The Press. — London, England, 1855-03-24 00:00:00

270 set forth in detail; yesterday the measure came forth in its perfect shape; and so far as we can judge from the testimonies which reach us on all sides—from the judicious silence of o friends, and received by 1 tine project stood a bef More comp noniinational offensive to secular system—resembling, so far as - the difference between the two countries allows, the Irish plan as first established by Lord DERBY—it bids fair to conciliate the support of all moderate men, while giving just grounds of hostility to the partisans of extreme opinions. The features of the scheme are by this time so well known, that we content our selves with answering a few obvious objec tions. The necessity of local Education Boards we assume as undisputed. A Govern ment system of education, carried on without the aid of these, is simply centralisation in its most unmitigated form. " But why take the " union as your area of taxation?" Because the country is too large. An Education Board legislating for the schools of Lancashire would be nothing less than a provincial Parliament, while the majority of parishes, especially in rural districts, could not furnish the requisite pro portion of educated men competent to the task, and having sufficient disposable leisure. Moreover, by the needless multiplication of such boards the labour of the centraloffice would be increased beyond all reasonable proportion; and the difficulty of providing for the children of different denominations also becomes greater, as the territorial extent included under one management diminishes. These considers tions, on which space forbids us to enlarge, justify Sir JOHN PAXINOTON'S choice of the poor-law union, instead of the county or parish, as his basis of operations. " But why make the bill permissive only, " and not compulsory ?" We reply, because the mildest means should be tried first ; be cause no solution of the educational difficulty can be expected to give satisfaction to all localities ; and, by the option of withdrawing from a participation in the scheme, many persons and many districts may be in duced to assent to provisions which, if made binding on them, they would have opposed to the utmost ; lastly, because an exact precedent for the course adopted may be found in the Rural Police Act now in force, which passed through Parliament, and was accepted by the people, solely in virtue of its permissive character. " Here is our plan— ' take it if you please—reject it if you like—try " it yourselves, or wait till your neighbours " have tried it, and till you can see how it " works." Such is Sir JouN's reasonable address to the various unions of England, and it is not easy to find fault with an offer couched in terms so little dictatorial. " But free schools will supersede all others, " establishing a virtual monopoly ; while the " impossibility of deciding what religion shall " be taught in the new schools forms an in " superable obstacle to that part of the plan." Our answer is—neither the one proviso nor the other are inseparable from the bill. Whether the school-pence, now contributed to the amount of above 400,0001. yearly, should be dispensed with or no, is a question on which we do not choose to offer an opinion, and are perhaps unable to form one. It is a question of practical expo rience—of convenience—partly also of local prejudice or feeling. We suggest, but with diffidence and doubt, that perhaps the option might be left to the local hoards, at least for a time, and so the working of the free and paying schools mutually be compared. The new schools, though an important element in Sir JOHN'S project, are rather an addition to, than an integral part of, his other reforms. Even curtailed of the power to set up these, his bill remains the largest, as well as the most truly liberal, that has yet been laid, with any hope of carrying it out, on the table of the House of Commons. Our comments on the religious part of the measure—we mean the compromise, for such it THE PRESS. is, between the claims of the Church and those of the laity of all sects—we reserve for another occasion. re. THE #II4IA. SERVICE. Tits . Ittlia hivi bee, wofully mismanage. lifr i 9 t it was ed o\ik sey% unths too late. A a yery d4vient ki i Ore ;so much so that, instead 4 its Nom mplement of 130,000 ] men, o w numbe,‘;` ttiNuilied is only 44,00. Last week has broutAk vo light a new blunder. It turns out that we 'liva no right to keep the 44,000 men to their colours. The vast majority of them were enlisted under the act of 1852, and are not liable in the present war to em bodied service. After fifty-six days' training, they are perfectly at liberty to leave their regi ments and return home, and neither their colonel nor the Government have the right to stop them. This is not a mere opinion, or the view of a section of politicians. It has been officially stated in Parliament by the War Minister himself. . _ _ By the act of 1852 the Militia was raised for twenty-one days' training, which might be extended to fifty-six days in the year by an Order of the Queen in Council. It could only be embodied in case of invasion. A change was introduced by the act of last May, by which the liability to embodiment was ex- Wiped to every time of war. The men en listed under the first act are only liable to the first kind of service; those raised after the 14th of May are under the obligation of the latter. It became necessary to embody a number of regiments, raised almost entirely under the first act. The obvious course was to induce the meu to volunteer from the one service into the other. How was it to be ac complished ? Would a letter from the colonel be sufficient evidence of the wishes of the regiment ? Would a general huzzaiug and tossing up caps be enough? Clearly the volunteering must be more precise. Every man must signify his wish, must be re-enlisted for the new service, and re-attested. Government had their attention called to the point, and their professions were very fair. They would only take those who volun teered. Only a part of each regiment should be embodied, and every