The Sun. — London, England, 1855-02-24 00:00:00

upon its advice. (Hear, hear.) I must say, sir, that Ido not myself see on what principle we can, after an interval of a few days, take a-course diametrically n cepposite to that which a fortnight ago we deliberately adopted. Recollect what has occurred since. One object which gentlemen had in view in supporting the committee is accom plished, and there is therefore now less necessity for it. As a censure it is valueless, for its work is done. As an in quiry, I tell you it is nothing but an immense sham. I defy you to get to the bottom of one of these facts, unless you do it at the risk of disorganising your army in the Crimea, or of exciting the susceptibilities and shaking the confidence of your allies. (Cheers.) You cannot attach too great weight to the warning which the rig ht hon. baro net gave you upon that subject. Or, if you succee d some in avoiding this danger through the interv ention of member of the committee who shall have influence enou g h with it to arrest its progress when it g ets u p on what he thinks dangerous ground, then you may do the grossest injustice by sacrificing officers whom you ma y bring be fore the committee, to whom you may put questions of an ac cusative character, but whom you may not allow to defend themselves, because they cannot do so without trenching upon grounds too delicate and dangerous for them to be allowed to approach. (Hear.) I say, sir, that I, who have 'held far a long time a position in connection with the ad ministratien of the army, who have received from that noble service every courtesy and kindness, and who feel that I owe it a deep debt of gratitude, should be ashamed of myself if I could allow such a proceeding to be insti tuted here, and not raise my voice against it, and do what ever I can, however humble and feeble, to protect them from being placed in a position in which everything which is dear to them—dearer than life itself—will be so staked that they will be unable to defend their accused honour. (Hear.) But lam told , —that is now the-expression—that it is irresistible. I have in my short experience in the House of Commons seen resistance made, and successfully made, to feelings quite as strong, and quite as universal, as that which now operates in this house. I have seen that done against the conviction which pervaded the whole of this house, sincerely and according to the plain sense and meaning of the words. At this moment that is not the case. We have some men voting for this upon one ground, some upon another. (Hear.) We have many voting for it as an inquiry who know it will not, it can not, ba any inquiry at all. The hon. gentleman says that in the present state of parties there is chaos. Is there no Government, no man who shall bring order into this chaos, and who, by his commanding position, shall ac quire for himself the lead of the house which, like all popu lar assemblies, is willing to be led, if it disce rns in those who aspire to lead it the qualities necessary for the pur pose ? (Cheers.) I have seen this house rescind a vote at the bidding of Sir Robert Peel ; but it was after reasons were gravely and fully stated, and from a conviction on the part of the house that they were dealing with a man of great judgment, and above all of strong will, and that they must either rescind that vote or part with the Minister whom they then thought necessary for the public welfare. But two years—it was under the Government of which I then happened to be a member—l saw but one feeling per vading this house. It was the conviction that you would have no income tax in this country, unless it were a gradu ated one. Influenced by the firmness, by the arguments, by the eloquence of one man, the house came to a different conclusion. (Hear.) In adopting the proposals which he had made, they entirely accepted his argument; and at the same time they honoered the genius and courage of the man who had stood forward to oppose them. What you want is a strong Government. (Opposition cheers.) I con fess that my own impression is—the right hon. gentleman by me (Sir J. Graham) has analysed the state ofthe house —that, as it was constituted when we were in it, the Go vernment had not the confidence of the house. It had a great many professions of support. Memel from the bench above (behind the Treasury boucle) critical support; I heard here (below the gangway), support given upon the ground of peace at all prices—no war at any price ; and opposite, vittip ,retlve support. But genuine support support having for its single object the public welfare, given to a Government which is believed to be seeking that welfare, is a thing which, in this house, does not at this moment seam to exist. For my part, under these circumstances, not having succeeded in my individual capacity, how ever humble, in conciliating even the smallest grate of confidence, I am perfectly willing to shoulder my musket again, to go into the ranks, and to attempt to give to the Gotreentnent a support, not critical or vituperative, but a support given to the Executive because I believe it is necessary it should be supported, and with the single object of giving stability to the Government and strength to the country in a moment of areal difficulty, and of seeking the promotion of the public welfar, . Sir, you do not have a strong Government by having in it strong men who take a weak course. (Hear, hear.) You must have strong men taking a strong course. They must not at the first moment throw clown the reins. They must not cast, down the reins, and act contrary to the opinions which they strongly expressed only a short time ago, because the, house happens at the moment to demand it. The Govern ment must !se something more than the reflection of the caprices of a large popular assembly. For these reasons the Government must not only be a Government of strong and independent men, but it must act strongly. Well, Sir, I have felt that in the course the Government was about to take that condition was net likely to h 9 fulfilled. I disapprove of the committee. If it be inevitable, which I deny, that is no reason for my voting fur it. I will not make myself a party to what I disapprove of because I cannot prevent others from doing so. I deny that it was irresistible. I think that if the House of Commons and the public outside had hail put before them a thorough explanation of the real facts of the case —if they hail known that the Government was more interested than they or any one else in having a really searching investigation —the Government, which is necessarily now perplexed by receiving little but official despatches, and having private letters now one way now another—souse corroborating, some denying the truth of the statements made by the very graphic writer in the public press, whose object is rather to produce an effect thee to care about any very great ac curacy of detail—the Government has the greatest in terest of any one in an inquiry which shall be search ing, which shall get at the truth—if the public had had that well, fully, and amply put before them-- if the whole gravity of the question and the dangers of the course they are likely to take had been presented to them—l think They would have hesitated. This house is an assembly of educated men, and men of the highest state in this country, who feel their responsibili ties, and who also feel that the great secret of their power is their unwillingness on any occasion to transgress honest limits. There is also an intelligent community, the mem bers of which like to be guided and taught by the house — who expect direction and guidance from this hence, but in this instacce are not getting them—who are being put upon, and I think deceived, by a hope of an investigation which can be no investigation at all. Investigation into the con duct of their late Ministers ? Yes, that they can have, fully and efficiently. But investigation into the conduct and state of the armyand its causes, they cannot get through a committee of the House of Commons. It is mere Parlia mentary red-tapism to say it can be so. I say that, in the nature of things, it cannot. They should likewise have warning of the danger they incur, and of the risks they run by adopting this course. I am confident that, had snob an appeal been made, we should not have heard that this was irresistible, and that men who had refused it as we did a fortnight ago from conscientious conviction, could now be justified in taking it up as though we thought that all our arguments were fallacies. I will not much longer detain the house, but I wish to say one word upon what has fallen from my right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham.) He said that words of parting are " apt to be delusive, and had better be avoided." I am younger than my right hon. friend, and perhaps the temperament of youth is more trustful in that respect ; but I can say with truth that I never left colleagues with greater pain. I have served with them for two years in what ispopularly denounced as a coali tion, where it is supposed that men coalesced holdin e edirectly opposite opinions, and were it is supposed that the process of discussion was dispute terminated by compromise. I have sat for two years with these men in the most perfect har mony, the most perfect sympathy. I shall through all time look back with satisfaction and pleasure upon the friendships which I have acquired and which I hope I shall retain. I have this conviction, which is meet agreeable to me, after seeing men—and I believe that you nowhere see -men so thoroughly as in a Cabinet whore you are acting together in such close and intimate connection—l rejoice to see by what high character the men are actuated who hold the leading rack in the councils of the nation. (Hear.) I have left !hem with the deepest regret. I regret that at this moment 1 should have been severed from con nection with them. I lament, perhaps selfishly, that hav• ing passed through this gloomy period, I am debarred from all share in any returning prosperity. I will not profess that entire indifference to office which many men on such occasions think it necessary to profess. I will say frankly that, holding a position in which the greatest and most im portant interests which could be entrusted to any man had been committed to me, I had questions before me hoping to settle thorn ' upon the settlement of which any man who had the good fortune to achieve it might look back with pride and congratulation ' • and I honestly confess that I garb up that position with,pain, but I gave it up as I part from my cis/leaven, frofn a paranaL :nee of public duty. lam told that I have deserted my colleagues at a period of great difficulty. I say, like the right hon. baro net (Sir J. Graham), that I have deserted no man. I was Prepared to stand by my fellows, and I must not be called a deserter for so doing. But, sir, in the course which I shall pursue hereafter I trust that I may learn a lesson frem the conduct of many whom I have seen in this house, professing to support her Majesty's Government, but at the name time throwing every impediment possible in its way. (Hear.) I have no inclination to take any such course. I can therefore only look trustfully forward, hoping that the ana conduct of the Gover nm ent m a y be such as I can cor di a lly heartily approve. Ido for their sakes, Ido so for my O wn sake, I do so above all for the sake of my country, which I now 800 in difficulties, but which will, I trust, b 7 the energies of our administration, by the courage of armies and the p oik itiZ . by the steadfastness of the pe o pl e , recover hithert o ho l i ci. vddeb, as a military nation, she h as a l ways (Cheers.) 