The Press. — London, England, 1854-10-21 00:00:00

f OCTOBER 21, 1854. questionable " triumphs." If people were not much elated with "the affair" at Bomarsund, neither would they be satisfied with Helsing fors being reduced while Cronstadt remained unassailable. The key to the inaction of the Baltic fleet is really to be found in the policy pursued by the Cabinet, as described by the Edinburgh Review, in an article commented on elsewhere. • It was hoped that the Czar would get " frightened," and " therefore, Sir CHARLES, " it is contrary to economy to furnish you ' with gun-boats." Just so. The Czar was to be staggered because Lord ABERDEEN and the Duke of NEWCASTLE had put their heads toge ther with Lord JoHN RUSSELL, and the martial patron of distressed needlewomen, Mr. SID NEY HERBERT. Knowing what we now do of the mismanagement in other departments, we are only surprised that a fleet was provided at all for " Old Charley " to command ; and cer tainly it would never have been forthcoming in time but for the energy with which the gallant admiral agitated on the subject him self, and the well-timed augmentation of 5,000 men to the navy under Lord DERBY'S Ministry. At a proper time we have no doubt that the comparative inaction of the Baltic fleet will be discussed on social grounds. We are con vinced that Admiral NAPIER will have no cause for shrinking from that discussion, though possibly others, nearer home, may desire to avoid controversy about it. We have been opposed to many of Admiral NAPIER'S views on public affairs ; but to him, and to every other absent officer in her Majesty's service, we shall steadily recollect the old English principle of fair play. To " puff" one admiral, and to vilify another, is a course that shall be consis tently avoided by the PRESS. PATRICIAN PROWESS IN THE FIELD. WE are sorry to find that several of the brave officers who so chivalrously maintained their country's honour at the Alma have since sunk from their wounds. Amongst them we observe that the Hon. Captain HARE (of the Fusiliers) has died. He was extremely popular in his regiment, and is deservedly regretted by all who knew his amiable character. At the very time he fell, the gallant captain's nephew (Lord ENNISMORE) was also amongst those " severely wounded," from close contact with the enemy. In alluding last week to " the defenders " who, by their deeds, have repelled the calumnies of their " detractors," we did not intend to offer a complete list of all the gallant officers connected with distinguished families whose names appear amongst " Killed and Wounded.' Such a course might possibly become invidious ; but, when " class prejudices " were invoked against our " aristo cratic" officers, we cited a long list of names of those whose actions against the foe refuted their vulgar calumniators. All the accounts recently received agree as to the cool heroism shown by many of our officers. It is not a little remarkable that the very first name which appears amongst the list of the " wounded severely" is that of a spirited young volunteer, Lieutenant T. LESLIE, orderly officer to the Commander of the Forces. The regiment to which Lieute nant LESLIE belongs (the Royal Horse Guards, Blue) is still in England. Lieute nant LESLIE was riding side by side with Lord RAGLAN, when a ball entered his left shoulder, traversed across his back, and was ex tracted at the extremity of his right side. This severe wound was got, not merely from "duty," but from "devotion" to the service. The gallant officer is a member of one of the most nobly-connected commoner families in the empire. the LESLIES of Monaghan. His father, the late much-respected Colonel LESLIE, represented for many years the county for which Mr. C. P. LESLIE, M.P. (this gallant officer's elder brother), is now the con sistent Conservative representative. It gives us pleasure to observe that the ' Liberal" Globe has also directed attention to the number of patrician names amongst the heroes of Alma. We trust that we shall not THE PRESS. again be compelled to peruse calumnies against our British officers taunted as " aristo cratic." SCHOLASTICISM vice STATESMAN SHIP. IT is evident we are not yet quit of the scheme for revolutionising the Civil service which was propounded last session under Cabinet aus pices. Although the proposal was, in fact, stillborn, and the derision it was calculated to provoke was only abated by the apathy it encountered, it is restlessly petted in certain quarters, and we may possibly again see it a part of the Coalition programme as the crotchets of each of the cliques in turn obtain a place in the Ministerial miscellany. On account of this contingency, it is worth observing that a series of light scholastic ex ercises in support of the scheme have recently appeared in the Time:, and to take notice of the grounds on which it is again obtruded on the public. It is premised that the proposed exami , nation may be of no value with respect to the qualifications deemed most necessary. " Integrity of purpose, singlemindedness, " goodness of disposition, facility of tem " per," and, we will add, intellectual as well as moral aptitude for the work to be done, can not be gauged by any such method, as its apologists tell us. And yet we are asked to employ their test on the ground that it may be accompanied by essential qualifications in the same proportion as among those it would exclude. On the nurse's plea for an insipid remedy, that if it does no good it will do no harm, we are asked to tie up the discretion of statesmen, and to limit their choice of service able subordinates. In other words, as the certificate of the Rev. Hippolitus Pump does not imply the absence of the requisite qualifi cations, we are invited to restrict our choice to his pupils. In the next place, the suggestion is ventured that the examination test must imply some advantageous adjuncts, though it does not amount to a criterion of fitness. To this it may be answered that at some time 3r other, to an extent we cannot appreciate, any