The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-05 00:00:00

THE GRHAT EXPOSURE.

(From, the Examiner.)
The key to the whole question between Lord John
Russell and Lord Aberdeen lies in the fact stated by
the former that the Premier " did not take any active
part in the direction of the war." This is certainly at
variance with Lord Aberdeen's repeated protestations,
that though no member of the Government had been
mote anxious to preserve peace, yet no one was more
devoted to the vigorous prosecution of the war ; but the
truth now revealed certainly goes far to explain the late
Premier's treatment of Lord John Russell's proposals for
the better conduct of the war. Had Lord Aberdeen's
heart been in the war, and his sympathies with our suf-
fering army, how insignificant would have been those
personal considerations which, as we have seen, alone
weighed with him. A profound indifference was obvi-
ously at the bottom of his replies to Lord John Russell's
suggestions—an indifference not extending, however, to
the Duke of Newcastle, nor beyond the fate of some
thousands of brave men, and the fortunes and honour of
the country in this great struggle..
Lord John Russell's first letter should be very care-
fully conned, for every word in it has import.
"In order to carry on that war with efficiency, Dither
the Prime Minister must be constantly urging, hastening,
completing the military preparations, or the Minister of
War must be strong enough to control other departments.
Every objection of other Ministers—tke plea of foreign
interests to be attended to, of naval preparations not
yet complete, and a thousand others, justifiable in the
separate heads of departments, must be forced to yield to
the paramount necessity of carrying ou the war with
efficiency of each service, and completeness of means to
the end in view. . . If, therefore, the first consider-
ations here presented lead to the conclusion that the
Secretary of State for the War Department must be in
the house of Commons, the latter considerations points to
the necessity of having in that office a man who, from
experience of military details, from inherent rigour of
mind, and from weight with the House of Commons, can
be expected to guide the great operations of war with
authority and success. There is only one person belonging
to the Government who combines these advantages,—my
conclusion is that before Parliament meets Lord Palmer-
ston should be intrusted with the seals of the 'War
Department.*
The alternative stated in the first instance, is thus
either that the Prime Minister must himself conduct the
business of the war, or that a Minister of War having
the requisite qualifications and weight of authority, must
be appointed in lieu of the acting Minister. As the
latter branch of the alternative is at once adopted and
urged by Lord John Russell, it is necessarily implied
that the first was wholly out of the question ; and in
this Lord Aberdeen seems tacitly to have acquiesced,
for he does not pretend to say that his own supervising
attention to the conduct of the war would dispense with
the substitution of Lord Palmerston for the Duke of
Newcastle. Mark well the reply :

" Your proposal being founded on the supposed impro-
priety of Herbert moving the Estimates, and the cones-
quoit necessity of the Secretary of State for War being in
the House of Commons, renders the removal of the Duke
of Newcastle from his present office unavoidable. But,
although you would regard this as the inevitable result of
as official arrangement, it is not to be supposed that it
would be considered in this light by the public, or, indeed,
by any impartial person. The dislocation of the Govern-
ment would be so great, and the reason assigned for it ap-
parently so inadequate, that it could only be considered as
a made of substituting one man for another. Although
you may be far from entertaining any such desire, the
transaction could receive no other interpretation. In jus-
tice to the Dnke, I do not think that his colleagues, with-
out very strong grounds, would wish to place his in such
a position."

The reason pronounced "so inadequate " fer the
change was, forsooth, nothing more or less than the
efficiency of the military service, and the completeness
of the country's means for the
vigorous prosecution of
the war. But what was this object, merely national,
compared with the position of the Duke of Newcastle,
and a dislocation of the Ministry ? Justice to the
country, justice to the brave fellows suffering in the
Crimea, these were as dust in the balance, or rather not
of the weight of dust in the balance, compared with
justice to the Duke of Newcastle.
_ _ _

