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

THE GREAT EXPOSURE.

(From tice Examiner.)
The key to the whole questiok between Lord John
Russell and Lord Aberdeen lies in the fact stated by
theollrut—tht 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
more 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, sum- beyond the fate of some
thousands of brave men, and the fortunes and honour of
the country in this great struggle. •
Lord John Rursell'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, either
the Prime Minister must be constantly urging, hastening,
completing the military preparations, or the Minister of
War must bo strong enough to control other departments.
Every objection of other Ministers—the plea of foreign
,
interests
to be attended to, of naval preparations nut
yet complete, and a thousand others, justifiable in .the
separate heads of departments, must be forced to yield to
the paramount necessity of carrying en 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 vigour of
mind, and from weight with the House of Commons, can
bo 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 conse-
quent necessity of the Secretary of State for War beino• in
the House of Commons, renders the removal of the Dukeb
of Newcastle from his present office unavoidable. But,
although you wouldregard this as the inevitable result 'of
an 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 bo considered us
a mode of substituting ono 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 Duko, I do not think that his colleagues, with-
out very strong grounds, would wish to place him in such
a position."

The reason pronounced "so inadequate " for the
change tva,, forsooth, nothing more or less than the
efficiency of the military Rrvice, and the completeness
of the country's means for the vigorous prosecution of
the war. Bet what was this object, merely national,
compared with the position of the Duke of Newcastle, •
and a dislocation of the Ministry? Justice to the
conitry, 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 tho real question, what are the re-
quirements of the great war in which we are engaged
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 arrangement.
" The Cabinet has, it is true, in its recent meetings,
done 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 no 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 let 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 had 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 duo to the
Duke on the part of his colleagues, you say that you under-
stood the Administration was founded ou 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 ease; and I fully agree
in thinking that the Dike of Newcastle would be the last
man to wish for any exception to this rule in his .favour.
But I must observe that at the 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 mad* to the choice
of the War departmeat by the Duke; nor, as far as I am
aware np to this moment, to his management of the office.
Now, I think that yon will admit that, although another
person might perhaps have been preferred 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 senseboef
justice and good faith. . . . On the whole,o then,
be of-
lieving that any change likeptuhbaltio,prforlisnegd.
doubttul advantage to the vweryuldstrongly
that it would be an act of unfairness and injustice towards
to weaken a
a colleague, and thinking, also, that all such changes, un-
less obsoletely necessary, only tend _
Govern-
ment, I must repaid that I could not honestly recom-
mend it to the Queen." I
It is here distinctly asserted that the most efficient
man should net be preferred to the post of conducting
the war, on the issue of which the fortunes and honour
of this great country and the interests of the whole
civilised world depend. For ordinary cases and circum-
stances the rule of Lord A.berneen is just, that a man
who competently discharges his duties should not be
superseded 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 tbat
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.
Mack how Sir George Grey treats the question—
" the Proposal (Lord John's) was made almost on the
last day of November, and it was hot communicated to me
till after thu notice appeared iu the Uu.:(tte for the meet it g
of Parliament and 1 confess that I considered declO‘y what
could be the effect if I concurred in a step by which one
°f my colleagues would be summarily ejected 'rem an
office which he held, merely on the notion that au 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 tinily."
What words are these t 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 are these merely humane and national objects
weighed against the susceptibilities of a ducal colleague.
1 And that there should be no mistake, Sir George Grey

