The Press.
London, England, 1858-08-14 00:00:00

THE PRESS, AUGUST l4, 1868.

the least. A casual representation of Sir C.
TREVELYAN'S " that Mr. ELLIOT was an excellent
officer " is put forward as an excuse for his appoint
meat. If Lord PANNIURE did select Mr. ELLIOT
on the score of merit, he has been singularly un-
fortunate in his choice; but the late Minister of
War was not in the habit of giving the plums of
his department to strangers; and it should
be remarked that he appointed ELLior after an
intimation had been made by Sir T. TROUBRIDGE,
the Director of Clothing, " that he would prefer
" of the two candidates the clever man of unim-
" peachable character to the very clever one as
" to whose private character there was some
" doubt." Was any backstairs influence brought
to bear on Lord PANMURE ? Was Mr. ELLtor
in any way indebted to the Assistant Director of
Clothing (Mr. RAMSAY) for his appointment ?
We should like the Royal Commissioners to ask
Lord PANMURE and Mr. RAMSAY a few ques-
tions on this point, t hough little, doubtless, will
be elicited from them. Non mi ricordo might
well be inscribed over the entrance of that chaos,
the War Department.
But, besides Mr. ELLIOT, there are others
who, though they may not, like him, be
amenable to the law, are still of question-
able utility to the State. Major MARVIN,
having been sent to Weedon (as chief of the
statistical branch of the War Department) for
the purpose of examining into the condi-
tion of the books there, appears to have failed
entirely to accomplish his task—no very
difficult one. Captain CAFFIN, the Director of
Stores, informed the Committee on Contracts
(Q. 7,053) that "though Captain MARVIN did
" not touch upon it in his report, still there was
" a great irregularity in the mode of keeping the
" books, in consequence of Mr. ELLIOT'S not
" having a store check distinct from the inspec-
" tion check. This irregularity was not brought
"to light by Captain MARVIN'S report." Again,
Captain CAFFIN (Q. 7,070) states, " I believe Mr.
" ELLIOT would have been suspended for incom-
-4: potence had it not been for Major MARVIN'S
" report ; that turned the scale." Mr. RAMSAY
told the Committee (Q. 8,0'26) that " Major
" MARVIN'S report was very favourable to Mr.
" ELLIOT." This report, it should be remarked,
was made in February, and in the same month
Captain 'GORDON went to Weedon to supersede
Mr. ELLIOT ; but in what a different light did he
at once see things ! lie says (Q. 7,253), " I found
" there were no books on which I could act at
" Weedon." Question 7,331 was very plainly put by
Mr. JACKSON, thus—" Weedon store has received
" a certain quantity ; Weedon has issued a cer-
tain quantity; and the difference between the
" quantity received and the quantity issued
" should be in stock. What the Committee
" want to know is, whether the books have been
" made up so as to enable you to find out whe-
" ther the quantities agree ?" Captain GORDON'S
reply is equally plain :—" 1 do not think you
" could ever get the information you require,
" because the Ordnance regulations have been
" totally disregarded at Weedon. The books
" were not kept at all. There is no means of
" knowing whether the quantity paid for has been
" received." No one, we fancy, can deny that
what Captain GORDON did discover Major
MARVIN ought to have discovered. We have
had enough, in fact a great deal too much, of
this sort of thing of late years. It is too much the
custom now to consider the interests of the
few rather than the welfare of the many.
What is to become of the British soldier ?
There must be Ministerial responsibility ; and
there can be no responsibility where there is no
punishment for maladministrators. The dis-
missal of two or three of its civil servants for
incompetence would be of more real benefit to
the State than all the promotions by merit, alias
" interest," of which we have heard so much of
late, and would make uncles think twice before
• they thrust their nephews into high places.