The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-25 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 25, 1857

The mania for testimonials received a further
illustration by a discussion in the House of Lords,
'ast night, the object whereof was to obtain the
erection of a public monument to the late Lord
RAGLAN. It is always exceedingly unpleasant to
be compelled to enact the part of avocat du, Diable
and to question the claims of a deceased person to
the praise and gratitude of the community. But
the adage de mortuis nil nisi bonum does not
always apply. We should not unnecessarily open
the question as to how far the late Commander-in-
Chief in the Crimea was responsible for the mis•
takes and mismangement that occasioned such
fearful disasters. But, when it is forced on us
by injudicious admirers, it becomes an imperative
duty
to resist the establishment of a vicious pre-
cedent; and to prevent the reward that has
hitherto only been bestowed on public services of
the most unquestionable merit, from being con-
ferred on what can, at best, be only regarded
as "respectable mediocrity."

Save in two instances, no Public monument has
ever been granted to any military commander
who had not perished on a field of stricken fight,
or died of wounds received in battle. It is un-
necessary to speak of the exploits of the Iron
Duke, the Hero of a hundred fights. Every
Englishman recognised the propriety of the tribute
paid to his memory which could not be tortured
into a precedent, until the country could boast of
another WELLINGTON, aye, more, and another
BuoNersarz, to test his extraordinary powers.
We presume the warmest admirer of Lord RAGLAN
will scarcely institute a comparison between him
and the great Captain, whose genius and gallantry
have added so many brilliant pages to the
Natiozal Archives, It will be universally felt
that the " WELLINGTON Monument" is not a
case in point, and that the application can derive

no authority from that striking exception to the
general rule.

The only other case was that of Lord HEATH-
FIELD, and his claim was founded on his noble de-
fence of the Maiden Fortress, by means whereof
one of its brightest gems was retained in the British
diadem. In his case there were no mistakes—no
mismanagement—no yielding to the opinions of
others. Against an overwhelming force he de-
fended and kept possession of Gibraltar. He com-
menced, and nobly completed, the arduous task
imposed on him, and thus entitled himself to the
honour justly accorded. But Lord RAGLAN did
not complete his task. Sebastopol still held out
at the time of his death, and the claim was chiefly
founded on what might have been done, had his
advice been followed, but which was not accom-
plished, owing to the fatal facility with which he
yielded his own wishes to the opinions of others.
We do not doubt that he had good intentions,
but the place said to be paved therewith is not to
be mentioned to ears polite. And if the argu-
ment prevailed, it is not one, but hundreds of
monuments that should be erected.

We do not dispute the personal gallantry of
Lotd RAGLAN, but that was a quality in which
the overwhelming majority of the officers and men
under his command participated, and it would be
a standing reproach to the British character if
courage in the field and coolness under fire were
considered sufficient to merit such an extraordi-
nary distinction. Whatever his services may
have been, he was unquestionably more in-
debted to Captain Pen than Captain Sword
for his promotion ; and, even in the Crimea,
a far greater portion of his time was occupied in
writing or dictating elaborate despatches than in
looking after the comfort and welfare of the
mighty army placed under his control. He was
also of an amiable, gentle, and kindly disposition ;
but, however valuable these qualities in private
life, a Commander-in-Chief requires to be made of
sterner stuff—to be a rigid disciplinarian, with an
iron will—to enforce not merely obedience to his
commands, but an unflinching and energetic dis-
charge of duty by all his aristocratic followers.
The report of the Select Committee of the House
of Commons will show whether that claim could
be put forward on behalf of Lord RAGLAN I
Nor was he without rewards, and those of a
very important character. He was made
a Field-Marshal and a Peer of the realm,
and after his death a handsome pension
was granted to maintain the dignity of that
peerage. Another pension was also granted to his
widow, and both Houses of Parliament recorded
their sense of his services. Besides, he has a
monument, and one of no ordinary character.
His name stands first on the splendid testimonial
to those of her MAJESTY'S subjects who perished
during the late war. Surely that was no ignoble
association. Surely such a position might satisfy
the aspirations of the most greedy seeker after
fame. We cannot, then, refrain from approving
the refusal of her MAJESTY'S Government to en-
tertain the application, fully coinciding in the
statement of Lord PANMIIRE that " a monument,
whether erected in honour of a Statesman or a
Warrior, should be erected in obedience to the
opinion and approbation of the whole community,
in order to render it of a nature corresponding to
those services, of the highest character, which eitlr.r.
a Statesman or a Soldier can perform."

