The Sun. — London, England, 1855-01-30 00:00:00

vielcs the JO the Opp outif peet hou se ,. Oil i e sbe.i'or Ai the c ° And L i t I c ! i n e l ast: he A II 'aw ° of bla fotee°;ll ire.- (iv o ttie • th ;ithe b tb ° u oiai Th e y r oe r.) be " ati feV tO l With ~1 1 111 p stiOt i l4 W ° t r; 0 0 10 o ffloff ° f3 P 10 O f 3ge for o r fel ° te 01 I th ° ro o ,peat' l'reatr tieee"arY imeerfection as to the means of in llettt ". It is natural --I do not complain, and It o not b tit ee y reie will complain, not even those who suffer y epee tha t these c onmaiisons should be drawn. I only tle't7iesa case of possibility. If it were only to happenra_. test, any material points, the organisation or ar t() n g e the Se ach :4 the British :truly she'll I be superior make il not think it justifiable in us to they r er e a'enient. lou we old say, on the contrary, ' 40 t4 i t : 11 ' e t : I tte:: "1 NN'hich Nvo cught,' y nOt to enter. Bat I will f eut e , r l l 3 it farther, and I only press it as a reason for llte, Ssir. ef :Mgt:lent, and caution and circumspectionßut, title 1 °r ine a matte ftl • le I (Hear, hear.) . sil th r o us ine . tiee:eriy seffcoarste is a case which deserves your attention, You can use, every assistance o a ?is * ofa,q Gorernment you may choose to have,with tk ,es the state of our lia ti's Inl P r eving the army. I accede to . the i'etetz e _ ..e Pi ctur e Which has been drawn by noble friend Nei_ "el- the city of Loudon. I admit, though I tea laPrevereent has begun and though it is . elear the IleZe l ght of excess of 1I - '. e is wee , . a _our is now materially lightened, I,totor that u in the general arrangements of 11'N . ) I arrnY Wbieh calls for amendment. (Hear, the govern lett, aeeee tlett in some in, entaat particulates it is . so . I44 tte (I ' whether from fault our necessity—so defective tYbohjeferietinte received are—l will use the language o I t . t , (Ile ° } , ll— thev are horrible, they are is,eart-rnd 'l' r ar, -.e ar.) If that be a fair outline ot the state e r'•illst 'l , l k a Y, We com e to the question, what is the c v a ,, u t s o i t : i °rle i: t t a e ael the first duty I apprehend y dii leseitabSseedeevour to make some separation ()n _be:t t s , ve a ei! b i te o eater, .ineelente of war, and especially of ., w; . e r, l t r yl Ca r Prt e in war, and the faults and miserie: a h u i.. e i s elltieee? ght have avoided. As far as those c bu e L ee 1 , 1 .Iqable I ant not here to discuss them ; t -I : Ze e j e ll i a s l Y tie' there are some gentlemen who do . not oPettr seal' Nit:late of the unavoidable causes of ( in.cilry kles it W ieY, the right lion. member for 2. f l be f fi e a teaktelnatter of providing for an army 3 ,ooYmiles N it .tfati sac r erne difficulty at all, that nothing lint the most eal thet inaasures taken, every man would have l h s a l t - 1 teeelBe4e-enettaikett regulaily served in the Crimea— il 1 4 ti t l '1 11 1 t : l eo t t iih::501.11;:e:r:041841) ' L e a \ I'll )-- r okr ; ia g l' a a°gi o w dnla r t i i . ett f l : wmaii it cte'etniibfnt °et Irltihahatyoew:a:dw)stryhl)ittele:heeGerit:::(fe'luleaearaTil n)rr':tuimellnreelsni sctonhe(lliplet-: 1 thi; 4l ' BB gentle su p c peared to have of the faci t mlann appeared respect I think `measure righ (k it ? eas e ' r e ri nut taken a true or let us as k the liiiiisetiehiselttear, hear.) But now 1 %le " 4 ef these causes have been avoidable? ,wui 11:44410 gte,eittoan made another observation for ~ tax" ethisslciettsiv. 1,41--- (leughter)—l used the word I ' mean no -44'4% p o l l° I hope it will be understood to t k eithk character in it. (Renewed laughter.) yNe W.lit h 1 .-- heal,ll. gentleman made another observ cr at n ion e , - :14,04411 take him to task. The right bon i . e e s tl l e have leet!itheeteeeh: Under army elief that due h a s r u m pp y has been 11 01,1 ;4 iii e et iA I t a k r : e h t froipitia d o n tives i f economy. A' . l,r a - NS eStliTated dissent.) I am glad that ie is not () T v_ N whi ch 1 light hon. gentleman. It is an opinion,mahy be e t a tlfeshi e 4are heard stated in this house. It oftloileely, Ilable and unpopular to refer to the word °Ole ° ther e !' all; ` but, at the same time, if it be th i e u du ni t y y kl;N: be '„ a li, ia my duty, and no period li ttl ett he e at ting to declare that to the be n s a t n' of their op oftie'"eternMeat of the country, and the represe t k p °4l ,. (elePle in this country should respect and study o.. 44 4 thi-geeni) But, so far from supposing ee ep ee ranee of those miseries, I ain afra r ia t w o ru it.i.. that e e a c ro e;tle te : 4 w ee the charge that, in our endeavour liselaepeseellaee been driven into At any profn"on. t on that lotkiltite eZte house will suspend its judgment on I, Or Kille nPer s :?! , ll 4ii We Come to the . time whe 1 0 , .e ttae _e evill have to submit proposals en connected e a c u t e d d , hat e g tgjial arrangements of the comingyear, la jO l / 4 I p r esent an account of the transactions of eh o e . emilekei7pyi,lare bound to enter my protest on behalfbelieve i t le th'e respect toanother matter. Ido not belt ti s t4 ilit es a Parsi e 'e est a • my of Parliament whichhas ar re e n li d a e b r l e e t! kstethepee a.blishments liable, so far as they . ac. ! 10 144akt „a° of ineffectiveness. lam not prepareto sum t t‘3)relal44lllllen 1,00 0,000/. annually, about the 1 N 4 • tide tleal.i oestewed during the peace, is not sufficientfce_ , b k l e (tfe er t l a co during with the necessary means 1 el t li -l heee' l It May be true that in certain . instances t te l ti t e *a - 1 , 1 1 : 4 ill-judged parsimony, but, if it is s i , e h S t ' t 4 4" " i 8 .aSIY to find other instances in wh 4t k• not b e „ r osj itte lee . (te that of parsimony, but of a very N'ece t e Aellear, hear.) And I frankly ewn I should P ur ple if T eePeople of England and to y the House of , I t e tt ere ettewairWed it to be supposed either that the Vete ,eee e ,,, tf eng to bear the necessary . burdens,or clue. ) lts eh 4 t eetee j : :"Y of Parliament failed in voting supplies defence. As t i s ) %eel adequate for the country kliq t !rthe e, li t a i n for economy. I will not intr s od n uc t e o th .a a y t 11 ° elPal e ' a nee know you do not mea i 1 l a• h at p o t o f the bur I on that ground. ( rear.) atilfc'ef 3, 41 0 . 4 1 11 14 ° ha l ! just ( l4 d h o . w d n o t e a s k o es u t t o he ta a s u k t t h h o e_ le vile, a ggentl en' and this - in the army, p It. ',rtii„ his entail who is an officer it' e a te ii..„4:4<,:i °piteous home, the hon. is quoted calls on at', VIII% 41 in deference to elee -a nee lee, b ik a r t should and shou w ld hie n h otnave been to go to r4ill4tNtil ‘lll6 t. says it wasmonstrous wn that the li en ”Y aer:,%iteeslte ought to have . . kno 'Le • hart l"hisi.7 Was Co pestilential it was cer . t it a h in th to e rt. re Ikllo went there. I join issue n 44, e re forced ton outs out er.e. . . 44 I.'' 8° dee.' 'a‘Ciee mat , he is misinform D e i d u Stieee4.llaet help3' ras4 i li t eVa a Geographical .. .tion T a h r e y. h " " l . IN - u it afford. belit,i,he articles . of that useful work, summary of infor thett4"Y differs it It Itateeligetheatm ther climate of the Crimea to p o the so i, diffe.tuau the r C ts ' p " of the Crimea, and l ? t eem , ti e2.n .liee °Pt, - C a t e mea , where Sebastopol t4 ip , set i ki t. , uer e le ttn:sae i ".. Th ee nothi g• 1 the climate which gl 'Nilth ei Se cn e'hg th e scene e of military operations.t arr. N, t ato 4,4 4 the real truth is this—you ca health ° c Not tt. 410ner)IPatflea without risk to li k i ketitte Climate, l u ll the incidents of ulilita . ry life tl ii's, rte the army. 'reckoned among LVii t he Wi lY ePare Odessal;' h A ear e .) you Th g e o n i t n h g teh t ce o ah c n o lle n s - . .klOile,ear,eretnent b , • to-night r because they keit en-ea Suppose by vote so indignant at t t he it. G t o o : itlet,..ko4 Parillg Odessa that you v‘gea'fZienti....- ,Ncti:k sodh at a subsequent period 1 0 k 2 of i ' l sP Portunitv of having the matter m a d e o r f s tohne the "e that . teeconsidered by the commanders the Govern ' l sete 4 co of those I r ee gave advice e -- s ask What would be the position al. no. eas 44 . 14 44 14 8a Ner 3 .1, 4 ) : 1 Z: t r e ll h t o on itlett.-eosavyesrninween.tugfiolhrt to ope have beieno ..erte'leepeevel wan oi n ien to us, and would as , , Cle„',Zetrtera to our troops ; but . ho foLg o o , t oo t () : ' ll 4 b'euy - l ". 11 open town containing . i 0 ...°'°°° i nhabi t towns having populations of 'o bee th,,,''''tatts within reach of it. . \‘' ! ' e t I ' 4 ° ati t p* 0. e°,,Adition f the British arruy if those ' 6 ( Na t e r c- ? et te e bon n° hart. and s gone into tho. les i t , s e 1.1 Then says the hon. hart., you sent alli P H I and r,. 't whY did y ou no • y t °, 11) Th • nYP the complain 41 " 1 0er f This 1, different from reef hir er seedesbury. The hon. hart. who who is ;13aahliiik, lie.l'Pwar.lttYfi r h e a s v p i e n c g t d to ev fa o c t t e s d , recommends m iim en e d a s n a d s doti o,l.°de-which is no place of traffic,biitas t m h a a l t l ieve trust rnall Strip of land—and contends ;Pah l ed to Gallipoli for mules and not w ha . v . e I d e an e d E gypt. But how does this agree itn ieselllakye,e wrabore rational charge o.f.tuhoe,hoonn.drnanemy elilesh t. says that we L 3 i ttlea , but hat wee had no mules or horses,not only to j o i la i l l even at Varna? I leave these two I t I te e , t a ne and try the quarrel between them ieafe°r 4.l'leseabYtiryla et . a a a cq . traespo; pwabssoinhg,astostthateethiotnb.agten,tyleembaacni ---, Itules au t d at ho V rs a o r s t, fo t r ha th t e we pu h r a p d o s se ,O s O o L f etre n ti k ' B ia a u id the hon. gentlem w an h , o t w h e o r e u e f h e o r t c s ed e e with the rites of the officers, `,llle ill _ e_one three or four horses although many h t however, has b te ee l?_ ll. 1:(1 the expense. Wriea to said ? He has W asated, ndent of e tt e out three h • for the correspo . " h er e ,„ __ horses "Is it tine 'bite oee -Tel have not allowed the officers w to o se a n r d e 41 elm • From one side of the house epPelling the officers to send three or four i ' ll at't; and from the other side we are charged te "d lg them to send one. But, be that asi 'Pernwer e %tat e t 0 the house, upon good authority, i _ .. ,Pe stns tn of transport' to the amount of J, o 9t) ath . h expedition to the ith,es e period of te . . key , Peet, then, to the criticisms of the hon. h e hi eriture here to leave them. B t though seie llta Ye B o: l Zeifill grounds for supporting 'h th votes of .„ 4 : th e , /te 'le the grounds on whie heir opi_ious u, the mo ts i heedlie cones May rest or on which % lea 0* orb, risee of thevils which exist in the Crimea 4 . 41 el s e a .' th e - to say a 4 h... !nee 'of erefore it may be convenientl te lt e a k i Jll7 o a it to he coot With regard to my at by the +s te a he es the e r „' r ete espeedally respon n sib b le af fo ri r en th i e , cwohno lbehdleile-''aecret ' aad to be specifically pointed , . a t 4 1 '; it' l 'th e al l ef State for the War Depare d me a n r t t_ , teeee ettithe:gatrd to the edministraion of that 4: 1L O . in th e With ' et to the administration -- is A t e_ ee ei teik kle ist e, then rireea. Now, as regards the second cer ted • "oe e gta inißtration of the War Dep . a t rt e m u e ot ,tien th,Lslntkt MI h ands to be defective. lie 4 defeet d'reett:t Waft that nothing has b ß e t e it a i do e ne ar t e o letkpe e l a % ere 4'4 that, ' on the other hand, house. Y, t 4 k . : With the et tealereing the censure oft i ' ce which has Nt -4 tatia' e sikeY be in a very imperfect state as Your r aa 5 3' 4 %411 14 F r t ,department of I ran . ' tll kte ear a i 3 '° e e engaged in war . for the ik 4t e p , h ,!_r ess tit a 'see 4 •Itlitr,i ; ga° I - relieve it ise e o rf p o i r u m w a n ne o e ki:er e ,-; Liep a , the Present state and t he le Vte., ",, the ccreent are in no degree inferior to what INNti,Ol; mast if it N Ze n i l the last war. (Murmurs.) I hear !lle h . 4,114tht t o t uought that the departmentand .a i s t t s i !ve1 e : 4. 