4 : nu : a ts,GIe.SInELL confessed that he could not un whohadaddre *lr e of the right heiaeurable gentlemen self to think that it house—how any man couldbringhim head of the Govervjamei,P°ssible fo upon noble viscount at the decision to which thehotutios insist the reversal of the upon a question of sesei-cane by ea immense a majority (Hear, hear.) It was toon_lnnense public importance. and nn,:stelie,ethe habit to give the go bye to the real facts, aj, a:efficiently in mind the gravity of that question. wasting away by disease, by mismar eiv il e tl i b o y nw The facts were neglect a s the f the British army. (Oppositien ch in e felt i that it it power admitted by the Ministers of the Crown , was imperatively his duty to do everything to give effect to the decision of the house, an d it Was his firm convictio n that if the house had unha pp il y been in duced to retra ce the ste p which it had taken , it . could have struck a h eav y blow at representative i nstitutions. (Cheers.) Mr. H. DRITMAIONTD said, in addition to many other difficulties under which he always laboured in addressing the house, one which always pressed upon , h t im i beyond o a lt others was, that ho was not q uit© spoken in the house. He be lieved h sure 't w w a fi s a a d a i n are u c a t g o e f was the English, but when he was told th at be, in his ecnhestthsiinr,m plicity, votin g f or an inquiry, did not m ean any such but meant that he had a want of confidence in somebo d y else, he was really at a loss how to proceed. Admitting. the translation , he was at a loss to understand what was the meaning of words "want of confidence." He had great confidence in the right hon. gentlemen, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he would not rob the till, but he had no confidence in his commanding an army. Ho supposed they must take these words in a non-natural sense, as that was the only way in which matters could be reconciled. As he took seine past in recommending the house to adopt this inquiry, he begged to say that if he had seen any reason to alter his opinion, nothing would have psevented his voting agai ns t that motion 'new. (Hear) Bnt let the house remember the facts. TheY had no knowledge before them. Ministers came • down to give them Whatever certain individuals mig kreow f none, forins. „_ from private letters, the house had no in " 4". (Hear, hear.) It knew that it had voted einerenenei Sinu s of mon e y f or ver y large forces. It saw G „„„ __ that snot munkers of those me lod died THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 24, 1855. er were sick. That was all it knew. Members spoke of these things to Ministers. ',Whey were most eloquent in defe,nee of etlemselves ; panegyrics upon each other were unboundiet(Oppoeition cheers)—the defence of their own red-tapism were distracting ; but when we spoke of the homeless, starved, frost-bitten army, no pitying word, no eye afforded one tear. (Cries of Oh, oh, and cheers.) Since some hon. gentlemen were so positive in their contradictions let them produce Hansard, and show him one sentence until Friday last, when the noble lord new at the head of the Government brought forward this question—show him one word which ever admitted the evils. The Ministers positively denied that the state of the army was such as it was represented to be. (Opposition cheers.) These gen tlemen who had recently governed the country, did not seem at all aware of the real condition into which they had brought the country. At a moment when negotiations were going on which could not be suspended without de triment to the public service—at a time when any delay caused additional hardships to our wretched army—at a time when it was of the utmost importance to be provided with a strong Government, what were they doing? Either from their places, or, like spoiled servants, running away when the house is on fire and the mistress calls them to put it out, John won't come unless sill will ; Tom won't come unless Harry will, and so the house went on burning. We had beard before of the farce of High Life below Stairs. This was the tragedy of Low Life acted up-Stairs. (Oppo sition cheers.) This was not the worst of it. The Govern ment, which had confessedly by sheer incompetence de stroyed an enormous army, which had brought the mockery of Europe upon us, which had produced criticisms upon our military skill in the German papers, at that very mo mentof they advised the Crown to confer the h i g hest mark 1 favour upon the head of that very Governm ent —(cont!nuett toh cheeringte views fro of m the tthat h n on Opposition in contemptbenches)—imparting, of h touniversal ins n l feeling of the country, Europe. (Cheers.) He did not deny and in defiance of tthheeresewnasse mucho of all of danger. Let by the report were they te be scared danger to be apprehended from this comm i t tee—(hear) — but uld be a sham. S. Herbert) was afraid the commit teew them be taught to avoid it. The right hon. gentleman (Mr sham ; heconcerned that need not be in the least on score. He (Mr. Drummond) promised him th at it should be no (Hear.) The opponents o f the co m mittee raised up ques tions which they knew the committee never intended to put; and then asked wheth er the house would entrust such ques tions to eleven membe rs. Could they not inquire how it was that when these active men of nine months' war be gan to find out that a waggon train was wanted they made waggons, but forgot the harness? He should like to know, at a time the country was running breast high against French influence, what it would have said if it had thought the day would have come when 10,000 soldiers should be fighting in French uniforms, and receiving 10,000 reans of fresh meat, because there was not brai ns en ot ig h in ner Majesty's Ministers to send it out? Could the comm etoo not find out why the horses were starved, and why the wood huts remained, no .one knew how long, at Bristol, and were not long ago still at Southampton? It was into the civil departments they wanted to inquire. There never was any intention on the part of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Roebuck) of himself, or of any one whom he had heard his ht n. and learned friend consult as to the for mation of the committee, to inquire into anything relating to the (on Ind of the war; but, as he had already said, he did think it dangerous, so dangerous that the house (eight to take the responsibility upon Welt' and give instructions to the committee. He dial not 'think it ought to be left to the committee. He might give them many insights into the dangers. He did not wish to excite their Joha Bullisin or anti-French foeliogs, but he would appeal to their honour as gentlemen. They had, wi.oly or unwisely, gone into a partnership. They had not passed a bill for limit ing liability, and it was not fair or honest of them to in quire into anything but what related to themselves. They had no right to make the misconduct of their own Govern ment an excuse for inquiring into that of France. There fore, he thought that anything of this sort ought in Rome way, either by an understanding with the Government or by instructions from the house, to be provided against. Lord SEYMOUR had voted against the committee, and he adhered to the opinion he then expressed. He consi dered that inquiry would be at this time fraught with great inconvenience to the public service. It would be injurious to the army in the Crimea, and very embarras sing in regard to those preparations which we ought to be making for the campaign in the spring. (Hear, hear.) But he understood that the Government acceded to the committee, and having been asked by a member of the Government to allow his name to stand upon it, he felt it his duty to do so. He di 1 that after consultation with his hen. friend the member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), who , agreed with him in all he said as to the inconvenience of the inquiry, and as io its danger, unless it were very care fully guided either by instructions from the house'or by its own good sense—a matter which, with the strong feel ing existing in the country, would be very difficult to ac complish. At this moment we ought to be making pre parations for the spring; campaign ; but our military de partment s—the War-office, the office of the Secretary at War, the Horse-Guards, the Ordnance, the Commissariat, 1 the medical department—would not be looking to the ap proaching campaign, but would be making every exertion to defend themselves against the inquiry of the coremitee. (Hear.) He felt as strongly as any one could the difficul ties which this inquiry would impose upon the public ser vice, and he also felt that, if there were to be an inquiry, it must in justice to the feelings of their friends and rela tions in this country—in justice to the late Ministers whose characters were impugned—and in compliance with the general wishes of this country, it must be a most care ful and searching inquiry. Mr. LO WE was anxious to state to the house a few of the reasons which weighed strongly in his mind against pro deeding any further with the proposed inquiry. An hon. member opposite had said that it was impossible for the house to reverse its j tidgment on the subject, bat he thought he (Mr. Lowe) should be paying the house a far higher compliment if he supposed that it would be possible for the house to amend its resolution when it found %that it had been induced to come to a hasty and improper decision. The house was called upon to grant a eommittee to in quire into the condition of the army before Sebastopol, and into the conduct of those departments which had had the administration and conduct of that army. The hoe. member for Surrey had very properly said that the inquiry must be limited in some way. But how was the inquiry to be limited ? Were the limits to exclude any iuiry which mu: tbe dangerous to our alliance with Franc e? if so, how was it to be done? We were to inquire into the condition of the army in the Crimea. The committee would, therefore, hare to inquire into the conduct of those who had charge of the army out there. The first question which would arise would be on the part of those who cri minate the condition of the army, and who would say, " You were side by side with the army of another nation, not possessing the same maritime resources as yourselves, and yet that army was in an excellent condition. Why was yours not so ?" Those who defended themselves, or those who were generous enough to take the part orthe absent, would urge that the difference between the condi tion of the English and French armies was not, in truth, so greet as had been imagined ; and upon this an issue would be raised. That would be the very question upon which the verdict of the committee would turn, and if they intended to do justice to the parties accused, they could not exclude that question from the consideration of the committee. Trite, they might exclude it by an arbi trary rule, but by so doing they would deprive the parties upon their trial of their best and strongest defence. How could the committee attempt to fix an enduring and inde lible stain upon the men who had been entrusted with these things, if they withheld any portion of the defence which those men might be disposed to offer? Then, again, if the result of the inquiry were to be made known to the world, it would, in his opinion, greatly imperil our present alliance with France ; and it was not to be ex pected that the Emperor of the French would attach the same value to an alliance with a country which for party or political purposes wished to inquire into every act connected with the administration of his army. If, therefore, they refused to go filly inte the question, they would endanger the interest and reputation of those whose conduct was called in question • and, on the other hand, if they inquired minutely into the subject, they would en danger the stability of our valuable alliance with France. On the ground of justice, too, he felt that the inquiry of the committee must inevitably result in failure. Was it wise to make it appear at the present moment to the na tions of Europe that the House of Commons sought to set up an antagonistic system—that our Government possessed a principle of quality, and that those who as a Government put forward propositiens to-day were really governed by another power, which was the House of Commons, and that there could be no assurance that all the proposals made might not be completely set aside next week? lie was aoxiens that this great breach in our syste.n of go vernment—this formidable attack upon our means of offence and defence —this measure, which so nearly menaced our alliance with France and materially affected our position in Europe, should not pass by without his having offered it at least his most humble protest. General FEEL stated that although his name had been placed on the committee, he still felt, as he had stated on a previous occasion, that the result of the inquiry would be valueless, if not positively injurious. Having, however, consented to serve on the committee, he was ready to do all that lay in his power t• assist is realising the expecta tions of the country. The hon. and gallant member ex plained that on a former occasion he had been reported to hare said that he was not surprised to witness the despon dency of the public with respect to our operations in the East ; the word which he had employed was " indignation' and not "despondency," for he certainly had never felt anything like a feeling of despondency, but, on the con trary, had uniformly entertained the opinion that what ever might have been the blunders made at the commence ' merit there could be no doubt as to the result of our °pc ' rations. