The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1855-07-24 00:00:00

THURSDAY.

MANAGEMENT or THE WAR.—The adjourned debate was
resumed by Mr. GASRELL, who considered the question to be
whether the majority of the House who voted for the nomi-
nation of the committee were, or were not, prepared to affirm
its decision.—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL argued that, in the
Coalition Cabinet Lord Palmerston was the Home Secretary,
and that the charges in the committee's report did not apply
to what had been done since he was Premier, and he asked
the Conservatives whether it was fair or just to join in a
motion to expel Lord Palmerston from office. He trusted the
Honse would give a decided negative to the motion.—Mr.
WHITESIDE charged the Attorney-General with an uncon-
stitutional attempt (which he, however disclaimed) to dis-
tinguish the present First Minister from the other members
of the late Administration, citing the doctrine of ministerial
responsibility laid down by Mr. Macaulay; and he maintained,
in opposition to the Attorney-General, that the House was
not stopped from visiting Lord Palmerston with censure, as
his elevation to the Premiership and the negotiations with
Lord Derby had preceded the awful revelations contained
in the report of the Sebastopol Committee.—Lord J. RUSSELL
made by the Attorney-General, that when the cape-
hoped Lord Palmerston would not acceptmitathnsi
committee
etheemexHe
expedition
measures.
duasssui
teria.excuseoe_psn:
dition was sent to the Crimea he was at the head of
tpnwosteunhha
bare
slthyl
twasaiasnme
substance
the Home Department ; every member of Lord Aber-
h
e
:As:vs
impos-
sible bf
tareri
Inlnneehjimecief.
oudeper:e
Ar
.Cshit
question
advertingbwtoi
eron aentaamehmteTt
ocal)rtornu
n.
oNkmsr
Re
duteptdbmffiofei
ortacsbtuhohii
Roebuck
undertake
keetdtieStat
utwfadhtorssabke wldknowledge,hrtresponsibleihwhoaffiuirohegcguuechgh hlthtNtahv
bidatpetforeosusfeuotetssay
that
snrmeyuat
he (Lord John) did not know that this was the
the indictment. Whatever the charge might be, he should,
he said, offer a defence of those who had ordered the expedi-
tion. Then, on the question of policy, was it desirable that at
this moment the House should come to a vote that would
have the effect of displacing the present Administration ?
This led to the further question, whether or not the present
ministers were carrying on the war with sufficient vigour. If
those now in power had shown themselves utterly incompe-
tent, there would be a case for dismissing them, and with
disgrace; but Mr. Roebuck had made out no such case.
Convinced that the House would decide fairly, he was willing
to accept the " previous question," and equally ready to
abide by its decision upon the justice and policy of the
resolution—a resolution conceived, he said, in malice, and
which could lead to no object useful to the country.
—Mr. BRIGHT said he had not voted for the committee, be-
cause he saw in it a onesideduess and something like a con-
spiracy against the head of the late government and a portion
of those supposed to be associated with him. But now the
house had the report of the committee it was bound to take
some steps with reference to it. What was a committee ap-
pointed for, if no further proceedings were to be taken ? The
question, in his opinion, came very much to a vote of censure
upon the existing administration, and chiefly upon Lord Pal-
merston, who would not, he thought, avail himself of the
shabby plea put forth by the Attorney-General. He had no
confidence in Lord Palmerston, and lamented that the conduct
of affairs should be left in the hands of ministers in whom a
large majority of the country had not the confidence which
they would wish to have in the cabinet.—Sir DE LACY EvAris
agreed with Mr. Bright that the tone and manner of the First
Minister had not been satisfactory or respectful to the house.
He thought the country was indebted to Mr. Roebuck for the
labour and spirit with which he had conducted the in-
quiry, the result of which was of the highest importance;
but he thought the resolution went too far, and he
should have been the less indisposed to concur in it, if
the censure had not been so sweeping and comprehensive.
—Captain GLADSTONE, as a member of the Sebastopol com-
mittee, wished to state the reasons which induced him to vote
against the motion. Nothing should prevail upon him, he
said, to concur with the censure contained in the latter part of
the resolution, which was in no sense the resolution of the
committee.—Mr. MuNn thought it unnecessary to go into
the report of the committee to see whether the late government
was blameable or not; Lord J. Russell himself had testified to
the mismanagement of the war ; and he believed the whole of
that administration to blame.—Mr. S. HERBERT said it was his
intention to vote against the amendment of General Peel. The
report, he contended, had not done justice to the late adminis-
tration. If the house adopted this resolution, and passed a vote
of censure upon the administration which sent that expedition,
it must consider the effect which that vote would have upon
the army. He admitted that there had been great failures,
which might have been remedied earlier if there had not been
so much exaggeration, which rendered it impossible to ,
get at the truth. With regard to himself, if he had failed, '
he did his utmost to succeed; but if it was the pleasure
of the house to condemn him, he should bow to its decision.
tHoethtreusestedeontsoidtehreatiounstai,ceanofd thdeidhonuoste in giving
Sir G. GREY, having taken notice of the conflicting views of
ivtinhelrd Nu' ee!wZcitg.—h t
the supporters of the motion as to its object, observed that,
presuming it to be a motion condemnatory of Lord Aberdeen's
government, he accepted to its fullest extent his share of
responsibility for. any act or omission of duty on the
_pert a