The Press.
London, England, 1855-02-10 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 10, 1855.

invisibility will be given to all the jobbers and
intriguers who enter the public service from
mercenary considerations. Corruptiouists
seeking by clandestine organisation to make
themselves powerful in the State, will then be
allowed a full licence for realising their dark
schemes. The public offices will become
sinks of jobbery, and England would be
ruled, without the publicity of a free country,
or of that vigorous unity which is one of the
palliating causes that make despbtisms tolera-
ble in certain states of society. Such are the
results certain to follow should Parliament
abdicate its functions as a court of inquiry
into the greatest official mismanagement that
has taken place in England since the time
of the Alnerican war.

On the other hand, the fact of an inquiry
taking place under the Authority of the House
of Commons will at once vivify the public
service of the country. It will quicken the
sluggards with now sense of responsibility,
and it will stimulate expiring spirits with the
animating sense that they do not toil in the
dark, but that their work is performed under
the public cognisance. In such a moment of
emergency the public service of England mnst
be taught by a conspicuous instance that
retributive inquiry, and consequent praise or
censure (as the case may be), is certain to
follow when necessity demands investigation.
The youngest man in the civil departments
ought to be taught a wholesome dread of a
Court-Parliamentary—just as the lowest pri-
vate in the army is compelled to have a dread
of a court-martial.

The pubhc out of doors, also, has a right to
have its feelings consulted in this grave case.
People have read what has been written
against Lord RAGLAN, and they have also
perused what has been offered in apology for
the infatuated 6onduct of the Duke of NEW-
CASTLE in aspiring to rule the War Department.
They desire to know exactly where the truth
lies. They begin to dread lest our leaders at
all sides are too much disposed to " stand by
their order," and screen their associates from
censure. The people of England do not want
to have "things made pleasant" for those who
have destroyed a noble army and left it in a
" horrible and heartrending condition." Nor
are these the only words of• Lord JOHN
RUSSELL that deserve particular notice, when
considering the subject of an inquiry into the
War Department.
On Thursday night Lord JOHN RUSSELL
passed a marked eulogy on Lord RAGLAN, and
hoped that " he would obtain from the country
" the respect to which he was so justly en
" titled." Now, it is certain that defamatory
reports were spread about the non-efficiency
of the Gallant Commander in the Crimea, nor
could there be much difficulty in tracing these
reports to circles in close connection with the
Aberdeen Cabinet. The late Leader of the
House of Commons, aware of all that had
passed, praises the British General, and by
doing so necessarily fastens on the War-
office in England the tremendous responsi-
bility of " the something inexplicable " in the
" horrible and heartrending" state of the army.
The remarks, also, of Lord JOHN RUSSELL upon
the " ribald press " which had vilified Lord
RAGLAN further enforce the necessity for a
stringent and conclusive inquiry, which shall
bring the whole truth before the country.
Reason and sentiment, therefore, alike con-
cur in demanding that the Committee of In-
quiry should proceed. For the future efficiency
of the public service the inquiry is required
by common sense, and, as a matter of senti-
ment, people wish to have some satisfaction
for the feelings which have been agonised by
the horrors of a starving army, without clothes
or shelter, on the bleak Crimean hills. The
authors of those horrors, or those who largely
shared in their perpetration, must be disco-
vered. They must not be allowed to escape in
secrecy; and, not only as a punishment for their
misdeeds, but as a warning for others, the in-
quiry must proceed. Never was there a ease
where it was more necessary to apply the
sound penal principle of the law, " that the
" punishment of a few should take place to in-
" fuse wholesome fear into the hearts of all!"

127

would be immeasurably inferior to the
former.

In planning an expedition the cardinal
virtue is foresight. In dealings with troops
the chief virtue of a State is good faith.
If the Mediterranean is garrisoned with irre-
movable Militia, where is our foresight? If
wo afterwards remove them to the scat of war,
where is our good faith?

SIR C. NAPIER AT THE MANSION-
HOUSE.

THOUGH the week has been fertile in events,
scarcely one of them is more important than
the speech of Sir CHARLES NAPIER at the
Mansion-house on Tuesday night. The state-
ments made by the Gallant Admiral are more
remarkable on account of the precipitate
boasting of Mr. °swim in the House of
Commons, " that no one had attacked the
"Admiralty." The Secretary is fond of trite
quotations, and, in perusing Sir CuAaLEs
NApiza's catalogue of charges against the
Admiralty, the member for Middlesex must
have recollected the proverbial caution about
not " hallooing until out of a wood." Never
was the saying more applicable than in the
present instance to the rampant and indiscreet
gentleman who spoke, amidst " ironical cheers,"
in the memorable night when the Coalition
ignominiously expiated its calamitous career.
For it is quite out of the question that Sir
CHARLES NAPIER'S speech can pass without the
most particular notice, not only from the
public at large, but from the heads of the
department so openly, clearly, and specially
accused. Sir JAMES GRAHAM treated the re-
marks of Mr. LAYARD On Admiral DUNDAS with
a silence certainly supercilious, and possibly
meant to be offensive. But it is impossible
that a convenient taciturnity can be extended
to the precise charges and pithy revelations
of Sir CHARLES NAPIER. The late Commander
of the Baltic fleet is not likely to be silenced.
In the service of the Coalition he lost his
popularity, and it is not probable that, to
please any Premier, he would now forfeit his
character by receding from the plain statement
of facts whose narration made a turtle-fed
audience gape with astonishment. Let us see
how serious is the position in which both Sir
JAMES GRAHAM and Sir CHARLES NAPIER stand
before the country ; for until this matter is
thoroughly cleared up both of these eminent
persons arc awaiting a grave verdict of im-
mense consequence to their personal reputa-
tions

In the first place, it is abundantly evident
from the statement of Sir CHARLES NAPIER,
either that the Gallant admiral was improperly
selected to command the Baltic fleet, or else
that he was urged to make an attack which his
own mature judgment (approved of after-
wards by a Council of War) did not deem
practicable. It is obvious that, until a conclu-
sion be arrived at on this plain issue, the
late Coalition Ministers will remain obnoxious
to the odious charge of having endeavoured to
bolster up their waning reputation by urging
an admiral to risk her Majesty's fleet in a
hopeless case. " I have been very much con-
" sured by the Government," said Sir CHARLES
NAPIER. " They supported the clamour
" against me," and " they perverted my lan-
" guage." Then becoming still more distinct
in his charges, he specially referred to the ex-
traordinary part which was played by the
First Lord of the Admiralty.
It seems, according to the Admiral, that Sir
JAMES GRAHAM wrote telling him to "beware of
" stone walls." The First Lord also reminded
Sir CHARLES NAPIER that he had been accused
of " want of discretion," a charge which our
readers may recollect had been actually penned
again tl the Admiral by that model of cautious
condakt, Lord JOHN RUSSELL. We can easily
imagine that the Admiral was often ember.
rassed between the bold promptings of his
native audacity (proved by deeds of fame) and
the overpowering dose of caution administered
to him by the First Lord. It appears, how-
ever, that Sir J. GRAHAM wrote a letter lauding
Sir CHARLES NAPIER as :laving behaved with