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SCOTT said that, although he felt regret at the re tirement from the Cabinet of the three right hon. gentle men opposite, he undoubtedly felt more astonishment at the course they had taken. For where was the altered state of circumstances between the state of things as they now existed and that upon which they consented to join the Government ? (Heor.) It might be very well for those right hon. gentlemen to say that the vote of the house in volved a censure upon the Government ; but, speaking for himself, and for, he believed, the majority of his friends, the sole grounds for that vote were the sufferings and loss which had occurred in the army at the seat of war. If the committee were granted, and supposing it to be formed of men of competent ability, confidence would be restored, and the required number of recruits would soon be re turned. (Hear.) Mr. G. YERNON opposed the committee. The hon. and gallant general who had spoken (Gen. Peel) showed that it would be most inconvenient ; the noble lord who was to be chairman (Lord Seymour) also showed that it would be most dangerous, as well as inconvenient; and the hon. member for West Surrey most unanswerably proved that Was it solelyof the a w s a a r. vote would be worse th an use l ess — m i sch i evous. The hon 0n those me m be r said th ere was no i n t ent i on to inquire into the What of t censurea then w a s the who h inquiry ad had the for? the conduct of the war ? Th e p eop l e h a d a deep interest fari ng and some e army, now in a situation o f grea t suf and the delay i''il, and no doubt some of that su ff ering avoided. nut wh ich has taken place might have been quire into the hew state wall all 5 committee of that house to in might have been delay9alinarnly 3,000 miles off? There klava ; but were they t o niaking the road from Bala or the general abroad? bl ame le the Government at home, fixated th a t th e Mi n i s t ers of England would ever thro w the officers engaged i n the their man tl es over service a nd that, should mistakes occnr , of th e country, sa crifice themselves than cast b l ame they would rather , It was said that we had suffered nonettiotheir officers.' National disgracer, after Alma, Balaklava, annaClintsgrace. By whom was it wrought ? By Ministers at home 7 74 . position cheers.) That was a matter of opinion. n o p eoi l; bout the state of the were deeply anxio us a arm Y,but what wanted was a change of men , and not inqui ry , It was they wan strong Government — it was a luau that th action—it was a b the HO f 6 tod and not an inquiry y tufb o Com people wan , mans. The hon. mem be r for Aylesbury had anticipated He (Mr. G:Ver the ver dict. inquiry,.and had pr eju dged her Ma'estys Government a cor dial was inclined to give 1 would to the best of his power sup dial support, and the with . __ but _ ..,.., vigeV,ri he did port them in carrying 04 the var - not believe the Government had obtained much strength by the change they had made in the Minister of War. Of , Lord Aberdeen he might say that no man, whether Con servative or Liberal; ever followed more willingly than ho in the support of liberal measures. The same might be ; laid of tii Duke of Newcastle who at the same time, was ono of the ablest and most indefatigable Ministersthat ever existed. Much had been said of the aristocracy and of the army, but he could not believe that the system; of purchase in the army was at fault. He called on the house to give to the new Premier a fair trial. He gave his full adhesion to the noble lord, although he did not sit with his knees to the noble lord's back—(a laugh)—and he trusted that the house would not fail to dothe same thing. But while doing so ho implored the ncble lord not to beled away by Fxtreme opinions respecting the balance of power, and by chimerical notions about oppressed nationalities, from bi inging the war to a speedy and an honourable conclusion. Mr. PALK thought that the noble lord was to haveformed in that the th unison n firsti s o g o: e principles sti and powerful s e ntiments, Government—strong but it appeared o li t t came under discussion had scattered the elements of this Government. There was, however, something much more important to the country than the rise and fall of Govern ments. It was not possible that the house could go on week after weekhearing the explanations of Ministers and ex-Mi nisters, and doing nothing besides. They had been premised at the beginning of the session great and important mea sures of reform, but where are they ? Were they to be put aside for ever ? It was a disastrous fact that an army of 56,000 men was totally disorganised and ruined ; .but a committee of that house was not necessary, and they should take care not to do anything that would leave the country without a Government, without an army, and without a general. Mr. LAING said he would support the present, as ho had supported the late Government, in the hope that they would at the earliest practicable moment secure a safe and honourable peace. But more immediately pressing than this question was the slate of our military and naval establishments as disclosed by the late campaign. The country had spent millions upon millions on behalf of these establishments, which as a business man ho might call the insurance of the country, but now, at the moment of need, they found that they had been insuring in an insolvent concern. He could assure the house that the pride of the commeroial men of this country was stung to the quick, on finding that their efforts to place this country in the van of improvement were frustrated by the incompetency of our military establishments. He be lieved that incompetency could only be removed by the adoption of the principles essential to all commercial suc cess— undivided responsibility, division of labour, promo tion of merit. If the noble lord would undertake this task of army reform, he could promise him the support of the Liberals in the house, and of the country at large. But, whether the noble lord undertook the task or not, it must be done. Sir J. PAKINGTON—The present state of public affairs appears to me to be so critical and so menacing, and the present state of the Government of this country to ho so peculiar and so unsatisfactory, and, I think I may add, so discreditable—(hear)—that I feel very desirous to be al lowed to address some observations to the house. (Hear.) That desire I feel more strongly because I am one of those gentlemen who have been selected to be proposed to the house this evening as one of the members of the com mittee of inquiry about to be appointed, of the proceed ings of which we hare heard so reach (bear, hear). What is the present state of public affairs and the main ground of the desire that now exists in the public mind for inquiry ? The finest army that England ever sent forth has been victorious and has perished (hear, bear). It has perished by disease, eold, fatigue, and protracted suffering (hear, hear, hear). Is this no cause for inquiry? Am I going too far when I use this expression—l fear that before another month has passed, as the 63d Regiment has already gone—as our noble brigade of guards has almost gone so will the whole of that fine army have gone (hear, hear)? How is that army to be recruited? Have we the means of strengthing it, and of restoring our force in the Crimea ? It was only yesterday I got a description from a very distinguished officer of a draft that lately left England for the Crimea. It consisted, lie said, of 2,000 men, who wore red coats and carried muskets, but were not soldiers (hear, hear). Mere was not one amongst them who had been embodied as a soldier for more than three months, and many of them had been embodied only for two months (hear, hear, hear). Is this fair towards those whom they are goin g to assist, or to the allies with whom we have engaged in this contest (hoar, hear, hear)? Is this fair to England (hear, hear) ? And this being the state of affairs abroad, what do we find to be the state of affairs at home ? We find divided and distracted councils (hear, hear)—we find that tho time that should be devoted by a united Government to the most energetic action is now consumed by the intrigues (hear, hear) of individual ambition and the struggles of contending parties (hoar, hear). Is this no cause for inquiry ? And what is the state of feeling ' oat of doors in eonseqnence of this state of affairs ? The hon. member for Manchester has referred to the state of public feeling with great moderation and with great truth. I be lieve the feeling out of doors at this moment amongst the people is ono of deep indignation. The people of this country will demand to know what are the causes of these misfortunes. They are looking anxiouslj to tie proceed ings of this house, they expect an inquiry, and will not be satisfied without an inquiry. (Hear.) They expect to be able to ascertain—and it is our duty in this house to assist them in the inquiry—who is to blame for the misfortunes and calamities that have occurred. I think any man is to be censured who at a moment like this hesitates to express his opinion on the state of affairs, and I have no hesi tation in expressing my distinct opinion, that the blame for this state of affairs is to be attributed to the mis conduct and mismanagement of the Government of Lord Aberdeen. (Hear.) I do not deny that great mis takes have been made in the Crimea, and that much that has ()marred there has led to part of the suffering that has been endured by our army in that quarter of the world ; but it is my deliberate opinion that it is the bad policy of the late Ministay, and their mismanagement of affairs, which have, in a very large measure, conduced to the mis fortunes which this country has now to deplore. My belief is that from the commencement of this unhappy war, and the negotiations that led to it, the conduct of her Majesty's Ministers has been marked by a series of the gravest mis takes and blunders. But when I use this hinging, I beg to say I entirely agree with those who, in the debate on the motion of the hon. and learned member for Sheffield, alto gether disclaimed the intention of attacking any one indivi dual Minister. (Hear, hear, hear.) Undoubtedly, I agree is the opinion that the whole Cabinet must be held equally responsible, and the right honourable member for Wiltshire has broadly and fairly accepted that issue to night. (Hear.) I allude to this matter the more parti cularly, because, in one of the speeches we have heard to night, the resignation of Lord Aberdeen and the Duke of Newcastle was referred to as a sacrifice to the public ob loquy that had fallen on them in consequence of the dis asters in the Crimea. I have no hesitation in saying that if I were called upon to name the members of the late Go vernment who, in my judgment, bore the heaviest share of the responsibility of the unfortunate events that had occurred in the Crimea, without having any political leaning to the noble duke, I would not name him as one of those men. (Hear.) Whatever mistakes had been com mitted in the Duke of Newcastle's department, I am free to own that the mode of his retirement is more honourable to him—(hear, hear) —than the mode in which others have contrived to retain possession of office. (Hear, hear.) I will not deny that if I were to name the members of the Aberdeen Administration to whom I am disposed to attach the greatest share of blame for the misfortunes that have occurred, I would name the noble lord the member for the city of London and the noble lord opposite, who is now the Prime Minister of this country. (Hear.) lam judg ing now solely from the language used by the Duke of Newcastle himself in that remarkable defence of his con duct to which I have already indirectly referred. (Hear.) We learn from the speech of the Duke of Newcastle that at the time when the Secretaryship for the Colonies was divided from the Secretaryship for War, and the new Secretaryship for War was created, the Duke of Newcastle strongly remonstrated upon the incompleteness of the ar ransement. (Hear.) When the noble lord the member for the city of London explained last session the arrangements that had been male, I took exception to the imperfection of those arrangements, and stated it was impossible to con duct the administration of