The Sun.
London, England, 1855-01-27 00:00:00

NG, JANUARY 273 1

the country at large, it would create the greatest possible
dissatisfaction, if this house presumed to refuse that inquiry,
and to enable the country to judge of the persons who are to
blame for the mismanagement that has occurred in our army.
The daily, or at least the weekly accounts that come from the
Crimea are so calamitous—the condition of the troops, if
these accounts are to be credited is so alarming—the apparent
mismanagement of almost every department is so clear—the
plenty which the Secretary at War states to have gone
from this country, and which lies heaped in profusion at
I thest
Balaklava —alrthis affords the strongest condemnation of
management of the war on the part of some persons. g 7
first'
duty in such circumstances, it should have been the
duty of the Government to ask for this inquiry, so that
the country might be informed who were the parties to
blame fer what has occurred. (Hear, hear,) I should fur-
ther have thought that it was the interest of the Govern-
ment, for the sake of, and in justice to, those commanders
who, in their absence, behind their backs, without the
means of answering the charges that are brought against
them, have been censured indiscriminately . for the want
of that information which might have furnished the
house with a defence of their characters, not to have re-
sisted this inquiry. I should further have thought that,
in justice to the country, which from one end of it to ,he
other now demanding inqujry—(hear, hear) -the last thino
the House of Commons would have done woul I have been to
resist such inquiry, to increase the existing dissatisfaction—
(hear, hear)—and that they would rather have quickened the
hands of the Government in the due and proper prosecution
of the inquiry. These are reasons which, to my mind, arc
absolutely irresistible in favour of some inquiry, unless the
objections taken to such inqu:ry by the right lion. baronet
(Sir G. Grey) and by my right hon. friend the Secretary at
War could prevail—namely, first, that au inquiry of this
kind would be seriously detrimental to the public interests;
and, secondly, that it implies a censure upon the Govern-
ment, which, if the house is prepared to cast such censure,
ought to. be conveyed by a direct motion. Allow me to refer
brieflyeto both those points. The only real argument, the
only strong objection, which has been urged against this mo-
tion is that it maybe detrimental to the public interests. Now,
observe what is the nature of the inquiry which is asked for.
It is an inquiry into the condition of the army before Sebas-
topol, and into the conduct of those departments of the Go-
vernment whose duty it has been to minister to the wants of
that army. It is not such a searching, roving inquiry as has
been alluded to by my right hon. friend, which is to continue
hanging over the heads of our generals and admirals during
the time that the inquiry is going on, It is an inquiry into
the past, and into the conduct of those departments to which
the interests of the army have been intrusted, with the view
of ascertaining why the wants of that army have not been
properly ministered to. Now, how can such an inquiry be
detrimental to the public interests ? Being a retrospective in-
quiry, with reference to a state of things which is appalling
the country at this moment, it is precisely similar to the in-
quiry which was instituted at the time of the Walcheren ex-
'', 74,4, no,- ...in ,utt ministerial
..,enches,) Yes, with the exception that the Walcheren inquiry
was made by a committee of the whole house, or rather in the
house—(hear)—instead of being conducted—like the inquiry
now proposed—by a select committee. When I said that the
Walcheren inquiry was similar to that now proposed, I meant
with respect to its retrospective operation. (Hear.) I have
heard it objected that this inquiry would be prosecuted into
the affairs of the expedition while it is in progress ; but I deny
entirely that this is the object of the inquiry now sought ;
and, if such had been the object of the inquiry, I conceive
that the Government ought to have limited it to the past, and
I venture to say that this house would almost unanimously
have supported them in such a limitation. (Hear.) It is also
objected that the inquiry is to be prosecuted before a select
committee, instead of before a committee of the whole house;
or, in fact, before the house itself ; but are hon. gentlemen
aware of the immense difficulties which occurred before, and
which would occur again, if you were to prosecute an inquiry
of this description before the whole house ? Arc they aware
that the reporters were excluded from the house during the
whole of the Walcheren inquiry, because of the danger that
might arise to the public interests from the publication of
the proceedings ? Do they recollect that the evidence pro-
duced before that committee found its way into the papers,
and that serious riots took place in consequence of the exclu-
sion of the reporters ? I think the house must see that it
would beeinfiuitely preferable to have a select committee in-
quiring into this matter, with the power of closing their doors
while the inquiry is in progress, and then furnishing the house
with the necessary information to enable them to form a
judgment upon the subject. It seems to me that the inquiry
which was directed by a majority adverse to the Government
at the time of the Walcheren expedition is the strongest pos-
sible precedent for granting the inquiry which is now de-
manded ; anJ, indeed, until you grant that inquiry, I know
not how this house will obtain the information which they
ought to possess with regard to the prosecution of the war.
