The Press.
London, England, 1855-07-21 00:00:00

Mr. WHITESIDE quoted largely from the evidence
of the committee to prove that the charges against
the late Government were made out, and protested
against the assertion that Lord Palmerston bad been
condoned by the Conservatives because he was asked
to form a part of Lord Derby's Administration.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL began by observing on the
importance of a proposition which demanded that
none but those who had been opposed to reform and
to free trade were henceforth to be considered qua-
lified to conduct the affairs of the country. On such
an issue the strictest impartiality should be observed
in the statement of facts, and he charged Mr. Roe-
buck with having violated that impartiality, emitting
facts which he ought to have mentioned, and giving
an interpretation to others which he knew they would
not bear, for the purpose of making out his case.
As to the subject itself, it involved two questions
which had been often confounded. One was the
state of our army in the Crimea, respecting which
inquiry was due to the country, and which could have
been carried out without interfering with dangerous
subjects. The other was the policy of the expedition
to Sebastopol. Lord John Russell defended that ex
pedition at great length, calling attention to the
chances of taking the town unprepared by a sudden
attack, and the effect of such a blow in shortening
the war. Those who had projected the expedition
had, he added, furnished it with all the means of
success in their power. He then came to the ques-
tion of the policy of a vote of censure, remarking
upon the confusion which would arise from the dis
placing a Government at such a moment. Even the
movements of the successors would be cramped by
the fear of future censure. He argued—supporting
his argument by a quotation from Mr. Canning—
that in military operations a despotic government
had tinny advantages in secrecy of design, celerity of
execution, and boldness of enterprise. Was it pru-
dent to exaggerate the difficulties of a constitutional
government by severity of scrutiny and too great
hardness of animadversion upon failures ?

Mr. BRIGHT said that the statements which had
alarmed the country bad been proved to be true by
the committee, and asked if all this was to end in a
few changes in the War and Ordnance Departments.
He accused Lords Palmerston and Russell of having
in former days resisted these very changes. Lord
Palmerston had not merely escaped punishment, but
had been rewarded for wrong-doing. He denounced
the truckling of the Ministry to the press, quoted in
sarcastic terms one after another the negotiations of
Lord Palmerston, and commented on the tone of his
speeches in that house; and while he found much to
admire in the conduct of its preceding leaders, saw
in that of its present leaders much to humiliate them.
He regarded the resolution as a direct vote of cen-
sure on the Premier, and as such should give it his
support.
Sir DE L. Everts, though he could not concur in
.the sweeping censures of the resolution, thought that
the late Government had neglected the most ordi-
nary precautions, mismanaged the militia, and ima.
gined that they could carry on a great war by pro-
tocols and demonstrations. He expressed the fullest
confidence in the ultimate results of the war. _

Captain GLADSTONE opposed, and Mr. MUNTZ
supported, the resolution.
Mr. S. HERBERT, after adverting to the personal
difference of position in which he stood in regard to
the motion from other members, admitted that Mr.
Roebuck, in bringing forward the resolution, only
acted as became him under the circumstances. He
then proceeded to analyse the report, which was, he
said, incomplete, not by the fault of the committee,
but because the House of Commons had charged it
with duties which it was impossible for it to perform.
At the same time he criticised many of its state-
ments, and defended the details of our organisation
in many points. The late Government, he urged,
had a right to the consideration of the house from the
difficulties of its position, and demanded a definite
verdict upon their conduct of guilty or not guilty.
Mr. G. ELLICE entirely concurred in the motion of
the previous question.
Sir G. GREY animadverted on the conflicting views
of the supporters of the resolution, who did not seem
decided in their views as to what they were to vote
for. He claimed for Lord Aberdeen's Government
the merit of boldly facing the circumstances, and re
fusing to sacrifice single individuals to save
themselves.

Lord J. MANNERS supported the moticn.
Lord PALMF.RSTON, while he admitted the entire
responsibility of Ministers for the actions of their
colleagues, submitted that distinction must never-
theless be drawn, and that there were cases in which
one Minister could not interfere with the depart-
ment of the other. He referred to the offer to him-
self by Lord Derby, as a proof of the opinion of
that noblemen ; defended once more the expedition
and his own management of the militia, thought
that the country viewed with dislike the continu
*rice of these pe►sonal squables, and declared him-
self ready to yield his post to more capable men,
f such existad, " of which," he added, "the proof has