The Press.
London, England, 1854-10-28 00:00:00

OCTOBER 28, 1854.

been longer endured, but when the capacity '
of the Duke of NEWCASTLE was distrusted,
and when a desire for a thoroughly new
system was manifested, people were surprised
at the clumsy method in which partial changes
were effected. Rival vanities amongst the
incoherent sections of the Cabinet compelled
the awkward compromise that now exists in
our War Department which is really more
anamalous than ever.
But these things have long been patent,
and a portion of the article in the Edinburgh
is stale, as its views have been more or less
anticipated. What is really remarkable is,
the fatal candour of some of its confessions
against the Coalition. We have not hung
back from indicating in our columns the
various errors that have marked the am-
biguous policy and tardy resolves of the
present Cabinet; but we never made more
severe strictures on the Ministry than the
Edinburgh has (perhaps unwittingly) here
published. After recording the fact that, "in
" January of the present year, the hope of
0‘ maintaining peace in Europe waxed faint,"
the article goes on to enumerate some of " the
e• grave errors committed in organising" the
expeditionary army. It says that it was
" mere pedantry" to fix the standard of field
battalions first at 800, and then at 1,000 men,
and that it was " a military blunder" to in-
vite volunteers for the purpose of raising
these battalions to the foregoing numbers.
It argues at length that the internal condition
of our regiments became disjointed, and that
there was not that closeness of union which
is desirable between our regimental officers
and their newly-joined volunteers.
We shall not stay here to discuss " the
pedantry" or the " military blunder" of the
conduct animadverted upon. We desire to
fix the attention of our readers on the follow-
ing most remarkable confession from so in-
fluential an organ as the Edinburgh Review:—
We have not disguised or sought to explain away errors
like these, because they admit neither of explanation nor
of palliative. They are such as the great duke would not
have tolerated under any circumstances whatever, and of
which the effects—if the war lasts—will surely be felt.
Yet we believe that we can account for them. It was hoped
that the Czar might take fright at the first display of vigour
on the part of England and France; and that possibly the ez•
pedition might never pass beyond Malta, its first stage to-
wards Turkey. And so, with a view to economy, measures
were adopted which produced indeed a respectable force, but
which, in saving the outlay that accompanies an accumu-
lation of battalions and of brigades, dislocated the former,
and left the latter without the smallest p►ospect of adequate
o.ipport.

Here we have a most important series of
damaging admissions. In the confession
that it was hoped the Czar would take
4' fright " we have the candid acknowledgment
that, at a grave European crisis, a portion of
the Cabinet, if not the whole of it, was in
favour of what the PRESS designated at the
time as the blank-cartridge policy. We then
indicated the evils certain to result, at home
and abroad, from such an illusive and merely
make-believe course. For doing so we were
called " factious " at the time ; but we have
now the strong circumstantial evidence of the
Edinburgh Review that only sham hostility was
the policy followed at a momentous period
when genuine vigour was urgently required.
Next we have the admission that " it was
" hoped that the expedition would never pass
" beyond Malta" ! What foresight marked
the councils of such a Cabinet ! What saga-
cious discernment of coming events, what
profound knowledge of Europe and its actual
emergencies, were displayed by men who,
while Russia was organising and fortifying,
imagined that it would not be necessary for
"the handful of troops" to go beyond Malta!
So much for the prescient wisdom of the
Aberdeen section of the Cabinet, for we are
not without surmises that portions of this
article in the Edinburgh are calculated to
ncocher against some of the Coalitionists. Be
that as it may, we have sincerely to express
our obligations to the Edinburgh for having
added to our stock of ammunition ; and when
such heavy shot is placed by the Whigs in our
hands it would unpardonable not to use it.
The Edinburgh also substantiates the
charges which the PRESS has repeatedly
made upon the Commissariat Department,
more especially under the cognisance of
the civilian Secretaries " of" and "at" War.