The Press.
London, England, 1855-06-23 00:00:00

THE SEBASTOPOL COMMITTEE.

WHEN the Sebastopol Committee was first ap-
pointed, many persons supposed that nothing
could come of the inquiry. " The evidence
" would be garbled, and the report would be
" doctored," Jac ; and much to the same effect
was glibly said by the affectedly " knowing"
talkers about town. Our readers will recollect
that we never concurred with that loose and
shallow mode of thinking. We felt confident
that when a freely-selected Committee of
English Gentlemen heard the detailed evidence
given of the flagrant mismanagement of the
war that they would report accordingly. They
have done so. They have produced a Report,
guarded in expression, and cautions in accu-
sation, but most seriously damaging to the
characters of the last and present Cabinets.
The Ministry of Lord ABERDEEN a few months
since was condemned by an enormous majo
rity of the House of Commons, " and that
" verdict," said Mr. DISRAELI on Monday,
" was completely confirmed by the mature in.
" vestigations of a Select Committee, and by a
" Report such as never before was read in the
" House of Commons." And in making the
latter statement, the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman the Member for Bucks was strictly
correct.
Let us, however, not forget that but for the
help of the present Ministry the Cabinet of
Lord ABERDEEN would have been an impossi-
bility. Until all the mischief was done, the
Whigs supported the Peelites. They sanc-
tioned their mismanagement of the war, and

THE PRESS.

showed symptoms of change only when the
destruction of our troops had roused the in-
dignation of the country. Instead of rushing
in time to help a jeopardised army, Lord JOHN
RUSSELL fled from office to escape from respon-
sibility, and divest himself of the burden he
had so long endured.
No language of THE PRESS could more de-
cidedly condemn the conduct of the late and
present Ministry than this Report from the
Committee. It is not surprising that Cabinet
Ministers should be in consternation on the

issuing of such a powerful document. They
acceded to the Committee ; they con-
sented to the terms of the nation ; they
took care that extreme views at any side
should not be allowed to predominate
in its formation ; and that Committee

has condemned the Ministerial management
of the war. Under the second head of the

Report, the Committee proceeded to investi
gate the conduct of departments at home and
abroad, " whose duty it has been to administer
"to the wants of the army." Let us see what
opinion on that important question was pro-
nounced by the Committee.

" Your Committee," says the Report, " must
" express their regret that the formation of
" a large reserve at home, and also in the
" proximity of the seat of war, was not con-
" sidered at an earlier period." Over and over
again we had urged these views, but in reply
we were told of the " remarkable abilities of

" the Peelites." And, with this Report to
guide us, we admit that the Peelites ought to
be " remarkable." The Report then goes on
with its regrets—" That the Government,
" well knowing the limited numbers of the British
" army, the nature of the climate in the East,
" as well as of the Power we were to encounter,
" did not augment the ordinary means of re
" eruiting." And it then fixes the scandalous
neglect upon the non enrolment of the Militia.
On these momentous points we could hardly
have used stronger language ourselves.
These were Cabinet, not strategic, blunders
of the first magnitude. It then applies itself
to the special departments, and commences
with the Duke of NEWCASTLE. 1. He had no
separate office ; 2. Yet he undertook the
superintendence of numerous departments ;
and 3. His Grace was " imperfectly acquainted
" with the best mode of exercising his autho-
" rity over the subordinate departments." This
is strong language as to the appointed Minis-
ter of War. It then proceeds-4. " While this
" country was dismayed by reports, the
" Cabinet, according to the statement of
" Ministers, was in darkness." 5. It then says
that the Duke, " perplexed by the indiscreet
" silence of those who should have enlightened
" him, sent a commission to inquire.' That,
says the Report, was " a form of proceeding
" ill adapted to relieve the pressing wants of
" five thousand men suffering under mis
" management and neglect."
These are severe terms of censure ; and let
us observe that the Committee, so far, are not
blaming " routine " or the " system," hut par-
ticular errors of the Government. The Report
then continues to censure in detail further
proceedings of the Cabinet. It points par-
ticular attention "to the evils arising from
" the absence of the Master-General of the
" Ordnance, abundantly shown in the evi-
" dence." It specially refers in terms ofptrong
blame to the fact of the office of Sufteyor-
General having remained vacant so long, and
censures the whole Ordnance Department as
" imperfect and dilatory in its management."
On this head it must be recollected that the
Ordnance Department was clearly within the
cognisance of the Minister of War. He and
his colleagues must justly be held responsible
for not giving a head to that office during the
absence of Lord RAGLAN.
In feeling language the Report then laments
the sufferings of the soldiers from " the Trans-
" port Department at home." But the Com-
mittee professes to be unable to decide
whether the Commander-in-Chief, the Secre-
tary at War, or the Secretary of State for War,
should be held responsible. Under this
branch of inquiry the Report records " that
" the preparation of ships for the wounded
" was at first forgotten, and afterwards
" neglected." And it then gives a variety of

detail corroborating its decided censure ,
Government. To illustrate that censure
should have to cite at least one-half of
grave and most memorable document.
prefer to request attention to the first
closing paragraphs of this important
paper.