0 114 i t - 'a inaproved since the close . of the i . i i' g e t ht -' ll o 4)t act - i ee nit iht to be ; but surely rely it is .something It 11.41t a's 11. gelltl tit ing a4O years' peace. it ~.b l 'rov • ,e aeist e " t an the member for Oxfordshire says (Hear.) But t prided au area to the East, and you have sent I'h -3 ' illidAl' Tl eCeß y B "e " That is his charge ; and ,p i ll it 0,-"igible o arl-8. if were any grain of elle e,eee'e th e Bible y,„ one ; and there eeei - ee e 'Poe tet e 1311nuate•I vbostelewavheatteovjeorinvoistseuoefe of our l 'A l tt -. genti ea • Pl es 414 e -an • g that, instead with ens uthr censure 0 1 ipe , ss ee ala a e , a , and to say . Nit.'7,4o,mBte gent Y .tia the East unprovided with neces keit' a nt -d e Non -i i 811 PPlied with ample necessaries of 4 q*ith k trill rs'e p „ L th will h not enter into . a statement of de i‘re, °Pee Bich e/t the hon ouse to the fair and candid state- V e Y te 'e a !' a " e de hen• and learned member for Shcf l't'll the deb ate when ho said " You have sent an 1011.1011:left s o o t in nuts hen and efficiency such as never . 4 11° 1 1 ' 14, 44 ' e 81a6r e, 8 ; an army likewise unequalled in its a —II that arm is pe ishin for waut of food, o p it t Pe t. Y de, out es of Ba y l kl - r here are rotting stores ~,,qt % , 3 :. 1 P5 4 . 3 , It &tent to provide for the wants of ieetle.q.,_thelieka meal%) I b e li eve I h ave given the sub e'ttreei •lia se e h , and learned gentleman's statement con ti e et i , lith e 11. 1 : 1 e t , tein eti neh the etatement of . the hon. and i 4. 7 19, it t he ese_raY, Perhaps; in some points be beyond, 110 eti e `_ t en : th;, e e it is not very far from the truth. el' l lsee e 4 rrey l e r ‘' S e an answer as far as regards the charge SZ/ tl e l,.' l l. er a ° en sent f rom England unprovid n e r d n w l i i t i h . e`,teths;), rtreeeelienn answer to the charge that your 1 0 11 it: e e, eria $ , r i' e n Ye has failed to supply that army l aitl l el, .ter t e ea doneet • tl*oes h 8 ' quired Nor •s it true to say that Il ti {1 ° t ho reor... o. improve the W 1 ' a ar D e- nsit bY te, tit, e lead e e banisation of the boa.rd of tra , . 8. 1 s,t Of Y be treeiartment. I 14 eetkeeieenarate board, apart from the commi S I N e;: t e en tr • ;, e ° 4 said the.t Secretaryariat has only re e.rred to the of State for War. ii se r tie, vi , , but from the time of the commence -4,1_44 the h a at , the direction of the commissariat has commence (he N ate h eeki n 'T of the Secretary at War. All these t k a i l e e l. ? cc . ite t i kk u er ni e lp . and at the tune they were adopted stejitaaa% been pre:tin te tki lori illoetsee. erect' to be the best measures that could then the principle ~ttiiti - I)., l ol.4l p e,neyt tulle, lately, ca t ihr e ielintohave effect. ° °n For different boards ." Of theme p ti la tolY, and now they meet more f0r k,r,i.,14, ~s lat p o le of giving to the military depayt tOpeintietioa's's., ranch of unity in its operations as its te e t if th' h3 Paet tee r ? capable of. Well, so much for the 1 tleeee,Preseiniti• But I must point out to the house n 'Vttif,,,, k: 6 ada of the military department are " " J i 4tll Of MUM, it will be well to COD.. 1° r o j ti I, roP e 'tf: t b. qt t t , a , i Pane,4 4 l; re G• h ° O (I 3 le ra ° )) et Nat, Fiio put sfecy~ ero we oe f) t 1 14 i toi Atott D1 % t11 %.t ion ° I s fbiS th , ideo o frog , 1.1.11,1 1:1 7 1 k Ir , 1 11 Z i a ke ' rl Q 7r,ete r. MO r t a , t bf ,f° t Ole r• e W t :01 Ingle — coo ld il l th e j l tt Ga Wes 00/ g re °ll. to b ° P e %, 11 4 letan ce ,:to INt tn in fol acecs is ' o c4' *,lge , i t t `tt n l d : • t111 °411 11 , 1 •- rg tb e s 1 t" b 0 4 0 4 t: al ; I ', k r an( s but 119 i ip ' li t . e Yle! a 'inci' s st, A 0; t 1117% e,!.111, .ch ' b at, insce°-,o' kla k Plt be , j g gs hk, 4l), t 1 to 1174 n ovo - to t 0. 0 0 the ~4 e inv ril jigent c oO die y t6B th 4t ll % eot l i : 0 a ~0 0 ,„, >o b ar id be 0 , te„„„,0 I 'vt r io e th d e sir' r/ `°nl of ° b Is eri tflp obi tit( i s 0 , Y rs tlO r Dic ) i %?, t e g I al ✓ for (; t lktl, r e 11 ee °f 1 4t, ° , 41 4. 4t . 00 ` e h I \ l i D ee , ' „ P s titp 1 )1p ,rx ttq th e ); b jj • ' e AP O f 4 14t04n THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENI. action than the hon. and learned gentleman—(hear, hear) —but I mean that, though the motion purports to contem plate inquiry, it is in fact a vote of censure upon the Go vernment. We have been told that it is a technical objec tion to say that this is a proceeding without a precedent. It is proposed to commit to a select committee of this house the duty of examining into the state of the army in the Crimea and into the conduct of the War Department at home, and the right hon. member for Midurst (Mr. Wal pole) quoted what he called a precedent for this proceeding iu the case of the Walchereu expedition. I must confess that I think I never heard a more unhappy comparison. The right hon. gentleman admitted that there were some points of difference. I declare that, as to points of resem blance, I do ;not think there is more than one which was not referred to by the right hon. member for Midhurst, namely, that curiously enough the motion for the Wal cheren inquiry and the motion now before the house were both brought forward on the 26th of January. (Laughter.) Will regard to the motions themselves, my right hon. friend could scarcely have been serious when he said that the Walcheren inquiry was a precedent for this, for they differ in the most essential respects. I will mention one of those points of difference. The Walcheren inquiry was an inquiry into an expedition which we had undertaken single handed; the people you had to examine were your own people ; the measure was your own measure; the failure was your own failure. Now, is this a single-handed expedition ? (Hear.) If my right hon. friend inquires— and I do not envy him his task if he is a member of the committee into the conduct of the War Department, in connection with the expedition, and into the stets) of the army in the Crimea, I want to know whether he will be able so to shape his inquiry that lie will have no evidence upon any question touching the conduct and the policy of the French nation? (Hear, hear.) What will be the position of the right hon. gentleman if he has to propose to this house that we should require the assistance of witnesses from over the water, in order to illustrate cer tain pointi in which the question is common to the two nations? The policy of the expedition to Sebastopol is to bo censured. We ought to have wintered at our ease at Odessa. If the right hon. gentleman wants to inquire into those points, it is plain that he must have French along with English witnesses. (Hear, hear. But my right lion. friend forgets this,.which is the most vital distinction that can be drawn between the two cases—that the inquiry into the Walcheren expedition was an inquiry after the fact. (Hear, hear.) That was an inquiry within the legitimate scope and office of the House of Commons. Tho Ministers had adopted a course of action, you were dissatisfied with the results, and you placed the Ministers upon their trial. Your business is not to govern the country, but it is, if you think fit, to call to account those who do govern it. For such a purpose it is perfectly reasonable to inquire into a past expedition, but how does that apply to the pre sent case ? How can you inquire into the past of the Se bastopol expedition without examining into the present and the future ? How is it possible that you can conduct the inquiry with respect to what you may call the past, without—not damaging, but ruining—the present and the future? (Hear, and cheers.) The real truth is this, that if this motion be anything—if the inquiry into an actually proceeding operation be anything—it is a motion that the House of Commons cannot pass without violating the laws which fix its place in the constitution, because if the motion means anything, it means taking the conduct of the expedition out of the hands of the Government. (Hear, and cheers.) The Walcheren inquiry was an investigation which was conducted by the house at the bar. The inquiry now proposed is to take place before a select committee. It seems to me that when a motion is made for a commit tee of the whole house upon a great national question, what you moan to imply is, in a legitimate form, your want of confidence in an existing Administration, and any proceedings which you take in consequence of such a motion you take with the whole weight and power of the house, in the face of day, and before the country; but is it really to he supposed that the inquiry now proposed is to be intrusted to a select committee ? That is a part of the question that can hardly be limited. I think every man must be prepared to say " Yes" or "No" to that question. My right honourable friend says that a select committee is to undertake this inquiry, but that is not the prevailing sentiment. The hon. member for Ayles bury (Mr. Layard) says that it is perfectly absurd to think of intrustiug such an inquiry to a select com mittee. Then, why does he vote for the motion ? Because it will despatch the Government. My hon. friend the member for Aylesbury, I must say, is not nice in the choice of his instruments. Tho priest of old, when he was about to sacrifice, washed his hands and put on his sacrificial garmentS before ho plunged the knife into the heart of his victim, but it seems to me that the hon gentle man does not much care in what condition his hands are. (A. laugh.) The merit of this motion, in the view of that hon. gentleman, is simply that it will despatch the Govern ment. He does not recommend it—he does not defend it —he abandons it; he condemns it ; he says it is unworthy and ridiculous, and he is right. You cannot entrust your inquiry to a select committee. (Hear. hear.) It is vain to say that there is no limitation of your powers written in your journals. No doubt, you may, if you please, de cline to transact any business in this house. You may ap point a select committee to transact the business of the house, and you may take the votes of that committee in lieu of your own. You may, if you please, split your selves from your honoured functions, and devolve them upon a few of your members, but will that answer the pur poses of those who seek to save the army? Will it answer the purposes of those who wish to maintain the dignity and honour of the country ? Does the hon. member for Aylesbury, a man of ability and honour, really think that the people of England will allow him to deal in this way with such questions as the present? Does he think the despatching of a Government, however he may dislike it, is a matter so simple that the people of England do not care one pin howit is done, provided only the knife reaches the heart? If the hon. gentleman thinks so he is totally mistaken. We have been told to-night that if we rejected this motion we should cause disappointment to the coun try. (Hear, hear.) Then, if you are to cause pleasure by adopting this motion, I want to know what kind of plea sure it will be ? It will be a pleasure dependent upon the belief that you are going to 'inquire into the existing state of things. The country will not understand your doc trine, that you aro so short of means for attaining your ends that, in order to despatch the Government you dis like, you are obliged to vote for a motion you cannot defend. If the House of Commons say they will have an inquiry, depend upon it the country' will believe you, but what you wish is that the country should not believe you. 'New, if the cou❑try does believe you, and if the country would he disappointed by your rejecting this motion, what I ask will be the disappointment of the country when they find, first that you have voted for inquiry, and then that you never meant that inquiry to take place? Well, I really should venture, with great respect, to submit upon this question the opinion of Lord Portchester, who moved the appointment of the Walcheren inquiry. What was the language that he used ? He said— " I cannot consent to delegate the right of inquiry ou this occasion to any select or secret committee, by whom the course of investigation might be misdirected, or its bounds limited—before whom, possibly, garbled extracts, called do cuments, might be laid by Ministers themselves, in order to produce a partial discussion. But I will not expose the case to such a risk. It is in a committee of the whole house alone we can have a fair case, because, if necessary, we can exa mine oral evidence at the bar." rendered the step taken by the hon. and learned member for Sheffield not only a justifiable, but a necessary and ' inevitable step ; and it appeared to me quite impossible, after the admission, or rather the declaration, of the noble lord, that any gentleman in this house could have found himself justified iu opposing the motion of the hon. and learned gentleman. This will brine me to the last obser vations of the Chancellor of the exchequer. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer has taken the instance of the in quiry into Walcheren, and has said to my right hon. friend (Mr. Walpole), " You have urged upon us a false resem blance between the present state of affairs and those which existed at the time of the investigation into Walcheren ; but I will show you points of difference which you cannot contest." I entirely agree with the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are points of dif ference between the present case and that of the inquiry into Walcheren. No Minister of the Crown, in the ease of the Walcheren expedition, hail come forward and said that the state of affairs in his mind demanded inquiry— that, with all the advantages of his official position and of his accumulated Parliamentary experience, there was in that state of affairs something inexplicable to him. (Hear, hear.) In the case of Walcheren, instead of the First Minister of the Crown in this house making such admis sions, you had him urging the expediency of the course, and telling us that information was not wanted in many particulars, and that in others it was inexpedient to give it. After all the arguments of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer upon this parallel between the present circum stances and those which attended the inquiry into Walche ren, let us for a moment remember what are the circum stances which we have to consider, and let us take that broad and common-sense view hich the people of this country have for some time adopted. Yon do not deny that a great army has perished in a distant country to which it has been sent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the amount of our loss has been misrepresented and exaggerated. He says that it was an army of 54,000 men, or 56,000 men, and that there are 80,000 still bearing arms, and that only 24,000 or 26,000 therefore have perished. That is not a subject, I suppose, worthy of inquiry. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the same time dilatesupon the contradictory accounts which exist upon the subject. Well, then, is there not some ground for inquiry, w h en it i s a q uestion whether 20,000 or 30,000 British tr oo p s h ave di sa ppeared, when the First Minister of the Crown in this house tells us, with the advantage of his official experience, that the I causes of that loss are inexplicable t o hi m, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that the greatest mis conceptions exist upon the subject ? I ask you, is not that a fair ground for inquiry into a subject so interesting to the people of this country? (Hear, hear.) But, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, still harping upon the in stance of Walcheren, would you justify yourselves in the present instance by having recourse to means and measures which in that instance might have been justified because the transactions to which they referred were concluded ? But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has totally miscon ceived, or has for a moment forgotten, the nature of the motion of the hon. and learned member for Sheffield. (Hear, hear.) The motion of the hon. and learned gentle. man is not to inquire into the conduot of the war ; it is not a motion which requires us to call before us French and English witnesses, tie authorities of rival armies, persons connected with different countries, and owing a different allegiance. The motion of the hon. and learned gentle. man is to inquire into the condition of the army before Se bastopol, and whether that condition has been occasioned by any mal-administration of the departments connected with the army. (Hear.) Now, Sir, this is a simple issue; " but I doubt whether it is an issue which can b e ra i se d an d investigated at the conclusion of the war. S u p pose th at the present war were to last as long as the lat e grea t war, can you at the end of 20 years pretend to inquir e i n t o th e condition of the army "now before Seba s t opo l ? (Hear, hear.)consi ciu n of h conclusion mightte struggle bteaglgelge the discussionitimatecours e to postpone to the of the principles and policy upon which it had been conducted; but the present question appears to me to be of an instant and urgent character, and which, if ever inquired into, can only be inquired into at this moment. Then the right hon. gentleman dwells upon the inevitable character of an in vestigation of this kind by Parliament into the admi nistration of those in office, and he says that it is a mockery whether before a select committee, oe before a commit. tee of the whole House—the investigation is a mockery, because, he says, that carrying the motion for inquiry is clearly a censure upon the Government. But thee was not the opinion of Sir S. Romilly in the debate upon the Wal cheren expedition. Sir S. Romilly, meeting an objection of this kind—and I quote a name which I hope is still re spected by the Whig party—said, " If you lay down that doctrine, you may as well lay down the doctrine that a man is condemned because he is put upon his trial." (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, we have now before us the motion of the hon. and learned member for Sheffield, to which there ap pears to be, so far as I can collect the course of the debate, three main objections. The first objection is that it is a censure upon the commander of the forces in the Crimea. Now, sir, if I thought that by any ingenuity the language of the motion could bo construed into a censure upon the conduct of Lord Raglan, or of any general officer in th e Crimea, I should be the ast man who would vote for it, or who would in any way sanction it; but I cannot, I confess, in any way apply to it such an interpretation ; and I declare if I had written the motion myself, entertaining those feel ings towards Lord Raglan to which I have referred, that I could not have devised language which I should have ima gined would be less likely to be supposed to contain the slightest insinuation against the noble lord. (Hear.) The motion refers to the condition of the army, to its physical condition in that country. It wishes to inquire how far that condition, which we deplore, and which we believe calamitous, has been occasi one d by the conduct, of any de partment of the Government. (Hear, hear.) Now, for a moment, can such an interpretation be placed upon it? Nor do I believe that it is one which can for a moment be en tertained. The seemed objection to this motion is that it is of an unconstitutional and inconvenient character. That I have already sufficiently touched upon in advertin g to ' the instance of Walcheren, which the Chancellor of the Ex chequer has introduced to our notice to-night. I confess I do not think that any inconvenience would occur from any committee of the House of Commons visiting the heights of Sebastopol. (A laugh.) That is an inconvenience which I do not think the possibility of should at all influence our debates. The question we law., consider is whether there shall be an inquiry. into a specific eubject—tho con dition of the army. Such an inquiry I believe to be per fectly constitutional, and, in my mind, it would not be in convenient. But then, air, comes the third and main objec tion to the motion of the lion. member for Sheffield, and that is that it conveys, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, a censure upon the Government, or, as a colleegue of his who preceded him stated, it implies a want of confidence in the Administration. Now, sir, let us for a moment en deavour to understand what is meant by the want of con fidence which this motion is said to carry. I think we have a right to ask from the Government, who are resisting the motion, on the ground that it implies a want of confi dence, -I think we have a right to ask them this question —ln what Government does it imply a want of confidence! (Hear.) Does it imply a want of confidence in the Adminis tration which existed 48 hours ago? But the noble lord, late the First Minister of the Crown in this house, has quitted that Government ; and ho has quitted it with a descrip tion of the feelings that prevailed a men _ g its members, and of the cordiality which animated their councils. (A laugh.) I don't think the Government will resist this motion on the ground that it is a want of confidence in the Cabinet as it existed with the noble lord the member for the city of London as a member of it. Well, then, is it a declara tion of want of confidence in the Cabinet as it now exists ? But we are told almost from the Treasury bench that whatever may be the effect of this motion—whether the Government win or whether they lose —the event is to be followed by an abdication of all self-confidence on their own part. (A laugh.) Do they then object to our voting a want of confidence in an Administration which tells us that the moment it is over, whatever may be tie result of the motion, they will consider themselves as no longer worthy the confidence of Parliament? (Hear, and laughter.) Well, then, is the objection to this motion that it implies a want of confidence in the Government that is to be? That is a question we have a right to ask. Hard has been the fate of the House of Commons of late years. It has often been called upon to vote confidence in mon with whose principles it was unacquainted, het it never has yet 'been called upon to vete confidence when it did not know either the principles or the men. (Hear.) Well, then, when we are asked to pass a vote of confidence in the Government, or to cenveycensure, tho right hon. gentlemen opposite who have addressedue, themembera of the Cabinet, have always argued in this case as if the present motion was an attack upon an individual member of the Cabinet. The whole of this case has been argued by the Government as if this were a personal attack upon the Minister of War. Now, Sir, for nay part I beg to disclaim, in language as clear as I can express my meaning in, that I entirely protest against that Parliamentary conduct which signals out one member of a Cabinet, and on the pretence of criticising the administra tion of his department, visits him with a censure from which the other members of the Cabinet, his colleagues, are to be exempt. (Cheers.) I have had occasion in other instances to maintain these opinions, and I have ever acted upon them. I have been asked myself—it was not an ap peal made to me in confidence, and, therefore, though I will mention no names, I think I am not doing wrong in speaking of it here—l have been asked, of course, by mem bers of the party opposite, whether I could support a vote of censure upon tue VW) err There m ust he many who now hear me who must be cognisant of the truth of what I am stating. This, I believe, was long be fore the period to which the hon. gentleman has referred as the first inauspicious day when he heard the administra tion of the War-office was in disfavour. I say I have been asked whether I would support a vote of censure on the Duke of Newcastle by hon. gentlemen upon tle other side of the house, and have been assured that suc h a mo tion, if proposed, would be s ure to be passed bya decisive majority. But I said, as I say now, that I never will, di rectly or indirectly, be a party to any motion in this house the object of which is to select one member of the Cabinet and make him the s capegoat of a policy for which the whole of his colleagues are equally resp)nsible. (Cheers.) Now, sir, it is the fashion, in order to niske this management of the case pa l a table for those wh o are op posed to the Duke of Newcastle —it is the fashion to say, that it is a vote against the malad ministration of his office. Well, it is not for me to defend the Duke of Nee - castle. We have had the character of the Duke of Newcastle painted by his colleagues, a nd I have no doubt the i r ex pressions are still fresh in the ear and memory of the house. I do not subscribe to their justice. I ony refer to them as coming from an authen tic quarter, and which, therefore, must b supposed to draw a character !filch at least deserves attention. It is not merely the celleague who has quitted him who g ives us an interpretative of his re • official shortcoming, but hi s yet mau l i ng colleagues bear equal testimony in an elaborate manner tlat the Duke is alike deficient in energy and in experierce. (A laugh,) Well, sir, one ought not to dispute the julgmeift ll o wn coeagues of a Minister made by his; but, Refer am I from wishing to argue this ca se, or to con duct the debate in any unfair spirit to the D u ke of Newca s tl e, thet I am bound to say that, though I cannot but ascribe t o h e mal administration of his office many if those disasers the existence of which no one can deny and few can pilliate— although I cannot but do this, yet I am bound b say, am not at all certain that there was ono other number of the Cabinet who, placed in the same situation, would not have carried on affairs equally unsat isfactoril y. (` Hear, hear," and laughter.) If we come to the administation of offices, so far as the conduct of the war is canceried, the Duke of Newcastle is not the o nl y Mini ster who in the administration of his office, s e in my mind entitlel to the I notice of Parliament. There is another Secretary ,f State, who, from tho nature of his office, is much concenect in the administration of affairs with regard to the conduct of I the war. It is the noble lord the Secretary of Stae oppo site (Lord Palmerston), whose energy anti experence we are told are our only compensation for the dilaters we have experienced, and the calamities which the Juke of Newcastle has brought about. The noble lord, being the militia entirely under his superintendence, r exeresed, of course, considerable influence over the conduct of the war. What has been the a dministration of hi office? • On the 6th of last February the noble lord gave reties, to . 