individual should be allowed to make his choice. These promises were soon forgotten. They called out regi ments which never volunteered ; they com pelled the men to serve against their will ; they never thought of re-enlistment and re attestment; and they refused leave of absence to all who had not two children. Great dis satisfaction was caused. Men deserted. They were brought back, tried by court-martial, and punished. In some instances the railway stations had to be watched, so frequent were the attempts of the men to return home. Lord PANMURE asserts that faith was kept with the militiamen, because men with two children were allowed to be discharged ; and because at a later period a certain discretion was vested in the colonels. But, granted that faith was kept with the men who had two children, does that warrant a breach of faith with the men who had not two children ? Granted that a small minority were sent home at their own request, does that give the right to detain the large majority against their will? Does good faith with the married excuse bad faith towards the unmarried? Lord PANMURZ asserts that militiamen were perfectly aware that service was optional. This is not the fact. Up to the present time it has been always imagined that service was compulsory. A proof may be found in the punishments for desertion. Desertion is a crime which cannot exist where the service is optional. If a man has a right to go away he cannot be sentenced for deserting. But many instances have oc curred in which men who had served more than fifty-six days have been tried and sen tenced to one or even two months' imprison meat, with hard labour and part solitary confinement. Is there a doubt of the correct ness of this statement? It can speedily be set at rest by a return of the courts-martial in embodied militia regiments since the 14th of May for the crime of desertion, with the punishments awarded, and a statement in SATURDAY, each case whether the deserter had volunteered for embodied service or had not served fifty. six days. What shall we say as to the justice 4 sue 4 INAltom? Militia officers would cerWnlY never have indicted them if they 4 d s own 'tlieN there was no right to comAel . service. The eon equeni l con e.im moment's cond. deration. ut of t b I, ~ embodied militia men,mt 4 0, were etakilt , ,, before the 14th of May. these oiAii i iti i ' home at their pleasert. egiments of 00 men are in danger of being left viith only 200. The efficiency of the force may be destroyed, and its numbers reduced to ridiculous weakness. The effect on discipline will be even worse. What man will remain when he is punished or imagines himself aggrieved ? What hold will the officers have over their men ? It is scarcely possible to conceive a state of things more calculated to weaken the militia service and to render it inefficient and useless to the country. It happens at a crisis when perfect effiniency and numerical strength is of the utmost importance. Now, if ever, the Militia is needed to put forth all its strength, and at this very moment, by a series of blunders, it is in peril of utterly breaking down. Who is the cause of the blunders ? Is no one to be called to account? Is not some one's reputation as a Minister seriously damaged by their discovery ? They proceed from Lord Palmerston. He had the sole care of the Militia. He brought in the bill of last May, and directed and superintended the em• bodiment of the regiments. This is the state into which his wisdom, and energy, and busi• uess habits, have brought a force which is our only army of reserve ; and he must have the whole discredit of the result. Dppunente, Vie loud mancgyrio of d the to At in wlctA it wa - the HouS - gsnerally, Talli legi - t. of a sin k r liaract,v, e Iter chat‘ 4 ultingite success. >rehensivg - an the cabled de- al eMem— ow proetW iiiAd les% 1 o men's fee ingd than' the pure ' FRESH RESULTS OF INQUIRY. Wz must caution our readers against the art ful attempts made to disparage the labours of the Sebastopol Committee. We know all that can be said against the repetition of some statements, and the occasional want of method in the investigation, but in spite of these de fects the Committee has already achieved a great result in substantiating the accusations made about our army in the Crimea. Unless the public had the detailed evidence of trust worthy witnesses, it would be impossible to find data for bringing the culpable persons to account. Without this inquiry we should be debarred from further proceedings, and the " responsibility" of our rulers would become a mere mockery. We repeat emphatically that the substantiating of the charges made by the press is an object of the highest importance. As the inquiry advances, the more culpable appears to have been the conduct of the late War Department. Vast progress has been made in the present week by the Committee. Foremost in import ance comes the evidence of Mr. STAFFORD. Never did a British people hear of such hor rors as that gentleman deposed to having witnessed. We shall not here repeat the horri ble disclosures made by him, which have ex ceeded aught that has yet appeared. if the inquiry had brought forth nothing else but the evidence of Mr. STAFFORD it would have achieved an important result. But it is not our object here to excite indig nation. The task is unnecessary. Men and women throughout the land feel intensely upon the subject. Our purpose now is to see how we can give a still more practical turn to the toils of the Committee. The evidence of Dr. ANDREW SMITH shows us how that may be accomplished. His assertions distinctly cri minate the heads of the War Department, and fasten guilt upon them. 1. Thus, in few ways were more lives sacri ficed than by intrusting the ambulances t. worn out pensioners. infirm and disabled men were sent to a campaign to help those stricken in the fight. It appears that twelve months ago, in March, 1804, Dr. SMITH pro posed that four hundred ablebodied men should be enrolled from the depot at Chatham for an ambulance corps. After stating that pen sioners were quite unfit for such a work, Dr. NOW'