The Press.
London, England, 1855-02-24 00:00:00

ytx 0 ruig.

LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1855.

POSTSCRIPT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAT.

In reply to Lords Lyndhurst and Vivian, Lord
PANNURE stated that a supply of summer clothing was
being provided for the troops.
Earl GRANVILLE made a statement respecting the
blockade of the Russian ports, similar to that made
by Sir J. Graham some days since in the Commons.
Adjourned at quarter to six.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY.

The house presented a most animated appearance
at the commencement of business. Great excite-

ment prevailed during the interval between the ter-
mination of private business and five o'clock, at
which time Lord Palmerston entered the house amid
some cheers.
The first order of the day, the Committee of
Supply, having been put, Lord PALMERSTON moved
that it be postponed till after the consideration of
Mr. Roebuck's committee.
Sir J. GRAHAM, who spoke from below the gang-
way, rose to explain his resignation. He had been
prevented from taking part in the recent discussions.
The motion which had been adopted by the house
was now submitted to by the Government. He had
no fault to find with the proposed members of the
committee, but held all his objections to inquiry
through such a tribunal. He argued at some length
that it would be unjust to individuals, and injurious
to the public service. He had from the beginning
considered the vote as one of censure, and could not
now regard it as anything else. He had hoped that
the late Government changes, and the reforms al-
ready in progress, might have satisfied the house as
an atonement for the past and a promise for the
future. The house thought otherwise, and he could
not himself accept its proceedings, which he thought
unnecessary, unjust, and inexpedient. Among other
causes of danger was that of the necessary connection
of inquiry into our own proceedings with that of our
ally, and thence questions might arise fraught with
fatal consequences. He had always opposed the
motion, hut his colleagues had abandoned their
defence, spiked their guns, and run away. He be-
lieved that the present Cabinet had not the confi-
dence of the house more than had that of Lord

Aberdeen, but declared that on all possible occasions
he would render it his disinterested assistance.
Mr. BRIGLIT argued from the critical crisis which
paralysed and humiliated the country to the import-
ance of securing peace. Negotiations had been
opened at Vienna, and he trusted that the Govern-
ment would let no feelings of vanity or ambition
interfere with their efforts to terminate the war. He
was encouraged by the presence of Lord John
Russell at Vienna, who would scarcely have under-
taken a negotiation predestined to failure, and
trusted that he would be able to conclude an armis-
tice as soon as the negotiations bad progressed to
the proper point. He detailed the disasters already
entailed on the country by the war, and promised
Lord Palmerston his support as long as he evinced
a sincere desire for peace.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT explained his own retire-
ment from the Ministry partly on the same grounds
as Sir J. Graham, and partly on grounds personal to
himself. He was willing to submit everything be
had said or written to the strictest scrutiny. But he
believed that the committee, as a means of inquiring
into the war, would be neither efficient nor constitu-
tional. The same feeling had been expressed by the
Premier, who now waived his objections, but be (Mr.
Herbert) could not follow him. Resolutions quite
as strong had been rescinded before, and when the
great need of the country was a strong Ministry, the
Ministry succumbed with an injudicious, and he
would say a needless weakness. His separation from
his colleagues was a painful proceeding, adopted only
under a paramount sense of duty.
Mr. GABEELL considered that the Ministry in yield-
ing, had exercised a sound discretion.
Mr. DRUMMOND thought that amid official squabbles
the state of our army was forgotten.
Lord SEYMOUR had consented to serve on the com-
mittee, but nevertheless retained strong objections
to it.
Mr. LOWE likewise objected to it, urging the danger
of implicating our allies, and injuring individuals.
Gen. PEEL would give the committee all the assist-
ance in his power, though he did not approve of it.
Mr. SCOTT, on the contrary, highly approved of it.
Mr. G. VERNON argued with some detail against
the necessity for inquiry, and thought that the
Ministry at home should not be blamed, and the
general abroad should be supported.
After a few words from Mr. PALK,
Mr. LAING would support any Government which
would act upon principles of obtaining an honourable
peace.
Sir J. PAKINOTON could not say, looking at the
events of the Crimea, that there was no case for
inquiry. He believed that the whole army there
would ere long have perished, and that we had no
means of recruiting our strength. Those we were
now despatching there were not soldiers. With this
state of things abroad, we had the intrigues of indi-
viduals, instead of united action at home. The state
of public feeling was one of deep indignation, and he
demanded the cause of these misfortunes. Attribut-
ing the state of the country to the late Ministry,
he stigmatised Lords J. Russell and Palmerston as
I first in fault.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said that by this committee we
were about to put on their trial men, who had devoted
their lives to the country. Its object was to remove
every man in high position in the army, condemning
them in their absence.

Mr. Wer.roLE said that inquiry into every branch
of policy had been submitted to by successive
Ministries. All inquiries were attended with incon-
venience, but there were times when they were un-
avoidable and they are forced upon us now by delibe•
rate conviction on every mind that there was some-
thing wrong which we were bound to ascertain. He
quoted the great precedents of inquiry after disaster.
and pointed out their bearing on the present crisis.
Mr. GLADSTONE would have rested satisfied with
the statement of his two colleagues, but for the sur-
passing importance of the question. He referred to
the past Ministerial transactions, explaining his own
part in them, declaring that to that moment he was
ignorant of the precise offer made to him by Lord
Derby, and passed a most glowing eulogium
on Lord Aberdeen. He defended his own secession
by reading his own words on a former occasion
against the committee. He protested that he was
not an opponent of inquiry into the conduct of the
Government, but of inquiry into the state of the
army. Against inquiry directed against those in com••
mend in the Crimea at the present moment he
entered his strongest protest.
Lord PALMERSTON defended his own conduct.
The country had taken up the vote of the House not
in the sense of those who voted for it as a censure
of the Government, but as an inquiry demanded by

the crisis. The ()Pinion reacted on the House, and
the new Ministers felt that they could not altogether
resist it. He had hoped, atter his statement of his
own reforms, changes, and inquiries, the House
would have postponed its vote ; but he bad not ac-
cepted office intending to shrink from his duties on
account of the persistence of the House. If the
committee was inconvenient, much more so was the
spectacle of a country without a Government in
such arduous and delicate circumstances. He would
not take upon himself to resist the unanimous
opinion of the country. He professed his earnest-
ness and good faith in the pending negotiations for
peace, and demanded its support of the house on a
national question.
Mr. DISRAELI said that it would have been conve-
nient if the Premier could have assured the house
that there was any Government in existence. That
gratifying information, if true, was withheld from
them. Lord Derby had not found it impossible to
form an Administration, but to form a strong Admi-
nistration. He did not know that the noble lord had
formed one much stronger. He commented with
great severity on the conduct and inconsistencies of
Lord Palmerston, and then defended the appoint-
ment of the committee, quoting precedents in its
favour, and adding that, if there had been none, a
precedent should have been created under such grave
and inexplicable circumstances.
Sir G. GREY declared that the Government of
Lord Palmerston was not founded on the principle
of opposition to Mr. Roebuck's motion. The basis
was a vigorous prosecution of the war.
Mr. Mtarrz protested against arguing from pre-
cedent in a case without precedent.
The committee was then appointed, and the house
adjourned at a quarter past two.

The general budget of receipts and expenditure
for the year 1854 was presented on Thursday to the
French Legislative Corps. It shows an excess of
receipts of 4,640,480 f.