1 this house that he should ask leave to bring in sills for the establishment of the Irish and Scotch militia. There was not the filiglate§t resistance offered to moDuzoo so Sir, I therefore submit to this house, if they think, as they may think, that the time has come when it is fit to put a period to the existence of the present Government, that they have no difficulty, and need make no difficulty, in the choice of legitimate means for that purpose. The Go vernment cannot continue a week in office vathout sub mitting to you proposals for measures which are required for the service of the country. Why, then, do you not meet them in the way in which the constitution points out? Can you give an example in the whole of your his tory of a time when the House of Commons has thought it worthy of itself to put a period to an Administration by means such as this—by means of a character so indirect and so tending to deceive and delude the country ? (Hear, hear.) Sir, I venture to say this in conclusien :—You may deprive us of the character of Ministers, but we remain members of Parliament, and as members of Parliament we have a common interest with you in the character and in the dignity of the House of Commons. Now, sir, what is the foundation of that character and of that dignity ? Your power is a gigantic power, but it is gigantic on ac count of the prudence, on account of the • sense of justice and of propriety with which you are commonly content to wield it. (Cheers.) Rely upon it, the House of Commons in this free country can no more afford to disregard the rules which -former prudence has laid down, or stoop to the use of indifferent means to delude the country with promises which it does not mean to fulfil, than can any other body, however inferior. It is as needful for the House of Commons as it is for any body in this country— I would say that it is more needful for it—to remain with in the limits which are marked out for its province, if it wish to continue on the proud eminence to which the la bours of those who preceded you have raised it. If this motion be passed, as it is quite possible that it may, no doubt it will bring great relief to the members of the Ad- ' ministration, but it will .impose upon you a corresponding responsibility. You may net feel it. I see here many who have had but a short experience in this house, and 'who are called upon to vote upon a great question without perhaps having the means of fully seeing all that it involves. For my own part, this I say—that I am sensible, whatever Go vernment may :wino oub of the ashes of that which may be about to fall, that it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to render to it every support which he conscien tiously can give it. Further, with respect to those who may vote for the motion which is now perhaps about to pass, I venture also to say that it will be their duty—the duty of the men—the duty of the party, be they who they may—if they should be.called upon to assist in filling the vacuum which they have gone to such lengths to create, not to shrink from that task. Whether they do so or not, however, I earnestly hope that the house, in the vote which it is about to give, will recollect its respect to the country, and will consider the mode of proceeding which it is about to adopt. For my part, I believe that mode of proceeding to be worse than useless so far as regards the army in the Crimea. Your inquiry will never take place as a real inquiry; or, if it did, it would lead to nothing but confusion and disturbance, increased disaster, shame at home, and weakness abroad ; it would convey no conso lation to those whom you seek to aid, but it would carry malignant joy to the hearts of the enemies of England— (cheers)—and, for my part, I ever shall rejoice, if this mo tion is to-night to be carried, that my own last words as a member of the Cabinet of the Earl of Aberdeen, had been words of solemn and earnest protest against a proceeding which has no foundation either in the constitution or in the practice of preceding Parliaments, which is useless and mischievous for the purpose which it appears to contem plate, and which, in my judgment, is full of danger to the power, dignity, and usefulness of the Commons of England. (The right hon. gentleman resumed his seat amid loud cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI—After the remarkable admissions which have been made in the course of this debate by members of the Government, it is unnecessary for me to-night at all to indulge in that " slow" process which the right hon. gen tleman has been reminded of by the hon, baronet on this side of the house (Sir E. B. Lytton), and to which he so good-humouredly alluded. Sir, this debate was commenced by a gentleman to whom we always listen with attention and respect ; and when he suddenly ceased from addressing to us those observations which in this instance, as in all others, would have been received in that spirit, remember.. ing that he was an accomplished orator, I almost at first supposed that it was an artifice of rhetoric, when he merely moved the resolution which he has now, Sir, placed in your hands; for if there ever were a resolution, upon a great question of national interest submitted to the House of Commons which required no arguments to support it, no illustrations to illuminate it, and no arts of oratory to-en force and recommend it to the adoption of the house, it was, in my opinion, the resolution which the hon. and learned gentleman submitted to us on Friday last, because, after the hon. and learned gentleman had risen, in pa rgn , ance of his notice, to bring that resolution before our eon , s:deratiori, a noble lord, who had been bnt within a few hours the chief Minister, of the Crown in this house, had admitted the case of the hon. and learned gentleman—had made an important public declaration which, .0 Tay mind, G, JANUARY 30, 185.5. wise, so important, so urgent. Well, February passed, ' and the bills were not introduced, though unopp ose d . They were not introduced by a Cabinet which must at that moment have known that war, if not inevitable, was at least impending. (Hear.) February passed. March arrived. On the 28th of March war was declared. One would have supposed that Ministers who had declared war, who must have known that a militia was the only sure basis of a reserve in this country, would not for a moment longer have delayed the introduction of these important bills respecting the Scotch and Irish militia. Promised in February, promised in March—on the 28th of which month, as I said, war was declared—April passed, and these bills were not introduced. May passed away, June passed, or almost passed, and these bills were not introduced, but on Midsummer night the noble lord the Home Secretary, who, we are told, is the only man who can conduct the war, introduced these two bills for the establishment of the Scotch and Irish militia. The conse quence was, we were at war ; the regiments of the line were taken from Ireland, the English militia was sent to garrison Ireland, and this country was left quite unde fended, while, at the same time, the means of supplying our resources were proportionately diminished. (Hear, hear.) I should like to know, if the Duke of Newcastle had done this, whether his colleagu es would not have been pretty sure t o h ave bl azoned it forth in his catalogue of misadventures and maladministration? (Hear, hear.) It happens, however, to be in the department of another Se cretary of State, who, in the administration of his office, is such a paragon of Ministerial adroitness and ability that wo are told he is the only man who can make up for the laches of his colleague. Sir, I say this in a spirit, I sin cerely hope, of constitutional justice. I do not doubt that the Duke of Newcastle was placed in an office which he was not equal to, for all his colleagues, with the exception of the hon. gentleman, have assured the house in the most elaborate manner that that was the case. (A laugh.) But, sir, I say the Duke of Newcastle has done mailing for which his colleagues in the first place are not as responsi ble as himself; and placed in a new office with the most laborious duties, and at a period of such crisis and slifficalty, it peculiarly became the colleagues of the Duke of New castle to hare been well aware of what he was doino• to have sustained him with their counsel and their sympathy; least of all did it become them, when he was involved in a difficult position, as he is at present, to have quitted him ; or, if they remained with him, to have risen in the House of Commons in order to decry his abilities and denounce his administration. (Cheers.) I have no personal or political relations with the Duke of Newcastle. I need not remind he anticipated injurious con sequences in the c o n d uc t o f th e war from the want of experience and energy of the Duke of Newcastle, and yet he never objected to the office of Mini ster for War being conferred on the Duke of Newcastle, because it gave him the means of saving the balance of power, and introducing as Secretary for the Colonies a sup porter of his side. (Hear, hear.) Thus, in tho struggle to preserve the balance of power, the noble lord was victo rious ; b u t h e got b o ld er, an d , no t sa t is fi e d with his suc cess, he invaded the principalities, and attempted to drive out the Minister for War also. (Hear, hear.) That expe dition has, however, been no more successful than was that of the Russians, and what are the consequences? We are called on to decide upon the motion of the hon. mem ber for Sheffield, which her Majesty's Ministers tell us they consider a vote of want of confidence. Well, sir,:that motion is before the house, and we must vote upo n ' it. The vote which I shall give is One which, I believe, will be the vote of the majority of the hous e . Personally,' I care nothing for the consequences, but I feel called upon to decide on an issue which Ministers have interpreted into a question of approbation or confidence. I care not by what name it is called, and I must decide according to the opinions I entertain. Sir, I have no confidence whateve r in the exist ing Government. (Cheers.) I told thorn a year ago, when taunted for not asking the House of Commons to ratify that opinion of mine, that as they bad no confidence in each other a vote of want of confidence was superfluous. I ask the House of Commons to decide if 12 months hav e not proved that I was right in that assumption, although its accuracy was then questioned. (Hear, hear.) What, confidence has the noble lord the late President of the Council in the Minister for War? What confidence have this variety of Ministers in each other's councils? They stand before us confessedly as men who have not that mion of feelings and of sympathy necessary to enable them suc cessfully to conduct public affairs. (Hear.) The late President of the Council, in scattering some compliments among the colleagues he was quitting, dilated upon the patience and ability with which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had conducted the duties of his depart ment. lam not here to question those valuable qualities or that patience, but I say that all the patience and all'the ability with which the Earl of Clarendon may have ad ministered