The Press. — London, England, 1854-03-04 00:00:00

MARCH 4, 1854, the fleets remained in the Bosphorus arose from the inclemency of the season, November being the worst month for a fleet to keep the sea in the Euxine. For the catastrophe itself the Turkish officers of the flo tilla were chiefly liable. They had lingered in the open undefended road at Sinope against orders and in defiance of warnings. Since the destruction of the fleet unequivocal instructions bad been sent to their admirals both by the English and French Go vernments, enjoining them not to allow a single Rus sian flag of war to navigate the Black Sea. He doubted not that those injunctions were being car ried out; and if, before war was formally declared, any contingency should arise calling for the exercise of vigour and decision, the call would not be made in vain. Some further questions were asked eliciting from the First Lord of the Admiralty much information upon matters of fact. Admiral WALcorr denounced the cruelty of the Russians at Sinope, and their grasping ambition everywhere : " He could not elicit from the English language words capable of embodying the sense he entertained of the ig noble, nay, inhuman and cowardly, carnage perpetrated by the Russian admiral and his squadron on an unresisting enemy, nor the admiration of the heroic and almost super human defence made by the Turkish ships. (Hear.) The battle of Sinope would reflect everlasting honour on the arms of Turkey, and tarnish the escuteheonof Russia with a disgrace which time would not obliterate. (Cheers.) In fair justice, however, he must observe that for some time past the Russians and the Turks bad been at active war on land. Under those circumstances,to destroy an enemy's squadron which had been employed in the convoy of arms and ammunition was nothing more than an act of lawful warfare, deadly as the attendant slaughter might be, and deeply to be deplored. As a sailor he was of opinion that the Russian admiral did no more than his duty by leading into the port of Sinope an overwhelming force, so as to ob tain his object at the least possible risk to his own ships and men. It was his subsequent conduct which clouded his squadron and himself with condemnation and detesta tion. The fate of an empire which adjusted the equili brium of European power was now at stake—a State con sidered to be so feeble and tottering by its northern enemy as to be ready, at her shaking, to crumble into powder. It was to be borne in mind that Russia had always gained more by diplomacy than by arms. She began her career by assuming to be the protector of Poland, the Crimea, and Circassia ; she ended by being the tyrant. So, now, would she claim the protectorate over 12,000,000 of Greek Christians in Turkey. The Czar, under the specious mask of sympathy with his coreligionists, aimed at a dominion that would vanquish and enslave all Christendom. Russia had already wrested from Sweden a domain larger than the remains of her own ancient kingdom ; from Denmark, Norway ; from Poland, as much as the Austrian empire ; from Turkey in Europe, as much as the dominions of Prussia Proper; from Turkey in Asia, as much as the Rhenish provinces of Prussia, Belgium, and Holland; from Persia, as much as England. In sixty-four years Russia had advanced her frontier between 800 and 900 miles to wards Vienna, Berlin, and Paris ; between 400 and 500 miles nearer to Constantinople; within a few leagues of Stockholm; and 1,000 miles nearer to Teheran and India. She was now coiling round the south and east of Austria. ( Hear.) The safety and policy of Europe required a bar rier against Russia : she must not extend her jurisdiction and supremacy over the East, or make the Baltic and the Black Sea Russian lakes, or the Sound and the Bosphorus the bases of her colossal stride. She must not be allowed to threaten the Mediterranean and the high road to India. A stand must be made, and the limits of Russia must not be transgressed." Mr. DRUMMOND briefly exhorted the house not to allow the movements of the admiral on the station to be embarrassed by the satirical remarks of ignorant persons at home. Mr. F. FRENCH believed that the movements in question came fully within the scope of even un professional criticism. Lord DUDLEY STUART retained a persuasion that more vigour might have been evinced by the admirals in obtaining and keeping maritime com mand of the Black Sea. He trusted that the system of half measures would be now abandoned. Captain SCOBELL defended Admiral Dundas, and commented upon the rashness of unprofessional men in hazarding opinions upon professional sub jects. The debate was pursned for some time by various speakers. At length Lord J. RUSSELL interfered with a remonstrance against the further stoppage of business by a discussion without ostensible object. The noble lord added some details, in reply to a question previously asked by Lord J. Manners, re garding recent operations in the Black Sea : "He would have been very glad if he had been able to answer correctly, at that moment, the question of the noble lord opposite (Lord J. Manners). On a former even ing he (Lord J. Russell) had with him in the house the papers relating to that subject ; but, as he had not those papers with him now, he was not sure that he could give the noble lord a correct description of what had occurred. There had been rumours, which afterwards turned out to be false, of an attack upon the Turkish coast ; but there was an attack by land upon the fort of St. Nicholas, and