The Press.
London, England, 1855-02-03 00:00:00

his duties, they were greatly mistaken ; the popular
voice was against him, but he was sure that when
the fact came to sifted, in a twelvemonth hence
there would be a reaction in his favour, from the
just and generous spirit of Englishmen. It was only
in last month that the clamour had arisen to its
present height, or that great fault was found with
the state of the hospitals or of the army. What was
the War Minister to have done? Was he have re•
called Lord Raglan? The house itself had just voted
him their unanimous and enthusiastic thanks. Was
he to recal the whole host of subordinate officers, of
the commissariat, and so on ? Before doing so, they
had consulted Lord Raglan, and Lord Raglan had
written, promising to use every exertion for the
remedy of abuses. As for the committee, it was
allowed on all sides that it was impossible in prin-
ciple and impracticable in action, and was merely
the handle used for casting a vote of censure on the
Minister. This was not the way to satisfy the coun-
try. If the committee was voted, the country would
expect that it should be appointed; if not, the cha-
racter of the house itself would be damaged. There
were many other questions about to be brought for-
ward, on which the house could more safely found
its judgment on the conduct of the Minister. If the
motion was successful, he could rejoice to think that
his last words as a member of the present Govern-
ment were an indignant protest against it, as luse-
less to the army, unconstitutional in its naturs, and
dangerous to the honour and the interests of the
Commons of England.
Mr. DISRAELI said that a fair reason for inquiry
was to be found in the very fact that a Minister
represented the position of the army as very different
from what was commonly believed. The inquiry
demanded was on the conduct of the war by the
Ministers at home, and required neither French nor
English witnesses to be summoned from the scene
of operations, although he did not think that any
inconvenience would arise if a committee of the
House of Commons had to visit the heights of Se-
bastopol. He referred to the differences alleged
between this occasion and that of Walcheren. There
was a difference, it is true ; in the last case there was
a Minister of the Crown who had come forward and
stated that the state of affairs demanded inquiry,
and that was all the advantage of his position and
experience. There was much in that statement
which was inexplicable to him. The Government
resisted the motion on the ground that it implied a
want of confidence. What did this mean?—
Does it imply a want of confidence in the Administration
which existed forty-eight hours ago? But the noble lord,
late the First Minister of the Crown in this house, has
quitted that Government ; and he has quitted it with a
description of the feelings that prevailed among its mem-
bers, and of the cordiality which animated their councils.
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 Lon-
don as a member of it- Well, then, is it a declaration 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. Do they
then object to our voting a want of confidence in an Ad-
ministration which tells us that the moment it is over, '
whatever may be the result of the motion, they will con-
sider themselves as no longer worthy the confidence of
Parliamer.t? 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
men with whose principles it was unacquainted, but it
never has yet been called upon to vote confidence when it
did not know either the principles or the men.
The right hon. gentleman then reprobated the sin-
gling out of the Duke of Newcastle in a matter
wherein all his colleagues were equally in fault—they
were by to advise him, and responsible for his acts.
After a series of sarcasms on the way in which these
same colleagues had spoken of the duke, he proceeded
to say that there was another member of the Govei n-
ment whose blunders were equally great—he meant
the Home Secretary ; and he described the inefteient
manner in which the management of the militia had
been conducted through the past year. He ridiculed
Mr. Gladstone's assertion of the confidence of the
members of the Government in each other—a confi-
dence which, he observed, did not prevent members
of the Ministry from coming down to the house ig-
norant that their leader had just resigned. He then
came to the explanation of Lord John Russell, on
which he observed :
I listened to that speech with amazement. When I lis-
tened to that speech it seemed to me I was listening to a
page from the " Memoirs of Bubb Doddington." Such an
all-unconscious admission of what in the eighteenth cen-
tury would have been called a profligate intrigue, but which
in our more mealy-mouthed century must be designated
by more euphemistic phrases, is not to be matched in that
record which commemorates the doings of another Duke
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