The London Times and the New York Ditte.
The London Times
indulges itself in a savage and characteristic attack upon the the citizens of Richmond
, on account of their supposed want of civility to the Prince
It says "after traveling many hundreds of miles in the West
, after being received with rough, but sincere politeness, by the inhabitants of prairie villages or the solitary pioneers, who are hewing their way gradually through the forest, the Prince
, in his journey East, came to the capital of Virginia
, an old English town, which contains some memorials interesting to the traveller.--Here, urged on by what impulse we know not, but perhaps stirred up by some Irish or semi-Irish demagogue,
a disorderly mob treated the Prince
and his party in a manner which was not only a violation of courtesy, but of their rights as travellers under the protection of the law. The Prince
, and his suite, went with the Mayor
to visit the Capitol
, and, there being no police, the crowd proceeded to press on the party and to subject them
to every kind of insulting remarks.
It must be premised that nowhere in the Free States
is there to be found, among the native Americans
at least, a class so ruffianly and depraved as are the lower class of whites at the South.
-- These worthies are the drinking, swaggering, swearing, gambling, revolver and bowie-knife using gentry, who furnish so many paragraphs to the newspapers, and have almost come to be taken as the type of American character.
Fancy a mob of four or five hundred slave-dealers, horse-dealers, small planters, liquor store-keepers and loungers, together with, probably, a large sprinkling of blackguardism from Ireland
, and you will probably have the crowd that rushed after the Prince
and the Duke
Accustomed to uncontrolled dominion over the streets, ready for any deed of violence, from the tarring and feathering of an abolitionist, to the burning of an insurgent negro, a Southern mob is capable of being led away by any worthless fellow who gets its ear, and when once excited, is soon beyond the control even of its leaders.
It appears that at Richmond
the crowd began by being merely curious and jocose.
They pushed in, and allowed the Prince
's party no privacy whatever."
We need not point out to our readers the gross misstatements with which this extract abounds.
The insult to the Prince
, in the capital of Virginia
, it is well known to every citizen, is a fabrication out of the whole cloth.
We dislike to characterize it as it deserves, but we know not any form of speech which can otherwise describe it. In good old English
, then, it is a lie
--a deliberate, malicious, unalloyed, and unadulterated lie.
In the mouth of the London Times
, it is only a lie at accord hand.
It is indebted for it to its American namesake in New York, whose imagination, poetical though it claims to be, never scars higher than the invention of a lie!
We ascribe to the London Times
only a good natured desire to believe us as bad as we are represented.
The case of our Irish fellow-citizens, we take the liberty to say, is a little hard.
Not feeling disposed to recognize the justice of that system which has been pursued towards their native land by the government of which the Prince
is to be one day the head, and the result of which has been poverty, rags, and starvation at home, relieved only by perpetual exile, they did not consider themselves called upon to express a sentiment which they did not entertain, by doing him any kind of homage.
They therefore abstained almost entirely from appearing in the crowd that followed his footsteps while he was here.
They had no curiosity about him, and they felt no love for him. So far as they were concerned, they cared not whether he came or went.
All they were careful of was to keep out of the way, that they might not be supposed, by any possible implication, to encourage any demonstration of an affection which they did not feel.
Perhaps they were wrong.
Perhaps the Pole, when he comes here, ought to forget that his brother or his father is buried in the deserts of Siberia
Perhaps the Irishman ought not to remember that, if his country is the poorest, instead of being (as it would be under a free government,) the richest in Europe
, it is owing to the systematic oppression of seven centuries. All we can say is, that it was natural
in the Irishmen.
But to charge them with having either insulted the Prince
, or with having instigated anybody else to insult him, is, we really think, a little
hard, considering the pains they took to avoid giving any pretext for cavil in that respect.
It might have been that some of them, more hotheaded than courteous, might have chanced to give way to their feelings, when they saw the heir of that throne which had been so oppressive to them.
They took care not to do it. They kept away.
We do not believe there were one hundred, among the many thousands who thronged the streets to get a sight of the Prince
To charge the Irish, therefore, with offering any indignity to him, is an insult not less gratuitous than it is gross.
The picture which the London Times
draws of society in this city, exists only in its own filthy imagination.
When was there ever a mob in Richmond
Who ever saw one?
Who ever heard of one?
If there was no police to keep off the crowd of eager gazers, it was because there was no need of it, and because the Duke
expressly desired that there might be none.
Not a single man, in a population of forty thousand, ever dreamed of harming or insulting the Prince
Their curiosity might, possibly, appear impertinent to the Prince
But what else could he expect?
Has he not been accustomed to be gazed at all his life?
Had he to learn here, for the first time, that he is a show,
and will always be a show,
let him go where he may?
Does he not know that this is a condition inseparable from his rank and position?
In a word, is he a man of sense, or a natural born fool?
To the New York Times
we are indebted for this attack upon us. That paper sent a reporter here for the express purpose of falsifying everything he saw. He uttered four distinct falsehoods, besides giving a false coloring even to the small modicum of truth which he published.
publicly contradicted his statements.
Yet the New York Times
endorses them still, and republishes the onslaught of the London Times
, with a caption of its own, to attract the attention of its readers. "The Richmond Mob and the Irish Insult
" is the heading of the article in question, added by the New York Times
, for the London Times
never head its articles.