The Press. — London, England, 1855-02-24 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 24, 1855. streaks of smoke indicate the arrival of muses of their troops on the table lands above the Tschernaya, and that 30,000 man resume their position on the heights above Balaklava, while another army threatens Eupatoria. The pro bability is that larger forces are not far distant. A very small proportion of the army of the South of Russia has yet taken part in the Crimean contest, and we may expect that no effort will be spared to bring down corps after corps to the neighbourhood of the scene of a ction. The same course was adopted in the autumn, when, after the battle of Alma, in an incredibly short space of time, 60,000 fresh troops were brought up in cars to be launched at Inkermann upon the British lines. We ought to be prepared for successive reinforcements, and a battle, or succession of battles, for the relief of Sebastopol. But we shall be in a worse position than be fore. Our forces have dwindled to a smaller number, and the men are more reduced in physical strength. Another Inkermann would destroy them. We had then fresh troops to supply the places of those who fell. Sixteen regiments were in the garrisons of the Medi teranean, eight regiments of the line and four battalions of the Guards were in the United Kingdom, and three regiments were on their way from Canada, making a total of thirty battalions. We were able to despatch at once to the seat of war thirteen regiments, number- ing 10,000 men. But where now is our reserve? In the Mediterranean garrisons we have only ten regiments—the 13th, 54th, 66th, and 92nd, at Gibraltar ; the 72nd and 91st at Malta, and the 31st, 48th, 82nd, and the 2nd battalion of the let at Corfu ; and it is officially announced that these are numerically so weak that none are fit to send, or will be sent to the Crimea. In the United Kingdom there are four regi ments, the 51st, 56th, 80th, and 94th, and four battalions of the Guards. Three of the regi ments, the 51st, 80th, and 94th, are stated, on the same authority, to be under orders for the Crimea. There are also third battalions of the 60th Rifles and of the Rifle Brigade, which are in the course of formation, but these are composed of young recruits. We are informed that, after the lapse of two months, the Militia Act will be carried into execution by the de parture of three militia regiments for the Mediterranean. No others are yet ready. Many regiments have 400, and even 450 volun teers, but Government will not take them unless they can raise 540. As the last hun dred are the most difficult to obtain, especially in regiments of only 600 bayonets, there is every probability of a prolongation of the delay. That they had sent out an army without a reserve, was one of the principal charges, in December last, against the late Government. It was urged, with great truth, that it was their duty to have collected a considerable force at some point within reach of the invading army, to be at hand in case of an emergency. A coup de main on Sebastopol after the victory of Alma was rendered impossible by neglect of the precaution. The same reasons exist at the present moment. We ought to have in the Mediterranean, not one or two, but several regiments beyond the necessary com plement for garrison duty, recruited to their full strength, and ready to be despatched at any moment to the Crimea. The system of Mediterranean depots, when fully organised, will dispense with the necessity of so large a number of complete regiments. But, even then, some must be kept to supply the place of regiments that, like the 63rd, are totally destroyed, or seriously disorganised. It would never do to rely for our reinforcements entirely on drafts. But in the present infancy of the depot system, while the drafts are not sufficient to supply the casualties, it is folly to rest content with the small force which is now available. Immediate steps should be taken to form a proper reserve, or the conse quences may be serious to the Crimean army and to the nation. THE ARISTOCRACY AND THE ARMY. WE are glad that Lord MALMESBURY had not only the sagacity to discern, but the courage THE PRESS. to expose the impending danger that threatens English society of being rent asunder by a class-cry. The councils at the Kremlin could not devise a more fatal mode of debilitating the strength of Great Britain than to appeal to most invidious comparisons, and to stimu late the personal jealousies of various orders of the community. Class-cries are always sure to end in a spirit of wholesale detraction, and, while falsely pretending generosity of sentiment, they really echo the pharisaical self-laudations of that levelling conceit which reoognise no personal superiority. Their morality is fundamentally vicious, for its standard of right or wrong is simply em pirical. To produce fair play for talent by getting up a class-cry, is like trying to abolish vice by making beauty and grace dress in a Quaker garb. Those who raise such a cry incur grave responsibilities in any case, but infinitely more so when the facts are decidedly against them. Their quackery at a time of peril becomes downright criminal. For we have no hesitation in saying that Lord MALMESBUBY had the facts on his side when he appealed to the Army List against the assertion that military honours were entirely monopolised by the " aristocracy." We have ourselves taken the list of Line regiments, from the Ist to the 98th, and have examined the names of the " Colonels ' and the " Lieutenant-Colonels" of those ninety-eight regiments, and we find that in two-thirds of the entire list neither the Colonel nor the Lieutenant-Colonel be longs to a family of the nobility, English, Scotch, or Irish. In a vast variety o f cases the " Colonels " and " Lieutenant-Colonels" belong to families without any social distinc tion. We know that ignorant cavillers on examining the Army List, and finding that " Sir" is prefixed to the names of several officers, will at once agree that such officers are " sprung from" or " connected " with " aristocracy." These censors, of course, know nothing