The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-29 00:00:00

E. MOSES and SON are

merchant T•ilors, Clothiers, Flatters, tioslerv, shirt Mannfac-
,trers. Bo Aand Shoemakers, and General Outfitters for Ladies and
i tleme n
CA UTION. —E. VOSES and Cox beg to state they have no connexion
with any other house In or out of London, exceprc their own Esta-
rdishment,, as follow :
London City Establishment, corner of the Mitt ories, and Aldgate
(opposite th. church).
London West-end Branch, New Oxford-street, corner of Hart
street.
Country Branches—Sheffield and Ttradford, Ye .rkshire.
Colonial Wh desale Branch—Melbourne, Aust mint.
The establishments Eve closed from sun et on r ridays till sunset on
Saturdays, when business is resumed till 12 o' clock.
IMPORTANT. --Should any article not Oyes satin laetrni it will be ex-
changed or, It preferred, the money returned wi Clout hesitation. All
gods are marked in olain figures, the lowest pl ice, from which no
abatement can be made.
A New Book, with lists of prices, system of self-measurement,
aril other in'ormation, may be had on applicatio; 1, or post free. "
An Illustrated Almanac for 1855:gratis, on apol ic.Von, or post free

Id on parte Francais. I Qui si pa rla Italiano.
Ilier sorlcht man Deutsch. Aqua ah .abla Espagnol.

THE MINISTER OF WAR IN THE
ABERDEEN ADMINISTRATION.

The following correspondence is published as an ap-
,endix to the 4th report of the Sebastopol Committee :
(Letter from Lord John Russell to Lord Aberdeen.)
Pembroke-lodge, Nov. 17, 1854..
My dear Lord Aberdcen,—l said the other day that I
would speak to you upon the subject of the personal arrange-
nents connected ws Ii the War Department ; I believe,
sowever, I can put the matter more clearly in writing.
I will treat the subject in its two points of view :—First,
is to the official airangetnents for the new department,
.vith a view to the general efficiency of the public service ;
secondly, as to the immediate requirements of the great
war in which we are engaged.
In the first point of view, I have already said that I do
lot think a Secretary at War can be maintained together
vith a Secretary of State for War. Sidney Herbert has,
i❑ the fairest and handsomest manner, said nearly the
same thing.
I have also told you, however, that I do not think the
war estimates ought to be brought forward in the House of
Jommons by a person of rank and position inferior to a
secretary at War. Itis of great importance, when questions
relating to the discipline or promotion, favour or punish-
ment, of officers and s -diners are brought forward in the
-louse of Commons to have a Privy Councillor or Minister,
either in the Cabinet or next in rank to the Cabinet, to
Atisfy the House of Commons upon points which are deter-
mined by military officers sitting at the Horse Guards.
But, even supposing that in time of peace, with a man of
he high authority of the Duke of Wellington Commander
in-Chlef, an Under-Secretary of State might suffice for the
douse of Commons, Such is not the present state of affairs.
Every new arrangement will be sharply criticised ; there
are several men in the House of Commons who are well

justified to lead the opinions of the house upon matters of
nilitary administration; authority and experience and high
,)fficial rank are therefore required in the organ of the Go-
vernment on military affairs.
The discussions which have taken place in the public
press upon the discipline of the army lead to the same
conclusion. A Cabinet Minister, strong in public support,
,s required to encounter objections to our present modes
,f trial for military offences, and, if necessary, to improve
hose modes.

I come, therefore, on this head, to the conclusion that
he Secretary of State for the War Department must be in
he House of Commons.

From the other point of view the prospect is equally
clear.

