The Press. — London, England, 1854-12-16 00:00:00

1206 vernment. Into that topic he had no wish to enter. He had no desire to criticise the conduct of the Government or to enter into details, and if his right hon. friend had not raised some questions of detail in which he felt bound to follow him he would not have ventured to do so. The Government from the commencement seemed to believe that war was impossible, and unfortunately they placed themselves in the hands of Austria. Hence those negotia tions at Vienna of which so much has been said. The first step after the declaration of war was to send troops to Malta, but they failed in securing any correct information as to the condition and prospects of the Turkish army. It was no doubt true that Sir J. Burgoyne was employed in the spring to report on this subject, but the report he made was not borne out by the results. Nevertheless, the only thing done was to intrench the army at Gallipoli. The army afterwards went to Varna, though he had warned his right hon. friend that the undertaking was a most dangerous one, the climate of Varna being so unhealthy. His right hon. friend, however, took out of that Pandora box before him, from which seemed to issue every kind of deception, papers to show that Varna was most healthy, and that our troops were never in better condition. Why, while he was yet speaking, the Angel of Death was hovering over our army. (Hear, hear.) The expedition to Varna did not and could not succeed. Then they resolved, on finding there was a great pressure from without, to send the troops to Sebasto pol. What was the object of sending these troops to the Crimea? Either they expected to take Sebastopol by a coup de main, or by a regular siege. He would not enter upon the military question, but, supposing it had been possible to take the fortress by a coup de main, and they had done so, were they hereafter to abandon the Crimea? If so, what would have been the effect of taking Sebastopol ? If, on the other hand, they retained it either after a coup de main or a regular siege, they would have had to support the army there throughout the winter. Now, in what circumstances did the army go to the Crimea? It was sent without a reserve, without a single depot, and without any basis of operations. It was entirely dependent for supplies on this country. There was in this great neg lect, for to his certain knowledge, they had been warned previously that no supplies could be hoped for from Varna. Sinope was suggested as a place where they might obtain provisions for the army, but no such thing was thought of ; and he must say nothing could be more culpable than the way in which the army was placed in the Crimea, without any preparation. (Hear, hear.) He estimated the prospective force on both sides thus : He was afraid the Government were not sufficiently alive to the immensity of the conflict in which we were engaged, for it seemed as though their policy up to this time had only been to provide for the emergencies of the moment. (Hear, hear.) The Russians would shortly have 200,000 men in the Crimea. (A voice,—" Oh P') The hon. member might cry " Oh," but only last session he had been told that it was impossible for the Russians to bring up rein. forcements at all—( Hear, hear)—and in the Crimea we had been acting on that very idea, reckoning on the Austrian alliance, which was to prevent reinforcements being brought up; and yet, in ono fatal night, they had found 100,000 men upon their flank. (Hear, hear.) Last session he had been laughed at for saying that the Russians could have 100,000 men in the Crimea, but, if they would reckon up the account, they would find that nearer 150,000 had been arrayed against us. At Inkermann, according to Lord Raglan, 60,00() men attacked us, and of these not a single regiment had fought against us at Alma. The 40,000 men of Alma, and the 60,000 of Inkermann made 100,000 • Liprandi's division, which, with l)annenberg's corps, had been pushed down from Wallachia, was 25,000 more, at tho same time 10,000 men made a sortie from Sebastopol on the left of the French position, and all .the batteries of Sebastopol were playing on the allies. So that the reckoning, on the whole, came nearer to 150,000 men than to 100,000. What was there, then, to prevent them bringing down 200,000 men into the Crimea? We had withdrawn our fleet from the Baltic, and there was nothing to prevent the Czar from sending down the Guard into Poland to release the troops which were stationed there. It was all very well to say that armies could not be moved when the roads were bad and the country impassable. Under ordinary circumstances it might be so ; but when the Emperor had everything he possessed at stake it was not likely that he would relax in his exertions. (Hear, hear.) The Government, he declared, were carrying on the war upon perfectly novel and mistaken principles : The Government had decided on carrying on the war on three new principles, the greatest economy, the strictest humanity, and the greatest publicity. (Hear, hear.) The greatest economy principle was to do everything upon the small scale at the greatest expense, and in this way the least possible had been done for the most money. (Hear, hear.) Of the greatest humanity principle they had an example in the clemency extended to Odessa. Then there was the great publicity principle. And though he did not wish to say one word against the press—for it was owing to the press that many deficiencies and abuses, such as those which existed in the medical supplies, had been pointed out and remedied—yet if the public were deter- mined to carry on the war on these new principles, they must be prepared for terrible losses, which would inevitably be the result. Of the spirit with which officers and men alike endured pain and hardship he cited many in stances : The sense of duty among our troops was something ex• traordinary. One who had lost both his legs in action asked what was likely to be his fate, and when told that it was in the hands of God, he said, " Well, if I die I shall die happy; if I live I shall be proud of what has been said of me." What had been done by the officers of the Guards 7' These men were lauded in the Crimea without T H E any means of transport, and many of them had remained till this day with the same clothes on their backs as they had on when