information may be useful. But its value to a man in a given profession varies as its relation to that profession is immediate or remote. A. tide waiter, for instance, may save hiznself from wet feet by recalling au incident in the life of CANUTE as well as by the light of nature. But this would be a poor reason for requiring for that office an acquaintance with Scandina vian history, as it would limit our choice of tide waiters generally. In all such arguments there is no clear and tangible estimate of the advan tages contemplated from imposing similar re quirements. The standard to which all candi dates are expected to attain may be useful in some cases and ridiculous in others. At the best it can add little to the different qualifications required for the various vacant offices that the candidates have all passed the same examination on the same system, and have satisfied the ideal of the same board of examiners. Assuming that the incidental advantages were greater than they could possibly be, we recur to the question, are they equivalent to the free discretion which patrons have exer cised hitherto with admitted practical success ? The sudden reduction of possible aspirants to a very small proportion of those who now approve themselves, on an intimate acquaintance with their talents and worth, must exclude many who are capable of the highest employments. The opportunity of securing their services would be so far lost to the State, while their entry into a sphere for which they might be pre-eminently adapted would be barred by their having enjoyed no early facilities for that university training which the promoters of the scheme contemplate. Such an ex clusion is unjust as well as impolitic, and should be steadily resisted until some more cogent reason is adduced for it than the mere hypothesis that, in virtue of a narrowed competition, the average of candidates would , be higher. An improved average upon numbers largely reduced may be so easily compatible with a lowered average among the candidates selected, that the public will scarcely accept the scheme upon this ground. It may, in • deed, commend itself to minds impressed by scholastic habits with an undue notion of the importance of examinations generally, hut it is not likely to furnish practical men with a key to the science of government on the system of question and answer. It is popular, we believe, among some junior members of the University Common rooms, and naturally so, as it would render the entire Civil service complementary to their Great Gos and Little Gos. But it re quires something more than its peculiar !im portance to them to render its academical ex clusiveness acceptable to the country. OUR ARMY AND ITS " ALMONER." ALTHOUGH none can have a greater aversion than ourselves to damping the efforts of bene volence, we feel compelled to observe that even in obeying the noblest impulses of humanity the exercise of discrimination is imperatively required. Excellence of inten tion is often counteracted by rashness of design, and foresight is specially demanded in all those cases where our present conduct may be taken as forming a precedent for the future. There is certainly something extremely novel, and not a little questionable, in the sight of a great London newspaper taking upon itself the extraordinary office of almoner to the afflicted members of her Britannic Majesty's forces. Even if it be admitted as quite right and proper that the British public should exonerate her Mikjesty's Ministers from all care of the sick and wounded, and should apply their eleemosynary aid to the high spirited soldiers of the Queen, still, for a variety of reasons, it is most improper that a newspaper, no matter how powerful or how widely circulating, should give itself a com mission to place her Majesty's troops under the weight of charitable obligations to itself. In the first place, to the military body such an imposed obligation must, more or less, be suggestive of what is derogatory to the scarlet cloth. In profiting by the relief given by • the Times' almoner, there will remain a sense of personal obligation not compatible with those noble feelings that make military men proud of serving their Queen and country. The more that we reflect on this matter the more certain are we that it is likely to prove invidious, and to become eventually the souree of feelings the reverse of pleasurable. That the sick and wounded should be suc coured in all their wants is ono of the very first duties of the Government ; and severe should be the retribution on the Cabinet, or on the Medical Staff, if their specially-assigned duties have in this case been neglected. But we do strongly insist upon it that, even if the public must step in with aid for the wounded, • no single newspaper should arrogate to itself the office of almoner to the British public. Such a plan degrades both the public and the military, and is quite unworthy of a free and spirited people. Newspapers should be pur veyors of news, not " alms ;" their office is to criticise and record the deeds of Government, and not to substitute themselves for Ministers • of State " unattached." With a " Secretary of War," and another " Secretary at War," what - a bitter reflection on our Ministry that t ; duties of a military department are to be u dertaken by a London daily newspaper ! We object, on broad principles, to any pu lic journal stepping out of its proper course and assuming an office which should be conferred, and not grasped. Why should a newspaper be thus allowed to clothe itself with an assumed mission of benevolence, ' any more than a great London brewery, or one of our railway companies? We shali not echo the invidious comments that we have heard in society, made at what, to some per sons, looks like an enormous puff of the " G. V. B." kind, but on this point content ourselves with saying, that, if the Queen's • soldiers aro to be systematically taught to look for help to a literary and not a medico ! military staff, the whole journalism of the I ■ I I I I