London, June 23. June 18, the anniversary of the battle of 
Waterloo,?’? was of course not celebrated in London this year. It 
was to be celebrated in the Crimea with a victory, not over the 
French but alongside the French. The event seemed all the more 
piquant since Raglan, Wellington’s famulus, was carrying out his 
command more or less under the orders of a General of Napoleon 
III. The inscription was ready, only the event that it was to 
immortalise failed to happen. It will not escape people’s notice that 
in the history of the restored Empire there is a fatalistic 
predilection for resurrecting its great dates, affirming successes 
and disavowing misfortunes, in a second and improved edition. 
This glorious resurrection of Napoleonic dates, successful so far 
with respect to blows against the Republic, is failing with respect to 
blows against the enemy abroad. And the Empire without the 
victories of the Empire reminds one of the adaptation of 
Shakespeare’s Hamlet which not only lacks the melancholy of the 
Prince of Denmark but also the Prince himself.’ Paris had 
arranged for a great feat of arms in the Crimea on December 2, 
1854.° It came to grief thanks to a surplus of rain and a shortage 
of ammunition. On June 18, 1855 an improved version of the 
battle, with a different result, was to be performed at Sevastopol. 
Instead, the Franco-English army suffered its first serious defeat. 

London is in sombre mood; the stocks have fallen, and in one 
day Palmerston has forfeited what it took him months of the most 

subtle tactical manoeuvrings to secure. The defeats occurred on 
June 18; the telegraphed dispatch was not published until June 
22. Last Thursday the official Globe? announced on Palmerston’s 
behest that “nothing serious had happened”. In the Commons’ 
night sitting of the same date Palmerston solemnly repeated the 
same statement.” And now it has been established that he received 
the telegram as early as 4 p.m. on Wednesday, June 20. The 
Leader. asserts that this happened at the urgent request of Paris, 
where the misfortune in the field had been turned into good 
fortune at the stock exchange.“ However that may be, the 
cockneys‘ are seriously annoyed with Palmerston. Being beaten is 
bad enough. But to let oneself be carried away at Drury Lane and 
Covent Garden by the Ministers’ tricks into ludicrous ovations at 
the capture of Sevastopol—this is too bad, Sir*! 

We prepared our readers sufficiently for the fact that Pélissier’s 
stubborn persistence in attacking the southern flank heralded 
disaster for the allied armies. Immediately he assumed command 
we drew attention to the mitigating circumstance that lack of 
transport would place great obstacles in his way when it came to 
operations in the open field.£ Both points have now been 
confirmed by the English press. For instance, today’s Morning 
Herald says: 

“The army cannot take the field—as, according to all rules of strategy, it ought 
to do, beat the relieving army at Simpheropol [...]. That it cannot do because the 
‘Government grave-diggers’, Neglect and Delay, have been at their murderous 
work again, and of 20,000 baggage cattle, which we ought to have, we have not 
above 4,000 or 5,000; and this while disease is once more becoming rampant in a 
camp which contains every possible incitement to fever, cholera, and plague. This 
incapacity of moving them, the same as it was at Varna and in the Valley of Death, 
is the cause why, day after day, our generals are compelled to waste the lives of our 
soldiers in desperate attacks upon almost impregnable earthworks, while the noble 

army that should take the field is lying on the Chernaya, without cavalry or means 
of transport.” & 

The ingenious negligence with which, from the outset of the 
war, the Cabinet administered the resources at its disposal has 

June 23, 1855.— Ed. 
“ The Leader, No. 274, June 23, 1855.— Ed. 
8 The Morning Herald, No. 22465, June 23, 1855.— Ed. 

been shown anew by financial reports which have just been 
published. According to this official report the balance in hand on 
January 1, 1854 of the money allocated for the army was 
£1,835,882 and the amount expended on the army on April 1, 
1854 was only £2,270,000, so that less than three-quarters of the 
money voted by Parliament for raising troops was used. And what 
was it that, according to the report of the Roebuck Committee,* 
ruined the army? Overwork. And what is the reason of this 
overwork? Lack of numbers. But this lack of numbers, as the 
financial report shows, was the result of a Cabinet intrigue. And 
Prince Albert complains that the Queen” has no troops at her 
disposal! And that the Cabinet’s hands are tied! The Layard 
debate revealed that the self-same Cabinet, whilst complaining 
about lack of transport, sent troopships to Portsmouth via 
Newcastle-upon-Tyne to collect coal, or from the Clyde to 
Liverpool and from Deptford to Woolwich to be inspected by the 
Surveyor.‘ 

