The Press.
London, England, 1856-12-27 00:00:00

LETTERS FROM THE WAR.

IT 18 not surprising that the appearance of
these letters should have created a sensation
in London. They are, in fact, reopening the
whole question of the responsibility for Cri-
mean mismanagement. It was not to be sup.
posed that in affairs of so vast and compli•
cared a character the whole truth could be
learned in a moment. We have now the other
side of the picture laid before us, and we are
bound injustice to regard it with equal atten•
Lion.

Lord RAGLAN, in our opinion, was the hero
of the late war. The more we read upon the
subject, the more clearly does the greatness of
his character shine through the aspersions
with which it has been loaded. Su far from
having neglected personal inspection of the
troops, he rarely allowed a day to pass without
visiting them. So far frpm being a mere mili-
tary routinist, and the man of despatches and
reports, these rare business talents were
grafted on to a courage chivalrous as NELSON'S,
and a resolution not inferior to that of his own
great master in the art of war. When we
remember that Lord RAGLAN was delibe-
rately charged with indifference to the suf-
ferings of his soldiers, and with an infe-
riority in military talents to the Generals
of the French, and note on what superficial
and hasty observations such charges have been
grounded, we naturally lose all faith in the
accusations brought against others, and begin
to entertain a suspicion that the public have
been very much misled on the whole question
of the Crimean disasters. It would he very
sad if this should turn out really to be the
case ; and if the freedom of the press, and
the ability with which the daily journals are
conducted, should have led to no better result
than the propagation of unfounded odium
against a brave and noble-hearted old man,
which probably had no small share in bring-
ing him to his grave.
On more than one occasion was Lord
RAGLAN'S opinion brought into direct collision
with that of the French commander, and on
each occasion was the superior sagacity of his
Lordship's counsels no less conspicuous than
the indomitable firmness which prompted
them. It was Lord RAGLAN who resisted all
advice to move the British army from their
position after the battle of Inkermann It was
he who urged the pursuit of the enemy after
the last-named battle and the Alma; and had
bis advice been followed, the assault on Sebas-
topol would have been renewed on the memo-
rable 18th of June, and three months addi-
tional fighting been spared to the allied army.
On the contrary, had the advice of Sir DE LACY
EVANS been adopted after the battle of Inker-
mann the consequences would have been dis-
astrous in the extreme. Yet there arc not
wanting some to extol his military qualities
above those of his late commander, and to
regret that the honour of the British arms had
not been intrusted to his keeping
The ‘• Letters from Head-quarters" are fur-
thermore remarkable, as containing some strong
reflections upon Lords Lecax and CARDIGAN.
These it is sought to turn into a charge of in-
capacity against Lord RAGLAN. If he believed
in the inefficiency of the cavalry officers, it is
said, why did he permit them to retain their
commands? There is an apparent simplicity
about this way of treating the subject which
is very plausible. Lord RAGLAN, of course, had
nothing to do but to give the word, and the
officers nominated by Government would at
once cease to command ! But what power is
vested in an English general to act in this
summary fashion? Unless some definite act
of insubordination or blundering could have
been proved against them we think it doubtful
how far Lord RAGLAN could have acted in the
way proposed. How frequent are WELLING-
TON'S complaints in his despatches of the
conduct of some of his officers, yet he did
not exercise any such arbitrary jurisdiction
as that we are alluding to. Whether Lord
RAGLAN did or did not approve ou the whole

DECEMBER 27, 1856.

of Lord CARDIGAN as a cavalry officer, we do
not believe that the retention of his rank by
that officer was any argument either one way
or the other.
We have no fear for the ultimate reputation
of Lord RAGLAN. What we do fear, are the
pernicious consequences likely to accrue to the
press if fairly detected in misrepresentations
on so momentous a topic. The freedom of the
press has been the reward of its impartiality.
But if ever the b€licf in this latter excellence
shall want, it is impossible to tell what might
be the result. If the public cease to consider it
the guardian of public interests, the days of its
influence would he numbered. We are doubt
less a long way from any such consummation
at present. But indications have not been
wanting recently of a modification in public
opinion upon this subject, which nothing is so
likely to increase as a dogged persistence in
views shown to be erroneous.