The Press. — London, England, 1855-05-19 00:00:00

MAY 19, 1855. V tourbings in arliamtnt. CONDUCT OF THE WAR. On Monday this subject was brought before the Lords by the Earl of ELLENBOBOUGII, who moved the resolutions which appeared in Txx Paass of last week. After adverting to the elements of success offered by our early victories, our alliances, and the conduct of our troops, and the absence of success which had nevertheless attended all our efforts, the noble lord contrasted the torpor which seemed at the moment to paralyse the Legislature with the eager ness which existed out of doors. He dissected the present Ministry, showed how unfit its several mem bers were tor the conduct of a war—quoted an allu sion of the Duke of Wellington to Lord Palmerston as a "small bird"—said that the public feeling, so apt to sudden affections for individuals, was now full of coldness and disappointment towards the Premier. It filled him with alarm when he saw the gentlemen of the platform taking precedence of gentlemen of the House of Commons, and he brought forward his resolutions for the purpose of enabling their lordships' house to take its stand in the front of the people. He then entered at length both into the conduct of the war, and the Administrative Reform consequent upon it. Of the latter, he said that the pulling to pieces of departments in the midst of a war was highly dangerous. Respecting the former, he criti cised the operations both in the Baltic and Black Sea. He repeated the strictures on the folly of omitting to send vessels of small draught of water to the shallows of the Baltic. He thought the expedi tions to Eupatoria and Sebastopol mistakes which had paralysed the action of Austria in our favour. He would have sent an army to Bessarabia, which would have been joined by the Austrians, and the first victory would have placed the Crimea itself at our feet. He would have sent another into the Asia tic provinces of Turkey, which were only saved by accident during the late campaign. He next ar raigned the conduct of the Government in their general management of the troops. All these mis takes arose from the mediocrity prevalent in every department, which succumbed to system while ability dominated over it, and forced men to better things. He had opposed the Reform Bill because he had be lieved that it would prevent the ablest men from en tering the public service. Mr. Pitt had complained that he could not put the right men in the right places. He had yielded to parliamentary trammels, and, in consequence, his military operations were failures ; while his father, who disdained those trammels, and selected the fittest man wherever he was to be found, had restored victory to our arms. It was fitness, not favour, which had placed in their high positions the great ancestors of our noble houses ; and it was not for their descendants to turn round and say that their relatives should enjoy advantages from connection and favour. Lord PANMURE characterised the speech they had just heard—and which had been so long prepared and expected—as full of truisms, unsupported assurances, and unfounded accusations. It was true that after a long peace, and many years of con tinued economies, our army was not at the moment ready for a great enterprise. Many defects had existed, but these had gradually been rectified, and at present our army was well supplied, properly reinforced, and in a state of the highest efficiency. The noble earl had said that the right men were not. put in the right places, but he had not given a single instance. It was well that he bad not attempted to do so as to our military commanders, for nothing could be more injurious to military service than par liamentary injustice. But as to the civil service, some instances should have been given, and that he had failed to do so was a proof of the failure of his allegations. Lord Panmure then considered the political effect of the resolutions. After the Ministerial crisis three months since, it would be highly dange rous again to recur to administrative change. The Earl of HARDWICKE urged the impolicy of a nation maritime and not military undertaking vast military enterprises. We should have rigorously blockaded the enemy's ports. The continued doubts as to the strictness of our blockade had misled the commercial community, and thrown our trade into the hands of the foreigners. As it was, the opera tons of the fleet were entirely subservient to those of the army. He pointed out many opportunities which were missed, and many advantages which were not secured, for want of due energy in our n resources. The Earl of ELors said that on his return from long foreign service he had intimated to the present Government his intention of affording them an inde pendent support. He had now to determine if cir cumstances had not so far altered as to induce him to support the proposed resolutions. He was bound to say that they had not. The improvement of our forces in the Crimea was notorious. The Govern ment were prepared with a scheme