they first landed. The sufferings of the officers were incalculable. Out of seventy-six hours some of them only passed four hours in sleep, and they went about night and day, in the wet and cold, with little or nothing to eat. Iu fact, their hardships were unparalleled; and yet they were all borne patiently and without ostenta tion, because their conduct was never mentioned—it was only inspired by a sense of duty. Mr. Layard concluded by reiterating his call upon the Ministry to take some bold and definite line of policy:— Let the Government, then, adopt some policy, and let them tell the house what their polity was. He entreated the noble lord the President of the Council, by the name he bore as the great leader of the Liberal party in this country, to endeavour to induce her Majesty's Government to adopt a policy which, perhaps, might not reconcile the conflicting opinions of a coalition Ministry, but which, at all events, would be more in consonance with the true position and the important interest of this mighty em• pire. (Cheers). Colonel DUNNE, after expressing surprise that no one on the Ministerial side had risen to answer the powerful speezh of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, entered into some professional criti cism on the mode in which the operations had been conducted, and expressed his conviction that in almost every instance the Ministerial measures had been carried out two months too late. Mn. DISRAELI said participate in the surprise expressed by the hon. mem ber that none of her Majesty's Ministers have thought it necessary to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Aylesbury. He is not a supporter of this side of the house. He does not sit upon these benches, and he somewhat ostentatiously informed the Lord President that he was peculiarly attached to him. (.4 laugh.) I have no wish to tamper with the allegiance which the member for Ayles bury owes to the Lord President, but on the subject be fore the consideration of the house I have given him that respectful attention due to every gentleman who is master of the subject on which he addresses the house—(Hear) — I could not also forget in the individual instance of the member for Aylesbury that a man of genius addressed the house, and remembering that he has come from the scene of those memorable actions which now fill the minds and touch the hearts of the people of this country, and that he has risen to make serious charges against the Ministry, the fact that he has not been answered by the Government is not a circumstance which the hon. member need con sider as one which will depreciate him in the public esti mate. ( Hear, hear.) So far as I can judge of the for tunes of a human being—so far as I can form an opinion upon the course of human life—l think the member for Aylesbury will be remembered when the great portion of the existing Cabinet will be forgotten. (Laughter.) I did not expect, sir—and I witnessed with regret the necessity—that I should have again felt it my duty on the present opening of Parliament to vindicate the freedom of discussion. (Hear, hear.) Remembering the position of this country, remembering what has occurred since we last met, remembering that the fate of this empire is per haps at stake, remembering the thrilling events that have happened, remembering that the people of this country expect, if not redress for their grievances, yet some sym pathy with their deep emotion—l was surprised to find that the Government should have advised the Sovereign to assemble Parliament, and should have given instruc tions to their followers that discussion should not only not be encouraged but resisted. (Cheers from the Opposition.) That they should have attempted to conduct affairs—that they should have attempted to govern this country—with out unnecessarily appealing to the sense of the House of Commons, I cam easily comprehend. Their difficulties are great—their embarrassments are increasing. They might have thought that time and fortune might have so miti gated their position, that two months later they might have appealed. with more advantage, but having felt it their duty or necessity to take this step, I was surprised that an hon. gentleman who seconded the Address, and the brother of a Cabinet Minister, should have impressed on the house the expediency of its silence. (Hear, hear.) But this is not all. We have had the luxury of one Cabi net Minister on this memorable opening of Parliament, and while hg has chiefly filled his speech with a vindica tion of his dwn office, which had been only partially at tacked, he favoured us with the discreet admonition that the loyalty and discretion of the House of Commons would be beat proved by not at the present moment expressing opinions in the face of an anxious country ; to say no thing, sir, of an absent army, which must, I think, under all its difficulties, under all its sufferings, under all its deeds of heroic achievement, have been sustained by the conviction that when the representatives of the people of England assembled they would have expressed their sym pathy with their sufferings, and perhaps have criticised a Ministry, who, in their opinion, had not done their duty to relieve them. (Cheers from the Opposition.) It may be clever in the Lord President to be silent, and the other taciturn secretaries of state who surround him, but I doubt whether that silence is a proof of respect for public feeling, and whether a sense of duty ought to have im pelled them to restrict that frank expression of opinion which is the soul of the House of Commons. