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

'll l l4Bcti 2,411855. Vrourbings in Varliamcnt. THE EARL OF LUCAN. Lord LEMAN made his statement of Monday at full length. It contained necessarily a mass of techni calities, but the substance of his defence was as follows. On the day of Balaklava he received three orders. The first was not in question. The second ran thus : The cavalry to advance and take advantage of any op portunity to recover the heights. They will be supported by infantry, which has been ordered. Advance on two fronts. While he was anxiously waiting for the arrival of the infantry, which he hal been promised, in about forty minutes Captain Nolan galloped up with the order about which so much had been said : Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front, follow the enemy, and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns. Troop of harse artillery may accompany. French cavalry is on your left. Lord Raglan at that time fancied he saw, though erroneously, the Russians taking the guns out of the captured torts. On receiving this order he (Lord Lama) told Captain Nolan that he much dis approved of it, thatthere was mush danger attending ; to which Captain Nolan replied in the dis respectful manner which has been so often men tioned. Lord Lucan argued that an aide-de-camp of the commander-in-chief, which Captain Nolan was, stood in the position of the representative of that commander, and was entitled to the same obedience—otherwise why not send despatches by an orderly? He felt himself bound to execute the movement he conceived the despatch to order, taking every precaution to make it as little perilous as possible. He then gave the story of the charge itself. On the night of the action he saw Lord Raglan, who exclaimed, " Why, you've lost the light brigade." This he denied, saying that "he felt obliged to carry out his lordship's orders." To this Lord Raglan made no reply. Subsequently he saw General Airey, to whom he said that the people at home would view the matter in a very serious light. General Airey treated the matter lightly, as one of the accidents of war; but argued that the order was not an imperative one. On this he (Lord Lucan) emphatically disclaimed all responsibility that might be attempted to be fastened upon him with regard to the order in question. He did nothing until the appearance of Lord Raglan's report, and until he had received letters from private friends in England, stating the unfavorable impression which was there produced. He felt exceedingly hurt, and waited on Lord Raglan's nephew, Lord Burghersh, requesting an interview with Lord Raglan. The next day Lord Burghersh said that Lord Raglan would see him if necessary, but that he was then much engaged. It was upon this that he proposed to write a letter explaining the facts, and requesting Lord Raglan to send it to Eng land. He added that he would alter any thing in it that might be offensive or annoying to Lord Raglan. The letter was written. He expected it would have been instantly despatched to England, instead of which he found from General Airey that it was not sent, and that Lord Raglan thought it was unneces sary. At subsequent interviews there was some wrangling on the subject : Lord Raglan sent word that be thought the letter charged him with injustice, and Lord Lucan found great fault with Lord Raglan's report. Ultimately the letter was sent to England, but, meanwhile, Lord Raglan had sent to the Minister at War his letter of observations, which led to his (Lord Lucan's) recal. Lord Lucan commented at length upon this letter, arguing strongly that there was a connection between the two orders; that if the last had been sent on account of the hesitation in obeying the first, it would have been sufficient to have said so; that the infantry, stated to be under orders to advance, bad received no orders, and that as to recovering the heights there was not a single Russian on them. After once more adverting to the technicalities of the action, Lord Lucan came to his recal. His letter might have appeared discourteous to the Duke of Newcastle—it appeared so to no one else. As to any difference with Lord Raglan, he had acted with him subsequently on terms of entire cordiality. The order for his recal came as unexpectedly on Lord Raglan as on himself. He concluded by ad verting to his services, which he contended had been marked with merit, and by declaring that as a wronged man he was entitled to a court-martial and fair trial. After the Earl of CARDIGAN had said a few words to a matter of fact respecting the action, Lord PANNURE said that he could not follow Lord Lucan into the details of the battle, upon which he could not presume to have an opinion. He addressed himself to the subject of the court-martial—the real subject of the debate—and upon which Lord Lucan had only said a few words at the conclusion of his address. It had appeared to the Government that the confidence between the commander in• chief and an officer commanding a division in his army had THE PRESS. bean Shaken, and that it was for the benefit of the public service that one or other should