of military organisation. The resolutions were inconsisten THE pItESS. with themselves : eulogistic and almost ezultory at the outset, they became denunciatory at the end. Even if he condemned the present Government, he could not see any chance of improvement in their opponents. The last Ministerial crisis bad brought our Constitution into disgrace abroad, and he ',mild not be a party to its renewal. In the glories of our arms and in the conduct of oar hospitals there was much compensation for our disasters, and much to retrieve our character in the eyes of foreign nations. The chief sufferers had been our parliamentary in stitutions. The Earl of WINCHEISEA considered the conduct of the Government so bad in every way that he should vote for the motion simply as one of censure. Earl GRANVILLE, adverting to the differences of opinion as to the proper mode of conducting the war expressed by the speakers on the other side, hoped that if they succeeded in their motion they would reconcile their opinions before they formed an Ad ministration. He then entered into an elaborate argument to prove that appointments were not made on private or personal grounds. He gave the few instances where members of the great aristocratic families held office, and observed that they were all popular men, and identified both by pursuits and opinions with popular feelings. Arguing that official appointments were by no means the prizes they were often supposed, he gave instances of men in high mercantile situations who had refused, on grounds of personal interest, governmental offices, and said that men of administrative talent would not take office simply because they were wanted. He ad mitted that the complete exposure of our affairs had done good; but deprecated our continued abuse of ourselves, when we had so many causes for satisfac tion. As for the resolutions, he argued that their adoption would be the greatest encouragement to Russia and endanger our alliances. He reminded the house of the despondency which had preceded our greatest successes in former wars. _ _ - The Earl of DERBY, in defence of Lord Ellen borough's resolutions Ind speech, said that the former might be characterised as truisms, and were, in fact, founded on facts universally admitted, but they were none the less proper for discussion at the present juncture. He contended that the allegations brought against the Ministry had not been answered. His noble friend had been taunted with not pro ducing instances of unfitness : he might easily have named the late head of the War Department, the present Clerk of the Ordnance, and Under-Secretary for War, as not peculiarly fitted for the duties of their respective offices. A strong public feeling had been excited, which it was not safe to disregard. Without concurring in all that had been said in late public meetings, he looked upon them as proofs of a rooted dissatisfaction. Outcries had been raised both against aristocracy and routine. Now routine was the very essence of regular Government, but the real evil was the absence of a mastermind to use and apply the machinery. He thought that exaggerated ideas were abroad as to the selection of persons for high office, and he pointed out the restriction in the choice of the Prime Minister, who must choose trained men from his own party, and of parliamentary experience, the number of whom eligible for office was greatly diminished by the Reform Bill. Yet it was his duty to select, without partiality, the most fitting men, and he could not say that any Government had fulfilled that duty. After some sarcastic observations on the way in which Lord Palmerston was spurred on to his Administra tive Reform, he criticised somewhat severely the spirit of those reforms. Although at such ajuncture he would be most unwilling that anything should occur to place his party in office, he felt bound to vote fox placing the resolutions on record, as embodying the genuine expression of the sentiments of the people. The Duke of NEWCASTLE entered into a detailed defence both of his appointment as War Minister, though a civilian, which was strictly in conformity with constitutional usage, and other civilian appoint ments in the War Departments. He then proceeded to comment upon the proceedings in the Crimea, once more defending, examining, and explaining all the conduct that had been pursued, and the disasters that had occurred, and thought that our present position was full of hope. After the Marquises of CLANRICARDE and LONDON DERRY had spoken against the resolutions as ill timed and at present impolitic, _ The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that while instances of incompetent appointments were held back, it was evident that the man aimed at was Lord Palmerston. He vindicated the Government, which was in disfavr,ur because the English bad thought that they had only to wish for success to obtain it. He recounted the disgraces which had accompanied the successes of King William and Lord Chatham, and reprobated the resolutions as