In the second of our own letters from the Crimea which
we published on Saturday an explanation was offered of a
cireamstanee which had been noticed in our previous com-
munications from the camp, and which had been made the
subject!of souse remarks at home. It had been observed
that the Commander-in-Chief rarely showed himself to the
troops, except in tine of action, and that the soldiers re-
maiued without that personal acquaintance with their
General which they naturally desire. Our correspondent,
in recurring to the fact, represented this practice at head•
quarters as pursued epon.principle, and as being defended
by the system, constitution, and usages of the British ser-
vice. The dicers in immediate attendance on Lord Rag-
lan—that is to say his personal staff—are said to maintain
that this species of treatment is most suitable to the cha•
racter of English soldiers, and that the discipline of the
army is best preserved when the General is invested with
the attributes of unapproachable superiority.
We do-not stop to remark upon the inoidental marmot-, • .
tion here given to the fact itself, which in one or two guar•
tors there appeared some disposition to question but we
must express our opinion that such views, if really enter-
tamed, proceed upon principles entirely mistaken. Wed.
net deny that the usages of the military s:rvice, as main-
tained in peaoe, providing- as they do so strong a line of
demarcation between the officer and the soldier, might
naturally suggest the idea of an immeasurable distance be-
tween the soldier and the General ; but these usages, as
we already learn, are not applicable to the realities of war.
If the question fell within the scope of such kind of argu-
ment we might reasonably inquire what y cc aliarities could
render the British soldier so different a 1 °lug from
those of all other times and countries; -but we are per-
fectly convinced that no such difference exists, and the
simple proof of the fact is to be found in the circum-
stance, that when this system has been pursued as at
present in the Crimea, and in the last war under Welling-
ton, it was always rim:lorded as matter of complaint. In
this respect the Duke of Wellington's practice supplies
rather a warning than an example. It is one of the few
drawbacks on the military character of that great com-
mander that he failed in conciliating the affection of his
troops, nor could anything short of that unbounded con•
fidence with which he inspired them have stood him suffi-
ciently in stead. .
We may go, however, a step further, and observe that,
if there is a single officer in the army who could afford,
without risk of depreciating his dignity, to maintain this
species of personal communication with his troops, that
man is Lord Raglan. His known steadiness of feeling, his
perfect self-posse sdon and control, his long habituation to
command, and even his official tendency to reserve, all
combine to produce a character entirely beyond the
reach of impertinent familiarity or disrespectful ur-
goecy. We recollect, indeed, that during the stay of
the army in Bulgaria anecdotes were related for public
edification of the easy tact with which his Lordship re-
pelled or eluded any intrusive attempt to acquire his con-
fidence; nor can we think it credible that by any frequency
or dire3tuess of intercourse with the various branches of
the ermy ho could have exposed himself to the slightest
loss of influence or position. And, even if this case were
less clear than it is, it may surely be thought that the ex-
traordinary sufferings of the army and the emergency of
the conjuncture were enough to justify any breach of tra-
ditional punctilio.
For the rest, notwithstanding the information afforded
by the correspondence now arriving more frequently than
formerly from the scene of War, we look in vain for any
adequate explanation of the misfortunes which have oc•
currod, nor can there now, we should think, be any ques-
tion about the necessity of the inquiry which has been
' resolved upon. Those who charge upon the system rather
than upon individuals the miscarriage of our efforts shay
certainly gather some justification of their opinions from
the very universality of the evil.—Times.

TIIE DOCK COMPANIES OF LONDON.

The river Thames is called in legal documents "Her
Majesty's Pelt of London." It is, therefore; a national
property. The Queen is in the position of the collective
nation. An attempt is being made which, if successful,
wiil have the effect of making the Thames " The Dock
Companies' Port of London." It is this which elevates
the opposition male by the wharves to the movement in
contemplation by the Docks out of the position ohs
mere private squabble between contending interests.
It is really a national question. The Docks made a bar-
gain with the nation. Give us peril-I;2.am' to use a porl
tion of your great water-way,- and-we will racompesitie
you by arrangements which will greatly facilitate cotn-
mercial operations. The nation gave the permission,
but at the same time made express stipulation that not
one single privilege which they possessed as the real
owners of the great water-way should be given up. The
portion of the river in the Docks was still to be consi-
dered as a part of " her Majesty's Part," and as such
subject to all the rules and regulations to which the
remainder of the river is submitted.
Have the Docks made a bad bargain ? Certainly not,
as we shall presently show. The Duck shares are con-
sidered at the present moment one of the best invest-
ments for money. East and West India Dock stock
was in January, 1841, at 96 ; in 1853 the same stock
was :old at 170. London Dock shares rose in the same

period from 67 t 3 128 i. St. Katharine's Dock shame

experienced a rise from 951 to 100. In the same period
the dividends of the East and West India Dock Com•