the army on such principles. (Hear.) I said that they could nut hope to conduct the affairs of the army satisfactory, unless a consolidation took place of the various and conflicting departments by which the army hail bean hitherto governed. The right hon. gentleman the member for Wiltshire then said that my objections were groundless, but now we find that at the very time I raised this objection in the House of Commons the Duke of Newcastle had urged and urged again the same objection, and was overruled by the noble lord and the Ca binet. (Hear.) When the noble lord urged that he could not discharge his duties as Secretary of War under this imperfect arrangement, he was overruled by the noble lord on the ground that Parliament demanded the change, and to please Parliament the change was made. (Hear.) That is a grave charge against the noble lord and all his col leagues, except the Duke of Newcastle. (Hear.) Whatever may be the talent, ability, or capacity of the Duke, of New castle, I do not believe that a ny m i n i s t er cou ld h ave con ducted the war satisfactorily as Secretary of State with the depariment left in that divided, conflicting, and unsatis factory state that has lasted nearly up to this time. (Hear.) The consolidation that now takes place was urged by me last session ; it was alio urged with consummate ability by Earl Grey in another plane ' • and it appears that the Duke of Newcastle urged it upon the Cabinet, but he was over ruled by the rest of the Cabinet, because they thought more of what would be acceptable for the moment to the House of Commons than what would be beneficial to the country and conducive to the prosecution of the war. (Hear.) What I have quoted from the speech of the noble duke shows that one of the persons most responsible is the noble lord the member for Loudon. (Hear.) I have alluded to the noble lord the Prime Minister in consequence of his con nection with the militia, and I think one of the greatest errors of the late Government was their neglect of the mi litia. (Hear.) The noble viccount, in answer to a question put to him by the hon. member for Dublin last session, said that it was not then intended to organise and enrol the Irish militia, because it was not desirable to incur any large expense if the public service did not require it, but what might be done in another year was a matter for future consideration. Wo were told at the commencement of the war that the Government contemplated an attack upon the Crimea. In the month of June the order for the attack on the Crimea issued, and yet the noble lord, in his answer, said the Irish militia was not then to be enrolled and embodied. (Hear.) Were the English or Scotch militia embodied at a proper time, or was any one step taken to insure the Government that legitimate and constitutional reserve from which our army ought to be recruited ? (Hear.) We are told to look upon the noble . viscount as the man to lead us out of our difficulties. I wish he may, and no person will be more ready to give him credit for it than I shall if he succeed ; but what am I to think when I find him holding this language in May last, and exhibiting such a complete absence of the sagacity and foresight that ought to distinguish a minister of this coun try at such a moment when it was clear to every one who considered the state of affairs that we wore about to embark not only in a serious war, but to make that war an aggres sive war by invading the soil of our enemy ? (Hoar.) The first duty of the Government on the outbreak of the war was to take every step in their power to embody and enrol the militia, and to secure to the country that legitimate and constitutional reserve. I have therefore a right to im pute to the noble lord a large share of the misfortunes that occurred. (Hear, hear.) Ido not regard the motion of the honourable member for Sheffield, and the division upon that motion, as a vote of censure upon any indivi dual member of the late Government ; but I regard it as a :vpno v pdt o oens t z e ite of (h ce ea n r sur h o e u m p o o . n t T h n o e c r o i n g d h u t ct n of the Government, but letfsuccehns the vote and a w s as accepted by the noble viscount not intend seriously to h se av w e in cluirSa but only intended to censure titsh ao b oe l 00 mi votedeer committee forttmlteemet gentleman n ef. the member fo; Carlisle said that those who ° motion did me remind him that those who assented to it as was to be the return i n ke t iom s col u n c i h eoed g t ly tte e to t ho h i: e s y i e r 4 e u t e t p nu p ac et of it o h a i t t , vw d oh l t d oe not anticipate th a t pggr '-- _~ t _ __~. l .._..r. , had been condemned (hear, hear). Ind I am free to say that I believe the common sense and light feeling of this -- - country were never more outraged than when the-Govern ment of Lord Aberdeen, after that vote of censure had been passed, returned to office I mayalmest say unchanged (hear, hear). A strong Government was desired, but how was the Government of Lord Aberdeen strengthened ? Why, it was strengthened by taking away fro:n it two of i the most experienced statesmen of the day (hear, hear). The right honourable gentleman opposite and two of his colleagues have retired from office, and I think they have retired on ample sufficient grounds (hear, hear). In my opinion they have retired from office in a manner highly to their own honour (hear, hear). I think the course they have adopted, after the part they had taken in the debate on the motion of the honourable member for Sheffield, is a consistent and honourable course (hear, hear, hear) ; and I think the position of the noble viscount, the „ Primo Minister, is an extraordinary one (hear, hoar, hear). I ask whether the course advised by the noble lord last Friday, or the course taken by him on this Friday, is the proper and constitutional one for the house to follow (hear, hear)? I cannot understand how the noble lord can get over the objection he expressed on Friday last (hear, hear). I can perfectly understand why the noble lord thought it better, instead of giving his aid in the forma tion of a strong Government, which he was invited to do — to place himself at the head of a weak Government (hear, hear). I can easily understand that there might be an occasion on which he would be obliged to take a course in opposition to the dictates of his own judgment, but I can not understand how any man in the situation of Prime Minister of this country can think it consistent with his duty to consent to the course to-night which he disap proved of on Friday last, and which he declared to be in consistent, and not iu accordance with the spirit of the constitution of this country. (Hear ) Did the noble lord mean what he said on Friday last, and if he did, is he now prepared to take a course that is not in accordance with the constitution of this country? (Hear.) Ate we to have the Prime Minister of this country setting an example to the House cf Commons of taking a course that is not con sistent with the constitution ? (Hear.) This is for the noble lord to explain ; and I confess I think the positio❑ of the noble lord is not that which, under such circum- stances, the Prime Minister of this country ought to hold. (Hear.) Oa the other hand, lam quite unable to agree to the strong objection which the right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle expressed to-night to the appointment of the committee, and the house must be struck with the great discrepancy between the language used by the right hon. member for Carlisle and the language of the right hon. member for Wiltshire. The right hon. member for Wiltshire only took exception to the proposal to inquire by this committee into the condition of the army in the Crimea-(hear)—and went on to state that he thought it perfectly legitimate for the house to agree to an inquiry into the conduct of her Majesty's Ministers, but he ob jected to the proposed tribunal—he objected to a com mittee, but did not object to a commission—(hear) then, why have we not had a commission offered? (Hear, hear.) I was very glad to hear from the right hon. gentle man that as no commission has been offered he takes no exception to an inquiry, at least into the conduct of Ministers; and, as far as my opinion goes I consider that to be the principal objeet of the motion. I fear that there may be found to be a suffieient reason for putting an end to the inquiry into the state of the army, because I doubt whether you will have any army to inquire into. (Hear, hear, and some cries of ' ! y This is not a question of opinion or feeling, but it is a question of fact; and I fear that I resort to no exaggeration—l fear that lam speaking too strictly in accordance with the facts when I make that statement. The right hon. member for Carlisle objected altogether to a committee. He condemned inquiry as den geroue, and one of the principal arguments upon which he relied was, that snob an inquiry was without precedent. My aniwer to that is, that our calamity in the Crimea is without precedent. Was there ever an occasion which called more loudly upon Parliament than this, if there be no pre cedent, to establish one ? I think that this is a ea'e in which a precedent must be established • and I say that, so long as the Treasury benches are filled by the mensbers of the Government which caused these disasters, there remain fair and legitimate grounds for inquiry into the conduct which led to them. As I hive been selected to be one of the members of the committee, I am very desirous, before my name is proposed and consented to, that I should state frankly to the Government and to the house the spirit in which I shall enter into the inquiry if I am appointed a member of the committee. Accidently I was not consulted before my name was placed there by a friend of mine who did perfectly right in agreeing to place my name there, and who could have done nothing more painful and disagreeable to me than to have hesitated for a moment in putting my name upon the committee, if, in his opinion, I could have been of any use as a inenater of it. But I feel bound frankly to state to the hones the views which I entertain with regard to the committee ; and it will then be for the house to say whether I ought to be a member of it. I only consent to servo upon that committee on two distinct and clear conditions. One is, that the inquiry shall be com plete and searching. Public indignation and public justice demand it. The calamity is without precedent, and the inquiry must be searching. (Hear.) The other condition is that, as regards the conduct of those departments which are to be remele the etbject of inquiry, we shall be gin at the beginning. Do not let us be told that we are to take this inquiry from Ifovember. The noble lord the member for London Reenact to think, if he deserted his colleagues upon the eve of a critical division, and then read a correspondence written in November, that he could evade his responsibility for these events. There never was a greater mistake. (Hear, hear.) Tho sufferings of our army commenced in November, disease and death began their havoc in November, but the responsibility of the Government commenced in June and duly. That wae4he time when the real responsibility for these affairs began; and I say that if we are to embark in this in quiry we must do it with a full anti deep sense of the responsibility which is incarred. This house has stepped out of its way—it has taken an unusual course—it has appointed a committee of an extraordinary nature ; but it has done so under extraordinary circumstances, and I Artist that wo who are likely to be members of the com mittee will not close our eyes to the magnitude of the responsibility under which wo are to conduct that in quiry. ( Hear, hear.) Are we to inquire into the circum stances under which our army was first sent to the Crimea? I do not touch upon the policy of going to the Crimea. I That may be beyond the scope of our inquiry. Ido not touch upon tae abstract policy. In my mind that is a grave question which must be some day discussed; but are we to inquire into the circumstances of sending that army to the Crimea late in the autumn, without adequate mesas, ignorant of the force of the enemy, and ignorant of the nature of the fortress which we were about to attack ? Is that to be the subject of inquiry? I happen to know from private sources that the very highest military autho rities exercised all the influences they could against this unhappy and ill-fated expedition. I know not whether the Queen's Government were warned ; but this I know, that the