proclaiming to Europq that we had been defeated. He contended that though we might be disappointed in many de tails, we had no right to be disappointed with the general results of the war. He enumerated the losses and injuries inflicted on the enemy, and said that. the resolutions condemned the conduct of France as much as our own. After a brief reply from Lord ELLENBOROLGH, the resolutions were rejected by 181 against 71. Of the majority 66 were proxies. They were not called in the minority. TRADE WITH RUSSIA. On Tuesday the Earl of ALBEMARLE moved a reso lution to the effect that greater restrictions on the trade with Russia were necessary to bring the war to a successful issue. After stating the practical in efficiency of the present blockade, and the perfect organisation which existed for the transit of Russian produce through Prussia, he urged two measures on the Government—one the repeal of the order in council, the other that the duty of proving goods not to be of Russian origin should be laid en the porter, failing which, the goods should be confiscated. lie argued at some length on the practicability of obtaining from other quarters all which we now got from Russia, and the great political effects which in former wars had followed the stoppage of Russian trade with this country. Lord STANLEY OF ALDERLEY read in reply a letter from Berlin of the present month, showing the mis chief already inflicted on the inhabitants of the Russian coasts of the Baltic. Rescinding the order in council would not meet the difficulty, as by the customs law all manufactured articles were consi dered the produce of the country from which they were exported, and a very alight process would give to any produce the character of a manufacture. The Emperor of Russia cared so little about the trade that he had himself prohibited the export of grain, and laid a tax on all articles passing by the Russian frontier. The debate was continued by Lord Ravensworth, Lord Wodehouse, Earl Granville, Earl Grey, the Earl of Derby, and other peers. On a division the resolutions were negatived by a majority of 47 to 31. CHURCH RATES. Sir W. ICLAY on Wednesday moved the second reading of his bill, which stands No. 2 on the sub ject. He explained its principles, which abolished church rates in the first instance, then provided far the repair of the edifices in a great measure from the pew rents, which he placed under the control of the churchwardens, who were to be responsiole for the repairs. His bill provided, in addition, for a certain number of free sittings in every church. It ap pointed auditors of the accounts, the appointment of which was left to the vestry. He went through the various propositions that had been made at various times for disposing of the subject, and pointed out the objections to each. He could not believe that the community of the Church of England—the richest in the world—would allow their churches to go to decay, and he instanced the large sum it had expended of late years in the erection of new churches. _ _ _ Mr. PACES characterised the bill as a stab in the dark on the Church of England. He thought that the nation was bouni to maintain its Church estab lishment so long as it continued such. Under the present bill dissenters might still be compelled to pay, as the churchwardens could apportion pews to whom they chose. Mr. LLOYD DAVIES characterised the bill as a down right confiscation of property, which would cause churchmen to entertain the same hostility to dis- senters which dissenters now bore towards them. He believed that a very small sum would be realised from the letting of pews, an'l had great doubts of the success of the voluntary principle. Mr. COOPER agreed that the law required amend ment. At present the perish church was one out of many churches the last erected on the voluntary principle, the frequenters of which might object to maintain the mother churches. Still, he objected to the details of the proposed measure. The church. wardens, who had the control of the money, would be chosen only by a section of churchmen, and thought that the charge for pews would be injurious to the church. Mr. LUSHINOTON objected to the bill in diminishing the room allotted to the poor. Mr. LABOUCREPE felt sure that the Church of England would not refuse their voluntary contribu tions to the maintenance of the beautiful fabrics of their Church. As the Government had not under taken the settlement of the question, he trusted the house would agree to the proposed measure. Lord PALMERSTON said that not feeling either that the bill would become law, or, if made law, it would heal the existing dissensions, he could not, as head of the Government, give it his support. He did not think that it was sanctioned by public opinion, and believed that, though the churches might be sup ported by voluntary contributions in the wealthier districts, they would fall into decay in the poorer. The dissenters themselves cherished these ancient fabrics as ornaments to the country tolwhich they belonged. ,