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

LORD JOHN RUSSELL.

Sir E. B. Lytton having fixed his motion for a vote
of censure on the Government for Monday, Lord
JOHN RUSSELL moved that such motion have prece-
dence over the orders of tbe day ; and, in so doing,
he entered into an elaborate defence of his own con-
duct. He began by admitting that before he left
Vienna he had promised to use his influence to in-
duce the acceptance by his Cabinet of the Austrian
propositions; and he did so, in conjunction, not only
with the French Minister, but likewise with the
Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs. Immediately
after his arrival in England a Cabinet Council was
lAd to consider the propositions. Circumstances
arose in the course of those discussions which made
it appear impossible to his mind to urge their accept-
ance. Tho3e circumstances were quite independent
of the merits of the propositions themselves, and did
not alter his opinion of those merits. After once
more adverting to the security which those proposi •
tions offered to the balance of power in Europe, he
eiplained that the Government had not thought it
worth while to go into conference upon the last
Vienna prop )sition—which was still less favorable to
the allies—which might have been rejected by Rus-
sia—and which Austria would not support by going
to war. Then came the motion of Mr. Disraeli, in the
debate on which be had been accused of appearin& as
the uncompromising advocate of war. What else7tie
demanded, could he be at such a time? What other
means except a vigorous prosecution of the war ex-
isted then for a practical solution of the third point?
He had agreed, he urged, in the rejection of both
the Russian propositions. He came then to the
complaints of the non-communication of the whole
truth to the Legislature. For this he said he was
not responsible ; bnt it was highly important that
Russia should remain ignorant, as long as possible,
of the determination of Austria not to interfere by
tbe knowledge of which would have set Rus-
sia free to despatch some of the best and finest of
her troops to the shores of the Crimea. The prema-
ture declaration of such conclusions would have
been a great dereliction of duty. The Ministers, is
Was said, should themselves have proposed a motion
on the subject ; but they were not allowed the oppor
tunity. He then entered into a long disquisition on
the abstract questions of peace and war, arguing that
there were times for both, and the question of the
one and of the other might always be intermingled,
and considered in their matual relations. He denied
emphatically that the Cabinet were divided upon the
great questions of peace and war. He then summed
up his conduct since the commencement of the ses-
sion—said that he had since his return from Vienna
repeatedly offered to resign—that, with many errors,
he had worked for his country to the best of his
judgment—and that if he had been calumniated, so
had Lord Althurp and Lord Raglan, two of the
purest and best of men. In these last statements he
expressed himself somewhat warmly on the conduct
of those wbo had been his friends in prosperity, and
deserted him when they perceived a blot in his
fortunes.

Sir E. B. LYTTON congratulated the general pa-
triotism of the house and the country on the victory
which it had achieved. After adverting to the cir-
cumstances under which the noble lord had accepted
office, he proceeded to analyse his warlike speech on
Mr. Dislikeh's motion—a speech which, amongst
other things, denounced the system of perpetually
defending Turkey by a counterpoise of ships in the
Black Sea, an argument directly against his own
Austrian. proposition, and in which h displayed an
extravagance of zeal which made them despair of
seeing peace in the present generation ; but they
pardoned the extravagance for the sake of the spirit.
All at once appeared the Austrian Minister, who de-
clared that this very statesman was not only inclined
to peace, but had promised to back certain terms of
peace with all the influence in his power. What
made his conduct yet more disingenuous was that on
a subsequent occasion, when the expediency of peace
through the intervention of Austria was again dis-
cussed, he left the country under an impression that
our illustrious ally would have accepted terms which
his own loftier spirit at once disdained. He then
sarcastically pointed out the inconsistencies of the
man who first would make peace with Russia because
she was so powerful and then make war for the same
reason, who lately suppressed his sentiments lest he
should damage his Government, while a few mcnths
ago he had overturned a Government rather than
suppress his sentiments. The noble lord bad said
that the executive was weakened by popular discon-
tent, that our counsels were unstable, that public
men were distrusted—no wonder, when he himself
represented the element of distrust, disunion, and
unstability. After exposing the folly of warlike ar-
guments, which went up and down with every fluctua-
tion in the price of blood, he declaimed on that of
retaining in office a statesman in whom Russia sees

THE P

S.