But it has been said by my right hon. friend, " You will
hamper the generals and those who have the conduct of the
war if you grant this inquiry," Why, I appeal to the house
whether anything can be worse than what is taking place
at present with reference to those' generals ? You have
anonymous letters written, charging the generals with mis-
conduct, with incapacity, with want of knowledge of their
military duties, when they themselves are at a distance of
3,000 miles,—when they have no friends here with sufficient
information to justify their conduct—(hear, hear)—and when
this house, it it should adopt the plea set up in opposition
to the motion, would in fact deprive those generals of their
only means of defence. (Heae, hear.) For these reasons,
therefore, instead of this. motion being detrimental to the
public service, it would, I firmly believe, be rather con-
ducive to its interest than otherwise, although I admit that
by inquiries of this description considerable difficulties
must be placed in the way of those who have the management
of public affairs. We have, however, to balance two sets of
inconveniences— the inconvenience of interfering with the
conduct of public affairs to a certain extent, and the still
greater inconvenience of refusing to the house and the coun-
try that information which they justly demand, when they
find the finest army that was ever sent out from their shores
reduced from 54,000 to some 20,000 men, or as some ac-
counts state. which I would fain hope are incorrect, to
14,000 effective men. (Hear.) This, then, being my answer
to the first objection, let us see whether the second objection
ought to prevent us from voting for this committee. That
objection is, that the motion involves a censure upon the
Government, and that if censure-is intended to be cast upon
the Government, it ought to be a direct motion. I must
15r3,111a0ZIErty thp same view is not- ialen,
sent motion in the strict sense of a censure upon the' La, eCT4,-
ment. On the contrary I look upon the .motion as a propo
lotion for inquiry, in order that the blame may be fixed upon
the proper persons, as soon as information is rendered to this
house. My argument would be that, seeing that so much
damage has happened to your troops—seeing that they are
in want of all the necessaries that would enable them to per-
form their military service—seeing that they have neither
fuel nor food, nor clothing, nor shelter, nor ammunition
not because these things are not at Balaklava, but becausle
your agents and officers have not the means of carrying
them up to the spots where they are required—l feel
it impossible to refuse an inquiry which would enable us to
ascertain who is to blame, and in prosecuting such inquiry I
do not necessarily impugn either this or that man's character.
I say further, however, that if the Government are to leave
the question upon the present state of our information,
gleaned as it must be from the public organs, and if they will
not furnish us with that information which would enable us
to judge.more accurately, we must then bestow our censure
where prima facie it seems to be deserved—namely, upon the
public departments which have the conduct of the war.
