The Press. — London, England, 1858-02-20 00:00:00

180 THE WEEK. THE defeat of the Government last night was unexpected. True they had not one single tenable line of defence. The great unanswered fact, Count WALEWSKIeS despatch, met them at every turn, and defeated them at every point, but the debate began jauntily, and, treated with contempt, proved a Nemesis the Prime Minister scarcely ex pected. The amendment moved by Mr. MILNER GIBsoN, in a speech moderate in tone and excellent in its application, was supported by all the independent power of the House. The early division upon which Ministers had relied proved impossible to be effected ; and from the moment when Mr. GLADSTONE rose shortly after ten, the alarm was general in the Ministerial ranks. That Right Hon. Gentleman's powerful, and, as it always is, eloquent speaking, conveyed conviction to the minds of the House. Mr. GLAD STONE, with that force of logical argument so peculiarly his own, showed incontestably that if the Bill, as Sir GEORGE GREY had maintained, was to be the answer to Count WALEWSKI'S despatch, it was a virtual admission of the truth of his charges against us, and then, confining himself to the nature of the Bill, he exposed most successfully its utter inadequacy to meet the object sought, and declared that while it would prove both illusory and inoperative, it involved the surrender of an important principle in English law. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded with an impassioned appeal to the House to preserve the liberties of England intact. The Solicitor- General, who followed, in a tone of deprecation which showed very clearly what he at least thought of the prospects of the division, de clared, amid the laughter of the House, that he drew up the Bill without seeing Count WALEWSKI'S despatch, and, after a lame hut elaborate explanation of the state of the law, was followed by Mr. DISRAELI, who in a short and pithy speech put it clearly to the House that the question was simply one between the House and the Prime Minister, who had grossly neglected the honour and interests of England. The question really waiting decision was whether the Go vernment had or had not done their duty in leaving Count WALEWSKI'S despatch unanswered. The decision of that point involved no rejec tion of the Bill before the House. Lord PALMERSRON replied, and his reply was remarkable. It commenced in coarse bluster, centered in invective, and ended in a piteous appeal. His tone was that of false confidence, %bile his air betrayed defeat. The House then divided, and the opinion of Parliament recorded in a majority of 19 against the Government. There never was a vote less influenced by party feel ings, and the enthusiastic cheers of both sides of the House bore testimony to the sincerity by which the announcement was regarded. It is too early yet to speculate on the results of this defeat. A Cabinet Council, in all probability, will be held this day, and Ministers resolve upon their future course. We last week alluded to a society that will being formed for the purpose of re-establishing the public-school matches. The grounds on which they were abolished by the authorities of Winchester and Eton, we believe, are threefold ; we propose concisely to state these objections, and what appear to us satisfactory answers to them, in order that our readers may see on which side reason lies, whether on that of the boys and the society of Wykehamists, or on that of the masters of Winchester and Eton—in short, whether might is right. We believe the first and strongest objection urged is, that the boys fall into bad company whilst in London. To this, in addition to the argument we adduced last week, that a boy of seventeen years of age ought to have been so trained and educated as to be able to take care of himself in this metropolis for a week at that age, we will only add, that we do not suppose that the masters of Harrow and Rugby have a less regard for the morals of their pupils than Dr. NIOBERLEY has for his. To the second objection, that the practice and preparation of the boys for the matches at Lord's interfered with the school work during the half-year, we reply that cricket and all other active sports conduce to health and ultimate vigour, mentally and bodily. A sedentary boy will not become an energetic man. Driven to extremities, the puis sant lords of the schools assert that the parents of the boys object to their sons playing at Lord's, on the score of expense We doubt it, or they must have greatly changed since our time. The thteat o f th e authorities of Winchester and Eton to expel any boy who should take part in the public school matches, though he do so during his vacation, with the express sanction of his parents, and whilst living under the paternal roof, is a direct contradiction to this statement, but is con sistent with the arbitrary and insolent conduct so common to school. masters. The head master of Winchestet or Eton has no doubt the power, if he possess the audacity, to expel a Commoner from the one, or an Oppidau from the other, for knocking a cricket-ball about during bis holidays. If he should do so, however, he will surely come in con tact with that most powei ful adversary public opinion. But, with respect to the college boys, should the Warden of Winchester have the temerity to attempt to thrust a scholar from the foundation of WitaaAm of WYKEHAM, or the Provost of Eton one from that of HENRY VI., on this account, we have little doubt but that one JOHN Lord CAMPBELL would come to the rescue with a little article called a mandamus, and these THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 20, 1858. tyrants would be taught that they could not ruin a boy's p rospects in life for playing a game at cricket during his holidays. And Pater familias would learn that during