an excuse, Austria a justification, France a dissentient
from her policy, and England the condemnation of
her war. Lord John had now retired, but he could
not separate his conduct from that, of his colleagues.
He then proceeded to expose the uncertain conduct
of the Prime Minister, who had accepted office with
a distinct declaration of his intention to continue the
foreign policy of Lord Aberdeen, while he rajected
proposals which that policy would certainly have ac-
cepted, and who vindicated himself by showing that
his envoy at Vienna was pledged to back opinions
which his own Minister for Foreign Affairs had already
declared to be totally inadmissible. He (Sir E. B.
Lytton) passed a warm etilogium on the conduct of
Lord Clarendon, who represented himself in the Ca-
binet, and was not, like the noble viscount. answer-
able for the proceedings of his plenipotentiary. He
then explained his own views of the Austrian alliance.
He would he indulgent to her weakness, he would
be contented with her friendly neutrality, and would
not court her active co operation unless tendered by
a due sense of her own interests. He asked if the
Cabinet were really united—what said the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, what the First Lord of the Admi
ralty ? There was an object to be attained more
glorious than the triumphs of war—the high standard
of public integrity. In asking leave to withdraw his
motion, he again congratulated them on the assertion
of that recognition of public virtue which demanded
that actions should not give the lie to convictions.
Mr. Botrveark explained the circumstances under
which he had, most unwillingly, conveyed the infor
!nation to Lord John Russell of the impression felt
by many of his colleagues that they could not con-
tend against the motion of the hon. baronet while he
remained in office. He stated this with warm eulo-
giums of Lord John Russell, and declarations of his
warm friendship and esteem, delivered in a manner
which convulsed the house with merriment.
Lord PALMERSTON objected to the speech of Sir
B. Lytton that it ignored the change of opinion by
Lord John Russell consequent. upon the discussion in
the Cabinet after his return from Vienna. He
charged him with either deliberate insincerity or gross
ignoraoce when attempting to separate Lord Claren-
don from his colleagues, and accusing him as repre-
senting only his own opinions. His own convictions and
that of the entire Cabinet tallied with the despatches
of Clarendon. It had been said that the Government
averted the storm by sacrificing a victim. Now, he
had constantly urged Lord John Russell to retain
his office, and even on Thursday last he had told
him that under the peculiar circumstances he could
not advise him, but that if he resolved to retain his
seat he was prepared to face the motion with the
Government as it then stood. He commented on
the absurdity of expecting the Government to give
its opinion on every detail of military operation on
which a question might be asked it, and ironically
complimented the hon. baronet on his discretion in
shrinking from the contest which he had provoked.
Mr. DISRAELI thought it would have been respect-
ful to the eminent member of the Cabinet who had
just quitted it if the noble lord had treated the occa-
sion with more regard to the gravity of its character.
But for that gravity he would have offered no com-
ment on such reckless rhodomontade. Coming to
the conduct of Lord John Russell, he reminded the
house that a former speech of his denouncing the
Emperor and Minister of Russia as men guilty of
false and fraudulent proceedings had been followed
by the publication in a foreign newspaper of papers
containing the most singular revelations, and now
he makes another speech exciting the passions of the
country, which is immediately followed by the
appearance of the Austrian circular, referring to cir-
cumstances concealed from the house, and opposed
to the prosecution of the war. It was impossible to
pass unnoticed the revelations of that circular. After
saying that the notice given on the subject did not
seek to visit the opinion of the house upon an indi-
vidual, and that he himself, holding the Cabinet re-
sponsible for the acts of their colleagues, would not
make an attack upon an individual member, he said
that it was necessary for more than two or three
members of the Government to rise and express
their opinions on the great question of foreign
affairs now before them :

I (he continued) have reason to believe that the views
which the noble lord brought from Vienna were favorably
received, not merely by a majority, but by the whule of his
colleagues, and that nothing hut circumstances which they
did not anticipate, and difficulties which suddenly arose,
prevented the plan of the noble lord being cordially and
unanimously adopted. I do not make that statement
without due authority. I make it with the same convic-
tion that I spoke six weeks ago of the ambiguous lan-
guage and uncertain conduct of the Government, the truth
of which subsequent events have already justified. I make
it with the conviction that, even before this session of
Parliament tern inates, evidence of that statement will be
in the possession of the house. I told the noble lord
some weeks ago we were only in the antechamber of dis-
cussion. The noble lord then tried to stop the progress
of debate. What has since occurred.? Every day and
every hour has brought fresh information and fresh in-
stances which require discussion ; from that moment to
the present we have been 4iscussin4 these affairs, and, so