be recalled. A court martial in this case wiluld establish a prece dent which would be law for the meanest private, and would permit any man in the ranks or out of them, who bad been censured by his superior officer, to de mand inquiry. He had looked into the articles of war, the Mutiny Act, and the customs of war, and could see no warrant for such a course. No charge, technically speaking, had been brought against the gallant lord; " misconception of orders" had been charged over and over again to officers and general officers. Again, if a court-martial were granted, who was to frame the charge—Lord Raglan? But he had sires ly, by subsequent acts, condoned the offence, and could not by the rules of war appear as ' prosecutor. The Judge Advocate? The same ob jection would hold even here. But h: rested his main objection on the ground of the discipline of the army, against the very root of which a blow would be struca by such a course. Lord HABDINGE said that the statement they had just heard, alluding to private conversations, must be considered its ex parte. No one in that house was then competent to answer the points on which he had entered. He then read Lord Raglan's despatch, arguing upon the several points of it that Lord Lucan should have used his discretion in interpreting the order. As for the court-martial, he had con sulted the Adjutant-General, who had declared that it would be impossible to grant it, on the grounds already stated by Lord Paumure. The Duke of RICHMOND deprecated the discussion, and thought that Lord Lucau should not have taken advantage of his position as a peer to make state ments of which ordinary men could not have had the opportunity. The Earl of DERBY thought that if the gallant earl was not to have had an opportunity of vindica ting himself, the second letter of Lord Raglan, con taining most serious charges and imputations, should not have been placed by a Minister of the Crown in their lordships' hands. Lord Lucan's case was one of great hardship, and deserving of sympathy. Arguing on the merits of the case, he said that Lord Lucan, in interpreting the first order, had exercised his discretion, and subjected himself to a charge in consequence, and he was then blamed for not exer cising his discretion with regard to the second order. Lord Lucan might now be conscious that he had a good cause—that he had had the merit during the day of ordering a most brilliant charge—that, with regard to the otber part of the action, he hail courted the fullest inquiry—and he might now be content to let the matter drop. The Duke of NEWCASTLE regretted that a peer should have taken of his position an advantage which could not have been in the power cf any one else. As for the publication of Lord Raglan's second letter, it was rendered necessary when Lord Lucan read in that house the letter addressed to himself by Lord Raglan, containing his (the Duke of New castle's) despatch. He expressed his regret if the order of recal of the noble earl was couched in terms wanting in sympathy, though he thought that sympathy was rather cut of place in official commu nications. In making that order he had performed a most painful duty, but he felt that he owed it to the service and to the country. A short discussion followed upon the propriety of a peer using his positio a to vindicate his character, and the debate was brought to a close by some ex planations from Lord Lucan and the Duke of New castle on strictly private matters connected with certain communications which had passed between them through a solicitor, acting as the friend of both parties. PRUSSIA. ----- LordiANDHURST brought forward his long-promised motion on the policy pursued by this power on Tues day. Two recent facts, he said, had cccurred, bearing upon this important question—one, the dying message of the late Czar to the King of Prussia; the other, the manifesto of the new Czar, and the declaration of his intention of following out the policy of Peter, Alexander, and Catherine. He read an extract from a despatch of Count Nesselrode, issued immediately before the last war, and which seemed to be almost prophetic of the present policy of Prussia. Count Nesselrode said that — If Russia should undertake alone to put in execution these coercive means—( that is to say, coercive means against Turkey )—there is every reason to believe that the Court of Berlin would not in any manner oppose us. But, on the contrary, her attitude, at once unfettered and friendly, would operate as a powerful check to other States, and bring them to submit to results suited to the dignity and the interest of Russia. The diplomatist added, that Prussia should be let into the confidence of Russia, and would be con vitived that the part assigned to her wait for her ad- vantage. Lord Lyndhurst then detailed the history of the Prussian negotiations. Prussia had, it was true, joined in the protocols of January and April of last year, but what else could she do? She could not openly aide with Russia; she could not remain in 273 a state of isolation ; she bad no other alternative. What was her subsequent conduct? Baron Man teuffel, her Prime