about the Knights of the Bath, whose decorations are given freely to personal merit. Their blunders are specimens of the way in which ignorance discusses questions upon which it has not the most common information. But, it may be said, that though the over whelming majority of the chief officers of the line are not connected with the " aristocracy," still that in the " Guards" great numbers of nobly born officers are numbered. Upon this point, also, a little attention to the facts will be sufficient to expose the absurdity of the "cry." London is beyond comparison the wealthiest city in the world. Life at the West-end is luxurious, showy, and profuse, not only amongst the Peers of the realm, but amongst the merchant princes, who own palaces in Belgravia, and whose town houses in Mayfair are as sumptuous as if their owners had estates descended through twenty gene rations. It is in such a state of society that the household troops of our great monarchy are located. To be compelled to mix amongst such classes with a London standard of expenses, would be a very equivocal favour to to a gallant officer, with a wife and children, and small means. Is it any wonder, then, that commissions in the household troops should be given to officers whose families have town mansions, and who can afford the personal expenditure of fashionable life in London? Before we blame the War-office for the number of aristocratic officers in the " Guards," we must arraign all London society for being so expensive, and if once the " cry" be raised it is not " aristocracy " alone that will be assailed. Circumstanced as society is in England, a " cry " against "aristocracy," if kept up, would be sure before long to sink into a yell against property. Men who raised a clamour against pedigree and privilege would not be content to hear of distinction by purse, the most invidious of all kinds of superiority. We trust, therefore, to hear no more of the false cant that military honours are monopo lised by " aristocracy." Within the last fifteen years there have been conferred four military peerages. The two highest of these was given 175 to two distinguished officers—Viscounts Hsa ntxas and GOUGH, and we have their printed pedigrees before us, and it does not appear that they had any " noble" ancestors. Lord. HARDINOE'S grandfather was clerk of the House of Commons, and his father was a clergyman. Lord Gomm is the son of a Tipperary gentle man. Lord SEATON deservedly got his title for his brilliant services, but he does not belong by descent to " aristocracy :" and when Lord R►OI.4N was raised to the Peerage, there was not a murmur against " Fitzroy Somerset" being ennobled. The number, also, of Scotch and Irish offi cers, who actually swarm in the army, and who have no parliamentary or " aristocratic " influences, will show how false is the present cry. The life of adventure and excitement pleases the martial instincts of men of Gaelic blood, and hence we have so many of those officers. They have covered themselves with laurels, and nobly sustained the valorous cha racter of their forefathers, and certainly, though their numbers are so great in the Army List, they have little connection with the political aristocracy of England, now assailed by a false criirh at the claims of privates are to the honours of command, and how far it is possi ble to popularise our military service, is wo important a question for opening here. THE FOLLY OF CLASS-CRIES. IT was in our columns that attention was first directed to the fact that the departments of the army in which there was most failure wero those presided over by persons entirely un connected with " aristocracy." Quartermaster- General AIREY, Commissary-General Fitnza, Admiral BOXER, and Captain CHRISTIE, of Ba laklava chaos notoriety, and several other seriously-inculpated officials, are in nowise " sprigs of nobility," or " bits of patrician " porcelain. " The Duke of NEWCASTLE fearfully failed in the War Office; but how little " aristocracy " is responsible for that fact is visible in the simple circumstance that the five names of the parties said to be fit for the post—to wit, the Marquis of Dm-Holism, the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, Earl GREY, Viscount PALMERSTON, and Lord PANMURE-1111 belonged to " aristocracy !" Does not this simple fact show the absurdity of getting up a cry against the nobility of England because a dull Duke mismanaged the public interest? Take, again, the two Admirals whose merits have been so often contrasted. Admiral DUNDAS sails, if not under false colours, at least under an assumed name. His paternal name is "Deans," and his " aristocracy " con sists in having married a lady nobly connected. On the other hand, Sir EDMUND LYONS is son of one " with a handle to his name," and he is father-in-law to the Earl of ARUNDEL, the heir to the Premier Dukedom of England. Again, Sir JOHN MOORE was unfortunate in Spain, and Sir HARRY BURRARD was utterly in capable. Were the calamities of MooRE or the blunders of BURRARD to be attributed to their non-patrician origin ? On the other hand, Sir GEORGE MURRAY, unrivalled as a Quarter master-General, and admirable as a man of business, belonged to " aristocracy." The Marquis of ANGLESEY was the first cavalry officer in Europe, and the PAGETS are an ancient race. Then, Sir THOMAS PICTON, the leader of the fighting Fifth Division in the Peninsula, rose from the ranks, and the name of Picton is not to be found in the chronicles of the Peerage. Scores of other military instances will occur to our readers, showing that " class " is the most ridiculous of all cries to raise because a department has miscarried. The most conspicuous instance to show the folly of such a cry, is to be found in the two great heroes of the last swar—Wattisaves and NELSON. The first was an aristocrat, the son of an Irish Peer, the second one of the people, the son of a humble English clergyman. It is the same in other professions, MURRAY (Lord Mansfield) and ERSKINE, famous in the eloquence of the Bar, were both of noble parentage. CURRAN, the celebrated Iriah orator, was, on the other hand, no more 1