Prima facie the heads of those departments are responsible
for the whole of the business transacted by, through, or under
them, and it is for them to discharge themselves of that re-
sponsibility by showing that they have done all that they could
do in this country towards securing the proper conduct of
affairs, and towards ascertaining who were the parties who
have been blameable, and that having ascertained the fact
they have recalled the blameable persons from the positions
which they have occupied. I think, then, the objection that
the inquiry would be detrimental to the public interests is
not so strong as the countervailing objection that if you re-
fuse inquiry you are denying to this house, and to the people
whose representatives you are, that information which is im-
peratively demanded, and which, I must say, is imperatively
needed. (Hear, hear.) I also conceive that the objection
taken to the motion, on the ground that it involves a cen-
sure upon the Government, does not strictly apply ; for
although blame undoubtedly attaches somewhere, you
would not specify the particular individuals to whom such
blame attached until a proper and sufficient inquiry had been
instituted. These, then, are the reasons which will induce
me to vote for the appointment of the committee. It has
been said indirectly—and, no doubt, it is felt in many quar-
ters—that, if this motion should be carried, it will lead to a
change in the Government. Ono word I should like to say
upon that subject. In my view of the Government of this
country, nothing is more disastrous than constant and fre-
quently recurring changes. For the stability of the Govern-
ment, it is important that the same hand should carry it on
continuously, as long as they are able to do so in unity among
themselves and for the benefit of the public service. ' I have
always held, and I still hold, that, as Conservatives—at least,
as right-minded Conservatives—our first duty is not unneces-
sarily to hamper the executive Government. That is a duty
which I think we ought to impose upon ourselves, and a duty
which I believe is felt by most of the gentlemen sitting on this
side the house. But there are times when we may think that
a Government is either wrong in principle, or that public
affairs have been so misconducted that some step may fairly
be taken, even by those who are willing to strengthen the
hands of the Executive, lest they should be implicated in the
responsibility of measures which they feel in reason they
are bound to condemn. This consideration undoubtedly
leads us to the question—supposing the Government is dis-
placed how is it to be re-formed ? Is it to be reconstructed
from megtbers of its own body, or is a new Government to
be formed ? (Hear, hear.) I know that I tread upon
delicate ground in touching upon this subject, but
the reason why I regret most of all the retirement of the
noble lord from the Government is the enormous difficulty
which the Government find in the way of their reconstruction.
(" Hear," and a laugh.) Ido not hesitate to say that recon-
struction is the best thing that could have happened if it had
happened before the Government met Parliament—(" Hear,"
and laughter) -, but, in such reconstruction, it would be ne-
cessary for you to consider how you could have suited the
places tothe men who were to fill them, rather than how you
could fit the men, however ill-qualified they might be, to the
place's. (A laugh.) There is another thing of which I cannot
lose sight, and which has been apparent for the last year or
two. I cannot conceal from myself that the experiment of
what is called a " coalition" has again failed, as it always has
failed in this country—(" hear," and a laugh)—not fromwant
of ability, not from want of principle, not from want of integrity
of character in the men who compose the Government, but it
has failed because—as anybody must have noticed who has
watched the course and the measures of the Government—
there was not one mind pervading them (hear, hear) ; because
there ts. a difference of opinion which was sadly detrimental
to the interests. (" Hear," and cheers.) That
difference has manifested itself upon almost every greatques-
tion ; it has manifested itself signally upon the question now
before us—the question of the war. (Hear, hear.) We
have had Ministers in the two houses using very different
language—(cheers)--and, since there comes to be a question
of reconstruction, I may say I hope that if you do recon-
struct
yourselves you will take care that, at any rate, in fu-
ture there shall be fixed plans, steady views, perfect consist-
ency, and unity of purpose. (Cheers and laughter.) Without
that the Government of this country cannot go on, and,
whatever may be the injury done by a committee of in-
quiry, a far greater injury will result from continuing a
Government with discordant opinions. (Hear.) The noble
member for the city of London (Lord J. Russell) in his
memoirs of the great Whig leader of whom he was always
proud, and justly proud, to be a follower, has made some
remarks upon what a coalition Government is, and upon its
want of success when Mr. Fox joined Lord North. He says,
in his " Memoirs of Mr. Fox," that when that coalition
Government was formed, its members, by their own con-
duct, pronounced its condemnation. Ho tells us that
Mr. Fox said, " Unless it meets with complete suc-
cess there is nothing to justify it ;" and he adds that
General Fitzpatrick remarked that, Unless
it
tTas
followed by really good government, nothingcTouheld
wjustify
it of
it ;" and then he gives us his own opinion. ~
this success was therefore its condemnation." Whether or
not these remarks are applicable to the Government which
we have seen during the last two years history no doubt will
hereafter judge. I think its judgment will be against the