The misfortunes of June 18-have made immediate reinforcements 
necessary. Accordingly orders were issued yesterday for immediate 
embarkation: the 15th Infantry Regiment, which has. recently 
returned from Ceylon; the King’s 51st Light Infantry Regiment, 
the 80th and 94th Infantry Regiments, all the India detachments 
from the various depot companies, and 1,200 men of the cavalry 
are to leave immediately for the theatre of war. Orders have been 
telegraphed to Marseilles for special steamships to be sent from 
there to the Governors of Malta and Gibraltar and to the Lord 
High Commissioner‘ of the Ionian Islands with the task of 
transporting all the men who are fit for service not only from the 
garrisons but also from the reserve of the Household Brigade and 
all the reserve battalions that can be spared before the arrival of 
the relieving regiments and militia. Sailing at once are: the 13th 
Light Infantry Regiment of Gibraltar, the 31st Infantry Regiment 
from the Ionian Islands, the 48th from Corfu, the 54th from 
Gibraltar, the 66th from Gibraltar, and the 92nd _ Scottish 
Highland Regiment from Gibraltar. British forces in the Crimea 
will thus be increased by more than 13,000 men. To this must be 
added four field batteries, a troop of mounted artillery and 
reinforcements for the siege train, all of which are ready and are 

only waiting for ships. Incidentally, England is in the same 
position as in 1854. No reserve army. And even worse. In 1854, as 
the Roebuck report admits, Palmerston prevented and delayed 
the formation of the militia; but in 1855 he succeeded in 
practically dissolving the militia which was already formed. As one 
can see from the above list, the reinforcements absorb not only the 
bulk of the army, but they also swallow up the depot battalions 
and break up the cadres. Thus England resembles Montesquieu’s 
savage who fells the tree in order to get hold of the fruit.* The 
economical country par excellence is spending its military capital 
instead of the interest. This is the result of the manoeuvrings of 
the Cabinet in which Prince Albert demands that one have implicit 
confidence! Nothing could be less accurate than the view held on 
the Continent that England has too small a population to be able 
to raise armies. In 1815, after 22 years of war, England had more 
than 350,000 men mobilised! But the Cabinet purposely ignores 
both remedies: raising the bounty for the standing army, and 
balloting for the militia. What else can one expect from the Prime 
Minister, whose debts Princess Lieven paid in 1827, and whom she 
appointed Foreign Secretary in 1830, a man who procured for 
Russia eight years of dictatorship over Turkey by means of the 
Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi, and eight days before the treaty 
- expired, renewed it in the Dardanelles treaty??? 

Yesterday in the Commons Roebuck gave notice that on July 3 
(Tuesday week) he would table the following motion: 

“That this House, deeply lamenting the sufferings of our army during the 
winter campaign in the Crimea, and coinciding with the resolution of their 
committee that the conduct of the Administration was the first and chief cause of 

these misfortunes, hereby visits with its severe reprehension every member of the 
Cabinet whose counsels led to such disastrous results.” 

Roebuck’s motion therefore deliberately includes: Palmerston, 
Russell, Clarendon, Granville and Lansdowne, at one and the 
same time members of the present Cabinet and the previous one. 
The small, venomous, Thersites-like but crafty barrister, the 
perfect master of parliamentary tactics, saw himself forced into 
tabling this motion, as his constituents at Sheffield threatened to 
subject him to a vote of no confidence at a public meeting, 
because he had denounced Palmerston on Tuesday and expressed 
his confidence in the same Palmerston on Thursday. Prince 
Albert’s unfortunate interference in matters between the Cabinet 

> The Times, No. 22088, June 23, 1855.— Ed. 

and Parliament, and his challenging of the authority of Parliament 
was a further reason for this motion, which threatens to rob the 
Queen once more of “her confidential servants”. 

We shall report on the latest activities and fortunes of the 
Administrative Reformers, and the machinations of the clerics next 
time.