an attack was also made by three small steamers upon a fort near Trebizond. Nothing, in short, of any serious kind had occurred since the disaster at Sinope. On the other hand, THE PRESS. Sir E. Lyons had gone twice with a squadron to Batoum, and had convoyed vessels containing a large number of troops. Another squadron of English and French steamers had gone to the neighbourhood of Sebastopol ; they had sailed to the entrance of the Sea of Azof, and they had only seen three small Russian steamers at anchor. He was assured that no Russian men-of-war had been seen at sea by the various vessels of the combined fleets which had been despatched in different directions. The squadron sent to Varns could not observe any Russian men-of-war ; and, in fact, the Russians had not kept at sea since the orders were given to the combined fleets subsequently to the affair at Sinope." A WAR MINISTER. Mr. Hume had placed a lengthy notice on the paper for Thursday, embodying some passages from a committee which sat in 1837, and who had re ported upon the advisability of consolidating the various departments now charged with the civil ad ministration of the army under one responsible head. A resolution pledging the house to this opinion, and suggesting the appointment of a new Secretary of State as War Minister, was then moved by the hon. member, who dwelt in ample detail upon the compli cations and embarrassments that attended the exist, ing division of labour among the War-office, the Horse Guards, the Ordnance and Commissariat Departments, with the additional confusion consequent upon the par tial subordination of each to the Home and other Se cretaries of State. Immense delays, great enhance ment of expense, insurmountible difficulties in get ting grievances redressed, or improvements adopted, accompanied also by much bewilderment in the accounts, which were rendered too obscure to be checked by financial reformers in the House of Commons, were successively described and deduced by Mr. Hume from the present system. The SECRETARY at WAR remarked that circum stances had changed much since 1887 ; that the sug gestions of the commissioners who sat in that year were prompted by serious discordances which had arisen between different departments of the War office, and, as those disputes were now allayed, the report then presented had no relevance to the pre sent state of things. Respecting the motion before them, he denied the expediency of creating a new Secretary of State, with the functions of war minis ter, who would but interpose a fresh barrier and delay between the movements of the military force and the advice of the Home, Foreign, and Colonial Secretaries, who were best acquainted with the ne cessities of the public service, and therefore best qualified to issue orders to the army authorities. The responsibility of such a war minister must, he contended, be illusory, and the consolidation that 1 , would be effected under his superintendence would practically result in a more unwieldy and heteroge neous organisation than existed at present. Im provements and simplifications in minor details were, no doubt, possible, some of which Mr. Herbert indi cated as individual conclusions, but without pledging the Government to entertain them. The present moment, at all events, was most inopportune for any extensive change in the working machinery of army administration. Lord SEYMOUR inquired whether any means would be taken to alleviate the heavy burden of business which war must throw upon the shoulders of the Colonial Secretary. He cited instances showing the practical evils which resulted from over work in that department, and suggested that some benefit might accrue from transferring a portion of labour to the Secretary at War. Sir J. PAEINOTON was convinced that the anoma lies of the present system required reform. When ever anything went wrong in the administration of the army, it was now almost ithpossible to set it right, through the complication of powers and re sponsibilities among the several departments. Fear ing, however, to prejudice the service at a critical moment, he advised Mr. Hume not to press his motion. Mr. E. ELICE joined in giving that advice, believ ing that if they went to a division the Government would be defeated. No rational country, he thought, could endure the continuance of the system, but change just now would be injudicious. After a few words from Colonel Ktiox and Colonel MAULE, Lord J. RUSSELL repeated some of the pleas urged by the Secretary at War against immediate change in the organisation of the war departments. Never theless he quite agreed that better arrangements were necessary, and intimated that the Government were perfectly ready to make them with fitting deli beration. Mr. HUME consented not to press his motion, which was by leave withdrawn. THE MILITIA. An account of the expense and strength of the militia was moved for by the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH on Thursday night. This motion the noble earl accompanied by some inquiries touching the inten tions of the Government in turning the corps to the most useful account under our present circumstances. He noticed that in certain counties, and especially in 197 Yorkshire and Lancashire, the number of the militia enrolled had fallen short of the complement required. Afterwards Lord EllEnborough proceeded to offer suggestions for a variety of improvements in the mode of raising and disciplining the militia, and recommended its permanent establishment during