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Sir, my hon. friend the member for Droitwich has to night taken a course which will be appreciated by the country ; and had this debate terminated with the answer to his speech I should have been content to be silent, for I think that he has indicated the course which it be comes a Conservative Opposition to pursue. I am totally at a lose to comprehend how right honourable $ gentlemen can bring themselves to such a pitch of SATURDAY, feeling . that they can rise and protest again s t th e c • eal opinion of a member of Parliament on th e conductn cri- tical the affairs of the country. I had last year t o refer to this; there was not an occasion on which the Government brought forward measures, in every one of which they were ultimately defeated, when gentlemen on these benches ex pressed a criticism that they were not challenged to re pose a vote of want of confidence in the Governm ent; as they had been challenged to-night by the Seeretary-at-War, if they had . not faith in the Government, not to trouble the un to trY th — eir ( house with factious criticisms—not to echo here what, b p u er t h to aps te , s ma t th y e b: p t i le on op o in f. i th on e o h f o th us e e w as fa rus ee t ht in er) th — e . Ministry. I had occasion last year to notice the unconsti tutional course so freely adopted by these gentlemen. I had occasion to show then that such a course struck at the root of public discussions and public freedom. (Hear.) I held that it was a privilege of members of this hones freely to canvass the conduct of Government, without being forced to incur the responsibility of asking the House of Commons to sanction a change of Ministry. In we had a Ministry carrying on a war—we had an Opposition supporting the measures of the war; and when Mr. Wynd ham canvassed the policy of the Government—and he was no mean authority, and eminently qualified from his offi cial experience to speak on such a subject—Mr. Wyndham said that he trusted that the unanimity of the nation on the subject of the policy of the war would not for a moment be mistaken for a unanimity of sentiment as to the conduct of the war. So spoke Mr. Wyndham, and he was followed by eminent members of the house, and no one impugned their privilege so to address the house ; or, when they cri. ticised the conduct of the Government, told them to refrain from such remarks, and to test the question by a vote of want of confidence in the Ministry. Yet this repartee of last session has been brought forward again by the Secre tary-at-War. Sir, I protest against these opinions. I see their object, and know what their consequence will be. It will stop debate, it will degrade the character of the house, and put an end to discussion, which is the soul of truth, and without which this house can never exist. ( Cheers.) But an hon. baronet who bears an honoured name also rose early and unexpectedly in the debate, and made a re markable observation. Indulging, as I thought, in a mis apprehension to which I am surprised his acute mind could be liable, the hon. baronet referred to a speech which I had felt it my duty to make last year, in which I said, in speaking of the causes of the present war, that no captious criticism respecting the conduct of the war would ever, I hoped, be heard from us, and so seemed to think that he had established a case of inconsistency against my right hon, friend in the course we are now pursuing. I think I then said, representing the feelings of my friends around me, that no future Wellesley, on the banks of the Danube, should ever complain, whatever other difficulties he might have to encounter, of the obstacles offered to him by an English Opposition. (Hear, hear.) I need hardly say that observation referred to the military conduct of the war. I meant to say, and I think my meaning was under stood by the house, that we had neither the presumption nor the wish to criticise the conduct of naval and military commanders—that we would place in them that unlimited confidence which we were sure the country was prepared to place in men who had been selected by the responsible counsellors of her Majesty ; and that, whatever might be the fate of their operations, they should not look back with feelings of bitterness to the factious criticism of political parties as having prevented or retarded that success to which their genius and their labours might have entitled them. But surely the hon. baronet the member for Tam worth would not lay down for a moment that it is not the duty of the House of Commons carefully to scan, and se verely even to criticise, the military expeditions conceived, and planned, and matured in the Cabinet of the Sovereign I The hon. gentleman will not, 1 suppose, for a moment . maintain that Walcheren expeditions are not to be criti cised, that conventions of Onus or Sarratoga are to be passed by a humble House of Commons in subdued silence? 'Why are we a House of Commons? What chance have w e of commanding the confidence of the people as being the sacred depositories of the national sentiment, if, when national disasters occur, no echo to the feeling of the people is to be found in this house ? If here, of all places, we are to be met by a Minister who says, " If you disap prove of what has occurred, notwithstanding the emergency, notwithstanding the difficulties in which the Sovereign and the nation are placed, we call upon you to put your opinion to the test, whether or not there shall be a sudden change of the Ministers of the Crown." I am sure that gentlemen, on whichever side they may sit, will see upon reflection that these are principles tot) dangerous to public liberty to be encouraged, and that we must not for a moment sanc tion the appeal of a Government that, upon their measures, whether successful or unsuccessful—however they may have been conceived, whatever may have been their objects or their consequences—it is the duty of the House of .Com mons, from a feeling of patriotism, to be silent, or to incur the responsibility of administration. Why, suppose . that the House of Commons were s il en t— su ppose that . m . this probably brief session we had abstained from all criticism upon what has occurred and is occurring--suppose that we had met and adjourned, having passed those n ecessary and formal measures which the Lord President has ready to propose to our notice should we pre vent discussion ?—should we prevent the expression of dissatisfaction and discontent in the country? You would have a dissatisfied people out of doors, who, feeling that they could not give a constitutional expression to their sentiments, would have recourse to agitation- - more inconvenient, I should have thought, to a Minister than the discussion of public questions in this house, where observations are at least conceived in the spirit of patriotism and expressed in the language of gentlemen. Having adverted to this remarkable expression on the part of the Government of a principle so un f av ourable to public discussion , let me recal the house to consideration of our actual condition. I want to divest the subject o PRESS.