generals commanding were warned by military authori ties of no ontnary eminence, that if they went to Odessa they might inflict a heavy blow upon the enemy and be successful, but that if they went to the Crimea they knew nothing of the enemy they were going to attack—they in curred frightful risks, protracted success might be more disastrous than failure, and if they attempted to winter there the army of England would be destroyed. It is within my knowledge that that warning was given ; and fearfully has every word been fulfilled.. Are we to inquire into that ? Are we to inquire why, when such an expedi tion was seat out, there was no reserve either at Constan tinople or Malta? The hon. and learned member says, " Let us inquire into the conduct of the departments which minister to that army." But what department so important as that which ought to have had a reserve at their disposal ? Are we to inquire into that? Are we to in quire why no militia yet exists from which the army could be recruited ? Are we to inquire why our battering train was wholly insufficient for the object for which it was sent? why those huts which were essential, net only to the com fort, but to the lives of the soldiers, were never prepared or sent out, or the order given —as I understand—until the third week in November? (Hear, hear.) It was perfectly clear at the end of September that- we were involved in a protracted struggle, that we could not take Sebastopol by a coup de main, and that we had, in all probability, a winter campaign before us. Still, there were no huts or dered until the third week in November. Are we to inquire into that? These are some of the subjects, wholly irre spective of the condition of the army an l the conduct of the generals, which deeply implicate the conduct of the Go vernment. Are we to inquire into these things? If we do not it will be a mere mockery of an inquiry, and thecouu try will regard with indignation and disgust what they will deem to be only an evasion of that inquiry. These are the opinions which I have thought it my duty to state upon the nature of the inquiry before us. If it should be the opinion of the house that, having expressed these views I am precluded from taking apart in the committee, if they think that with these strong impressions I am unable to not judicially, I shall at once acquiesce in that opinion. If, on the other hand, it is desired that I should be a member of that committee, Ishall discharge the dutyimpoxed upon me as fairly, asjustly, as impartially as I can , but I hope that the understanding of the house• is, that I, at all events, can only serve upon that committee upon the condition that the inquiry shall be full and complete—that there shall be no evasien—and that, be they high er low, in office or out of office, at home or abroad, those who are guilty of this unhappy calamity shall be discovered and exposed. Mr. WORTLEY said, that if this were a mere party question he should feel that his position in that house should prevent his taking any part in it ; but as he but seldom obtruded his opinion upon the house he trusted that he should be excused if he asked to be allowed I. give expression to the strong feelings which were in his mind. He had voted against this Inquiry, with the full persuasion that it was a most unconstitutional proposition and that it would eventuate in no goo d t o th e c ountry. But if he had entertained that o pi n i on a t th e ti me when he gave that vote, certainly every speech which he had heard that evening — he spoke not of his hon. friends who sat before him (Sir J. Gr a h am an d M r. S. H er b e rt), but the speeches which he had heard from every quarter had tended to con firm him in the opinion which he had originally formed. All admitted that if not an unconstitutional, it was* a very exceptional course to adopt, and that it was an inconve nient and a d angerous course; an d few denied that it was accompanied with m an if es t i n justice. He did not p res ume to pass any opinion upon the statements whic h had been made by the right h on . mem b e r for Carlisle or the right hon. memb er f or S ou th Wilt s hire ; because he agreed with the hon. member for Manchester, that the question of whether a man• was to accept office or to secede from it was above all others one which should be settled in a man's own conscience; but he presumed to say that if he could imagine himself to have been in their position, and to have held the places which they held, he did not think that he could with honour have taken any other course than that which they had adopted. (Hear, hear.) He regretted exceedingly that the noble lord at the head of the Government had so lightly yielded and conceded the committee, and, while admitting the difficulties against which he had to eontend, he must say that, in his opinion, it would have been for the best interests of the country if the noble viscount had endeavoured to avert it. He enter tained three cardinal objections to the appointment of this committee. The first objection was that it might possibly endanger the alliance between this country and France, and, even among those who spoke most despondingly of the state of affairs, every one felt that the French alliance was essential to the success of the expedition. The right hon. baronet who last addressed the house said that the inquiry —if inquiry there were to be—ought to be most searching, and he would readily admit that statement ; for, if it were not a most searching inquiry, a feeling, difficult to allay, would be roused among the people of this country. The question which would have to be answered was— " Why did you go to the Crimea so late in the season?" And was that question applicable to English generals alone? (Hear.) That inquiry must also refer to what at one time were scornfully deemed " timid counsels," but which perhaps were the most wise, and could that part of the inquiry be confined to English commanders alone? (Hear, hear.) If there was to be an inquiryinto the present state of the army before Sebastopol, and whether that army might not have been in a. better position than it was , the q uestion must arise as to whether it would not have b een better to attack Sebastopol 24 hours after the battle of the Alma, and co uld that inquiry refer to Lord Raglan 11°40 It was matter of notoriety that many professional men held the opinion •that if Sebastopol had been attacked by the army and by the fleet immediately after the Alma, that fortress wou hi have fallen into the hands of the Allies. He expressed no such opinion, but be felt that in inquiring into the subject it could not only be the conduct of the British genera l that must be scrutinised. The promoters even of the cominittee appeared now to shrink from carrying it into effect. The hon. member for West Surrey, whose wit and eloquemce he much admired, had even admitted the danger of disturb ing the French alliance. That hon. gentleman said, that the committee could -inquire into such circumstances as whether the waggon-train had boon despatched without harness, and similar circumstances, but the country ex pected, if there was an inquiry at all, not only an inquiry into the administration of the War Department at home, but a full and searching inquiry into the conduct of the war. The hon. and darned member for Sheffield shook his head, but he would tell him, that there could not he a searching inquiry into the state of the army before Sebas topol which did not involve the consideration of the whole conduct of the war. There was another objection of great force. It was all very well for the right hon. ;emetic man the late Secretary for War, in a chivalrous spirit to offer no objection to an inquiry into the administration of the department with which he had been connected, be cause, no doubt, he was conscious of having done all in his power to discharge the duties of that department. Nothing could be more natural than that that right hon. gentleman should adopt that course, or that the Delos of Newcastle should be anxious to clear himself from the load of obloquy which had been most undeservedly heaped upon him, but the hon. member for Kidderminster had clearly demonstrated how inconvenient such an inquiry by such a committee would be. The third and more serious objection which ha entertained was the manifest and cruel injustice which would be committed towards those who were absent. (Hear, hear.) It was proposed to arraign men who for half a century had devoted their lives, and, when necessary, their best blood to the service of their country, and who had left all but their lives on the field of battle, and to commit a cruel injustice on an old and distinguished officer. (" No, no," from the Opposition and from Mr. Drummond.) He was glad that the .hon. member for West Surrey did not entertain such views, but the hon. member for Aylesbury on a previous occasion, in a speech of great power, but of a tone which he never wished again to hear in that house, had intimated that that was the object. The hon. gentleman had said the country wanted a man to cut everything down, and would apply a knife to the root--(hear, hear)—and he intimated that the object of the committee was to remove every man who now held high command. When the proper time arrived, those men could be arraigned by the Government if they had failed in the performance of their duty, but for the House of Commons to take upon itself to perform that act was an infringement upon ; the prerogative of the Crown. He had been astonished on a previous occasion to hear it stated by the right hon. member for Midhuret that the inquiry could be a secret one; but would that satisfy the country? The people of this country would expect to hear from day to day the reason of their friends and relations perishing on the heights of Sebastopol, and the consequence would ba that day by day there would be in the public prints imputations upon public mon, who would have no opper tunity to reply to them until the subject had become stale, and who, when they did have the opportatity of replying, would be prevented, would not be allowed to impugn the conduct of any general officer. (Hear.) It appeared to hies to be heaping injustice upon injustice, and he_ would net have been satisfied if he had not mitered his protest against the appointment of this committee. (Hear.) Mr. WALPOLE—I have listene I with extreme surprise to the most extraordinary observations of the right hon. gentlemen the members fur Carlisle and S nith Wiltshire, on the consitutional rights, privileges, and duties of mem bers of this house that I ever heard from statesmen of au thority. It has ben stated that there is no authority, except an authority in the reign of King William and the Walcheren expedition, for the House of Commons to in quire into naval or military operations, and that in both the cases to which I have referred the operations were at an end when the inquiry took place. I will presently show that there exist many authorities of the greatest weight, both in this and in the other House of Parliament, that where there has been calamity—where there has been dis aster—where there has been mismanagement and sup posed misconduct—it is the duty of this house and the duty of the other House of Parliament to inquire into the calamities and the disasters which were the result of such mismanagement. I have heard it stated by my right hon. friend the member for Wiltshire that this is au inquiry which cannot be acceded to upon the part of the Government, because an inquiry of this character, if ac ceded to, is tantamount to dismissal. Does not my ii@it hon. friend know that inquiry after inquiry is acceded to on the part of the Government with reference to almost every question of foreign and domestic policy, and that this house most wisely awaits the result of such inquiries, instead of taking the alternative to which the argu ment would lead, namely—condemning first and in quiring afterwards? (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend who has just sat down tells us that we are infringing upon the duty and functions of the executive Government, be cause this hoists has deterneined to have a searching inves tigation to enable them to judge of the case, so as not to censure unnecessarily, but to ascertain whether the alle gations which have been made, that the system is in fault, and not the men by whom that system is carried into effect, are correct. Surely, when you have every kind of conflicting statement before you to stop the legitimate mode of ascertaining the true facts of the case, to say we are not to inquire then is