The Press.
London, England, 1856-02-09 00:00:00

122

made before, but which now, perhaps, may be
adopted by the authorities. We must take
care, however, not to estimate the Report too
highly ; and we see in Ministerial quarters an
attempt made to extol the Cabinet on account
of this Commission. As to the state in which
the army in the Crimea was left, the Report
does nothing more than echo the conclusions
of the Sebastopol Committee ; hut, as may be
expected from inquiries conducted on the
spot, and entered upon with more experience,
the conclusions are more close and definite.
Thus, for example, the Report of the Commis-
sioners insists less on what might be called
the apparent causes of the miseries of the
army. With more professional precision the
Commissioners fix attention on the nature of
the food served out to the troops, and on this
point they make suggestions which may be of
great service hereafter in the campaigns of the
British army.

" Mesenteric" maladies—that is, diseases of
the intestines—are the torments of armies.
Why such should be the case, let physicians
reason as they may, is not so obvious. We be.
lieve that such forms of disease are more fre-
quent in English armies than in the forces of
other countries. Accustomed to the free use of
malt liquors, English troops do not soon be-
come habituated to less bulky stimulants, like
" rum," and other substitutes for " stout." it
is known that our soldiers detest soup, and it
is obvious that on a march it is the kind of
food which can be most readily prepared for
them. The Report bears strongly on the in-
crease of disease consequent upon constant
rations of salt meat and rum. It is thought
that fresh meat and vegetables would have
greatly diminished the fatal per centage of
thirty-five per cent. in the bills of mortality.
These suggestions. it is to be observed, are

entirely independent of the consideration of
the absence of the military road, for which
Lord RAGLAN was so much blamed. Yet it
appears that all the chief officers of divisions
informed the Commissioners upon the spot
that Lord RAGLAN had not enough men to
spare for making the road. The same state-
ment, upon authentic information, was made
more than once in these columns, and the lan-
guage of the Report corroborates our views.
But still, allowing for all that can be urged
upon that point, the Commissioners lay great
stress on the want of wholesome and various
food for the troops. They call attention to the
quantity of limejuice served out to the navy,
and in future we have no doubt that the army
will be supplied with that valuable aid against
disease. We are glad, also, to see it insisted
upon that the care of finding proper food for
the troops should be intrusted to a special
officer of the army, who might communicate
with the Commissariat, the medical staff, and
the purveyors.
• The Report naturally avoids the grave ques-
tion, How far the character of the Coalition
Cabinet made things worse? Common sense
shows at once that in such a Ministry there
must necessarily be. as there actually was, a
division of interest. The Whigs were jealous of
the Pcelites, and to the latter was left unaided

the conduct of the war. The " heads" of the
War-office had not the experience requisite ;
Lord HARDINGE was not a member of the
Cabinet ; and, as Mr. DISRAELT said at the time
in Parliament, there was no military mind in
the Ministry. The evils resulting from these
circumstances have been often insisted upon,
and cannot new be controverted.
In presence of the horrible state of the
army, now admitted by this Military Commis-
sion, we may be well excused from adjudicat-
ing upon the particular blame, or the amount
of it, to be laid to the charge of certain secon-
dary officers. More caution than many sup-
pose is required on that subject. But we
observe with pleasure that the Commission
testifies to the unfaltering morale of the whole
army, which was sustained in a marvellous
way, and which redounds to the honour of the
whole troops. Never was an army, officers and
men, so terribly tried, and never was more

moral fortitude displayed. The Commission
remark upon the absence of crime, and this
fact, all things considered, is extraordinary.
On the whole, we think it evident that the
Cabinet of the Coalition is convicted more

THE PRESS.

strongly than before of that " leap in the dark "
which resulted from a singular mixture of
vacillation at first, and, temerity afterwards.

LIFE PEERAGES.

THE independence of the House of Lords is se-
cured for the present. Seldom has any Govern-
ment sustained a more decisive defeat than
Lord PALMERSTON'S on Thursday night.
Their inferiority at every point was
conspicuous. But slightly apparent in Lord
GRANVILLE, who spoke with grace and ability,
it became more and more evident in each suc-
cessive speaker, till it reached its final bathos
in the Duke of ARGYLL. In the legal argu-
ment, Lord CRANWORTH was singly opposed to
four law Lords; each of whom is singly a
match for at least four Lord Cranworths ;
while the rest of their champions were utterly
routed and put to shame by the logical skill
and statesmanlike eloquence of Lords
BROUGHAM and DERBY.

The question of life peerages was argued
on the two broad principles of the Law and
the Constitution. How far these creations are
legal depends simply upon precedent and
custom—how far constitutional, upon the
generally recognised character of the House
of Lords. In regard to the first, not the most
bigoted partisan can pretend that the advo-
cates of the measure did more than establish
it doubt ; while, in regard to the second, it is
impossible to pretend even this. Ever since the
Constitution has been settled in this country
—which is the only period properly bearing on
the question—the hereditary character of the
Upper House has been indisputably con-
sidered part of it. But even if we go back
to anterior times we find that a writ of
summons invariably conveyed an hereditary
right to a seat in Parliament.
To different minds the distinction between
what is legal and what is constitutional will
assume different degrees of importance. It
was, we think, undeniably incumbent on the
law Lords to point out this distinction, while,
at the same time, we fully concur with Lord
DERBY, that it is useless to urge it at present.
Nobody, now-a-days, would dream of thrust.
ing even a legal prerogative down the throats
of the people in confessed violation of the
Constitution.

But there is one argument urged against those
who see in Life Peerages danger to the indepen-
dence of the House of Lords, which we suppose
they would call the argument from common
sense. It is certainly plausible enough, and we
have ourselves heard it from the lips of many
persons before its utterance by Lord CRA\•
WORTH. It is this, that public opinion would
never permit such an abuse of prerogative as the
swamping of the House by the wholesale issue
of life patents. This argument was exposed
and refuted in a masterly manner by Lord
DERBY. Supposing what is called a popular
measure to be passed by the Commons, and
thrown out by the Lords—the Minister who
carried it through the latter by these uncon-
stitutional means would be acting in deference
to public opinion ; and it is contrary to our
knowledge of human nature to suppose that
anything like an efficacious protest would be
raised against his conduct by those it was in-
tended to gratify. What are the reflections
that naturally arise from the Noble Earl's argu-
ment? They are these: that under such a
system, though the external form and super-
structure of the Upper House might for a
time remain, its foundations would be
gone. The first breath of popular antipathy
would level its independence with the dust.
Its true position as a salutary check on
the precipitance of popular counsels would
then be lost for ever. It would then become
indeed " a mere Court of Registry " for the
decrees of others, whether that other were
one or many—whether the Minister dictated to
the mob, or the mob dictated to the Minister.
The descendant of thirteen English earls may
be pardoned if he views such a consumma-
tion with disgust—if he wishes his posterity
to maintain the dignity of his ancestors, and
the house of Stanley to continue, as it ever
was, one of the noblest pillars of the Crown.