are completely lost by scenes like this, and when the Ministers of this country have themselves revealed their weakness to foreign Courts all the ability and patience of that statesman cannot make up for the weakness which is known to prevail in the councils of England. At all times such a circumstance must be injurious, but at the preseit moment it may be more than injurious. Two years ago England was the leading Power in Europe, but is there any man in this house who can pretend that she holds that position now ? If this be the case—if we are called upon to decide whether the Hells* of Commons has confidence in the Ministry, when the debate is commenced by the secession of the most eminent member of the Go. vernment—when affairs are in a calamitous state, and when we are told by the late Lord President that the con• duct of the war is intrusted to a Minister who he thinks is unequal to the task—l ask the country—l ask the Minis ters themselves, whether they can complain that a mem ber of the Opposition should give his vote according to the belief which he entertains that the affairs of the country are intrusted to a deplorable Administration ? (Cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL—I did not intend to have addressed the house upon this subject, nor do I now intend entering upon the general question, but some personal allusions have been made to me, which I cannot altogether allow to pass silently. Ido not mean, however, to enter further into the question of the differences of opinion between myself and the First Lord of the Treasury, or the foundations of the statements which have been made by the right hon. gentle man the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ido not contro vert the accuracy of ony one of the statements; but if I were to enter into various details as to the letters which I wrote in the beginning of October to the Duke of New castle, and the answers which I received from him, and the circumstances respecting my subsequent representa tions upon that and various other subjects with regard to the conduct of the war, I think I could show that the statement of my right hon. friend does not complete the history of the transaction. (Hear, hear.) But it appears to me to be far better to lay aside any notion of my own vindication, and to omit any facts which might tend to a practice which I think very inconvenient, of stating on a subsequent occasion transactions which have passed be tween members of the Cabinet. Although I have said thus much, Ido not know that I should have risen for the sole purpose of doing so ; but I could not so easily pass by a phrase of the right hen. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), where he said that the transactions in which I had been engaged with Lord Aberdeen would be considered in the language of tie last century as a "profligate intrigue." (Hear, hear.) Now, if the right hon. gentleman means that in the habits of invective of the last century a false imputation of that nature world have been addressed by one statesman to another, I have no objection to the phrase ; but if the right hen. gentleman means to say that a true character would have been given to that transaction by those words, I beg leave most solemnly to deny the im putation. (Hear.) It has happened ea more than one occasion that a Prime Minister has been called upon to state to one of his colleagues that the office which he held might be more efficiently held, at the moment, by another member of the same Cabinet. I remember a transaction in which I was not engaged otherwise than as a mere spec tator, but of which a full history may easily be learnt by the right hon. gentleman—l mean the case of the Earl of Derby. The office of Secretary for the Colonies was placed in fresh hands at that time, when a question of no loss magnitude than the emancipation was under discus sion. It was then desirable that the office of Secretary should be filled by a man of the influence, the weight, and the talents of the Earl of Derby. (Hear, hear. Earl Grey had no hesitation in stating his conviction to Lord Goderich, and Lord Goderich gave way to that commu nication. Well, I never heard that that was denominated a profligate intrigue. If it was a profligate intrigue, it must have been a profligate intrigue to get possession of the seals of the colonial department ; but if it was a profli g ate intrigue it was a transaction which enabled Lord Derby to hrlug furw.uil, witu inc aunsty which all admired, the plan for the emancipation of the slaves. But the right hon. gentleman has alluded to another transaction—the Wal cheren expedition, and the conduct of Mr. Canning to Lord Castlereagh. The conduct of Mr. Canning to Lord Castlereagh was this, that he did not conceive that Lord Castlereagh was qualified to conduct the Walcheren expe dition. He stated that conviction to the Prime Minister, And he requested that a communication might be made to Lord Castlereagh. But it was not so made. Ho was in formed, I think months afterwards, that the communica tion was not made, and in the end it appeared to Lord Cas tlereagh that Mr. Canning had connived at the suppression of that communication, and a duel took place in conse quence. Now, was there anything similar in this conduct, whether worthy of blame 'or not in Mr. Canning ? That was somewhat intricate, and my impression is that Mr. Canning was not to blame, but has it any resemblance to my con duct to the Duke of Newcastle I wrote immediately after wards, ou the very next day, to beg that letter might be shown to the Duke of Newcastle—(hear, hear)—and, cordingly, in the very next letter I received from the Earl of Aberdeen, two or .three (lays afterwards, he stated . that both the Duke of Newcastle and the Secretary at War had been fully informed of my commu nication, and that both of them stated, as I should have expected, that they were willing to concur in any arrangement for the public service. Therefore, whether the arrangement that I proposed was a good ono or a bad one for the public service, there was no concealment whatever. I never desired to conceal from them—l did not conceal from them—the opinion that I held. It was a pro posal, it might be called .in favour, others might say it was 'for the advantage, but it was to impose a very onerous bur den on the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I have seen so much of the evil consequences of small sections, of families acting together, that I advisedly, of my own part, did not speak to others, and I so far kept clear of anything like intrigue that I spoke to Lord Aberdeen alone. It was, as I thought, conducive to the public service ; and when my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that at that time there was no general impression against the ad ministration or the Duke of Newcastle, I beg leave to say that that will prove by subsequent reflection to have been a reason in favour of the arrangement. If the change had been made at that time it would only have been said that the Duke of Newcastle, who had only hitherto had no experience in an office which had attached to it so much importance at the be ginning of the war, had taken another office of Secretary of State, and that the arrangement was made for the public bene fit, whereas if any change had been made such as that hinted at the other day, it would have been supposed to have been the house that there are many reasons why that is not a very popular name on this side of the house. The Duke of Newcastle, as a politician, was trained aid bred on the . Conservative benches; he owed his introduction to, and hie success in, public life to this party; and, in our opi nion, he conducted himself to this party, at a peculiar moment, with an acerbity of feeling, and an ambiguity of conduct, which, in his present forlorn condition, we can afford to forget. (Hear, hear, and a l aug h.) But, sir, I protest against the convenient method which is now brought into habit of placing all these disasters either upon the maladministration of an" individual or the ill working of a system. (Hear, hear.) Whatever may be the faults of that system, when worked by able men, it has accomplished great things. (Hear, hear.) I shall not enter into that branch of the question at this hour of the night, because I believe that the calamities which we all deplore have not been brought about only, or even princi pally, by faults of administration, but by rather an erroneous policy, for which certainly the Cabinet must have been responsible, and not a solitary Minister. (Hear, hear.) I think the designs of the Cabinet were hastily conceived. (Hear.) I think they attempted to accomplish them with inadequate means. (Hear, hear.) I think that they wen, not sufficiently aware of the nature of the enterprise in which they had embarked, and that they showed through out the whole conception and management of their scheme a want of foresight, of firmness, of depth, and of all those resources which became a Ministry who had embarked in as enterprise of ~such vast importance. Why, sir, the right hon. gentleman the Chaioellor of the Exchequer has been this very evening referring to the Walcheren Expedi tion. I remember those debates, and I am sure the noble lord the Secretary of State opposite (Lord Palmerston) must also remember them. I am only a reader of those debates, but he was a listener. I remember it was pointed out by very able members of this helm that the Government of that day were so very ignorant that they had endeavoured, by a coup de main, to take one of the strongest fortresses in Europe, and they found out, when about to accomplish that project, that the fortress was defended more strongly than they had been led to believe. If you only put Sebastopol for Antwerp you have the history of the present expedition. But it was held to be a great misdemeanour on the part of that Ministry to have undertaken a scheme which involved the siege of so strong a fortress without having previously ob tained ample and accurate information as to its defences. (Hear.) Why, we now hear from the Ministers themselves that they were surprised at the resistance which had been experienced there and the strength of the place before which our army under their directions have sat down. And then we are told the ill administration of an individual Minister can account for the disastrous consequences which must necessarily result from such a want of statesmanlike saga city. The noble lord (J. Russell) the other night defended himself on account of his conduct during an autumnal tour. But it is not so much of autumnal tours that we complain as of winter campaigns. (Hear.) The Secretary of State for the Colonies to-night and the Secretary at War the other night taunted us with our timid opposition to the Government. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he acceded to office some months ago, made his first appearance in that capacity by taunting us for net bring ing forward a vote of want of confidence in the Govern. ment. He has returned to-night to his suggestion of that political remedy. I think we have had quite enough of these taunts from the right hon. Secretary. I am not ashamed to say we have exhibited a timid opposition to the Government. That has not been because we were afraid of the Government or the consequences of our oppo sition if we undertook it • lint beslswas uo wsso tissia on account of the unparalleled disasters which we found accumulating over the country. Wo did so because the country was involved in war, and, whatever might be our opinion as to the impolicy which occasioned that war, we felt it our duty cordially to support the existing Government in carrying on the war with vigour and offi cdeupy. And if we now offer no longer a " timid opps sitioa„"-it is because we find that, notwithstanding the support wo gave them—notwithstanding the fact that there has been no vote, either of money or of men, which we have not cordially supported—notwithstanding the fact that during all this agitatinc , period there has been only one measure connected with the war which the Opposition has resisted, and that was a measure universally condemned by the country, notwithstanding the Parliament and the country alike have upheld them, have placed in their hands unlimited means, and have offered at no time a cri ticism on their acts, the Ministry have so managed affairs that they have broken up from their own disaster, and the army of England e as never in so perilous and calamitous a condition as at the present moment. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer com menced his speech by dilating—with that eloquence which he so easily commands—on the terms of perfect confidence which have prevailed from the first among all the mem bers of the Coalition Government. The house listened with tender surprise to the revelations of the right hon. gentleman, and with that admirable consistency of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so consummate a mas ter, he concluded his description of this affectionate and perfect confidence existing between all these gentlemen by assuring the house that neither he nor his colleagues wore aware 24 hours before it was known to the public of the important secession of the noble lord the leader of the Heim of Commons. (Hear.) Notwithstanding this un broken confidence, it seems that some of the. Cabinet had to walk down to this house, and, from their accustomed places, hear for the first time that their leader had quitted his office. The most important speech made during this debate, which it is impossible to pass over unnoticed, was the speech of the noble lord the late President of the Coun cil, in which he explained to the house the reasons which had induced him to quit office. I listened to that speech with a feeling shared, I am sure, by the vast majority of the house. I listened to that speech with amazement. When I listened to that speech it seemed to me I was listen. ing to a page from the 2lfeneoirs of Babb Doddington. Such an all-unconscious admission of what in the 18th century would have been called a profligate intrigue, but which in our more mealy-mouthed century must be desig nated by more euphemistic phrases, is not to be matched in that record which commemorates the doings of another Puke of Newcastle, who was a Minister of England when the House of Commons was called upon by Sir T. Robinson, and when the Opposition was actually carried on by the Paymaster of the Forces and the Secretary at War. We are told every day that it is our blessed lot to livein an age of progress, and yet we have this confession in our purer days of morality that the noble lord the late President of the Council goes to the Prime Minister, and tells him that, in consequence of " antiquated imbecility," as the noble lord opposite (Palmerston) might say, but in consequence of incapability and incompetence on the part of a Minister of War at the present moment—in consequence of that Minister not being " the active spirit of the whole ma chine," he (the Lord President) proposes that one Secretary of State should be dismissed, and another colleague, the sl u nk. INon. member for Wilts (Mr. S. Herbert), shoWl t i be superseded altou.su.... sa"t. au . We nave heard of some things before in this country, some " in trigues," to use the language of Lord Perchester, who has been this evening referred to. We remember the conspi racy by which Mr. Canning and Lord Wellesley conspired successfully to eject Lord Castlereagh from the Cabinet, and the recollection of those deeds is still a stain upon the memory of Mr. Canning. But there was this in the last instance which exceeds the conduct of the Cabinet which conducted the affair of the Walcheren expedition, there was this difference—the colleague for whose behest and be nefit the conspiracy was intended was selected as the au thority to rebula with Spartan severity, with more than Lacedemonian rigour, the illustrious conspirator who had sacrificed himself in the disinterestedness of friendship. The noble lord the Secretary of State (Lord Palmerston) performed his part in a most feeling manner. The noble lord was sincerely shocked at the conduct of the Lord President of the Council quitting his colleagues with out due notice. I should have thought the memory of the noble lord (Palmerston) might have softened his language of rebuke ; for, if he could only recal a period some twelve months ago, when, if I recollect aright, the noble lord equally as suddenly—at as perplexing a moment—when the question of peace or war hung in the balanc&—quitted his colleagues. The only difference is, that on that occasion the noble lord did not condescend to give us an explana tion as candid as that offered to the house by the noble lord the President of the Council. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord appeared to take great credit to himself be cause he has increased the area of his party, and has always been ready to receive men of ability who have chosen to enlist under his standard, and he seemed to urge that point as if he were vindicating himself from attacks upon the existence ofa coalition Government; but no one objects to a combination between pnblio men who have acted in different parties. The noble lord the Secretary for the Home Department was once a member of the Tory party ; Lord Derby was a member of Earl Grey's Administration. There is no stain upon the character or honour of public men, or no inconvenience to the public service, in states men, however they may have at one time differed, if they feel themselves justified in so doing, acting together in public life. All that the country requires of public men when they do so act together is, that they should be iidcm de rcpubtica—that upon all great questions they should entertain the same views, that in subjects of policy, whether foreign or domestic, they should be animated by the same cbnvictions and the same sympathies in carrying out their policy. But, with regard to the existing Gc vernment—if it still be an existing Government—all have seen that, during their career, it does not appear that upon any great question, whether domestic or external , they have been animated by the same spirit and sympa thies. It is to that circumstance that we must attribute the fact that they have been so unsuccessful in carrying their measures or prosecuting their policy. What has been the theory that seems to have kept together the various ele ments of the Cabinet ? Tho balance of power is the theory which both sides have attempted to support. That this is so appears from their own admission. The late Lord kregidont is breaking up the Cabinet, because from the Ant the effect of public opinion, and the Duke of Newcastle would have been represented as the victim of public opinion. I be lieve that if the arrangement that I proposed had been fortu nately adopted at that time, it would have been conducive to the public service ; that it would not have injured the reputation of the Duke of Newcastle, who must always be considered a man of sound judgment in public affairs, and well qualified to fill public office, although, as I stated at the time, I did not think he had authority sufficient to conduct, in spite of every obstacle, the vast operations which the war against Russia demanded. I have nothing further to add. I do not wish to go beyond this personal explanation, but the charge of having been guilty of a profligate intrigue was one I could not sit under. (Cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON—There is one point in the speech of the right honourable gentleman opposite on which I hesi tate not to express my cordial and entire concurrence. Tne right nonourame gentleman has stated that the motion does not single out the Duke of Newcastle as one member of the Cabinet for special condemnation, but that the whole Cabinet, who are his colleagues up to the present time, are equally responsible with him for those matters on which his conduct appears to be attacked, and it is on that principle that we "stand to submit to the judgment of the house. We have stated that we consider ourselves to be jointly and in common responsible. Therefore I disdain, on the part of the Government, any of that unworthy pro ceeding which the right hon. gentleman has imputed to some one, and said, iu the course of this debate, that wo had en deavoured to throw upon one member that which, upon the principle of the constitution, ought to be shared by all. With regard to the Duke of Newcastle, I must in justice say that public opinion has done him great injustice, and I am sure that a juster estimate will be formed by posterity of the ability displayed by the noble duke in the service of his country. Much has been said about coalition Governments. It is a very common opinion that the Government which now stands here, being formed of persons who were not always of the same party, retained in itself the division which belonged to its original elements, and that we were always thinking about the balance of power and arranging ourselves accord ing to the parties to which we might respectively belong. I can confirm amply what was stated by might right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that in all the dis cussions which have taken place among the members of the Government regarding matters with which as a Government we had to deal, we never thought of the party to which we originally belonged, but each man spoke his sentiments of the matter in hand, and there was no other diversity than that which would arise between men of the same party who take a different view, as must necessarily happen among any given number of individuals. But I warn gentle men against giving encouragement to what I must call clamour against coalitions, because I venture to say in the present state of political parties in this country, you never will be able to carry on a Government but more or less on the principle of coalition. •We do not deny that there are cir cumstances connected with the state and condition of the army in the Crimea which had been afilictin7, and I may sAy to a certain extent, so far as it goes, had been calamitous and deeply to be deplored. Those evils, h wever, had very much arisen from circumstances in some respect s independent of the control of man ; in other respects, from that inexperience which necessarily must be felt among the incidents of a go vernment who are called upon after a long period of peace, when the different branches of the military service have had no practical experience, suddenly to perform duties of the ut most importance in a great and difficult military operation. I admit, undoubtedly, that there is in the domestic distribution of the military department much in which improvement is ur gently required ; that there is, also, in regard to the arrange ments of those branches of the service which had been con nected with the execution of the details of Military operations abroad, much in which there may be great and material im provement. But it is hardly to be expected that after so lon i g . • a period of peace, when the army has never bee n in a condi tion to act as a body, and wien it was impossible to train up the different branches of the service so as to be instructed in those dutiox which they twit be called vh tv perform, when eider upon whom that censure will recoil. (Hear, hear.) Within the last three years the Government of the noble lord the member for the city of London first proposed a bill for raising the militia. That bill was taken up in a modified form by the Government of the Earl of Derby, much to its credit, and passed this house. From the time that Lord Harding° has been the Commander-in-Chief miteh lets been done towards the improvement of the army. Is the Minie rifle nothing ? Is the ineprovement of the Minie rifle nothing ? It is due to Lord Hardinge's admi nistration that every measure for the purpose of promot ing the rearming of the army has been taken. The most important weapon, the Millie rifle, was first introduced in 1851, and its improvement was effected in 1553. By it the weapon is reduced 31b. in weight, while it is in ever. , respect superior to the old musket of the British army. It is a weapon capable of the most astonishing execution, as was very reina,rka.bly demonstrated at the Battle of Taker man, where it inflicted the greatest slaughter which had been known for many years. That was, as my right hon. friend has justly called it, "the soldiers' battle," but it would not have been fought in the way it was if it had not been for your War Administration, first of all, employing that effective weapon, and thereby changing altogether the character of your infantry, and converting them from mere machines, who fired without thinking or looking, into good and effective marksmen, as the enemy soon found. ( Hear, hear.) Since that time also, your field ar tillery has been created afresh. In 1852 you had no field artillery. You had no guns or gun-can iages at that time fit for the zervice. But is that all? Was it not an indi cation of improvement when the British corps were col lected the year