- -
long as the conduct of the Government ill veiled in thee
thick cloud of ambiguity and doubt which now emetics
the political atmosphere, we must have discussions until
that atmosphere becomes clear and fresh.
lie then sarcastically described the events in the
Ministry which led to Lord John Russell's resigna-
tion, and the assurance of Lord Palmerston that he
would stand or fall by his friend. After alluding to
the eminent part which Lord John had taken in the
affeirsof the East over a quarter of a century, which
made it impossible to pass by his actions without due
notice, he aided, speaking of that noble lord :
His motives are questioned—his conduct, at least, is
questioned. He had an opportunity of expounding his
motives to the house. His colleagues, acknowledging the
gravity of the occasion, stake the existence of the Cabinet
on the triumphant vindication of that conduct by the ver-
dict of the House of Commons. It is hardly forty-eight
hours since the First Minister himself, almost unable to
repress the exultation be felt at the coming fight, was
going to stand or fall by the question and the verdict whiok
the house should come to upon the conduct of the noble
lord the member for London ; and then, suddenly, and
before the House of Commons can speak—before the mo-
tion eau be brought forward—before any member of the
house, whatever his politics may be, can express his
opinion on the conduct of that individual, he is myste-
riously withdrawn from office ; he, so responsible for the
present position of the country—be so niuch looked up to
by the house, even in the present diaastrous state of par-
ties iu this country, that, after having broken up a Cabinet,
he has been called upon by his Sovereign to form another
Government, and even when (ailing in that task be watt
selected by the noble lord to conduct the uegotiations at a
great congress, and while conducting those negotiations
has been deemed so indispensable firom his name, his
talents, his reputation, and his following, that he is made
a Secretary of State is commendam—a person of this de-
scription, with such accumulated responsibility, has his
conduct challenged by the house; and the First Minister,
his colleague, having pledged himself to a full discussion,
and to stand or fall by the verdict of the house, that suck
a man should withdraw from the public service, evade aJ
discussion, and then for the First Minister to get up and
tell us again it is " much ado about nothing "—it really
more intolerable than trifling. It is not a manner in which
questions of this kind should be met -it is not a tone
which should be adopted—this patrician bullying of the
Treasury bench.
He proceeded to defend the speech of Sir B. Lytton
from the charge of ignorance and insincerity because
he had said that Lord Clarendon had in his des-
patches expressed his individual opinions, meaning
that they were opinions in which he fully sympathised.
Reverting to the conduct of the Ministry, the reasona
of the change of opinion by Lord John Russell were
notorious—they referred to the opinions and proceed-
ings of France; and he charged the Ministry with in-
sincerity when they denounced the terms offered them
in language so vehement, and continued in office as
a War Ministry while they continued the war
simply in deference to the opinions of our ally.
Lord PALMERSTON here observed that he bad not
admitted his own change of mind, or that of his
Cabinet apart from Lord J. Russell, on the subject of
the propositions.
Mr. DISRAELI said that the case remained the same
while any members remained in the Cabinet who had
been favorably disposed towards the Austrian propo-
sitions. The inference to be drawn was, that without
the French intsrfereece these terms would have been
accepted, and an attempt made to carry them through
Parliament. What was then to be thought of the
Minister who held his position because he was the
right man to promote the war with vigour? Wbat was
to be thought of his conduct towards Sir J. Graham
and his friends? He asked if the French Minister
while at Vienna had not received a favorable reply to
the propositions, and if there was not a part. or entire
day in which those terms were cordially accepted by
the Government in London, and made the subject of
an understanding, however brief, with that in Paris ?
Though Lord Palmerston said " No, no," Mr. Disraeli
reminded the house that he had had to say " No, no,"
before to statements which turned out to be
true ; and he believed it would be the same with the
present statement. After adverting to the disappoint-
melee which bad followed the acquiescence of the
house in the Ministerial proceedings during three
successive sessions, he concluded by saying that at
the end of the third session

One single
agitated—they
this house ask
of your stet,
such questions
With the

has reformed
and often h

civil and
he has

giants of

and even
Lion which

no less •
the debat.e.
of the Crown,
accents and
and utterly
has shown
of his

single foreign document appears—the people are
I—they think—they talk—their representatives in
use ask questions. What happens? The foremost
r statesmen dare nut meet the controversy which
uestions bring forward. He mysteriously disappears.
be reputation of a quarter of • century, a man who
ormed Parliament, who, as he has told us to-night,
en before, is the accepted and facile champion of
:d religious liberty, in the cause and name of which
accomplished great triumphs—be who has met the
of debate—he who has tried his rapier with Canning,
en for a term shared the great respect and reputt
hich this country accords to its foremost men with
a person than Sir Robert Peel—he dare not meat
bate. But who dares meet it? The First Minister
Crown, who has addressed this house tonight is
a and in htnguage utterly unworthy of his position,
terly unworthy of the occasion—(cheers)—and whp
own to me to-night, by his language and by the tons
mind, that if the holour a inter sis of the

country be any longer intrusted to his care, the first
will be degraded, and the last, I believe, will be betrayed.