to say, this house—which, as the hon. member for Carlisle most justly reminded it—is the grand inquest of the nation, is to shut its eyes to the army which is perishing before it, and to close up all sources of information, when from one end of the country to the other that information is desired; and, the justification for such a proceeding is, we are told that, by persisting in our rights and in our duties, we are trenching upon those func tions of Government which ought to be left simply and solely to the Executive. lam willing to concede, what may very properly be conceded, that inquiries of this kind which in any way whatever affect the functions of the executive Government, are always attended with some in convenience, and oftentimes with some evil ; but I ask you to consider fairly whether there are not times, and whether this is not one of them, when inconvenience is un avoidable, and even evil a necessity? Such a time, I think, is forced upon you now, and remember it is net forced upon you by any clamour or agitation from without; it is not forced upon you by any caprice or waywardness on the part of the people ; it is not forced upon you by any selfish am bition to displace a Government--(cheers from the Oppo sition)—but it is forced upon you by the calm, strung, de liberate conviction in every member's mind that there is something wrong which ought to be remedied. (Hear, hear.) This conviction is nothing more and it is nothing less than the echo of an equally strong conviction out cf . doors. (Cheers.) You are bound therefore to ascertain —if you can ascertain—the cause of the calamities by which you are surrounded, to detect the errors which may have been committed, to punish the faults, if faults are brought home to any one, and to remedy the evils of the system, if all these calamities are to be attributed to the system, and not to the men. (Hear.) Now, Sir, it being as I take it a sound constitutional principle, that yen are entitled to inquire when a cause for inquiry is brought under your notice, I agree that the executive functions of the Government ought never unnecessarily to be interfered with, for I am not one of those who would lightly or un ncessarily interfere or intermeddle with those functions, but would preserve them to the utmost for the good of the country. At the same time I would equally preserve the rights, the privileges, and th e d u ti es o f thi s h ouse . I would keep the two acting together, leaving theEiecutive the full power of an Executive, but if her Majesty's Minis ters, who are the responsible advisers of the Executive, had brought us, or were supposed to have brought us, to anything like calamity or disaster, then, on the part of this house, and consistently with my duty towards the Executive, I would assert to the utmost that this house is bound to exercise its right of inquiry. (Hear, hear.) I have stated that my right hon. friend the member fer Car lisle has a little overlooked some of the historical prece dents which a moment's reflection must have brought to his mind. He will probably recollect that in the 'War of Succession, when General Stanhope had to capitulate for himself and his forces, to ,the number, I think, of 2,000 men, at Brihusga, Parliament—l believe on the very next day, and certainly within one or two !aye after is:orate tion was obtained, without official intelligence--insisted upon an inquiry, although the war was going on, and al though that humiliation was followed by a victory. The right hon. gentleman will also recollect the surrender of General Burgoyne at Saratoga. Who was the greatest man at that time in this country Saratoga. Lord Chatham. Was he silent when the intelligence of that disaster came upon this country ? No. Both the Houses of Parliament resolved themselves into committees to consider the actual state of the nation, and in that committee Lord Chatham moved for all the papers, which showed—while the war was going on, and whether there had been disaster or not, a full and complete exposition of the stateof the army and navy, and also for the orders and instructions by which General Bur goyne_ was directed to -make the attack upon Saratoga. When the war was clentinued, greater disasters happened than the surrender of General Burgoyne at Saratoga; but while the war was going on, when those magaiicent colo nies ware about to be severed, through the success of the inhabitants of the United states, from this country, what was the motion made by Mr. Fox in this house? Was he silent then ? Did he teach us the doctrine that the exe , cutive functions of the Government would be interfered 'with if this House inquired into the causes of the cala mities which happened then ? I hold in my hand the re pert of the proceedings of this House at the commence ment of the session of 1782, and I find that Mr. Fox, after calling the attention of the House to all the circum stances of those disasters, ended his speech with this mo tion :—" That it be referred to a committee to inquire into the causes of the want of success of his Majesty's naval forces during this war, and more particularly in the year 1781." Down to the very time when Parliament was sitting Mr. Fox insisted upon an inquiry. The mat ter was referred to a committee ; Lord North did not op pose it—it was opposed, but Ministers were forced to give in, and a committee was granted. It was afterwards turned into a committee of the whole House. (" Oh !") I see the two objections which occur to the minds of some hon. mem bers—viz , the change from a select committee to one of the whole House, and the other with respect to the inquiry being retrospective. I will not blink the question ; but this shows that the inqui r y was i n t o opera ti ons w hi c h h a d been going on down to th e momen t : Th e di s ti nc ti on a b ou t Fitox's was the select committee was no t t a k en, th e comm itt ee was on . own turn e m d. o i t n io to n. a committee Andwhy ? of B t e h c e aus w e holc house lie had moved for papers, and the Solicitor-General was the only man who had the hardihood to resist the motion on the ground now taken—that it would interfere with the functions of the Executive. Lord North himself, however, assented to the motion, but Mr. Fox having obtained the papers he wished for, and finding there was no longer any necessity for in quiry, moved a direct censure upon Lord'Sandwich, who was at that time Chief Lord of Admiralty. In 1809, the year be fore the Walcheren expedition, after Sir John Moore's retreat to Corunua, and after w,hat was called the Convention of Cintra, Mr. Ponsonby, the Whig leader in this house, at the very commencement of the following session, moved gene rally for inquiry into the conduct and the causes of the want f success in the campaign of the preceding year. That was followed in the next year by the inquiry iuto the Walcheren expedition and into the conduct of Ministers; and then, in 1813 (if any further authority could possibly be needed to crown this series-of precedents), after the retreat of Lord Wellington from Burgos, Lord Wellesley found such fault with the conduct of Ministers in not supplying that great ge neral with sufficient forces to enable him to carry on the minpaign with success, that he moved in the House of Lords, supported by Lord Grey, in two speeches of the highest con stitutional wisdom and„oknowledge, and with powers of elo quence which have never been surpassed, even if they have been equalled, Lord Wellesley moved, I say that under the circumstances to which he adverted in his speech, the house should—do what ?—resolve itself into a committee of the whole house to consider the state of affairs ? No He moved for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the circumstances and results of the late campaign. (Cheers.) Now, observe ! You have the authority of the great , st . ..., statesmen who ever lived in this country—of Lord Chat ham, of Mr. Fox, of Mr. Ponsonby, Lord Wellesley, and Lord Grey—fot insisting on the right of Par. .. . . . . . . ___ liamert to make inquiries into military and naval opera tions, which inquiries might, moreover, affect the executive _ _ functions of the Government. (Hear, hear.) Two of these motions, the one moved for by Mr. Fox in 1782, and the other by Lord Wellesley iu 1813; were not motions for inquiry at the bar of the house, were not motions for a committee ofthe whole house to take into consideration the state of the nation, but they were motions for committees to make inquiry, that inquiry extending to all the circumstanees connected with the naval and military operations down to the very period when those committees were nominated. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, having shown you that upon principle you are entitled to in quire, having shown you that this principle has been repeat edly recognised by high authority, the next circumstance you have to look to is simply this—whether the circumstances of the present case are sufficient to justify inquiry. Sir, after the numerous arguments and observations we have bad iu this house upon that point, I think it would be almost a work of supererogation to say anything on this subject. It has been remarked upon by the greatest authority in this house, it has been recognised by every member in it, that whether you have inquiry, or whether you forbear to inquire, the cala mities which have befallen our army are heartrending and (Hear, bear.) Now, if these calamities are so great as to be called' heartrending," I am sure they are of a nature to justify inquiry. (Hear, hear.) But if, in addition to this, they are inexplicable, it throws upon you almost the necessity of instituting an inqui7, iu order that you may be able to solve the mystery in which these " inexplicable " dis asters are shrouded. (Hear, hear.) The circumstances of Cie present case, therefore, will, I think, be admitted on all hands to justify investigation, but then comes the next point —whether you ought to institute this inquiry by a select com mittee, or conduct it at the bar of the house and before a committee of the whole house. Now, nothing is easier when you want to avoid an unpleasant subject than to say that some other course would bo better than the course propgsed in reference to it. I feel confident if any one had proposed that you should institute an inquiry into the state of our army and the conduct of the war departments which have had to administer to the wants of that army before a committee of the whole house, you would immediately have been met by these forcible objections : that the whole business of the country would be stopped by such a proceeding; that evi dence must be taken, examinations must go on, cross-exami nations must be allowed on the part of any and every mem ber in this house who chooses ; and that you could neither conduct the operations of the war nor any other business with any prospect of advantage or success. (Hear, hear.) Now in principle there can be no reason why you should not refer this matter to a select committee. A select committee is nothing more nor less than a delegated authority from this house to certain of its members to act for it, when it would be inconvenient fur it to act as a body. (Hear, hear.) Re member, also, that one great objection always taken to an in quiry before the whole house,. in addition to the objection that it puts a stop to public business, is that in point of fact it becomes so inconvenient to go ou with an investigation conducted in this way that it is really a good mock of getting rid of the inquiry altogether. (Hear.) More than this, you cannot fail to observe that you must either exclude all stran gers from this house, or allow the proceedings carried on here o be published ; and I can conceive nothing more inconvo about or more 'dangerous than to say that theSe proceedings shall be published from day to day ; that evidence partially taken shall be partially known ; that a pre-judgment of the case shall therefore take place, and that the result of the in quiry shall be canvassed in a manner which takes away from this house its deliberative judgment upon the circumstances which are ultimately to be submitted to it. (Hear.) For Al these reasons--though I grant that there are difficulties with reference to a select committee-- I think it is preferable to re- fez. the matter to such a committee, limiting the inquiry, if necessary, in such a manner as not unduly to interfere with naval or military operations. But then we are met with the ob servation—" Why not have limited the inquiry at the time you granted this committee ? Why have not the