before last at Chobliarn, with a view and au endeavour to combine them into one army? And when that plan was found to work so satisfactorily, was it no mark of improvement that it was determined to follow it up during the last and the present year? Government are now seeking to procure, in a convenient situation, a large piece of ground with a view of establishing a permanent en campment, of enabling you to make a better and more effective use of your army than you have hitherto done, after having allowed so much to be done for your police re gulations both at home and abroad. But if you intend to censure your military department of the Government, you must perceive that that censure will fall upon the members of several successive Governments of this country, as well as upon the Parliaments that were sitting at that time. But I know it is nut intended to cast censure upon the de partment, but it is upon the Secretary for War that you intend to discharge your ire. That there have been mis takes is an opinion against which it is vain to contend. There are duties which it is beyond the power of man satis factorily to discharge. I confess, it is my own belief that the duties of all the departments in this country are of such a nature that no man can discharge them without being sensible that much fault may justly be found with the manner of his discharging them. I have not the least doubt that this truth applies to:my noble friend the Secre tary of State for War. I am far from saying that my noble friend enjoys such an exemption from all the infirmities of human nature that he is able to devise everything wisely, and do everything at the right time. But if you think that my noble friend has not devoted himself with assiduity and attention to the duties of his office, then I tell you,you are mistaken. You may pass censure on my noble friend ; you (the Opposition) may shelter yourselves behind this vote for a select committee to make your attack upon him and upon the lovernment, but I venture to tell you that you know not the true character of my noble friend, and that every man who gives his vote against him this night, though he may swell the majority against and succeed in throwing obloquy upon my noble friend, will find before 12 months have passed away, and when the true state of the facts shall be declared, there will bo among the gene rous minds of the people a reaction in his favour. (Cheers.) But now, what are the grounds of this motion? You are going to condemn my noble friend on account of the condi tion of the army. I believe that is the statement. You have an impression that there were no roads, no clothing, no houses, but little food, a want of ammuaition, and dreadful confusion at Balaklava, and I must not forget to add, that the hospitals were most defective. Now, I must beseech the house to reflect how long these complaints have been rife in this country. I think, if you go back, it was in the middle of the month of December that they were first heard of. (No, no.) Parliament met in the middle of that month, and the then state of the army was fully discussed in this house. The house heard the statement of my right hon. friend the Secretary at War. They believed that statement, and I believe they were justified in giving their credence to it. Complaints there were at that time, and complaints there ever must Ise both in the army and the navy. But I think you will agree with me that it was not the duty of my noble friend, in the case of every complaint, to write to Lord Raglan, who was engaged in such gigantic duties, and having on his mind matters of such vast responsibi lity, and call upon him to put the matter right, as if he were some officer of a department of Somerset-house. The duty of my noble friend was to give credit to such com plaints, and when they assumed the character of some general neglect arising, in all probability, from want of eeergy or prudence on the part of some one in office, then was the only time for my noble friend to entertain such complaints. Well, a discussion on the state of the army took place on the 12th of December, when my right hon. friend stated the condition of that army, and the house in general was satisfied. Since that time these complaints have become more rife, and, I am sorry to say, redundant. Now, what was the duty of my noble friend under those circumstances? What was the utmost he could do? Was he to recall Lord Raglan ? (Hear.) Well, I hear a solitary cheer; but I apprehend that is not the real sense of the house. Lord Raglan either deserves your confidence or he does not ; but if he is to have your confidence it is neces sary that he should have it whole and entire. (Hear.) It is impossible for any man to discharge the duties incum bent upon Lord Raglan—such duties as have rarely been combined in the hands of any individual—unless he has the full confidence and the full support of Government and of the Parliament at home. Is the choice of Lord Raglan to be blamed ? Did the Government err in that choice ? Did the incompetent Minister at 'War, my noble friend the Duke of Newcastle, show his incompetency in that choice ? Why, it was approved by the universal voice of the country. (Cheers.) Were the events that followed that appointment of a nature to shake the confidence which the Government reposed in Lord Raglan ? On the con trary, you have voted him unanimous thanks—not only your unanimous, but your enthusiastic thanks—for his brilliant services in the field. (Cheers.) Her Majesty has conferred upon him the highest military honours which it was in her power to bestow. I know this also, that, be sides the difficulties which a general in the field has to eu- , counter, Lord Raglan has bad the further duty-- not less I essential—to perform, over and above the ordinary duties 1 of a soldier, of giving life and practical vigour to that alli ance between England and France—(hear)—of which it is all very well for us to speak in this house—for, so far as wo are concerned, it is a matter very easy to deal with — but it has been upon Lord Raglan practically that the task of maintaining that alliance has fallen. (Hear, hear.) I believe there cauuot be two opinions as to the way in which Lord Raglan has maintained that alliance. I believe it has been—indeed I know he has said it has been—almost the great object of his mind to maintain and to confirm that alliance—(hear, hear)—and not to confirm it in its form only, but to animate it with the warm spirit of generous affection and attachment. (Cheers.) Well, I think there cannot be two opinions as to the manner in which Lord Raglan has discharged that sixty. Then I suppose you would not have recalled Lord Raglan when complaints appeared in the newspapers, or when an ar ticle appeared, written by some editor, stating that he should have been recalled. What, then, would you have done ? Because the practical question before us turns to a great extent upon this point. I want to know whether, when these complaints became rife, you would have re called the subordinate officers of Lord Raglan ? Would you have recalled the heads of the medical depart ment, of the commissariat, of the quartermaster general's, or of the adjutant-general's department? I name these departments because they include the principal persons engaged in the administration of the army. I fully admit that facts have been made known to the Government, especially since the beginning of December, of such a character as it was impossible for them to overlook. I think, however, that it was not their duty to recall the officers of Lord Raglan, without commu nicating with him. The confidence which they reposed in him made it their duty—their absolute duty—in point of common justice and decency—to ask him to investigate these charges. It was their duty to apply to him—to re mind him of the powers lodged in his hands—to let him inquire into these complaints, and then act accordingly. I venture to say that that is the course which my noble friend the Minister for War has pursued. He has re ceived from Lord Raglan statements in answer to the re presentations which were made in the month of December, and measures have been taken which he trusts will lead to a great improvement in the condition of the army. Some hon. gentleman has said—l think it was the hon. baronet who preceded me—that it is not our duty to cure evils, but to prevent them. It is our duty, he says, to prevent evils in an army. I admit that it is our duty, to the best of our power, to do so ; but the hon, baronet has not shown that these evils could have been pre tented by anything that depended upon my noble- hie d the Minister for War, or upon her Majesty's Government. I apprehend that the state of the case is this :—The officers of Lord Raglan are responsible to him ; Lord Raglan is responsible to the Government ; the Government is responsible to the House of Commons. (Hear, heat.) You may say, "It takes a long time to follow out this responsi bility, and in the meanwhile the mischief is going on." That is perfectly true, but the question is, can you find a shorter way to a remedy? That is the whole question. The Government could not find a shorter way to a remedy by recalling Lord Raglan; if they had done so the country would have cried out upon them. The Government could not have found a shorter way to a remedy by recalling the officers of Lord Raglan without previous communication with him, and without affording him an opportunity of retaking a fair statement of the facts. They could not have pursued either of these courses, and are you to determine whether yen will dismiss the Government or not, before they have had an opportunity of bringing these grave matters to issue in the only way open to them in reason and justice? The hon. baronet says that this is a very slow process, and I admit it is so, but the matter is an im portantone. I know that the hon. baronet, when he speaks, is remarkable for conciseness, but all men have not the same talent ; and I beg to assure the hoe. baronet that my object is to put the point as well as I can, and as shortly as I can, to the house. (" Hear," and a laugh.) You say you widh to shorten the process ley the course you are about to take, and I want to know what you really mean by the inquiry which you contemplate. It has been said, that this is a question of confidence, or no confidence, in the Government, My answer to that is, that the House of Commons is net called upon to vote confidence in the Government at the present moment. When the Govern ment produces its measures to the hoarse, then, no doubt, it calls upon the house, either directly or indirectly, for a vote of confidence ; but, at present, the question is not whether you shall pass a vote of censure or not. (Hear.) That distinction is a plain one, and it happens to have been brought out in a very marked manner at ono period in the history of this country. Daring the existence of the Shel burne Administration a question arose whether an union should be formed with Lord North or Mr. Fox, the party of Lord North and that of Mr. Fox constituting the Opposition of the day. I find in the "Memoirs and Cor respondence of Mr. Fox" this passage : " The preliminaries of peace had been signed, and were laid before Parliament on the 27th of January, 1783. The terms were not, in general, approved of, and the Ministers thought a vote of approbation by Parliament absolutely necessary for their continuance in office. Lord North de clared that he would. oppose any vote of censure, but that he could not concur in a vote of approbation, If they come for an address,' said he, they make us judges, and they must make out their case.'" Lord North declined to support the address which the Go: vernment wanted, though he would not support a vote of censure, and in consequence of his declining to support the address he lost the alliance of the Ministers, and was in duced to attempt the Coalition. Now this is the question at the present time. The motion now before the house is a disguised vote of censure. In saying se, I mean no dis respect to the hon. and learned member by whom it was proposed, for I am quite sure there is no man in the house Ifwi cavil*" of ptitoptias doliboratoly a clisvind olocto of • placed with a great army in operation in the field, confusion to a certain degree would not arise. With regard to many criticisms which have been made on the conduct of the war, I think it is enough to ask you to see what foundation they stand upon. We have been told that we ought to have gone to Odessa, and passed the winter there, instead