•
(Loud cheers.)
Mr. ROEBUCK commented with great severity on
the conduct of Lord John Russell, who had written
to his Government from Vienna on the subject of
the Austrian proposal an entreaty that no decisive
answer should be returned to it till he had been
heard ; and yet appeared, immediately upun his
return, as the uncompromising advocate of war. He
had himself voted with the Ministry in consequence
of that speech. The noble lord had practised on
him a deceit, and the Government had condoned
with that deceit. The noble lord had declared that
circumstances had occurred which induced him to
change his opinion. The house had a right to
know what those circumstances were. Mr. Roebuck
then went through the conduct and speeches of
Lord John Russell, adverting strongly to their
imprudence and inconsistencies, and observing that
such conduct shook the confidence of the whole
world in political society. They ought to know what
were the opinions of other members of the Cabinet,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord, the

Home Secretary.
Sir G. GREY rose to deny the right of the hon.
member to ask this question. If he had said or
done anything to throw doubt upon the sincerity of
his conduct, such a question might be asked ; but
when any one alluded to circumstances which had
no existence but in his own imagination, he should
demean himself by replying to them. The rejection
of the Austrian proposition was approved by every
one, except that small section the peace party. The
papers were before them ; he was bound by those
papers; and denied the right to question the
opinions he might hold in his individual capacity.
The assertion that the Cabinet was at any time dis
posed to listen to that proposition was contrary to
the fact; it was rejected by the members of the
Cabinet for different reasons, but unanimously and
decisively. He asserted that Lord John Russell
spoke his sincere opinions at the moment when he
advocated war so warmly on the 24th of May.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that most imperfect informa-
tion as to the subject had been elicited, and there
must at an early time be a more satisfactory discus-
sion. Re thought that when on the 24th of May he
bad himself advocated the feasibility of the Russian
propositions, and Lord John Russell had denounced
them in such strong terms, that it was surprising to
find that he had been in favour of terms founded on
the same basis, that of counterpoise, and, if anything,
more limited and less favorable to Turkey than that
put forward by the Russian plenipotentiary. He
then adverted to the rejection by Lord Clarendon of
the Vienna proposition on the same 21st of May, in
which the letter from Lord John Russell requesting
to be heard personally upon the subject was re-
ceived, and the manner in which the house was
allowed to debate proposals formally rejected as if
still open questions. He alluded in detail to many
points of the late diplomatic transactions, alleging
that they required further information, and trusting
that the full facts would be before the house when
they resumed the discussion.
The motion was then withdrawn.

MR. ROEBUCK'S RESOLUTION.
Mr. ROEBUCK, on Tuesday, moved his resolution,
in the following terms :
That thie house, deeply lamenting the sufferings of our army
during the winter campaign in the Crimea, and coinciding with
the resolution of their committee, that the oonduct of the Ad-
ministration was the first and chief cause of the calamities
which betel that army, do hereby visit with severe repre-
hension every member of that Cabinet whose counsels led to
such disasters.
After adverting to the appointment of the Sebastopol
Committee, and praising the manner in which it had
performed its duties, be called attention to the
terms of its report, which expressly declared that
" the sufferings of the army resulted mainly from
the circumstances in which the expedition to the
Crimea was undertaken and executed." He would
not be satisfied with leaving it as a mere brutum
fulmen, or with the retirement of Lord Aberdeen
and the Duke of Newcastle. Believing all the
members of the late Cabinet equally responsible, ho
could not allow the herd to shelter themselves under
their insignificance ; those who followed in the
wrong should share the condemnation of their
superiors, and they had only themselves to thank for
their punishment. He then classified his objections
to that Cabinet, that after declaration of war they
made no adequate preparations, or provided a suffi-
cient reserve for the force already inadequate ; that
they intrusted the management of the war to
persons whom many of their own body believed to
be incompetent; that they then ordered the expe-
dition to the Crimea without sufficient information,
without proper provision of means, whether of mili-
tary operations, of transport, or of medical service.
He supported these accusations by statements taken
from the report, as well as from other sources of
information. After blaming the members of the
Cabinet who were absent from their posts in Sep-
tember, when the great expedition was arranged,

