The Press. — London, England, 1855-01-20 00:00:00

50 what but to the grossest mismanagement can we attribute their disastrous failure? Respon sible government must sink into deserved contempt if the direction of affairs is longer left in the hands of Ministers whose incompe tency receives each day some new and glaring illustration. In ordinal" , tithes their squabbling might properly be punished with ridicule ; but, contemptible in itself, it is serious iti its con= sequences. They profess to hare done their best, and we see what that best Is. But their capacity for mischief is not exhausted. It is not enough that we have to deplore the ruin of our noble army through their presumption and carelessness; they are now, by the account of their organs, plotting to Involve the country in faithless negotiation, and add disgrace to the disaster with which they have over whelmed it. FRENCH AND ENGLISH RIVALRY. Iv the remarkable prophecy of Mr. DISRAELI, that " every Minister of the Coalition Cabinet "would be damaged eventually by his connec "tion with it," terminated in mischief only to Lord ABERDEEN'S colleagues, many persons would regard such a result with the compo sure of contempt. But it appears plain that the national credit is now seriously involved in the consequences resulting from the culpa ble adoption by the Ministry of the inefficient (if not imbecile) Ministers of the War Depart ment. The fact can no longer be concealed that, while our soldiers are second to none in courage and endurance, the campaign of the English in the Crimea has been decidedly eclipsed by our French allies. Although proud of the union with our illustrious neigh bours, we cannot forget that between nations there is rivalry in the flank as well as in the front, and the history of human nature shows that emulation on the same side is often attended with keener feelings than when the antagonists are avowedly opposed. Barristers employed by one client in a great cause, physicians in consulting for a serious ease, divines in unfolding the intricacies of a knotty subject, are evidently as anxious to excel each other for the sake of their personal reputation as if they stood upon opposite Issues, and contended for different objects. So, also, in the history of Parliament we can see that the competition between rivals is just at spirited as between antagonists. To apply these considerations to a practical purpose we must remind our readers that rivalry between nations partakes of the indi vidual law that we have here indicated. National competition in war, manufactures, commerce, science, and literature is just as zealous and as stimulating as if single persons and not whole communities were the compe titors. How stands the case at present be tween ourselves and our gallant associates the French? In science and letters and civilisa tion we have both run a long and glorious race of competition. In more deadly rivalry we have shown heretofore that we were foemen worthy of combatting with each other. In our famous wars the fiery impetuosity of the French chivalry, and the terrible steadiness of the English resolution, have been recounted with honourable impartiality by both French and English historians. Unhappily, however, it would seem that in the present contest the French have decidedly surpassed us in the art of carrying on war without grievous losses. The miseries en dured by the French have been trifling com pared with what our troops have had to un dergo. Our brave allies have, like our own glorious heroes, encountered the swarming numbers of the Russians. They have dis played prodigies of personal courage in the bottle-field ; but they had not to endure being served with green coffee, without means to roast or grind it; nor were they put upon half, and even quarter, rations of raw, fat pork, without any fuel to cook it ; nor were their wounded allowed to lie in the sludge without beds of any kind ; nor had they to endure such horrors of the middle passage as were re vealed for our wounded champions ; nor had they but we cannot go through the list of THE PRESS. horrors which the French escaped, and to which our soldiers have so cruelly been subjected by the scandalous neglects of Ministers in office. Well, and what is the result? Look to the evidence supplied by the colums of the most potent supporter of the Coalition. In the Times of iahullty 15th, we read from one of its bed correspOlidenti Writirim from Constantinople--- "At this monietit, the Turks are full of ad " miration at the greatness of the Western " Powers, and espritetieliv of France." Theme after recounting the "energy" shown by the latter nation, the communication states—" It "is not without something like humiliation " that an Englishman finds how small a part " his country fills in comparison with its ally, "and how universally this struggle is spoken " of by the people of the country as a war be " tween France and Russia." Surely this statement is most painful, and deserving of the most serious attention. It is more re markable, as the writer commemorates how great was the effect produced by the first ap pearance of the English in the East. It would seem, however, that owing to the evident earnestness of the Emperor NAPOLEON'S policy, and his great resources, the skill of his officers and the general effectiveness of his forces, an impressied not flattering to England, as con trasted with France, was produced at Con stantinople. But there are still later, and more mortify ing, testimonies as to the superiority of our French rivals. In the Times of yesterday (January 19th) Colonel ELVES NAPIER has published a long letter, addressed to him from Sebastopol, under date of the 28th December. Its writer is an officer, and some of his state ments are painful to our national pride, though we fear that they cannot be dis puted. Thus he writes—" The French seem " to have everything, plenty of clothing, food, " and forage ; their horses look fat and sleek, " and their commissariat mules splendid ; " they beat us in everything but fighting—both " armies know that." This is, indeed, a painful admission, but it is corroborated by a letter from an assistant-surgeon, printed