inquiry. by means of a commission instead of a committee ?" The answer is, I think, obvious. Inquiry was a duty. It was for this house to insist upon an inquiry, but if that inquiry was at tended with disadvantages in the form in which it was moved for, it was incumbent on the Ministers of the Crown to advise the house how that inquiry should be limited and qualified ; and having so advised it, and then the inquiry should go on under these limitations. (Hear.) Now; when I addressed the house before I remarked that this was the duty of the Minis ters of the Crown, and independent members could do no more than either assent to Jr dissent from the inquiry, unless prepared to take upon themselves the responsibility which belonged more properly to the Executive. I cannot here help taking notice of an observation often made both out of doors and in Parliament, but ono which seems to me totally un called for, and which I trust will not be repeated here, as it is, I consider derogatory to the character of this house. I have heard it said that this house is now upon its trial, that responsible government is now upon its trial, that representa tive institutions are now upon their trial. I agree in the ob-, servation, -but I deny the inference. (Hear ) This house is upon its trial, and what it has got to answer for upon that trial is, whether it will insist upon all its former rights and privileges; or whether it will now abandon them when in quiry is so imperatively needed. (Hear.) Responsible Go vernment is undoubtedly that which we ought all of us to up hold to the utmost of our power, and we ought to take care that in upholding it we are not trenching in any way upon those executive functions of the Crown which are necessary to its efficient working. What is the. very esseuce of responsi bility ? is literally to mete out approbation. to the Minis ters when they act wisely and do right, and to pass censure on the Ministry when they are wrong. These are the life and soul of responsibility. They are the very springs by which responsible Governments are put iu motion ; they are the correcting power, by means of which that motion, that action is kept within clue bounds, and by which it is directed to wise and beneficial ends. (Cheers ) Take away the controlling power of this house, take away its approba tion or its censure, and you take away all checks upon public • men and all stimulus to public exertion.. This is the way in which, indeed, you will injure responsible Government, and the representative institutions of the State; you will injure it if you abandon that one high privilege and duty of this house. (Hear.) I for one cannot but think that, injustice to those who still form that gallant army before Sebastupel, you ought to inquire into these complaints ; in justice to those re lations and friends who have suffered loss either from misma nagement or by unfortunate occurrences, you ought to grant an inquiry; and I must also add that, in justice to your selves, in justice to the generals commanding, and in justice to every party, you ought to separate the innocent from the guilty, the capable from the incapable, and that you ought to express your approbation of the one, and you ought to visit the other with your censure and your punishment. Mr. GLADSTONE—It is impossible to magnify the im portance of the question which the items on this occasion has before it; not to mention the fact that three persons who having recently stood, under peculiar circumstances, in the position of responsible advisers of the Crown, and having felt- themselves compelled by an absolute sense of public duty to separate from their colleagues, all of whom they esteemed, and with whom they agreed, are desirous to make a statement of their motives for having so separated from them. It can be but rarely that the patience of the house san be so severely taxed by a series of personal ex planations; and, for my own part, I could have been glad, agreeing as Ido in every particular with the observations and statements made by both. my right hon. friends, to rest satisfied with those statements which they have so male, were it not that the question which led to our resignation is one of deep political and constitutional impOrtance, and that our individual fates—wholly in themselves insignificant— are mixed up inseparably with matters of the greatest in terest to the nation. As far as I myself am concerned, perhaps I may be permitted, without leading the house too tar back—inasmuch as we are (as it has been observed) in a chronic state of crisis, and as it is difficult- to separate the events of the last few days from those which preceded them within a very short period—to allude in one or two sen tences to the first series of events in this crisis, and to the position in which my name has appeared before the public. I n that early stage, when Lord Derby received a commission from the Crown, an offer was made by Lord Derby to my right hon. friend the member for Wiltshire and myself, toge ther with the noble lord now First Lord of the Treasury, to make a Government. That matter has been explained in many various forms. I received, first, from my noble friend,. the present Prime Minister, his statement of the communica tion. Some time after there appeared a different version of it from a statement made by a noble earl iu another place ; and, lastly, after a multitude of explanations serving rather to confound than enlighten, I heard a third statement from the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire, delivered in this house, so much varying as to the nature of that communication, I will not say, from what had been said, but from what had been understood, that I venture to assure the house (I don't know whether it has much historical inte rest), that at this day I am in ignorance of what was really the offer made to myself by Lord Derby. (Cheers and laugh ter.) But, however that may be, I wish tho house to be aware of the Part "which I took in that matter, and as my share iu that communication remains in writing, and has been alluded to both in this house and in another place, perhaps I may be permitted to read a short letter I addressed to Lord Derby, conveying my answer to the message from him . such as I then understood it. In that answer I have expressed the , opinion, that the best thing'that could have happened for the country, under the circumstances of the late crisis, brought about by a vote of the House of Commons, would have been, that Lord Derby himself should have been in a position to form a Government from his own adherents. (Hear, hear.) I maintained that opinion with reference to the circum stances of the country, which required that the groat ques tion of peace of war should be dealt with without reference to any other questions, and I did hope and did believe that I should have bad the pleasure of affording my humble assist ance to Lord Derby in an independent position to that end ; and that, instead of being asked to adopt a proposal which, I believe, is fraught with mischief to the country, we should have substituted for it some mode of inquiry into the causes which have led to the calamities we all lament, that would have been more effectual, more constitutional, and more sa tisfactory both to Parliament and the people. (Hear, hear.) , However, the letter I wrote to Lord Derby was in these terms.:— . . . _ - " Downing-street, Jan. 31, 1855. " My dear Lord Derby,—Lord Palmerston has communi cated, tu.me the wish you have been so good as to express, that, in common with him and with Mr. S. Herbert, I should become part of the Administration which you have horn charged by the Queen to form. I also learn fl•om him tit it he is not of opinion that he could himself render you useful service in that Administration, but that ha would have every disposition to give you the best support in his power, and he has just left me with the announcement of his intention to write to you an answer to this effect." I may, perhaps, here interpolate an explanatio n , th a t my noble friend (Lord Palmerston) did not, at the moment when he made the announcement to mc. of Lord Derby's wish, in form me that he did not think that he himself could accept the offer made to him. It was at a later period, when my noble friend made some further communications to me, that he thus expressed to me that opinion. My letter proceeded thus : I think it only remains to me to reply in similar terms. Any Government, owing its origin to the late vote of the House of Commons, and honestly endeavouring to do its duty, must have peculiar claims to support in connection with the great national interests involved in tile question of war and peace. On public grounds lam dispesed to believe that the formation of a Government from among your own political connexions would offer many facilities at this moment, which other alternatives within view would not present ; and, unless When my opinions might no leave me a choice, it would be my sincere desire to offer to an Adminis tration, so constructed under you, au independent Parlia mentary support." (Loud cheers.) That is the close as well as the beginning of my communication with Lord Derby. But I j)ouud to say that I so far agree with the opinion expressed the other night by my right hon. friend the member for Midhurst, with r , 2- spect to coalitions, that I believe the best thing Oat could have happened for the country, considering the state to which Parliament had actually arrived, was that an attempt should be pot paade to form a Governmotit under I•ord Derby, and, if that could not be accomplishe d, then . 0 for m .. a Government from this side of the house , t o be cote..P,e,sd , e exclusively of those who had in and thro u g h the pol. tiul" crisis acted together. (Hear, hear.) I am' bound to sal that events, so far as they have gone up to the present UV have strongly , confirmed. me-in that opinion. (Cheers.) Wt n respect to the intermediate proceediug-namely, the forme: tion of the Government of my noble friend (Lord Palmerston)e after what my right hon. friend the member for Carlisle has; • affirmed as to that which was the sole question in the ',ay e ' a stipulation or understanding, it is needless for me to sal more than that, whatever I might think of the ParliamentarY prospects of that Government, under the circumsta nces, hay' ing no differences with him, but feeling a warm and high r e . gard for my noble fiiend, founded on an experience both . 0 ,! . community of opinion as a colleague, and co-operation _t.,' him in a political party, during two eventful years, I thin . k A should have been wanting in my duty to my country if I n a not accepted the offer which my noble friend was so good aw e make. (Cheers.) But lam bound to say that there was to _ a painful matter of a personal character involved iii the s este e L e transactions. , To me nothing would'eause, in public life, ing more acute than to be separated from my noble frienduirth7e Earl of Aberdeen. This house has listened-as it was bound to listen-with patience to attacks made from various quarters upon the fame and public conduct of that noble lord. 18"' , in office, it was, perhaps, difficult for me to have endeavoure d to defend him from those attacks. But he hats been dismissbaei by a blow darkly aimed from an official hand ; and, now t my right hon. friends and myself have followed, I hope I Te o be permitted to express my feelings and state mar love iiili, with regard to Lord Aberdeen. (Hear, hear.) I Ni ;n th cos is a man who has been much misunderstood. Twenty Y have elapsed since I heard Lord Aberdeen denounced. • .. 9 , house by one of the most honest statesman of his da'Y i":„.. person holding principles that made him the enemy of i,n' s f kind. Such was the idea that men could then entertain 4 Lord Aberdeen. lam unwilling to name the individual !ma uttered those words, but I am quite sure he has long fa n ' , deeply regretted the attack he then made on Lord Aberdse..na (Hear, hear.) But after that Lord Aberdeen lived to bee? the trusted colleague, the admired colleague, the eulogro, colleague of Sir Robert Peel, his faithful ally, and the nr s/ the encourage him in every measure that bad for its object_se_ benefit of the people. (Cheers.) Now, again, Lord AlL: it dem has fallen from his former friends; but as that, 1 7 not call it calumny, but error of twenty years age ' vas ,see pelted, so, you may rely upon it, these prejudices wil l a . be dissipated, and the fame of that man, no t so much on di count of the high office he has held, as from his elev ated ` , admirable character, will not only live, but his name , Ic e o f ture to say, will be enshrined in the grateful recollect' ntbat his country. (An ironical cheer.) Well, Sir, I are sorrl aan y the hon, member for Aylesbury is so intolerantaH.owlerbb.