"More time" is now the demand of the oppo-
nents of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes
Bill. The nation, forsooth, has not had time to
understand and appreciate the difficulties con-
nected with the question, and therefore a single
month is required for the purpose. All the elabo-
rate discussions in the Lords—all that has taken
place in former years goes for nothing, and it is
ally now that it has come to the Commons that
he People believe that Ministers are in earnest.
Under such circumstances it was surely not too
much to ask for one short month to enable them
to make up their minds ! Unfortunately, how-
ever, the month requires, happened to be the last
of the Session, and the success of the dilatory plea
would involve the shelving of the question for
another year, and the renewal of the rancorous and
factious opposition in the Lords. The dodge was,
therefore, only partially successful. Mr. HEN-
LEY'S motion was rejected by a majority
of 87, bat so much time was sacrificed
that the Attorney-General was unable at so late
an hour to state the reasons in favour of the
second reading. The matter was accordingly
postponed to Thursday, the next Government day
—Monday being devoted to Mr. DISRAELI'S mo-
tion respecting India, and a week, all but a day,
was lost.

It was rather rernatkable that the advocates for
procrastination seemed to be thoroughly preparerl.
They were literally " bristling with point e"
"boiling over with arguments, while in tie
energy of the appeal the perspiration exuded from
every pore.". No, it was merely an ingenious de-
vice to reject the measure for the time being, and
thus to get rid of the most important and jut rest-
ing question of legal reform ventilated during the
present year. The country has had ample time
to consider the project, and its approval has been
unequivocally displayed in favour of the
proposition, so far as it goes. The
general feeling is, that it is a step in the
right direction—a decided improvement in the
existing law, but that it does not go far enough,
and can only be received as an instalment of jus-
tice. It only generalises the legislation that in-
variably takes place in isolated cases every year,
and authorises a competent tribunal to grant ap-
plications, which are invariably conceded ex debito
justitice, whenever the petitioners have the means
of going through the multifarious process now re-
quired ; extending the remedy from those who
have thousands, to others who can only
spare hundreds, but leaving the great majority
of the sufferers still without a remedy, and in-
flicting most grievous injustice on injured wives
of all classes and grades in society.
We believe, however, that the present bill, de-
plorably defective as it is, may lead to further im-
provements ere long, and therefore we desire to
see it carried. We believe that the arguments
clearly and eloquently expressed by Lords LYND-
HUItST and BROUGHAM; will have full effect on the
national mind, and that the good seed thus sown
will bring forth its fruits in due season. Justice—
full, fair, and impartial justice cannot always
be denied to the gentle sex. Their glaring wrongs,
the flagrant grievances to which they are subjected
will, sooner or later, be redressed, and full re-
ciprocity established. Nor will relief be restricted
to the only cause recognised by the Bill. Lord
Lismetuusx proved in a manner calculated to
' carry conviction to any disinterested and unpre-
judiced mind, that wilful desertion for a pro-
tracted period, or deliberate and wanton cruelty,
which would render it impossible for the parti-s
ever again to come together, should be sufficient
to warrant a dissolution of the nuptial contract.
There is one wed known case, where the
parties have been separated for no less than 38
yews, without the slightest possibility of re-uniout
that should carry the clause suggested by the
Nestor of the House of Lords. We- shall not
strive to affix blame on either party, although, t.