in the next column of the same journal, who says—" The " French, as I think I have told you before, " beat us into fits as to arrangements and " comforts." Unfortunately, these facts cannot be gain said. Hundreds of private letters tell the same tale; and the correspondents of the various journals, differing in many things, are nearly unanimous upon the superior feeding and comforts enjoyed by the French. We know that it is asserted, on excellent autho rity, " that the French alone have an army in " the Crimea now. Our force is completely " disorganised, and in whatever is undertaken " against Sebastopol the French must have the " entire direction." Wooden houses are sent out, to arrive in January, for men who have been left to a Crimean winter through Decem ber. The whole English commissariat system has broken down for want of waggon-trains and adequate horses. The troops cannot get up their biscuit and beef, and is it expected that they can convey their wooden houses from Balaklava ? And side by side are the French, " with plenty of everything." Surely the contrast is deeply humiliating to any man with a spark of honest British pride. No na tion excels the English in method and. prac tical talent for affairs. In the difficult art of colonisation we have surpassed all the world, and yet our army exhibits this melancholy in feriority in its physical condition. And why is this the case? Its men are of the same stock as those who filled the Crystal Palace with wonders, and who have challenged the world to excel their industrial ingenuity. Many of its officers are of tried experience and courage, and how, therefore, can snch morti fying contrasts have been shown ? It is be cause a great Red-Tapist presides over our War-office, and because no military man is in the Cabinet. It is because the most im portant of Ministerial offices is given to the worse than second-rate capacity of the Duke of NEweAsnE, a politician who never pre viously discharged the duties o f any great office of the State, and whose innate medio crity of mind is patent to any one who ever passed an hour in his company„ or listened to him twaddling in the House o f Peers. SATURDAY, There are persons who will say, while sigh ing over these statements, that the French have the advantage of an old military system, and that onr English .ray is only impro vised. The a 5.1141011 StMOurs of calumny against the institutiObs of odr country. W e shall Sot here disnos tbt issues raised by that question, whish call be better treated elsewhere i but we lie (bigot's of fastening attention to the fact that tinder the vaunted. " administative power*" of the Coalition, our army and our public service have been defrauded of the honour due to them. Nay, more, there is a case proved by the ad vocates of the Coalition, that our Minis terial mismanagement has tarnished the na tional credit and sullied the fame which our combatants at Inkermann and Balaklava so gloriously supported. Our soldiership is ad mitted to have been first-rate, but of our states manship it is enough to say that ten thou sand brave men perished under the fatal rule of the destructive Duke of NEWCASTLE. Never had any country so incompetent a Minister of War. Nor can it be matter of surprise that such painful comparisons are drawn in the East between the French and the English so long as the latter perish under a War Depart ment whose administration is more calamitous than the hostility of the Emperor of all the Russias. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON'S MOTION ON EDUCATION. THE days are gone by when the education cry could be made available for the purpose of strengthening Whig power—when lingering prejudice among Conservatives of the old school, and reckless exaggeration on the part of Radical orators, acted upon and increased each other, or when the claims of religion and those of intellectual progress couli be . represented as mutually irreconcileable. We are all wiser than we were ; reformers have come to expect less, anti-reformers are ready to concede more ; both parties seem willing to treat upon fair terms, and a treaty of peace, on a durable basis, ought not to be difficult of arrangement. Iu fact, the extreme partisans of conflicting theories have retired and left the field clear. The advocates of the volun tary system, for the most part, contend, not unplausibly, against State control in educa tional matters ; to assistance given by the State they have less objection, if that can be done in such a manner as not to discourage private efforts ; nor has a fuller knowledge of the real position of the question of the frightful ignorance which still pervades large masses of our population been without its effect in leading members of this party to reconsider their views. The secularists, again, have had their trial, and failed. No discus sion could be fuller or fairer than that which took place on Mr. Fox's scheme, during the session of 1850 ; the result of which discus sion was their defeat, decisive, and probably final. At least, they themselves appear so to regard it ; for since that time, though active in criticism, they have not again produced a plan. Setting aside for a moment the argu ment from principle, it is obvious that a system of free, rate-supported, secular schools, from which all religious teaching should be excluded, cannot be made operative in Eng land. The opposition of the entire body of clergy of all denominations, and the fact that such a system ignores and undoes everything that has been accomplished up to this time in establishing the schools actually existing, are too self-evident obstacles which none but the merest dreamers can overlook. Pure voluntarism, therefore, and pure secularism are convicted of non-practicability; they cannot supply a want which the nation feels, and which all statesmen acknowledge. On the other hand, it may be safely alleged that the anti-educationists—those who argue against the teaching of the people as either unsafe, unnecessary, or impossible—have ceased to exist as a class. Individuals hero and there may cling to opinions which were common in their younger days, but their number yearly