But,
after cannonading from dawn to evening, they quitted
the waters of Odessa without obtaining the restoration
of the vessels which they had peremptorily demanded.
Now, when a thing is demanded in a menacing tone,
and recourse has been had to force to give effect to me-
naces, and retreat is made without obtaining the object
demanded—if that cannot be termed a check (echec), we
know not what word to employ.
" Finally, as relates to the assault (attentat) of
which the Odessa authorities are said by the Admi-
rals to have been guilty, in regard to the flag of
truce, we have nothing to add to the information
given by us on this subject. The admirals were not
witnesses of the incident (but Captain Loring was).
If they permit themselves to say, in their letter to Ge-
neral Osten-Sacken, that he merely advances erro-
neous allegations,' the expression may be little palatable,
but it does not follow that it was juAt. Why should
their assertion be an authority ; and that of Russian
officers, under the eyes of whom the incident occurred,
merit no credit ? But since there is affirmation on one
side, and denegation on the other, seeing the deteFinina:,
tion taken in France and England to consider tie always
in the wrong, we must submit -to remain under the
accusation of an infraction (attentat contre) of the laws

of nations.
" It appears to us absurd, however, to presume that
a vessel carrying a flag of truce should be fired upon
without motive. (It did not appear so riduculous to
those exposed to the fire.) The mission of the flag of
truce was accomplished without hindrance by the
boat of the Furious. What legitimate motive
could the frigate have in the interest of the parley
to place herself within range of our batteries. We
can comprehend this. By this infraction of established
rules, she had placed herself in the wrong. It is evi-
dent that if she had remained as she might out of range,
nobody would have thought of firing at her. By
coming within range she must have had a motive of
some kind which could have nothing in common with
the parley. Was it to examine more nearly the means

of defence of the town, to study the localities, or to
sound ? How can we tell ? But all probabilities tend
to attribute some such motive to the Furious ; and so,
by way of clearing up the mystery, the batteries fire at
her under a flag or truce as well as at her boat.
" The explanations we have thus given will serve to
point out (relever) the errors in the report of Admiral
Dundas in regard to the same affair. He speaks of the
fortress of Odessa—of the explosion of a powder maga-
zine ; and pretends that the town a❑d mole which
covered the merchant vessels were not struck. We will
limit ourselves to referring to what has been said above
on this subject."

Now, without entering into any counter explana-
tions on this subject, it is not possible to avoid
regretting the tone of sarcasm and contemptuous
superiority that pervades the greater part. This is
certainly not the way to induce our admirals to
repeat their act of forbearance, either a second time
at Odessa, or elsewhere. However much extremes
may be deplored, it is almost to be hoped that upon
all future occasions they will either refrain from
making peremptory demands, or, in case of refusal,
persist in their chastisement so long as a stick or
stone remains standing in therecalcitrant place, no
matter whether it be or be not a place of war. All
we have gained by forbearance is the above docu-
ment, and a universal impression throughout
Russia that we were driven off crippled and
terrified.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 31.

IMPERIAL GAS COMPANY V. LONDON GAS LIGHT COMPANY.

An action had been brought by the plaintiffs against
the defendants for cutting their pipes and affixing ser-
vice pipes of their own to the plaintiffs' mains, thus
allowing the plaintiffs' gas to flow into the defendants'
pipes.
The defendants pleaded the Statute of Limitations.
The plaintiffs, by their replication, stated that the de-
fendants, by secret and fraudulent means---namely, by
cutting off the service pipes which they had thus affixed,
and stopping up the holes in the plaintiffs' mains, had
within six years endeavoured to prevent, and, in fact,
prevented the plaintiffs from discovering their cause of
action. To this replication the defendants demurred.
A second count in the plaintiffs' declaration stated the
trespass of plugging up the pipes, and the fraudulent
concealment thereby of the cause of action, and alleged
the loss of the right of action as consequential damage.
To this count the defendants demurred also, but ob-
tained leave to plead as well as d4inur.
The demurrer was supported by Mr. Bovill, and Mr.
Wilder appeared for the Imperial Company.
The question in the first place was, whether if a de-
fendant wilfully and fraudulently had taken means to
prevent the plaintiff from discovering his right of action
for six years, the defendant could plead the statute, or
whether the time did not run ftknn the discovery only of
the right of action. A second question rose on the
second count, as to whether, if, by the fraudulent act
and trespass of the defendant within six years the right
of action was concealed until it was barred, this trespass
did not give a new right of action in which the measure
of the damages would be the loss of the former right.
The Court unanimously held that the statute ran un-
conditionally, and stated that a contrary decision would
be attended with the utmost alarming consequences.
The demurrer to the replication must be allowed. The
second count of the declaration was clearly good, as it
alleged a trespass within six years ; but it would be for
the judge who should try the case to direct the jury as
to the measure of damages. If the defendants were em-
barrassed by the wording of the count they might go
before a judge at chambers. This demurrer must be
overruled.