twelve weeks of the year, at least, he alone may control his children's actions. We have no desire to appear as the apologists of General WI ND . HAM'S failure at Cawnpore. Our opinion upon that event has already been sufficiently expressed. But the modest announcement in the Gazette of last night, that Brevet-Colonel ROBERTSON, of her Majesty's 82nd Foot, " resigns," would appear to bear reference to those cases of misconduct in the field to which the Commander-in-Chief and Lord PALMERSTON have alluded in both Houses, and to which we have reason to believe may be mainly attributed the disaster on the 27th of November. On that day the 82nd, under the command of Colonel ROBERTSON, held an important post upon the right. That post, to use a mild term, was—neglected. The rebels got into our rear ; we lost many brave men we could ill spare. In the end we lost the battle, were nearly annihilated in consequence, and Brevet Colonel ROBERTSON is "permitted to resign." In justice to General WINDHAM, we think some further explanation is due from the Government than the unobtrusive announcement in the Gazette of last night. It is greatly to be regretted that, in considering the sanitary con- dition of the army, the leading journal should have laid the blame o: the evils which have been disclosed on the regimental and superior officers. The charge is not, indeed, difficult to meet, and may in a great degree be refuted from the mouth of the accuser, for in the Times of the flth instant it is stated that of the three Colonels of the Foot Guards the Duke of CAMBRIDGE is to be excused on account of his other military duties, while, on the 18th instant, we are informed that the Prince Consort and the Duke of CAMBRIDGE are equally to blame, but that Lord STRAFFORD is exempted from responsibility on the score of age. We shall in all probability soon be told that although the Duke of CAMBRIDGE and Lord STRAFFORD are inexcusable, the Prince Consort is clearly exonerated on account of the higher duties of his station. So also with regard to the regimental officers, who arc first accused of the gravest fault, and who are now graciously informed that— We are quite prepared to believe that these gentlemen have over and over again made remonstrances in the proper quarters . . . . . and that their remonstrances have been invariably treated with disregard and contempt. Consequently, "to them as a body no blame attaches." But, luckily for the officers of the army, we are able to adduce in their favour a higher authority than even Mr. Lofty. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT, the President of the Commission, stated in his place in the House of Commons that— It is not the business of the officers of the army to administer the affairs of the army ; they have only to obey the regulations hissed by other parties and conduct their duties accordingly. They ought not, therefore, to be held in any manner responsibht things which are tinder the care of those who administer the affairs of the army. And he further declared that— During their investigation the Commissioners had received from no quarter more ready information than from the officers of the Guards, than whom he was certain there were none more anxious to improve the condition of their men. And he characterised the attacks which had been made upon them as " unfair " and " undeserved." But especially are these epithets appli cable to the charges which have been preferred against the Prince Consort, for our readers need scarcely be told that the position of colonel of a regiment is purely honorary (except that in the Guards it carries with it the patronage of the first commissions), and that, therefore, in all probability his Royal Highness was in no degree aware of the fearful mortality which prevailed in the Grenadier Guards. Had the facts of the case been brought before him, the general character of his Royal Highness for philanthropy, and most especially the prominent part he has taken in the establishment of model lodging-houses, are sufficient to prove that he, at least, would not have become responsible for the continuance of the existing evils. Although these charges are easily refuted, they are not the leas to be deplored, for they give rise to two evil results. First, they divert attention from the true culprits; and, secondly, they alienate those on whom must depend the satis factory working out of the recommendations of the Commissioners. As we stated in our last impression, the Government alone are respon sible for the unsatisfactory condition of the army, and all the animad versions upon the officers are only a ruse to shift the blame upon the shoulders of innocent men. The recommendations of the Commis• sioners, how3ver laudable, are by no means novel; year by year the lieutenant-colonels of regiments in their annual reports have recom mended improved ventilation, better accommodation in barracks, the establishment of gymnasiums, and a variety of diet. No heed has been given to this advice, no notice taken of the warnings which accompanied it; yet not a word is to be said against the Secretary for War—the officer only is declared guilty. But the evil of this style of criticism does not stop here. As Mr. S. HERBERT says : The Report of the Commissioners is a great weapon in the hands of the army and of those who are its well wishers, who desire to put an end to evils of which there have been long and loud complaints. Without the active co-operation and superintendence of officers no improvement in the condition of the soldier can practically be effected. It requires the utmost care on the part of his commanders to prevent his destroying whatever means of ventilation may be provided for him ; constant watchfulness is needed to check coarse propensities andinduce habits of cleanliness ; and without the presence of his I I