Minister, declared that he did not . - conceive that Prus.sia was called upon to go any further, or that German independence was involved in the question; yet Prussia had already declared that a great wrong bad been committed; she was bound by treaties to redress that wrong ; and then considers that she has nothing further to do than to express her indignation at its commission. Lord Lyndhurst then commented, in indignant language, upon the supposition that German interests were not involved in the question. Baron Idanteuffel himself had admitted the contrary ; lie was dismissed, as was the Chevalier Bunsen, because they could not concur in a policy so hostile to the interests of their country. Then came the second act of the drama. Austria considered that Russia should be called upon to eva cuate the principalities. The document making the demand was forwarded t , Berlin ; the King of Prussia refused to sign it; the Russians evacuated the prin cipalities, and Prussia withdrew from all further support of the confederation. More than this—she used all her efforts to prevent the co-operation of the smaller German States, and had unfortunately been, to some extent, successful. The third act followed. On the Bth of August last—after Austria had decided _ - on the necess ity of taking more urgent measures—a meeting was fixed at, Vienna to consider the prelimi naries of the terms which should be offered to the Emperor of Russia. Though invited to this con ference, Prussia declined to send any representative. The four points were agreed upon by the conference and rejected by Russia, whereupon Prussia instantly published a document containing objections to the four points. She continued her exertion. against Austria throughout all the minor States of Germany. The treaty of the 2nd of December was the next point. Prussia refused to sign it, expressing simply her willingness to subscribe a separate treaty with England and France ; the allies replied that she might do this, but she had never done it—she has contented herself with a few propositions, and in that state she stands at the present moment. Her own Chambers had expressed their strong disappro bation of this conduct. Prussia had demanded to be admitted to the pending conferences at Vienna, but she had been most properly excluded. Lord Lyndhurst then adverted to the policy of Prussia since the time of Frederick I 1., denouncing its weak ness, treachery, and vacillation. He had no faith in Prussia, and only hoped that the Ministers had some papers in their possession which would show her conduct to be somewhat less inexcusable. The Earl of CutateNuoN, stating that from his position he could not be expected to enter into all the details of the question, said that he bad no such papers. He could not view the Prussian alliance with indifference, and hoped it might again be re established on the same footing as at the beginning of the last year, when she signed the protocol with the alliance, but appeared to be staggered by the positive refusal of ltussia to abandon the principali ties. The noble earl characterised the correspon dence which followed as one in which Austria steadily adheres to her engagements, while Pru.sia gradually diverges from hers. After briefly going through the events which preceded the present con ference, L trd Clarendon showed bow impossible it was for Prussia to be admitted To admit I'russia to claim the privileges without in curring any of the risk—to admit her to a conference which might end in peace, but which might lead to war— to a more extended war—without her telling us what her intentions or policy were—without any engagement imme diate or perspective, and without knowing whether she WAS neutral, foe, or friend, appeared to us utterly im possible. He did not consider negotiations with Prussia at an end. Her high military position, and the part she had taken for a century in the great European ques tions, rendered her present situation really melan choly. He admitted that Prussia had more to tear from war than any other nation; but she must not carry her dread too far, knowing that a vigorous prosecution of the war would be the most effective means of procuring peace. He concluded by arguing that Prussia could not openly side with Russia, that she could not always remain isolated, and sad that it was the anxious wish both of Fram.ce and England to relieve her from her present painful position. AUSTRIA, HUNGARY, AND POLAND. Lord PALMERBTON, on Tuesday, made rather an important reply to Lord W. Graham, who had asked for an "explanation of the words used by a member of the Administration," alluding to Sir R. Peel in his recent election speech—" that no settlement of the Eastern question woul d be satisfactory unless Hungary end Poland were restored." To this the Premier replied, after a eulogy on Sir Peel's abilities and energy, that The Austrian Government know now, and have all along known, that the Government of Great Britain b eca ody centre would re.B I der con eider its great misfortune to Europe if Hungary were t consiel. r ated trom the Austrian em p i the Austrian empire, as an aggregate in the Ik