Lord John Russell rejoins, and more plainly tells the
Premier that the duty he does not perform himself is
not discharged by the Minister to whom it is delegated ;
and he again urges the remedy.
" I come, therefore, having cleared the ground of all
these obstructions, to the real question, what are the re-
quirements of the great war in which we are engaged I
Setting aside all historical references, both on your part
and mine, I think it is clear either that the Prime Minis-
ter must be himself the active and moving spirit of the
whole machine, or the Minister of War must have dele-
gated authority to control departments. Neither is the
case under the present arrang,ement.
" The Cabinet has, it is true, in its recent meetings,
deco much to repair omissions ; but a Cabinet is a cum-
brous and unwieldy instrument for carrying on war. It
can furnish suggestions, or make a decison upon a measure
submitted to it, but it cannot administer. What you want,
therefore, I repeat, is a Minister of War of vigour and au-
thority. As the welfare of the empire and the success of
our present conflict are concerned, I have ne scruple in
saying so. Keep up, if you think right, as a temporary
arrangement, a Secretary at War. Make it clear that it is
temporary—that is to say, only to last till more complete
consolidation can take place ; but lot Parliament and the
country be assured that you have placed the conduct of
the war in the hands of the fittest man who can be found
for that duty."
_ _

To this Lord Aberdeen made this astounding reply,
treating the whole question as personal, which Lord
John Russell bad proposed for the interests of the ser-
vice and the successful conduct of the war :
" After all, I think your letter plainly reduces the
question to the simple issue of a personal preference, and
the substitution of one man for another. In answer to
my suggestion that some consideration was due to the
Duke on the part of his colleagues, you say that you under-
stood the Administration was founded on the principle of
doing what was best for the public service, without
re-
gard to the self-love or even the acquired position of indi-
viduals. Undoubtedly this was the case; and I fully agree
in thinking that the Duke of Newcastle would be the last
,„„ ee 41,•;.. at. .avour.
But I must observe that at tho formation of the Govern-
ment no such office as the War Department was con-
templated ; and when, subsequently, the Colonial office
was divided, no objection whatever was mails to the choice
of the War department by the Duke ; nor, as far as I am
aware up to this moment, to his management of the otfice.
Now, I think that you will admit that, althos4i another
person might perhaps have boon proferrod on the first con-
stitution of an office, it is a very different thing to displace
a man who has discharged its duties ably and honourably,
merely in the belief that another might be found still more
efficient. Undoubtedly, the public service must be the
first object ; but, in the absence of any proved defect or
alleged incapacity, I can see no sufficient reason for such a
change, which, indeed, I think is forbidden by a octal° of
justice and good faith. . . . On the whole, then, be-
lieving that any change like that proposed would be of
doubtful advantage to the public, feeling very strongly
that it would bo au act of unfairness and injustice towards
a colleague, and thinking, also, that all such changes, un-
less absolutely necessary, only tend to weaken a Govern.
could not honestly recona_
mmende o t,
mustto the repeat Que e
It is here distinctly asserted that the most efficient
man should not be preferred to the post of conducting
and
ndhonour
circum-
stances
of this great country and the interests of the whole
ci v is e d
the
rule of Lord l
world depend. For orrdeienary casessjust, that a man
who competently discharges his duties should not be
snpei
•s edod by another of superior ability ; but this war
is no ordinary case, and the application of a rule to it
applied to ordinary circumstances; shows how little Lord
Aberdeen understands the exigency and the duties be-
longing to it. The country wants the best man, the
fittest in qualifications, at the head of the War Depart-
ment, and should not be satisfied with any one in that
all-important post, while a better for the office can pos-
sibly be found.
Lord Aberdeen is not however, solitary in regarding
personal considerations as paramount to national objects.
Mark how Sir George Grey treats the question—
" The proposal (Lord John's) was made almost en the
last day of November, and it was not communicated to me
till after the notice appeared in the Ga:ette for the meetieg
of Parliament, and I confess that I considered deeply what
would be the effect if I concurred in a step by which one
of my colleagues would bo summarily ejected from an
office which ho hold, merely on the notion that an im-
provement would thereby be made in the administration
of the army."
"Merely on the notion that an improvement would
thereby be made in the administration of the army."
What words are these '! Merely that a main cause of
such disasters and disgraces as have occurred at Bala-
klava, should not hereafter occur. Merely that thou-
sands of lives should be saved. Merely that the country's
character should be maintained in the eyes of the world.
But what arc these merely humane and national objects
weighed against the susceptibilities of a ducal colleague.
And that there should be no mistake, Sir George Grey
•