But let us again remind our readers
there never was a less partial or one-sided
Committee. The Government eonseni—
place the inquiry in its hands. It altered
body selected by Mr. ROEBUCK, and was
to abide by its own choice. It is a tribt..
constituted that has pronounced emphatically
upon the scandalous mismanagement
war. It has with perfect candour adi
certain evils incidental to " the system,
to " routine." But with great elearneF
without ambiguity, it records the cull
of the Government. On this latter
there can be no mistake. After
admitting that evils and hardships
necessarily to be expected from an expedii
sent so far away, the Report proceeds :

Your Committee, however, are of opinion that ,
avoidable suffering has been aggravated by causes
wards enumerated, end which was mainly to be attrib
to dilatory and insufficient arrangements for the supply
the army with necessaries indispensable to its healthy r
effective condition.
And in the very outset of the Report the
of clothing suffered in the early part
campaign i recorded.
After stating these painful facts the
thus proceeds, and as Sir DENIS LE MA,
read the following sentence the House
loudly :

From the middle of November that army was,
period of many weeks, reduced to a condition w
melancholy to contemplate, but which was endu,
by officers and men with a fortitude and heroism
passed in the annals of war.
But still more significant are the cot
sentences, in which the Report rises
calm and chastened eloquence. Allui
the horrible state of the sick soldiers,
that the first improvements in the condit
of the sick were due to " private suggestions,
" private exertions, and private benevolence,"
and chronicles the aid given by Mr.
PHIN OSBORNE, Mr. AUGUSTUS STAFFORD,
Hon. JOCELIN PERCY, and Mr. MACDONALI
the Times. It also mentions the admirable
" devotion of Miss NIGHTINGALE," and
brands the Cabinet in the following
words :

The Administration which ordered that expedition
no adequate information as to the amount of the '
the Crimea. They were not acquainted with the
of the fortresses to be attacked, or with the r
the country to be invaded. Not foreseeing the
of a protracted struggle, they had not provided
campaign.

What words of THE PRESS could be
than this censure ? Well, indeed,
DISRAELI say that " such a Report was
" before read in the House of Commons.'
its concluding wishes every Englishman
concur :

That every British army may in future show
which this noble army has displayed, and that
hereafter be exposed to such sufferings u are •
its pages.

THE PATRONAGE OF IN
IF the present mode of administering .
State patronage in England be unsatisfactory,
what must be thought of that pursued
respect of the patronage of India?
great attention to the interests
Whig families has been injurious to .
service here, what must be the making
bodily to the Directors and their families the
whole patronage of our Eastern empire?
Here, however grasping may be the disposi-
tion of a statesman, the claims of party must
be to a certain extent satisfied. Nor is a
Minister's reign perpetual, and when the
Opposition comes in, the stream of patronage
is necessarily diverted into other channels
But an East India Director has no party to
manage, nor, when once in the Direction, is
there any possibility of his being ousted. He
remains a Director till he dies, and in the die-

583
namimMll
of the
ure we
of this
t. We
-st and
State
rs that
Le-sided
nted to
!red the
Ls ready
)unal so
katically
t of the
dmitted
m," and
:sill, and
Ipability
✓ point
frankly
)s were
pedition.
Ist this un-
uses after-
attributed
e supply of
wealthy and
the want
.t of the
e Report
lARCHANT
3 cheered
s, during a
which it is
idured both
>ism tumor-
including
35 with a
[uding to
it recites
condition
gestions,
)volence,"
r. GODOL•
FORD, the
oONALD, Of
idmirable
id thus it
powerful
'edition had
he forces in
the strength
resources of
e probability
1 for a winter
e stronger
, did Mr.
was never
'ions." In
man must
air the valour
mat none may
e recorded in
'DIA.
[tering the
atisfactory,
pursuediou
? if a to
of certain
the public
eking over
amilies the •
•