The Press. — London, England, 1856-03-22 00:00:00

282 The character of George IV. does not rise in our estimation by a study of his connection with Mrs. Fitzherbert. The contemptible artifice by which he first sought to engage her sympathies, his ignoble equivocation when the marriage was publicly discussed, and the want of delicacy which marked his conduct when under the influence of Lady Hertford, are all failings of an essentially un manly nature,—a mixture of cunning, pusil lanimity, and selfishness almost unintelligible in one of his race, and singularly at variance with what others have told us of his engaging personal qualities. The question of Mrs. Fitzherbert's mar riage is fraught with very considerable difficul ties. Mr. Langdale has proved that the marriage was valid in the sight of that Church to which Mrs. Fitzherbert belonged. But then the question arises, how far that cohabita tion is innocent which is not practically hedged round by the restrictions of marriage. The point for theological casuists to decide is this—Whether a woman can be married to a man without the man being married to her. If so, Mrs. Fitzherbert was innocent ; if not, she was guilty. It was expressly provided by the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 that any mar riage contracted by a member of the Royal Family under twenty-five years of age, without the King's consent, should be null and void. And the law of the land cannot be overridden by any ecclesiastical dogmas. The conduct of the King and Queen is, we think, a fair example of how we should treat the memory of Mrs. Fitzherbert. The most virtuous Court in Europe made no scruple of receiving her with marked kindness. But still the Queen never imagined that the Prince was legally incapacitated for the Brunswick alliance. " You know best, George, whether " you can marry the Princess," cannot have implied a belief that he was married to an other. But she meant to ask, was he bound as a man of honour? As George IV. left no issue by Mrs. Fitzherbert, the question has no political importance for the present gene ration. But if it had, we cannot believe there could be the least doubt about the matter; and, though we sympathise deeply with the position in which Mrs Fitzherbert found herself, we cannot agree with Mr. Langdale that she was ever the lawful wife of the Prince. And if she was not the lawful wife, what was she ? Military Organisation and Administration of France. By Captain Thackeray. London : Newby. IF we are to trust to the various accounts of Sir A. Alison, General Napier, Mr. Russell, and Colonel Hamley, the ar►ny of England has ever commenced war at a disadvantage, owing principally to the decline of organisation during the previous peace. This disadvantage is no doubt ultimately (if not soon) overcome. The military is essentially a practical art; its wants and necessities are soon brought home by actual experience and suffering in the field. If it possess the resolution to fight, and the discipline to obey, a very short time will sup ply the rest: there is no education so rapid and effectual as that which takes place in the presence of an enemy. At the end of the Peninsular war it was difficult to say whether the French or British army was the more admirable; and few things during the last campaign have been more remarkable than the improvement of those very Russian levies, that were scattered like chaff at the Alma. This certainty of practical improvement after the commencement of a war has keen constantly cited by the advocates of an imper fect organisation, as a proof of the absence of any necessity of a better system of army ad ministration than that which at present exists. But it is by these persons forgotten what frightful penalties have been paid by the English army for their practical experience, both at the commencement of the Peninsular and Crimean campaigns. In order to avoid such catastrophes for the future, it is said that a reconstruction of our military system has become a necessity, and that we have a model to copy from in the per feat organisation and administration of the li.. THE PRESS. French army. This may be to a certain extent true, but no doubt a great amount of the present admiration of the French system arises from its late brilliant successes rather than from a proper appreciation of the system itself, just in the same way that after the battle of Waterloo the English military sys tem was even in rival France the subject of universal admiration. In aid therefore of those to whom may be intrusted the work of remodelling our army and its administration, and with the view of furnishing information as to the structure and general economy of the French system, Cap tain Thackeray, late of the Second Somerset Militia, has put forward the first volume of a work on the " Military Organisation and Ad ministration of France." In the execution of this undertaking the late gallant captain states that he has been assisted by two eminent French officers, and especially by M. Leon Guillot," the highly talented and eminent Sous " Intendant Militaire, the author of one of the " best French treatises on Military Administra " tion, by whose liberality and courtesy he has "'been allowed to use his very valuable work, a "permission of which, from its excellence, Cap• " tain Thackeray has largely availed himself," — and indeed from the French arrangement, and the abundant French idiom in this book, we should say very largely indeed,—in fact, Cap tain Thackeray's book reads suspiciously like a translation. But this circumstance, though detracting from our author's personal merit, adds much to the value of his book as a work of authority. It does. however, happen that much of the information was attainable in this country iu our numerous blue-books on mili tary matters, and in a form far more tangible than that in which it is presented in Captain Thackeray's book. The French army differs from the English in four principal points :—the manner in which the ranks are filled ; the manner of ap pointing and promoting officers ; the existence in the French army of a separate corps (Etat- Major) for staff purposes ; and the establish ment of the " Corps de l'lntendance Militaire." The ranks of the French army are recruited by conscription, those of England by volun tary enlistment ;—not that in France voluntary enlistment is excluded. The law in France is that every Frenchman shall be called upon to serve his country at the age of twenty ; nevertheless, any one who wishes to enter the service may enlist at the age of eighteen, and, having satisfied what the law requires, he is exempt from future conscription. This sys tem, hated in