We are in the midst of a great war. In order to carry
on that war with efficiency, either the Prime Minister
oust be constantly urging, hastening, completing the mili-
,,ary preparations, or the Minister of War must be strong
enough to control other departments. Every objection of
Aher Ministers, the plea of foreign interests to be attended
to, of naval preparations not yet complete, and a thousand
,thers, justifiable in the separate heads of departments,
oust be forced to yield to the paramount necessity of car-
rying on the war with efficiency of each service and com-
pleteness of means to the end in view.
This great duty may be performed, as I have said, either
by the Prime Minister or a Minister acting in a department.
We have examples of both :—Lord Godolphin, in the first
way, supported the campaiins of Marlborough ; Lord
Chatham, in the other, guided the operations of the Seven
Years' War.
In the present case it seems to me that the last example
is the most applicable.
If, therefor e, the first consi 'orations here presented lead
to the conclusion that the Secretary of State for the War
Departmient must be in the house of Commons, the latter
considerations point to the necessity of having in that office
a man who, from experience of military details, from in-
herent vigour of mind, and from weiAht with the House of
Commons, can be expected to guide the great operations of
war with adthority and success.
• There is only one person belonging to the Government
who comb nes these advantages.
My conclusion is that, before Parliament meets, Lord
Palmerston should be intruved with the seals of the War
Department. With respect to other arrangements, I can
feel no doubt that your influence with your colleagues
would induce them to acquiesce in such a distribution of
offices as you might think most advantageous for the
Crown and the country.

I remain, my dear Lord Aberdeen, yours very truly,

J. Ii,USSELL.

(Letter from Lord Aberdeen to Lord John Russell.)
hlackheath, Nov. 18, 1854.
My dear Lord John,—The letter which I received from
you yesterday, just before the meeting of the Cabinet,
contained a proposal so unexpected, and which may have
such important consequences, that you will not be surprised
if I am unable, at the first moment, to express a decided
opinion. But, as any suggestion made by you deserves
the best attention, and as you do not call for a❑ immediate
answer, I will give the subject the most mature considera-
tion, and will let you know the opinion I may form.
Ever truly yours, ABERDEEN,

(Letter from Lord John Russell to Lord Aberdeen.)
Council-office, Nev. 15, 1.851,

My dear Lord Aberdeen, --I did not expect any imme-
diate answer to my letter of yesterday, and I think it quite
right that you should have titne to reflect.
I -ivish, however, that before you decide you should
show my letter to the Duke of Newe7stle. It was my in-
tention, in waiting the letter, to avoid throwing any blau, e
upon him; indeed I think he deserves vary great credit
for the exertions he has made; but he has n.,t had the
authority requisite for so groat a sphere, and has not been
able to do all that might have been done with larger
powers of control. I remain yours very truly,
J. RUSSELL.

(Letter from Lord Aberdeen to Lord J. Russell )
Downing-street, Nov. 21, 1854.
My dear Lord John,—l have shown your ietter to the
Duke of Newcastle, and also to Si. iney Herbert. They both,
as might have been expected, strongly urged me to adopt
any such arrangement with respect to their offices as should
he thought most conducive to the public service. Unques-
tionably this is the first object ; but, on full consideration,
I entertain great doubt whether, in the present state of
affairs, your proposal would prove advantageous or desir-
able. It is mainly founded on the assumption that Her-
bert ought not to move the estimates next session in the
House of Commons. Now, I fully agree with you in
thinking that the office of Secretary at War, as at present
constituted, causot be maintained, together with a Secre-
tary of State for the War Department. It is also perfectly
true that Herbert expressed a similar opinion in the House
of Commons; but I think he spoke of this as a permanent
arrangement, and that he offered to continue his own ser-
vices as long as they could be useful, especially with refer-
ence to the duration of the war.
It is quite clear that an Under-Secretary of State could
not with any degree of propriety move the estimates ; but,
looking at the present st rte of things as temporary. I do not
see why a Privy Councillor's office should not i❑ future be
constituted, charged with all the financial concerns of the
army, and who might very properly move the es, imates. If
this should not be the case, your proposil would involve
the absolute necessity of the Secretary of State for War
always being a member of the House of Commons. This,
[think, would be objectionable in principle, and might be

