The Press. — London, England, 1856-01-12 00:00:00

JANUARY 12, 1856. RICHARD of the West Riding. The house of liomanoff endorsed the bills drawn on credulity by the eminent Manchester firm of Cobden and Co. The Czar mistook the tribune for a represemative man. It is not the first tune that foreign Powers have misinterpreted the harangues of itinerent speakers for true reve lations of English opinion. Because Mr. COBDEN would not fight, the Czar conjec tured that the countrymen of CHATHAM and the compatriots of NELSON had become the serfs of the King of Calico, that they could be bound in gyves of bobbin, and that balls of cotton would be the only ammunition that they would pile in store. The Czar chuckled when he read of Mr COBDEN'S prophecy that "he could crumple up Russia," and the Czar was credulous of Mr. COBDEN'S vogue in England. Too late NICHOLAS' awoke from his fatal delusion His heart broke as the Peace Society melted into air. Mr. COBDEN may at least plume himself on having destroyed an Emperor The pamphlet would vainly attempt to defend his inconsistency. He says (p. 26) that when he talked of crumpling up, he referred only to the case of Russia acting aggressively against Europe. He was not at all, forsooth, referring to the case of a defen sive war on the part of Russia. Now, there are three reasons why this plea should not be received from Mr. COBDEN. firstly, it is most suspicious that the excuse is made so late ; secondly, Mr. COBDEN has no right to decide that the war is a defensive one on the part of Russia—all Europe knows that it was an aggressive one ; thirdly, if he knew any mode of crumpling up Russia, his knowledge ought to be available without any regard to the origin of the war. It is a puerile artifice for Mr. COBDEN to pre tend that the present war is not aggressive on the part of Russia. All parties (Mr. COBDEN has no followers) are agreed, that originally the Czar was clearly and positively aggressive. Fiance and England thought so; Lord ABER DEEN vacillated ; and Mr. COBDEN'S silly themes fortified the credulity of our demo cracy as to the ease with which Russia could be conquered, and increased the temerity of the councils in the Kremlin on the non pugnacity of England. There may be, as there has been, grave and statesmanlike dif ferences as to what should be the final point aimed at in the war, and as to when proposi tions for peace should be deliberately enter tained. But Mr. COBDEN'S assertion that the waiis not aggressive on the part of Russia is obviously a poor artifice male to give him a plea for sheltering himself from the recoil of His former asseveration—lightly made by his tribunitian tongue, but long to be remembered by the popular memory of England. The presumptuous confidence of Mr. Cos DEN is really downright indecorous Is it for hint to talk (p. 5) of " the bunglers of our day"? Mr. COBDEN talks, thinks, speaks, and writes like a transplanted American, with whom the climate of English opinion does not agree. His concluding proposal, that there should he a general reduction of moral establishments at the end of the war, " an approximate, as far as , possible, to the naval standard of the United " States," is the last proposal of his pam phlet, and ought also register finis to his career. To conclude, we cannot forget that Lord JOHN RUSSELL, while he still retained the leadership of the Whigs, referred in thttering terms to Mr. CouDEN's former pamphlet of " 1793 and 1853," in which the fallacies of the old Whig Opposition were reproduced. We should lik e t o k now w h et h er i n certa i n Minis terial circles hints were dropped that a pam phlet like " What Next . 2 " might be a most season able new year's gift to statesmen afraid to ventilate their private opinions on the war. OUR FRIENDS IN THE CRIMEA. THE beginning of a new year during a war se riously differs from the same period in times of peace. Scarcely a domestic circle can be found which has not its personal anxieties. Affection belongs to no particular class, and the toast of " our absent friends " brings to the social board the recollection of those endeared THE PRESS. kindred who in the bleak Crimea brave the hostile climate with the same unshrinking nerve as they withstood the legions of the enemy in the field. Since last year many a beloved father has perished hundreds of miles away from the household hearth. Many a son will never more be welcomed to the parental embrace ; and the once stalwart form of many a gallant spirit, the pride of his race, and the idol of his Mends, moulders by the shores of the angry Euxine For long years to come the sound of " the trenches," " the gravel-pits," "the Redan," will make manly voices falter, and bedew gentle eyes, as the thought of the youthful and gallant slain rises before the memory. It is impossible for any one to think of his friends in the Crimea without feeling the deepest sympathy for them. Though they are not starving now, like a twelvemonth since, they have great hardships to endure. There are pangs ofthe heart, achingly felt by those who suffer from the home sickness. For two desperate campaigns they have fought the good fight, and never flinched in the roar of the battle, or while pestilence stalked through the camp. But some of them may waver as they ask themselves, " Do those at " home care about us, and think of us, save " now and again? Perhaps, if thought of at " all, it is only as helping to contribute to the " appetite for emotional excitement? They " look at our pictures, they read public corre " spondence about us, and retail our Crimean " gossip ; but, possibly, there it all ends." No! It is not thus. " Our fellows in the " Crimea, and safe home to them !" is the frequent aspiration of domestic England. Often and often are their hardihood and their sufferings talked of and extolled. Let our military friends be assured that none at home underrate what they are enduring this winter. In Spain, in Italy, or in Mid-Europe, or in high latitudes, winter quarters are irk some to men of martial temperament ; but a Crimean winter, when little is stirring, save the wrath of the elements, when frost, rain, and wind, make an alliance, is enough