France and impossible here, was a revolutionary introduction ; and, like every system in the world, however evil, has its ad vocates. Captain Thackeray gives us a sum mary of their arguments—that it is equal to all, and therefore equitable ; that it brings every class of intelligence into the army ; that it is not costly; that it is valuable, both in a military and social view, to the army ; affords materials for officers ; gets rid of difficulties in promotion from the ranks, arising from social considerations ; that the retired troops form a skilled reserve from amongst the citizens that it affords means of educating members of the army. Most of these advantages (if ad vantages they are) are obtainable by voluntary enlistment, which is certainly more equitable than any compulsory system ; less costly to the community, as it does not draw men from trade to the ruin of their families ; and, though it may not give so good a tone to the army, inflicts less injury on society. The conscription is too apt to provide a practised militia rather than professional soldiers. With the exception of the Zouaves, and a few other regiments, the little red-legged heroes of La Belle France can bear no comparison with trained English privates. The conscrip tion is not a system likely to be imitated from the French by us. Passing over the system of promotion, as a subject that has been fully discussed lately, and, whether pernicious or not in this coun try, too wide to be entered upon here, we come to the " Etat-Major " The " Corps of Etat-Major" arose out of the campaign of Waterloo. It was organised in 1816. Soon after the peace, a great part of the army was, in fact, disbanded ; part dis banded itself; and, when the royal armies SATURDAY, were reformed, a commission of very eminent officers was formed to regulate the reorganisa tion of the army and the staff. The staff was formed into a separate corps,—not to be kept up by indraughts of officers from the troops interpolated into the several ranks of the staff, but to be recruited at the bottom by dives from special schools, who should then be finished at the Ecole d'Application. This sys tem has not found favour in the eyes of English officers. It has the evils of all ex clusive systems. Though a staff officer should be educated, education will not give any one the qualities of a staff officer. Selection from among the general mass of educated officers is yet the better system. Promotion in the Corps Etat-Major is of necessity very slow, and even the junior officers, theref )re, too elderly. This has been felt in France ; and, in order to afford promotion, the corps has more than once been needlessly extended, especially in the time of peace. The "Intendance Militaire " is, perhaps. the only part of the French system that deserves imitation in this country. It is, in fact, the civil branch of the army, replacing the old commissariat, but with powers and duties much more extended. It superintends and provides for the army in everything but mili tary command, discipline, and operations; and certainly simplifies matters, by placing under one head the powers now wielded by the Commissariat, the Land Transport, &c. The boasted organisation of the French army does not, then, come out in so strong a light, when investigated, as it would be sup posed. It has a bureaucratic tone about it very distasteful to English feelings. Mr. Thackeray's book is worth the perusal of all persons interested in military administration. The Great World of London. Part I. By Henry Mayhew. London: Bogue. THIS is 'the opening number of a new serial by the author of " London Labour and the London Poor." It seems that for once London is to be thoroughly exhausted. It is divided into twenty-one heads, each of which is to furnish forth a number. On looking through the prospectus, we confess we have met with certain subjects which we think Mr. May hew would do well to omit when he reaches that portion of his book. We have noticed these princi pally under the heads of Literary, Theatrical, and Military London. But we shall not particularise them further. The first number contains a general survey of the metropolk, which Mr. Mayhew likens to the map of the eastern and western hemispheres of the globe: . which geographers usually prefix to their atlases—as it brings together " the two opposite spheres of me " tropolitan society—the very rich and the very poor." We subjoin an extract from the balloon view of Lou don : Indeed, it was a most wonderful sight to behold that vast bricken mass of churches and hospitals, banks and prisons, palaces and workhouses, docks and refuges for tbs destitute, parks and squares, and courts and alleys, which make up London—all bleat into one immense black spot —to look down upon the whole as the birds of the air lo ik down upon it, and see it dwindled into a mere rubbish heap—to contemplate from afar that strange conglomera tion of vice, avarice, and low cunning, of noble aspirations and humble heroism, and to grasp it in the eye, in all its incongruous integrity, at one single glance—to take, as it were, an angel's view of that huge town where, perhaps, there is more virtue and more iniquity, more wealth and more want, brought together into one dense focus than in any other part of the earth—to hear the hubbub of the restless sea of life and emotion below, and hear it, like the ocean in a shell, whispering of the incessant strugglings and chafings of the distant tide—to swing in the air high above all the petty jealousies and heart: burnings, small cmbitions and vain parade of " polite society, and feel, for once, tranquil as a babe in a cot, and that you are hardly of the earth earthy, as, Jacob like, you mount the aerial ladder, and half lose sight of the " great commercial woe Id " beneath, where men are re garded as mere counters, to play with, and where t 3 to your neighbour as your neighbour would do you con tutes the first principle in the religion of trade—to feel yourselves floating through the endless realms of space, and drinking in the pure thin air of the skies, as you go sailing along almost among the stars, free as " the lark at heaven's gate," and enjoying, fur a brief half-hour, at least, a foretaste of that Elysian destiny which is the ulumate hope of all. The third chapter is on the size and population of London; and many of our readers will now for the first time gain some accurate idea of the former. Fromeast to west—i.e., from PI umstead to Hammer3mith . Middlesex, and from Woolwich to IVandsworth in Surrey— the distance is fourteen miles; and from north to south—that is, from Holloway to Cam bervrell—‘the distance is twelve miles, Caloulauons