,nconvenient in practice.
I can scarcely imagine that the House of Commons, being
assured of the temporary nature (f the present arrange-
ment, would insist on the suppression of the War office in
the first year of a war, bringing greatly increased labours
and responsibility. In the meantime, therefore, and until
a final arrangement shall tyke place, Herbert might con-
tinue to move the estimates, and I should think that he
would do so with the acceptance of the house, in which, I
believe, heis deservedly popular, and likely to find favour.
Your proposal being founded on the supposed impropriety
of Herbert moving the estimates, and the consequent neces-
sity of the Secretary of State for War being in the House
of Commons would render the removal of the Duke of
Newcastle from his present office unavoidable ; but al-
though you would regard 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 be considered as
a mode of substituting one man for another. Although you
may be fir from entertaining any such desire, the transac-
tion could receive no other interpretation. In justice to
the Duke, I do not think that his colleagues, without very
strong grounds, would wish to place him in such a position.
Now, with respect to Lord Palmerston, I do not know
whether be is aware of the burden you are disposed to lay
upon him? but, if not, I should greatly doubt his incline-
' Moe to undertake it. Palmerston, within a few months,
is as old as I am ; and, without disparaging his inherent
vigour of mind, be possesses no immunity from the effects
of age. When I look at the laborious and complicated
duties discharged by the Duke of Newcastle and by Her-
ber,%, and anticipate others which must shortly be added to
them:, I fear that I could not honestly advise the Queen t )
intrust Palmerston, or any other man, with so great a re-
sponsibility.
I said in my former letter that your proposal was unex-
pected by me, because my strong impression hai been,
from various conversations, that you greatly preferred the
nomination of the Duke of Newcastle to the War Depart-
ment instead of Palmerston, which had been canvassed at
the time in the press and in the House of Commons. But
I suppose that I must have been mistaken in this respect.
It is useless, however, to enter into the qualifications of
different men, for, as I do not perceive the immediate ne-
ceisity for the abolition of Herbert's office and the extinc-
tion of his functions, I cannot consider the proposed
:hang° as imperatively called for.
a o not know that we gain much by a reference to the
time,; of Lord Godolphin or Lord Chatham. Godolphin,
as Prime Minister, undoubtedly gave great assistance to
the D eke of Marlborough in the War of Succession, and
Chrathrim, as the head of a :department, may almost exclu•
sively have originated the war measures of the Govern-
ment. It would be a,b,urd if I wero to pretend to take any
acti vo pi,rt in the preparation of military details, or
the elirection of military measures, which I can only very
hu ably asa,;st and promote. But, after all, instead of re-
ferring to those old times,
es, perhaps it is more to the pur-
pose to recollect that in our own day the greatest, the most
glorious, and b;,' far the most successful war ever carried
on by this country was directed by Lord Castlereagh and
Lord Bathurst, under the superintendence of a Miuister
who, was certainly not very warlike in his character, al-
tho ugh lie lived to see his threatened march to Paris car-
rie d into effect. During the last years of this great struggle
th e War Minister was in the House of Lords, while Pal-
m erston, as Secretary at War, although not in the Cabi-
n, et, moved the estimates in the House of Commons.—
I ;ver, my dear Lord John, sincerely yours,
ABERDEEN.

(Letter from Lord Russell to Lord Aberdeen.)
Chesharn-place, Nov. 23, 1851.
My dear Lord Aberdeen,—l have just received your
answer to my letter of the 17th. I have not hitherto spoken
Palmerston on the subject, but on his return I shall
c,emuanicate to hint our correspondence, and consult with
'dui upon it.
I remain, yours truly,

J. RUSSELL.

(fie tter from Lord John Russell to Lord Aberdeen.)
Pembroke•lodge, Nov. 28, 1834.
Mrdear Lord Aberdeen,—As Palmerston's return is de.