psny experienced a rise of 4, per cent., those of the
London Docks a rise of 2 per-cent. The business of the
St. Katharine's Dock Company had increased 23 per
cent. during the ten years ending in 1853.
The Dock Companies, then, have made a good bar-
gain. They have created colossal fortunes for the
shareholders, by means of the privileges granted them.
If they could show that they had made a miscal-
culation, that the great expense of the works which
they have erected for the accommodation of the
public has diminished their dividends, and that.
therefore, some modifications of the conditions to
which they agreed is necessary, something might be
urged in their favour. But i,i the full blush of their
prosperity they come forward and say, we must have not
only the use of the river Thames, but a property in it.
We consented, when we obtained our deeds of incorpora-
tion, that the Rater in our docks should be considered a
T art of the pert of London, but we desire to be freed
from that stipulation. We have made a great deal of
money ; we want to make more. And to do this, we
want to levy a tax which neither the Government nor
the Corporation of London have ever thought of levy-
ing. We must have the right of imposing a tax upon
all lightermen who float their lighters upon that portion
of the Thames inside our docks, although the great con•
dition upon which our deeds of incorporation were
granted was that we should not impose such a tax. Al-
though lightermen, presuming on the privilege so jea-
lously preserved to them in all Acts of Parliament rela-
tive to this subject, have, ever since the construction of
the docks, removed the goods of their customers from
vessels in dock, without charge, to wharves chosen
by the consignees of goods themselves, we wish this
privi!ege to be abolished. We want, in fact, to fine
merchants fer landing goods on any other wharves than
our own, although we admit that the only way:to get,
to our wharves is by the means of that public highway
which we have pledged ourselves to respect.
It becomes, then, as we have raid, a question of na.
tienal interest to decide whether the Docks shall be per-
mitted to rescind the solemn agreement they formerly
made. The Dock Companies are great wharfingers.
Their object is to be the only wharfingers. If they sue-
ceed in their object every merchant wanting to use a
private wharf will have to pay the Dock Companies a
toll, if the vessel, of the cargo of which he has a frac-
tional share, happens to lie in the docks. Let it be re-
membered that the vessel has already paid all those dock
dues which are claimed as being necessary to repay the
company for its pecuniary investment.
A. consignee having only a fractional interest in a
cargo can,
of course, make no terms as to where the
vessel containing it shall discharge. The vessel is met
on its entrance into the Thames by touters on steam
tugs belonging to the Dock Companies, who offer the
skipper all kinds of adiantages, if he will make use of
the docks ; or, perhaps, a large portion of the cargo
may be consigned to a merchant who has a share in one
of the docks. and has made a, stipulation that the goods
shall be landed from the dock in which he has an interest.
In this case all the other consignees, or at least such
portion of them as wished to have their goods landed
elsewhere, will have to pay the company for permission
to do so. They can only avoid the tax by using the
dock wharves. It is quite clear that Bich a process will
confine the monopoly to the docks, and give them the
exclusive use of the Thames. The rights of the Crown
and the Corporation will thus be practically infringed
upon, and the trade of the port will be extinguished
under the blighting influence of monopoly.—Daily e"

It appears that the total dumber of merchant vessels
of all classes up by the Government fur war pur.
e
tones; tll7e si
baeveenra2goe6,coafolfl76a;:t6;
tons,
at almost"tri eeenlsaenolfatl2l3:4:lt.,3o:o::
tons. In this total the number of sailing ships is 105,
nd
of aggregate burden of 91,02%5 tons, the largest being
the Herefordshire,
Conelza of 521 tons. Of .team-ships the slumber is 101,
of an aggregate burden of 11 4,302 tons, 66 having been
fu:n;slied by p r vate individuals
and
n 5 b y ui) ed
(. r
scompan
companies.ies ss
et
~cinlinZig"gthwe'foirecu°nertrtle acitri d 3
largest was the Prince, of 2,691
tons ; but the largest siow are the J:ocn and the Golden
Fleece, of 2,500 tons each. The smallest is the Esk, of
359 tons. The ships furnished by the subsidised, own-
panics are 10 by the Peninsular and Oriental,-'of an ag-
gregate burden of 17,020 tons; 6 by the Royal Mail
Steam, of 12,343 tons ; 4 by the African Steam, of
4,008 tons ; 12 by the Cunard Company, of 13,185 tons;
and 3 by the Liverpool South American Company, of
5,007 tons. The largest of these mail packets is the
Himalaya, of 3,550 tons, now a Queen's ship ; and the
smallest is the Rajah of 500 tons.

- .
~.......-----------
SEEK SITUATIONS
k TO-AIORROW
..-7 MORNING in the LABOUR LIST and UNIVERSAL GA-
Z!...TrE of EMPLOYMEN r, price 2d., post-free 4d.
Every situation offered in any part of the kinsdorn
pr , d
is faith-
Previous three days, and lip to the hour of going to ess,
fully gazetted in each number.
Published every Tuesday and Friday morning ; 4,0 A vacancies
Offered weekly.
London :E. Shelton, 69, Fleet-street, and all tooksellera.
.......

DRURY-LANE.—Le3see, Mr. E. T. Smith.—
Reduced Prices as useal.—A Morning Perfeinance every
Wednesday. at Two o'clock.
TELLS EVENING. FEB. 5.

Will he performed MARIE IIIE PEARL OF S kVOY. Charac-
ters by Messrs A. Y..unge, Belton, Belford, Lingham, Worrell, and
Wa'ton ; Misses Marriott, Arden, Love, and Mrs. Selby.
To conclude with the Pantomime of JACK and JILL.