The Press. — London, England, 1855-06-30 00:00:00

I.l*-?fite.--6Ag2-4(0,/, z 1 4 . vit "t + it/ No. 113.—VoL. LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 30, 1855. PRICE SIXPENCE. t;•kt V rtss. • the Cabinet, and from his having charge of the Militia, particularly noticed in the Report as having been neglected to the great detri ment of the army and the public service, must come in for a heavier share of blame than his colleagues. Mr. Rostrum's motion is postponed from the 3rd to the 10th of July, only because other members who had prior notices on the paper for the former day would not give way. The question he has raised cannot be shelved, though an attempt will probably be made to defeat it on the ground that it would be im possible for the Ministry to retain their places were this vote of censure to be affirmed, and that a change at the present time would be a great evil. Of all fallacies we have to encounter this is the greatest. Are we to affirm that Ministers are competent now because they were proved to be incompetent some months back ? Are their faults to afford presumptive proof of their merits, and their errors to constitute a ground of confidence ? This would be to affirm that neglect of duty in the past is a satisfactory guarantee for its due discharge in the future. What is to become of the prin ciple of Responsibility if the acknowledged de ficiencies of Lord PkLMERSTON as Home Secre tary are only to be recognised by his promo tion to the Premiership ? To admit that the break-up of the present themselves, and, with manly and vigorous effort, shake off all obsolete bonds which con fine their strength, and rise equal in effort to the circumstances which demand new rules of action. Such a time has come upon us. During a long reign of peace, and a continu ally-narrowing domination of Whig power, our Government has lost all real authority and power ; and, suddenly confronted in mortal strife with the mightiest despotism of the world, we find ourselves with relaxed energies, with effete statesmen, and with worn-out systems of patronage. In all crises of their history, the sturdy sense of the English people has hitherto instinctively directed them to the course necessary to their safety. Will it fail them now ? The war has to a great extent obliterated the great landmarks of party, though no cir sumstances can ever, for " governing families," obliterate the landmarks of interest. Oppo site parties in the Legislature meet in their desire to raise the character and strength, of the country to impart supe rior force to its action, to increase the efficiency of its departments, and to remedy all those defects which the strain placed on our energies shows to exist. If England is to retain her foremost place in the rank of nations, it must be by the efforts of a vigorous and un fettered Government, disinterested enough to look only to the efficiency of the public ser vice as its rule of policy, and strong enough to be able to carry its intentions into effect. Amid the distraction of parties, and the individualisms of the House of Commons, we are grateful to Mr. Roxnucx for having raised an issue on which the opinion of Members may at last be decisively tested. Those who vote against his motion, will vote an approval of the governmental proceedings for the last two years. They will vote a sanction of all those culpabilities which the Report of the Committee emphatically condemns. The in dependent Liberal Members must take their own course. They are not likely to be moved by words of ours. But we say to the Conser vatives, that they have a clear duty to fulfil. We hope we shall hear no more of the hazard if ov erthrowing the Government. The truth s, we nnot afford to keep such a Govern ment up. One more year of its rule may break us down, beyond possibility of recovery. New political combinations are required, and the Whig oligarchy is at present the great obstacle to an union of the real elements of our national strength and activity. LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 30, 1855. THE motion of Mr. ROEBUCK directly raises the question of Government Responsibility. The principle must be affirmed or rejected—yea or nay. It will -not do to assent to this principle by words and deny it by acts. It must have a practical application, or be utterly nugatory. The Report of the Sebastopol Committee states that " the responsibility of the expedi " tion to the Crimea rests upon the Home Government ;" that the Administration having launched this force against the Crimea, sepa rated at the prorogation of Parliament in August, and never met again till the second week of October ; that whereas the order to invade the Crimea was given to Lord RAGLAN on the 29th of June, the formation of a reserve at Malta was not determined upon until early in November; that steps were not taken suf ficiently early for forming a reserve at home, for augmenting the army beyond the ordinary recruiting, and for rendering the Militia avail- able for obtaining supplies of men and for