WHOM SHALL WE HANG?'
THE primary object of this book is to defend the late Ministry, more especially the Duke of Newcastle and Mr. Sidney Herbert, from the charges heaped upon them in reference to the conduct of the war and the sufferings to which the army was exposed. A -secondary purpose is to weaken Mr. Roebuck's proposed resolution of censure, by assailing the Parliamentary Committee for the loose and partial manner in which it conducted the inquiry, and the lyrong conclusions it drew in its report from the evidence sub- mitted to it. Whom shall we Hang ? exhibits considerable skill in arranging its topics and selecting its proofs, some spirit in its style, and much closeness in its matter : its tone is not so good. By comparing the statements of the press, the " stronger " wit- nesses before the Committee, and the more damaging passages of the report, with the things actually proved by calmer witnesses or official returns, the compiler often succeeds in throwing great doubts on the truth of the representations of the newspaper cor- respondents, or the writers of books like Mr. Osborne. By bring- ing together all that really was accomplished by the War Minis- ters, more especially by the Duke of Newcastle, he makes out a strong case in favour of the Duke's energy, industry, readiness of resource, and aptitude to seize occasions as they arose, as well as his disposition to throw aside forms in favour of substance. The effect of the facts and the skilful manner in which they are marshalled is to some extent marred by the style of the writer, -which is flippant and flashy, with as much of imputation and virulent personality as characterizes the writers or orators he attacks. He has also the regular official manner of facing down an opponent, which is just now about the worst manner anybody can adopt.
But for this unfortunate manner, which taints the greater part of the book, and the impossibility of getting over the break-down of the supplies when only seven miles intervened between the ex- treme ends, the evidence and the arguments would go far to show that the English public is as gullible as ever ; that the Popish plot was really reproduced in the mania about the maladministration of the war.
" Some truth there was, but daah'd and brew'd with lies, To please the fools, and puzzle all the wise."
Even as it is, enough is evident when the whole of the hots are brought in review, to show that much exaggeration—much pre- ference of the telling to the true—was sent forth ; it is to be ap- prehended as a matter of system, and -without regard to any- thing beyond creating a sensation. Something, however, must be allowed for the class of visitors to the camp, who are the chief au- thorities for most of what horrified the public... Such persons being unacquainted with actual war were startled by the common or accidental privations of a campaign. Even in the case of suffer- ing, they judged less by what the sufferer, accustomed to rpugh it all his life, might feel, than by what they, accustomed all their lives to comforts and even luxuries, would feel in his position. There was, in fact, a mania for finding fault, and in some cases a disposition to clamour for what was unreasonable. These remarks on the " salt meat" complaint are not without justice, though tinged by the fault of manner alluded to.
"But even if it were true that the troops had been fed during the whole winter on salt rations, what then ? Surely war brings greater evils than salt pork in its train ; and the privations of our army need not have been made ridiculous by including the rare supply of fresh meat among them. Certainly the maudlin sentimentality. which wept at the thought of con- demning a hardy soldiery to fare for six weeks or a couple of months as the gentry of this country used to fare during the whole winter a century ago, has no parallel, except in that overflowing sympathy which was thrown away on the needy knife-grinder. The parallel, however, is tolerably com- plete; for not only are the philanthropists, in both cases, equally disin- terested and honest, but, in both, the objects of their compassion are equally insensible of the cruelty of their lot. The soldiers, indeed, appear to have been less than indifferent—they actually liked it. The men,' says the cor- respondent of the Times, 'strange to say, prefer the salt meat to the fresh.' "
There is truth, too, in these remarks on the cause which mainly contributed to the sickness and suffering among the British soldiers compared with the French and our sailors—" the Naval Brigade" —who had nearly the same duty as the soldiers, and were in as forward a position. The remarks are also useful in reference to the future instruction of the army.