the war. Adverting to our preparations for the war, he said he should have preferred seeing something like daylight in the Baltic before denuding the country of so many of our best troops as had been sent to Turkey. He regretted to find that it would be only by the assistance of France that we should be enabled to produce a superior naval force to Russia in the Baltic. The real battle must be fought in the Baltic, and not in the Black Sea ; and a force of 20,000 men sent there from this country would have far greater influence upon Sweden, Denmark, and even Russia herself, than double that number sent to Turkey. The Earl of ABERDEEN consented to produce the returns asked for, but with regard to the military sug gestions of the noble earl, declined to reveal the Go vernment plan of campaign. As to the militia, it was intended to extend the period of drill to 28 days, but there was no present intention of permanently em bodying the force. Respecting the counties named, he remarked upon the extraordinary demand fo labour in the manufacturing districts, and stated that the number of militia obtained from them had surpassed expectation. Altogether 00,000 out of the proposed 80,000 men had been raised for the force before the commencement of the current year. Some further conversation took place, after which the subject dropped. REFORM OF THE COMMON LAW. A bill designed to amend the forms of procedure and trials at common law was introduced by the Lou]) CHANCELLOR in the House of Peers on Monday. After passing in review the labours of preceding commissions, and eulogising the acts of 1851 and 1852, which had been attended, in his opinion, with as favourable results and as little dis appointment as could reasonably have been expected, he adverted to the report of the last commission, and the bill which he proposed to found upon it. The former bill, he remarked, dealt with the pre liminaries of suits; he now proposed to deal with the trials themselves:— " His first proposition might appear somewhat startling, as it involved a modification in the principle of trial by jury. When both plaintiff and defendant agreed to the step, the commissioners proposed to remit the trial to the unassisted judge. Considering that all interference with the jury system should be introduced with great caution, he could only assent to adopt this proposal so far as to dispense with the juries in certain definite classes of suits and with the assent of the judge. The example of the county courts, he argued, was not parallel; small cases differed materially from large ones. He proposed that questions of account should, without coming before a jury, be at once submitted to an accountant, or referred to a county court judge. The Lord Chancellor then explained the improvements he wished to effect in the jury itself. He proposed to abolish the distinction between special and common juries—the qualification for the latter being somewhat raised, and the two amalgamated. The mixture of different classes in the same jury would, he thought, be advantageous in bringing varied experience to bear upon the case. At present the plaintiff, when the defendant called no witnesses, was debarred the right of reply. Often in a just cause the plaintiff might state facts not borne out by the evidence, and which he ought to be allowed to explain. He proposed, accordingly, to give plaintiff the right to a second speech after the close of his evidence, according, of course, a similar privilege to the defendant. The rule for calling attesting witnesses to prove docu ments would be abolished except in certain cases. He did not intend to interfere with the regulation as to unanimity of the jury, believing that regulation necessary for the fair discussion of the case, but he would discharge them if they could not agree upon a verdict after a reasonable time, say twelve hours, and allow a new trial either at once or at the next assizes, according to the wish of the parties. He would also allow the jury, for the future, the enjoyment of fire and reasonable refreshment. He recommended that all persons entertaining conscientious scruples against taking an oath might, with the consent of the judge, be permitted to substitute an affirmation, citing cues where, under the actual law, justice had failed through the want of evidence from witnesses who refused to be sworn on account of scruples of conscience. Never theless, he thought that, in ordinary cases, the imposition of an oath was a strong preventive to falsehood. When deeds were insufficiently stamped, he proposed to allow them to be put in evidence upon payment at once, to some appointed officer of the court, of the deficient amount of stamp duty and something more. It was, he contended, a great object to allow each case to be comeeted in one court, and he therefore proposed to empower courts of common law to issue injunctions in cases which had been laid before them. It had been suggested that the courts of law and equity should be fused together. He admitted that, if legislation were now to commence de novo, no dis- tinction should have been introduced, but it was now closely interwoven with our legal system, was productive of no practical mischief, and the advantages of alteration would not counterbalance its inconveniences. The principles of both should be assimilated, so that suitors at common law might obtain the protection of equity. With this view, he proposed that what were called equitable defences ' might be pleaded in bar to an action at common law." I I