relieving the garrisons in the Mediterranean. Finally, that the suffering of the army in the Crimea (and we know what that suffering was, and what terrible havoc it made in our ranks), resulted mainly from the circumstances under which the expedition to the Crimea was un dertaken and-executed—the want of informa tion—the hope of immediate success—and the absence of all preparation for a winter cam- Government would be an evil, would be to admit that it is equal to the emergencies of the time, and that no better men can he found. We will be no party to this cant. We believe that the existence of the Ministry as at present constituted is the greatest peril the country has to encounter. Our resources are breaking down under its exclusive and ener• vating rule, and it is impossible that our national strength can be fairly put forth until the men and the system are totally changed. We look in vain to the acts of the Ministry since its formation for any evidence of its capacity or proof of its success. Its career may be summed up in a single word—failure. It has failed in negotiations for peace. Tt has failed to raise our army to the strength cheer fully voted by Parliament: it has failed to send an efficient fleet to the Baltic, and to reinforce the army in the Crimea. Experience does not make fools wise. In 1855 we are repeating all the errors of 1854. Admiral DUNDAS is urging from the Baltic the demands for gun-boats made last year by Sir CHARLES NAPIER. and Lord RAGLAN again suffers from that appre hension of " no reserve " which crippled his action when the assault of Sebastopol was first undertaken. Since this date last year we have actually lost ground. Our Baltic fleet is no stronger than it was, while the enemy have enormously increased their defences ; and in the Crimea our army is much weaker than it was when the invasion was first undertaken, while the feeble reserves which then existed have been exhausted. How much longer can we afford to lose ground as we have done during the past year ? How much longer is it safe to trust to the for bearance of a generous ally? France cannot, in justice to herself, permit that enormous dis proportion to continue which now exists be tween the British force and her own army. In the life of every nation there are periods when it becomes a question whether old usages which have outlived their time shall be suf fered to prevail and drag down the country with them, or whether t h e people shall rouse paign. We have the emphatic declaration of the present Premier that the chief acts of the late Cabinet in relation to the war were collective, not individual acts. In the debate of the 29th of January, when the appointment of the Com mittee was affirmed by a majority of 305 to 148, Lord PALMERSTON, alluding to an observa tion by Mr. DISRAELI, that the motion for the Committee was not levelled against any indi vidual member of the Cabinet, thus expressed his agreement in the principle laid down There is one point in the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) in which I wish to ex press my entire cordial concurrence with him. The Right Hon. Gentleman has stated that the present motion does not single out the Duke of Newcastle as one member of the Cabinet for special and solitary condemnation, but that the whole Cabinet who were and are his colleagues up to the present time are equally, with him, responsible for those matters for which his conduct appears to be brought into question. We have stated that we consider ourselves to be jointly and in i common responsible for all those points up'.n which the motion of my Hon and Learned friend is founded, and therefore, Sir, I wish to say this on the part of the Government, that without that unworthy proceeding which I think the Right Hon. Gentleman has imputed to some one or other in the course of the debate, we consider that any blame which ig to be thrown upon any one member of the Government should be equally shared by all. After this it cannot be pretended that all the members of the late Cabinet are not equally responsible for the grave faults charged on them by the Rep ort. No distinc tion, on the authority of Lord PALMERSTON, can be made between them ; and if any such distinction could be drawn, he, from his long experience of official life , from his weight i n PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. Tile question of Administrative Reform is one of vast interest. Popular attention out of doors inquires, thinks, and talks about it—often idly, sometimes recklessly, but in many instances earnestly. In the Legislature, since the remarkable speech of Mr DISRAELI, all practical politicians are reflecting gravely upon this weighty theme. Many persons suppose that a great standing subject has been brought under political co gnisance, and that it wi ll o ccu py the publie attention, like Parliamentary ..Refortn, for s lengthened period. But we believe that the subject is intensely practical, and that it presses for a more rapid solution. It is pre-eminently a subject for sagacious