"The fact is, and it is dishonest to conceal or disguise it, our soldiers con- tributed much to their own misery by their helplessness, and by their utter disregard of their health and comfort. In the first place, they used some- times to march off to the trenches without having eaten their breakfasts or dinners. It is said that they have been known to eat their salt meat raw ; and those who have seen with what gusto slices of schinken are devoured in Holland and Germany will not find it difficult to believe the assertion, al- though it rests on the evidence of a gentleman who had seen in the cavalry camp that 'all the maffes and tails were eaten off.' "Carelessness as much as fatigue indisposed them to search for fuel. The contrast in this respect between the British and French soldier was striking and painful. From- the earliest dawn till dark, the latter might be seen in quest of wood. Here, a Zouave was perched half-way up one of the few trees remaining in Balaklava, and hacking at a branch with a diminutive hatchet. There, was a cbasseur grubbing up a scrubby bush on the steep face of the cliff. Elsewhere another soldier was fishing up the chips and scraps which had been thrown overboard, floating near the water's edge. Rarely was a red coat to be seen engaged in a similar pursuit. "The First, Second, and Light Divisions could easily procure their supplies from the ground on which the battle of Inkerman was fought, once an oak forest. But the men often preferred being without fire to making the exer- tion of cutting down the underwood or digging up the roots which were to be got in abundance. The fatiguing labours of the trenches certainly ex- cused to some extent this disinclination ; but many a soldier who would not take the trouble of collecting fuel enough for cooking his own dinner, found time and energy enough to procure it for those who would give him a glass of rum for the fruits of his labour. They did not seem to care much about ..Whom Shall We Hang I The Sebastopol Inquiry. Published by Ridgway.
eating their rations raw,' said Mr. Clay ; 'they seemed to care about. nothing, except about their rum.' "
Charges of unfairness abound against the Committee, and espe- cially against Mr. Layard and Mr. Roebuck. Here is one of a more particular kind in reference to the latter gentleman.
" Mr. Roebuck asked of one of the Duke of Newcastle's Commissioners, 'Did you find that there was any want of opium there ? ' To which question Mr. Maxwell is made to answer, Yes.' (13,529.) This little piece of evi- dence has quite a history of its own, which may be briefly told here, because it shows the spirit in which the inquiry was conducted by one at least of the gentlemen who were moat active in its prosecution. Both Mr. Roebuck and Mr. Maxwell are members of a very gregarious profession, and more important secrets than the correspondence of those two gentlemen, touching the question and answer above cited, ooze out in robing-rooms and reading- rooms, and in the dining-halls of the Temple. It appears from that corre- spondence, that when the third report, which contains the evidence in ques- tion, was published, Mr. Maxwell wrote to Mr. Roebuck to request an op- portunity of explaining to the Committee that there must be some misprint in the question, as he did not believe that the question had ever been put; for if it had, he would have given it a totally different answer. No answer was received for a week ; in which interval the evidence was closed. At the end of that period, Mr. Roebuck wrote—' Upon inquiry I find that you had your evidence to correct. and omitted to mark the question and answer to which you now object. Your application is therefore now too late. The evidence is closed. But I cannot admit the truth of your assertion that such a question and answer never occurred. That confusion did Occur during the examination, I fully allow ; but the confusion was in your own answers, and not in the short-hand-writer's notes.' How Mr. Roebuck conducted this inquiry does not appear ; but it is to be feared that here again, as in the Sebastopol inquiry, the learned gentleman showed a singular ignorance of the A B C of his profession. Whether I noted my objection or not,' was Mr. Maxwell's reply,. is an issue which can be disposed of in the simplest manner. The proof is in the printer's hands, and will speak for itself. To it I appeal ; and I assert that opposite to the question under discussion will be found a note in my handwriting to the following effect—" There is some mistake about this question. I certainly never said that there was a want of opium at Scutari,' &c. Notwithstanding the opinion which you express, that the confusion was in my answers and not in the short-hand-writer's notes, I must claim the right to persist in my disbelief that the confusion rested with me. But even if it did, it might find some excuse in a course of examination which introduced a question respecting the state of things at Scutari in the middle of an inquiry touching Balaklava.' The challenge thus held out was not accepted, and the evidence was left in its original condition ; whether because it harmonizes better with what Mr. Roebuck would desire to be the truth, or because the exposure of his 'Inquiry ' might be disagreeable, it is unnecessary to conjecture."
Previous page