of at Se ba s• topol. You might as well tell an army that came to invade England to pass the winter at Brighton. What would have been the condition of an English army at Odessa, an open and unfortified town, while Russia had all her military.resourcee within reach, and when Sebastopol would have been ren dered still more difficult to take? If hon. gentlemen had called in question the object of the war, the house might have justly impugned the policy of Government in regard to the operations of the war, and we should have been prepared to go into our defence on that question ; but I must humbly think that the course which has been pursued islikely to lead to a most dangerous and inconvenient precedent for Parlia mentary proceedings. We have been told that that which is now proposed is similar in principle to what took place in regard to the Walcheren expedition. Why, over and over again the difference between the two cases has been explained; The inquiry into the Walcheren expedition was Made by the whole house, and not by a delegated authority upstairs ; but the great difference consists in this, ghat that expedition was over—that the persons to be examined were here —that it was an inquiry into the conduct of Government, and not into the conduct of an army—the latter an inquiry which cannot be conducted unless you bring home the parties yon wish to examine, or unless you send a committee of safety to control the operations 3f the army abroad. The question we have to consider is one of the most important that has almost ever occupied the attention of Parliament. It is not because it involves the existence or overthrow of Government, but because you are about to set a precedent, dangerous if you carry it out, and disappointing to the public if you let it drop, and use it merely as an instrument to overthrow the Government of the day. If this house thinks that this Go vernment is not worthy of the support of Parliament, if this house wishes to see the Government placed in other hands, the more constitutional course would be to have affirmed at once that the Government no longer possesses the confidence of Parliament, and that they ought to resign their power into the hands of their Sovereign. Such a course would have been simple and direct, and, if adopted, would have led to no inconvenient precedent, would have been concurrent with the principles of the constitution, and in unison with the sentiments of this house, and the sooner it is adopted the better for all parties concerned. But I must say, that the course now pursued is one which will do no honour to the house if adopted, and is one which I think will not only set a bad example here, but will be at• tended with inconvenient results even abroad. The country is now engaged in a great and arduous contest, and whatever may be the decision of the house on the Government as it now stands before you, I trust that our dissensions may not be ag gravated by the overthrow of the Government, and that, whoever may succeed that Government, we shall not exhibit to Europe the lamentable spectacle of a country interrupting a great national struggle by mere party squabbles, but that Parliament will take example from the nation it represents, and, as that nation is unanimous in its determination that the war shall be carried on with vigour and energy, as that nation is convinced of the justice of the cause, and resolved that war shall not terminate until all the objects for which it was un dertaken are secured, in the same way, I trust that, whatever may be the decision of this nignt, when this house shall have settled as to what Government it will give its confidence, it will then give its support to that Government, and enable it to carry on the war with determination, and that we shall not show to the world that a constitutional Government is less able to conduct national affairs than Governments constituted on a different principle, and that we shall not degrade the Parliamentary principle by showing that we are not capable of sustaining the difficulties of a great crisis, and that a nation can only show energy, consistency, and vigour when de prived of those constitutional representative forms which have been the pride, the boast, and the glory of this country, (Cheers.) Mr. MUNTZ said that if the house took the advice of the noble lord who had just sat down, and consulted the wishes of the people of this country, they would at once turn out the Government. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HORSMAN sought a hearing for the purpose of ex plaining why he had hitherto supported the Government, but after several vain attempts he was obliged to resume his seat. Mr. T. MINCOMBE had one question to ask the hon. and learned member for Sheffield. The house had been told that if this inquiry were granted it would form a most dangerous precedent, and that the main object of the motion was the displacement of the Government. Now there could not be a greater fraud committed on the country than if the motion were made with such an object. The question then he had to ask the hon. and learned member for Sheffield was—lf the house conceded this inquiry, was it or was it not his inten tion to nominate the committee up stairs to let the people know who the parties were who were really to blame in the recent disastrous events ? Such knowledge was due to the house, to the memory of those who had fallen, and to those labouring classes from whom we had drawn the rank and file of our army, and who, moreover, were not represented in that house. (Hear.) He trusted the hon. member would let the people know that his object was not merely to displace the gentlemen on the Treasury bench, or merely to shuffle the political cards, for if he proposed, or the house agreed to the vote with any other motive, their decision would only be a sham and a disgrace to Parliament. (Hear.) Mr. ROEBUCK—Sir, I will answer, as it is my duty to do, the question as freely and frankly as it has been put. When I framed this resolution, I certainly did intend to carry out the inquiry as stated in the words before you ; during the present debate I have neither seen nor heard anything that has led me to change my opinion. (Cheers.) I abide by zny determination, and, if the house will grant the committee, I promise fairly to carry it out. (Hear.) The objections to my motion, when stript of their verbiage, amount to this : First, it is said, if I carry it I shall paralyse the Government ; next, that I shall render inefficient these departments of the Government ; and, thirdly, that I shall interfere with the com mand of the army. Let us consider the circumstances under which the inquiry is proposed. The Ministers themselves ad mit that the dim.et...: to which the motion relates have oc curred, and they acknowledge that the condition of the army is—in the words of the noble lord the member for London— " heartrending." (LJear, hear.) This house has given to the Ministry power, an unlimited command of money—in fact, no demand has been made on this house that has not been willingly granted, and they had the power given them to supply all that was required for the army. What is the con dition of that army ? and what is the condition of the Minis try? Paralyse them ! Have they not acted under a con tinual paralysis ? (Hear.) Can they do worse than they have done ? Judging of the future from the past, can the resolu tion, if carried, convey into the departments of the Govern ment a single degree more of ignorance, incapacity, and inap titude ? (Ch eers .) Th e Ministers have not only course of acknowledgedl lkla debate that th e y h ave placed on the shoresof Baa the State of the army, but h ave s t a t e d i n the this va stores sufficient for a larger army than ours. In this state ment, made by the Secretary of War, to be accepted as an excuse by this house? He says the whole distance fronithis country to the camp before Sebastopol is 3,006 miles;; ho 3,004 are miles easily got over, but the last six are insuper ably difficult. Shall this be said to this country, with its net-work of railways spread over it, and in which exertion of every kind is a part of the habit of the country ; in which exertion is made a thing of everyday occurrence, and in which (here the hen. member became somewhat confused, but soon resumed) —I will now pass on to address the Opposition. The country has hitherto had confidence in this Administration, we have conceded to them power and the destiny of a great army, and added to that the,destinies of this great country. The Ministry has failed the people. (Hear.) Their confidence is now placed in this house—and are we to fail them I In quiry is before us—it is in our hands—there has been a con fession of incapacity on the part of the Ministry—the army is melting away ; and shall it be said that this house refuses to make an inquiry because there is some constitutional or technical point urged against it ? Let the house remember, if they refuse to grant this inquiry, that they will be an swerable for any disaster that may hereafter occur. (Hear, hear.) The people will say, an inquiry was proposed—a confession of incapacity was made. You refused inquiry; you abdicated your functions, and you arc answerable. (Hear, hear.) I hope the house will not abdicate its func tions. We are told to wait till the expedition is over; but that will not be till our army is lost. I say—lnquire. Save our army ; the confidence of the people is in this house, and I hope you will not disappoint their expectations. (Cheers.) ThC house then divided on the motion for a Committee. Tho numbers were— ▪ 305 • 148 • Majority against the Government -157 The announcement of the numbers was received with a murmur of incredulity, but without any of the cheering usual on such occasions. Mr. S. HERBERT appeared at the bar with a supplemen tary army estimate, which was brought up and ordered to lio upon the table. The Government notices which stood next on the paper were then postponed to Friday, and some unopposed returns having been moved for, the house adjourned at 25 minutes to 2 o'clock. Ayes Noes PAIRS. The following members paired on Mr. Roebuck's motion:— FOR. AGAINST. Mr. Mundy Lord Waterpark Mr. K. Seymer Mr. Portman Mr. Christopher Sir H. F. Davie Sir G. Forster Colonel Caulfield Mr. Napier Mr. Serjeant O'Brien Mr. Hudson Mr. Wells Sir G. Booth Mr. Monsell Mr. Fuller Mr. 0. Stanley Mr.• Grogan Mr. V. Scully Sir C. Burrell Sir C. Lemon Mr. Repton Mr. Matheson Mr. A. Smith Sir James Graham Mr. G. Berkeley Mr. Heathcoat Mr. Cairns Mr. Heneage Mr. West Sir J. Matheson Lord Naas Lord Cast'cross° Mr. K. King Mr. Chaplin Lord Annesley' Mr. H. Vivian Mr. B. Stanhope Mr. J. M`Gregor Mr. Pugh Mr. Bagshaw Lord J. Manners Mr. F. Dundas Lord Bernard Mr. O'Flaherty Lord A. Vane Mr. Ponsonby Mr. Parker• Mr. Feilden Mr. Hawkins Mr. J. Vivian Colonel Maunsell Mr. Moffatt Major Maxwell Sir W. Somerville Mr. Duffy Mr. Benbow Mr. Christopher has paired off with Sir H. Davie tin the Ist of February. THE TURXISE EXHIBITION, HYDI-PANIC-CORNER.-011 Saturday the second of a course of weekly lectures on Turkey and the Turks was delivered at this interesting exhibition by Mr. W. Knight, a gentleman who has passed many years of his life in eastern travel, and who has written several valuable volumes on Turkey, and who is therefore eminently qualified to do mo os justice to this interesting subject. The proprietors of the Turkish Exhibition have at length come to the obvious conclusion, that, no matter how ia • ject may be, but few persons wou ld have the patience intereet of this the kind, aub to wade, unassisted, throug h the voluminous pages of a catalogue at a plac e of amu sement and that those who did so find but little interest, and obtain still less instruction by doing so . They have, therefore, instituted the present series of lectures, which are likely not only to render the exhibition addl. tionally popular, but at the same time highly instructive. The first part of the address of Saturday the lecturer devoted to explanations of the various national traits and peculiarities of the Turks, which form a nest striking contrast to the manners of the English, and therefore would be most likely to attract the attention of the , traveller, and in which the lecturer introduced than in. teresting anecdotes which fell under his own observation during his sojourn in the East. The second part of the lecture Mr. ],night devoted to an elaborate dissertation upon the history of the Turkish people, and the rise and WI of that most powerful instibutim the Janissaries, 3