„,etresie should have thought that he would have been content it him' latitude of vituperation that this house properly (Cheers.) I believe he belongs to a Liberal party. But 11 er, 1 in what sense ? While myself Chancellor of the Exch6lol/1 dio forbore from woundin g his tender feeling by allusio ns o ut of kind, but surely, now that he has purged the Gove il limaY the foul element in my own person and those of othe re ',e , to be permitted to me, by the kind indulgence of the itb - e ers) express au opinion that I emstitutionally eutertaine - t" been -and that I know to be shared by every man who has Tbis the friend and col'eague of Lord Aberdeen. (Cheers• l 1 h oe is no gratuitous accusation upon my part for to-ilig lit frog s heard an assault on Lord Aberdeen. His retirem ent 0 00, public life is not sufficient to mitigate the wrath e` slc. of go itlemen among us, because he ' as retired with a in,,ar'oco. Lis Sovereign's regard, earned by half-a-century of:: West (Cheers.! The hon, number below me, the member ie ' • o ho' Surrey (Mr. Drummond), has made that the occasion fe rs s , hail merit assault upon one who is endeared to all who k n , ° sa 11 by an affection and veneration as warm as ever was ciss pee' mankind. (Cheers.) Now, sir, thanking the house ''' . l irel witting me these retrospective and personal allusions, „ate' oa to the question now before the home.). We hav e ( ,i,i ;cell her Majesty's G .vernmentbecause that Governmen t, r o uoid'' .' I grant, in circumstances of great difficulty, has mad e s e o l'i . , between the aLernatives, as it were, before them, w" - „otle; think a fatal choice. Sir, I heard to-night an homT he ere ' man, the member for Devonshire, remark that he Tin 0 9. for the.first time in this debate that who had retain ed 0° ' I were deserters, and those who quitted it were faithf u l t▪ bel hon. gentleman asserts the opposite doctrine. He eal f .,''alif io w who under difficult circumstances retain office ar e ;,, 4 P ei % though they change their intentions, and those who 7,0 f their intentions and quit office, according to the ine e v i o f fir Devonshire, are deserters Well, sir, I confess 10, s". prised to find the hon. gentleman entertain that oPi n to r cause I do recollect a case in point, if I may presume vtiPoi him a suggestion, which I would commend to his ni ecb 0 1 Under difficult circumstances in this country, a t th e 1;0l'',1 the year 1845, with a famine impending a home, Sir j Peel adhered to office and changed his intention°,a iit Derby adhered to his intentions and quitted office , te tr ee s afraid, according to the hon. gentleman, that Sir R e i '''," te t "'„I was faithful, and Lord Derby a deserter. (La n g"toV cheers.) I certainly have never applied that teric , ce t : r i Derby, and undoubtedly I don't venture to pronotinen.ii sure of any kind on the coarse taken by my right h e tlw noble friends. I know, sir, too well from exP eri eret ti f; difficulty, the pain-I might almost say the agonY----"aoct; ing at decisions for the government of one's own e° ,l to l' e ' v sharp passages of public affairs. I know that too We' 5 o ff i sumo to find fault with those who arrive at conclusil.ool 04 site to my own. (Hear.) But, sir, lam sure that a lieei e ,` noble friend at the head of the Government and his ,s e° .„ . loo ,,i ,' ive shall hear no such imputations, because our eass' ‘ca o o, o we are right or wrong, is a simple one. You may eelY," e et ' 1 to have changed our intentions, but the head and irs t i l elP, substance of our offending is that we have adheied to o ae (Hear.) We have nothing to do but to repeat on tli e e /4 , February the expressions we used on the 29th of Joon; Of ' is impossible for me to-night to d enounce this prel,il• oAP' select committee of inquiry into a great war like 0F1 . 3 10.,:i now pending and in progress, more violently, e i conic' , toi say, than I ventured to do on the occasion when it 10.,et mentioned to the house. I think that, next to eati"eae own words, one of the most disagreeable processes lel'ti", reading One's own words. (Laughter.) But in times liv,, 11 , we forget to-day our feelings of yesterday. I venture tf e Co however, , that I look back now with satisfaction to t n ao t , pressions I used myself with respect to this conlinittteiets O r 29th of January, and I venture to tell this house tl i !' a° gose; ness is not to govern, but to call to account tilos! s o v ti o v i ses Your motion is without precedent, and preeelie 10 %0. ' matters means wisdom. (Cheers.) The honou r° v ethY a pe for Aylesbury condemns the committee as till's St is 11 ' - (1/ ridiculous, and he is right in his condemnation* t o re"leit tory for the true purposes of inquiry-newe l, ' „ - o thin s g se o of evils. It is unconstitutional; it will lead to ',..„ 1 . , t i n e! confusion and disturbance, increased disaster, sl ie-e ; 54 ill and weakness abroad. (Hear, hear, and cheers•), an d 1 15 , less and mischievous for the purpose c, ntemplatsai the co i full of danger to the plain dignity and usefnlues s u se egt h lt S moos of England. Sir, I used these words on t' •eO ll p e January, from the bottom of my heart, and it recluir of co 0 apology now for appearing in the face of the Ho u ' e ,beo b . 1 9,110 moos to state to them why I resigned office rather,' so li e party to measures which I then denounced: I male!: or e:, light of the resignation of office. It was painful Ifa'piee;, part from the work of my department in a period a „,gtle s l o elle' til' exertions-it was painful for me to part from my e h i o Sof and it was painful for me to part from the adotir a 've o p3 servants with whom I had been associated in the „ te t o o ,l and revenue departments. But these pains must h e l p borne. They are incidental to the course of publi c ~so' 0 0 if the house differ in judgment with regard to the tile i ," , 1 the decision arrived at, they will at any rate P er e l ' • e ; that decision was one for which I am not obliged t e , i' ol ot' e s the way to imagine extraordinary and far-fetcho teli ~, but which has been founded upon convictions deliberapsii tertaiued and expressed with all the force of langliqfice, All/ And now, sir, I come to the question of the cionsin i A L ‘s ity beg to call the attention of the house strictly, O w s • i tinctness, to the matter which is at issue betw een o - iiif i st subject is one . of such deep importance that I coe's',,goe 0 , tremo anxiety that there shall be no misunderstanul;tes point. And here let me sty a word in reference ° jo s P l O from the right hon. baronet the member for Droitsvo I t4l Pakiugton.) I listened attentively to his speech, of offfe" him for his generous appreciation of the motives tee s ?af hon. friends and myself. But I listened with 5 1° ,0 4 ,110 tion to an observation which was founded upon % t ete' el public views. If I understood him correctly', W ei s: , le t -that in his opinion there was much to iuquir e ' ll - „ t iel l A ta. conduct of the Government ; and, secondly, if 1 5 10; iii ° him right, he intimated an opinion that if ti i .,, e ,,oel e o V s ' had been open to him to pursue teat iuquirY ''-' s f it ' 1 11 ; commission appointed by the Crown, in lie u e n " elo° e i tfr e mental y committee, he would have been react' t c jiote ° 4 fr. such a commission. I hope I have correctly lin ' 0 ,V 4 0,`, right bon. baronet. I have repeated his sentn set ale '' the purpose of establishing points of difference , b , I ll e, I ,; the purpose of establishing points of agieemen'artheis is will be clearly understood that we are not here „se ~,e ~ nents of inquiry. (Hear, hear.) We are po t , n lo or i 7 . . opponents of inquiry even in the sense of end e i l p ele t , fro; shut out from the view of the house that whiebsut 0 , i,; tiO:', nary circumstances, it might be desirable so to lt 1 , 0 il, their view. The question raised here is twofold• 0011,0; with respect to the inquiry into the state a t b s e s pel eir ifi s ;:si Crimea ; and it is, secondly, with respect to the sl'a v / i s ;la the conduct of the Government departmentS• all of Ai spect to the latter, it is the sincere desire of e ta tee ti ' o e eii ` , there should be every facility for an inquiry in , l eiOsei' e se departments, so that it would not involve an 0 t bo 0 ' m e this house into the management of the aria i l o citi i ii roe, But that is the difficulty of keeping those tw ° „,. - arn w . , 0 ( 60 tied. We are of opinion that the state of e",.,," ate" 0 0 0,: so Crimea is not a fit subject of inquiry by a ee in : Ot o iir o es house. When Lord J. Russell entered into h r ,. s t t9de P upon his retirement from office, he stated i''," , ye t " tbe;l,l could not join with us in negativing the ice ti ee e °l ce 4 1 1 0 equally unable to give his sanction and countoinfloPeD quiry, and he stated his belief that such 3° ,1 ' 0'46° have the effect of paralysing the action of the n' i f to;tte„ in respect to the army. We, however, feel that o f ls' i,lo,,`' a ea inquiry into the Government departments it is Ac e , s e i , ,, ,„a we should appear before the committee out of, tit", e . de office. lam also bound to say Ido not belie ow'ite „." all evaded Parliamentary inquiry by retiring f ro : e l 4 :00 e ' o o ,l as to the appointment of our successors, I ,T io liu o f 1 .01 that there are gentlemen in this quarter of ",,,tioti_,%er e ,` t whom we aro now cultivating amicable r e Liii c`tiroe ci ' s ie neighbourhood-(laughter)-who would be e ve i nee' l ieli" to discharge those duties from which w° P`:,,b ' ello no ' ' ,a ,l do not think that there is any reason to apps smiled c°311,0 nienee when I recollect that these gentlenslio an e pt c „) culty in communicating to me in the Ico st o o eer n .t e d., t el , manner their satisfaction at finding that the 0 1 ". e"" 0 .. els. •In ,0 got rid of worthless and incongruous mate° .0 for e ` l el But I must confess that I appreciate the &ea , ha` o l,l "0 of flea• from the reasons for it. I grant soeititis.litiog in the country which requirestttt/etielg with the utmost caution and givencircumspection t a clo that the vote of this house, could effect be a, lO ll pe ot o out ruinous detriment to the public int ere :_eof °l e es 41e upon the deference-I would say obedience....,l, e bob id POO manunder these circumstances, lthe',7 , i sboz ig 1 , 4 4' inconvenience at best would have been resi.;„ o f t i " eel' been prepared to submit even to a couirai' „op eeeo:d . s for ol that inquiry into the conduct of the Cie o pen o pent io ei'! i ,si tuents. But the larger question which . w 7 the o_ r ses_ ls 4, 4 night ago- -which was begun by distractlll,l3!;coreeo..r , is,' t isl this Country, but which has nut yet run ib is eelietn't, old its end-(hear, hear)-the larger question° silo sta s se?!; s o committee shall be appointed to investigat .„, 1 : 3 pe ine . ,,r,' ,i i,;'., army in the East I And here I will state t r. u ooe d; , s ,,' - to ' l e er which it seems to me that •we ought ton y rr ew ., thr o e° ii v ie li conceive nothing more simple, in nee o o o Th e , to 1 00 3 a generous sketch of the duty of the h ne_ uffer ie, lie 11 , ic o not but view with pain and horror tfi°,. b i hope %,1800 , our forces in the East have been exposea , ..., 00 C l l . ss eC h a will not adopt that strain of exaggeration '' aco e be " o ,7 oi .. "f e r to those sutterings, which I am sorry te, , sot a ' „ i tte; ni te t i ;17 r ll OO 3 10 41 ; consciously into it through the speeclies.r.lid"-tbotesbrs s e J ug house. (An ironical cheer.) Pomfret (Mr. ISI. Milnes), 63 lied t° e* as I have done, would have been coniPe or O ur b° a rDi V e ' tice of my observations ; because three _ ribe d onr (9 ,0 r o f men who have spoken to-night have de,e e saoe area aoo th e o o p: destroyed, as annihilated, as gone, as ( . ! 1 20 'd wee lined t ie 0' member-" Perished ")-aye, and Poi* t be me ss 104° 0 • (1 0 0: 0 , courage that really very the words used. I hope the house Nylon, Poi* if be-Miyiadon. w ould, b : t the i r ° 0 1 , 4 speech. Still, our pain atdtahneges7ffnegriSga:edult:et,,,:fased c:ii'::: and subdues the joy with which prated its brilliant exploits, and . f _., obliges' sat asao ;i no limits to be placed to the ditties a1" .ifi ,, 05 0 d ug no house to ascertain the causes o f those __ .. l' ue into .... 11 't_ At and when ? (Hear-) If you are to 0 0 ',..„, u- : pl iant.'" loge with a view to calling to act:quit w'v