THE PRESS.

and when only the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. S. Her-
bert, and Lords Aberdeen and Clarendon were in
town, he commented on the unfairness of visiting all
their offences on the Duke of Newcastle, who had
always acted to the best of his ability. He excused
Mr. S. Herbert on the same grounds, and had no
fault to find with Sir J. Graham, except that he built
too large vessels. For the rest, he would have them
all punished, when all had deserved punishment.
General PEEL, in moving the previous question,
said that the words of the resolution, if they meant
anything, meant a condemnation of the expedition to
the Crimea, in which he was not prepared to concur.
That expedition he defended on several grounds :
on the great chance there proved to be of taking
Sebastopol by a coup de main; on the necessity of
doing something to raise the drooping spirits of the
army, and of satisfying public feeling at home, which
demanded that a great blow should be struck some-
where. After admitting this, he declared that he
could see no great sagacity in the conduct of the
expedition, which he blamed in several points. But,
believing that the mistakes of the Government arose
from their desire to carry on the war with vigour, he
could not be a party to casting censure upon
honourable men who had exerted themselves to the
utmost of their power in performing the duties of
their office. Too much blame had already been cast
upon our best public servants, who were deeply
pained by the insinuations that had been thrown out
against them. He read several statements in vindi-
cation of the management of the Ordnance by Sir
Hew Ross, and added a warm vindication of the
memory of Lord Raglan. He concluded by saying
that he had never been very sanguine as to the re-
sults of the Sebastopol Committee, whose labours
had ended in casting censure on men most of whom
had already left office.
Lord R CECIL, in seconding the motion, said that
those wbom it was proposed to censure were only
chargeable with errors of judgment, and deprecated
the principle of introducing historical and retrospec-

_
tive motions.
Colonel ADAIR was disposed to attribute the
checks of our army to the extraordinary defences of
Sebastopol, and to our own organisation arranged
under less pressing circumstances, rather than to
the negligence or mismanagement of the Ministry.
He defended in detail the proceedings of the Minis-
try against the objections of Mr. Roebuck. He
warmly approved of the expedition to the Crimea as
according to the dictates of a sagacious war policy,
and had placed a motion on the paper as a protest
against the form in which the motion was met,
which was not a direct verdict of acquittal in favour
of the Ministry, and regretted that he had not an
opportunity of moving it.
Mr. CONOLLY said that the question before the
house was not whether the policy of the Ministry
was right or not., but whether the means of carrying
it out were adequate. Believing that those means
were totally inadequate, he felt bound to give his
vote against them.
Mr. LowE appealed to the words of the report of
the committee itself, as proof that its investigations
were incomplete, and its conclusions unsatisfactory.
He asked how the house, in a judicial capacity, could
come to a fair judgment upon evidence so partial on
the very face of it ? Any conclusion at which they
might arrive might be demolished if those absent on
the public service could be beard, or examinations
made which had been omitted from reasons of State
policy. The question before them involved a cen-
sure, not only on our own Government, but on that
of France. Now, could we retain a cordial alliance
if we thus passed our opinions upon her conduct,
which was so intimately mixed up with our own ?
He reprobated the attempt to fix a stigma on every
member of the old Administration, and subjected
them severally to a political ostracism. He asked
how members on that side of the house could thus
censure men whom they had been supporting since,
or how the other side could pa s such a sentence
when the attempted Government of Lord Derby was
willing to include some of the most distinguished
members of the old Administration ?
The Marquis of GRANBY said that if a vote of cen-
sure was to be passed, it was not on the past or the
present Government, but on the house and the coun-
try, which had reduced our establishments, and
treated the chances of future war as a delusion. He
shonld vote for the amendment, not wishing to
weaken the hands of the Government.
Mr. R. J. PHILLIWORE denied that the whole body
of the Cabinet could be made responsible for every
Ministerial act. Such an attempt was absurd and
unconstitutional, and would expose our principles of
Government to the ridicule of other countries. He
thought that risking a fresh change of Government
would jeopardise the best interests of the country.
Mr. GORDON said that the manner in which evi-
dence was taken before the committee would have
been tolerated in no court of justice. Nothing could
justify such a motion as that of Mr. Roebuck's but
the unanimous decision of the committee, while the
report of that committee was carried only by the