to dispirit the most aspiring heart. It is in such moments that the thought of being forgotten, or not cared about, freezes it soldier's better feelings. A soldier, officer or private, does not show his emotions like a civilian ; but he can feel the pang of neglect or carelessness just as keenly. Heartiness is a soldier's characteristic, and the want of it amongst his friends or kindred is always felt by men who quit the paths of lucre to follow those which lead to glory But let them be well assured that, so far from being not thought of, their position swallows up many other public and private considerations. We know what they are braving, and while we glory in their chivalry we feel for their privations. The holly, and ivy, and misletoe are not for them to see as is usual in an English Christmas tune ; but fame, nut fancy, invests our countrymen in the Crimea with evergreen crowns of laurels. We only sigh till the hour of " Welcome home " shall be rang out by many a cheery voice to the brave defenders of their country's name. May . the God of Battles shield them by His Provi dence, and be pleased to give the victory to our combatants ! This is the ardent prayer poured forth from the purest and best heart s in England; and we devoutly hope that it will be heard, and that our affection for our absent heroes will be gratified by seeing them return to receive the public honours which they nobly have deserved. MILITARY EDUCATION. How far is it expedient that an officer should be highly born ? To what extent is it neces sary that he should be highly educated? These are the two heads under which we propose to consider the subject before us. Not that the former, perhaps, strictly belongs to it, but, as it is constantly dragged into the discussion, we shall take this opportunity of stating our views upon the question. Some writers make altogether light of the claims of blood. What has the accident of 27 birth to do with a man's merits? Do we choose our lawyer or our doctor because he is of a good family ? Why is not Smith of Cam berwell us good a man as Too nley of Townley ? This is the kind of plausible appeal to which for the last twelvemonth we have been com pelled to listen. Let us repeat the argu ment. We do not choose a lawyer or a doctor because he is a man of good family ; therefore we ought not to make a man an officer be cause he is of a good family. Here, however, there is only one premiss, and every logical proposition requires, we know, two. Let us supply the major; the syllogism will then stand thus, and the fallacy be at once appa rent :—Nothing which is not a good grow.d for choosing a doctor or lawyer, is a good ground for choosing an officer. Birth is not a good ground for choosing a lawyer or doctor; therefore birth is not a good ground for choosing an officer. The major premiss is, of course, utterly false ; but it is, nevertheless, the only one that will warrant the conclusion drawn. The whole argument, indeed, is just about us valid as if we should say that a man who does not choose his cook because she has blue eyes, ought not, therefore, to choose his wife because she has blue eyes ; the truth being that these are essential to neither, but that, whereas we choose the one for qualities with which blue eyes have no concern whatso ever, we choose the other for qualities with which they have a great deal. The ignoring of this distinction—the assumption that be cause two things agree in certain negative qua lities, they agree also in positive ones—is a most seductive fallacy, and one of the most fertile sources of human error. But, in order to be satisfied that the analogy is correct, we must ascertain, not why a man doesn't choo;:e a lawyer, but why he does. In the two professions of law and medicine, a man is sought after for qualities which any person may, in the main, acquire for himself. Learning, and t-xper:ence teaching him how to use that learning, are the two possessions we desiderate in a physi cian or an advocate. But the case of the army is widely different. It is a pro fession in which the exercise of a certain moral power is imperatively demanded ; one in which a man's real character is con stantly before the eyes of those whom it is his duty to influence. It is not enough for an officer to be a master of military science, if he is not one whom his soldiers respect. Kindheartedness, suavity mingle:l with deci sion, abstinence from the habitual practice of degrading vices, and freedom, generally, from anything approaching what is sordid or mean, are only some of the qualities which are more decidedly necessary to the formation of a good officer than any amount of mathematicul or engineering knowledge. Now, we are not going to insult our readers by contending that these said virtues are to be found in great% r perfection in the higher classes than in tl.e lower or middle. But we do contend that ho who has all his life been accustomed to have servants under him, to know that many eyes are upon him, to practise those hundred little nameless acts of self-restraint in their pre sence which every gentleman does practise, to feel that obedience is a matter of course, neither to be enforced by severity nor coaxed by indulgence, to whom command is no novelty, and, consequently, no temptation— mat such a man is, a priori, better fitted to command soldiers, and especially British soldiers, than one who has not had these idvantages; and that the higher you ascend in the scale of society, the more are these advantages diffused. The Marshals of NAPC LEON, it is said, were roturiers, yet they were at least as good men of wain as those of Lot. s XIV. It may be so. But it is odd that tl e Marshals of the Empire were beaten by every English General with whom they came in contact, while every English General, except MARLBOROUGH, was beaten by those • f the Monarchy. And it is only necessary to dance at any memoirs of the Empire to ob serve the scandalous! corruption and instil - ordination of these celebrated Marshals. To say that BI.UCHER and SUWARROW were coal' e is really very futile. Will any one say tit, t gentlemen, as a rule, are coarser than other people? and if he does not say this, he