THE DEMEANOUR OF ENGLAND. 22? of substantial truth, were disposed to rely on chaf, small errors as a proof that Mr Eussell's accounts '_. must be altogether untrustworthy. There, plainly, they did him wrong; and indeed, if strict accu- racy were to be made the test of trustworthiness, the world would be left without knowledge. One great error Mr Eussell committed — namely, that of imagining that Lord Eaglan did not visit his divisional camps, and especially his field hos- pitals ; but the mistake of the correspondent was a mistake largely shared, and sprang, we must own, very naturally from the cause already explained."^' From the facts passing under his eyes, and the accounts — whether hearsay or otherwise — pouring in upon him from number- less quarters, he had to make what choice he could under conditions that must have been often embarrassing, and sometimes of such a kind that they might tend to warp his judgment ; but I do not detect in his letters any foregone resolve or desire to exaggerate the troubles resulting from hampered supply, or the hardships endured by our troops. What people mistook for exag- gerated statement was often no more than that disturbance of proportion which must always be caused by a writer who pictures with vivid power some chosen part of a subject. The strong, narrow beam of light that he throws on one spot does not really play false with the truth, yet so fetches it out from the midst of a universe left unillumined that mortal eyes are deceived.
- See ante, Cap. VETI. , sec. 4, et post, jj. 239.