SATURDAY,

casting vote of the chairman. To condemn the
expedition to Sebastopol was to condemn many
others beside the Government at home. He objected
to the way in which the motion was met, and thought
that a proposition of censure like the present in-
volved a direct ay or no. He defended the pro-
ceedings of the late Administration, and could not
vote for a censure founded on imperfect evidence,
and directed against men who had already expiated
what errors they had committed.
Sir J. WALSH adverted to the fatality which had
pursued every one—whether political, naval, or mili-
tary—who had been mixed up in the contest.
Public opinion was itself, he thought, a great de-
faulter; and one of the chief faults of men in power
was that they followed that opinion, which they
ought to have directed. The house itself and tl •
public press were accomplices in the errors which
had been committed, and were the authors of the
present hazards. The house was, at least, as
mistaken and misguided as the Government itself.
Mr. MAGUIRE commented on the silence of the
Government, whom he could not acquit without some
asurance that there would not be a repetition of the
horrors of last year, and passed a warm eulogium I it
the press, from which the Ministry bad derived its
most important information, and by whose energy it
had been galvanised into action. The motion, he
contended, could not be a censure on France, whose
manageme; it contrasted so favorably with our own.
Sir J. GRAHAM would not admit that the evidence
tak*i before the Sebastopol Committee sus-
tained the resolution before the house. At the same
time be thought that the adoption of the motion of
the gallant colonel would create some mis-
understanding out of doors. After the appoint
ment of the committee and the expectations that had
been formed out of doors it was impossible to
give the question the "go-by." He then pro-
ceeded to comment upon the labours of the committee,
which had been conducted, he admitted, with great
prudence, but in consequence had been incomplete,
and thus justice had not been done. He thought
that a decision of "ay or no" should have been
proposed, and regretted that no member of the Go-
vernment had spoken as to the course which it in-
tended to pursue.
Lord SEYMOUR explained the circumstances under
which the committee had voted when it adopted its•
report, and did not think himself pledged to support
the resolution, which, while condemning the conduct
of our own Ministry, condemned likewise that of
our allies. He would not agree with Sir J. Graham
that a direct vote ought to have been taken, seeing
that the imperfect evidence pubYished by the com-
mittee did not warrant any absolute conclusion. IC
there was no evidence for acquittal, how could there.
be for condemnation ?
Sir J. PAKINOTON had, as Sir J. Graham bad done
before him, waited for some announcement from• the
Government. Failing this, it was his duty to
explain the reasons for the course he intended to
take. It was with great reluctance that he felt. sous-
pelled to censure any member of high charaater„
but the country was in a state of peril, the pokrUer
mind was uneasy and anxious, and it was isec the
time for drawing nice distinctions. The principle of
passing a sentence of condemnation on the Minister:
was unanimously adopted by the committee, how-
ever they might differ as to the form. No doubt
there were matters on which the committee declined
to enter, but he asserted that, as far as it went, its-
report was complete; it had stated nothing that was.
not fully borne out by the evidence. He denied that.
the resolution reflected on our allies, or blamed the
expedition to the Crimea, in itself ; but, considering:
that the expedition had been improperly carried out,.
he telt bound to vote for the resolution. The expe-
rience of the previous night had added to his belief
that the Government did not intend to act honestly
and fairly by the country. What assurance was.
there tbat the same disasters would not occur next.
winter ? In what state was the reserve, the Militia,.
the Foreign Legion?
Sir C. WOOD declared the intention of the Govern-
ment to vote for the previous question. He argued;
that the policy of going to the Crimea was in-
volved in the resolutions, and professed his full
expectation, warranted by the testimony of those
who knew best, of ultimate success. Long peace
had caused some persons to forget that war must
necessarily be accompanied with pain and suffering.
Replying to Mr. Roebuck's speech, he said that the
hon. member had on former occasions charged Lord
Raglan with faults which he now laid upon the Go-
vernment, and said that it argued a strange notion
of the functions of our Administration to blame the
absence of its members from affairs with which they
had nothing whatever to do.
The debate was then adjourned to Thursday,
when it was resumed by Mr. GASKELL, who felt bound
to vote for the original resolution, believing the
errors which had been committed by the Ministry
to be worse than errors of judgment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL entered into a long de-
fence of Lord Palmerston, against whom, he said,
the resolution was specially directed.

ii.._