The Sun.
London, England, 1855-01-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENI.

action than the hon. and learned gentleman—(hear, hear)
—but I mean that, though the motion purports to contem-
plate inquiry, it is in fact a vote of censure upon the Go-
vernment. We have been told that it is a technical objec-
tion to say that this is a proceeding without a precedent.
It is proposed to commit to a select committee of this house
the duty of examining into the state of the army in the
Crimea and into the conduct of the War Department at
home, and the right hon. member for Midurst (Mr. Wal-
pole) quoted what he called a precedent for this proceeding
iu the case of the Walchereu expedition. I must confess
that I think I never heard a more unhappy comparison.
The right hon. gentleman admitted that there were some
points of difference. I declare that, as to points of resem-
blance, I do ;not think there is more than one which was
not referred to by the right hon. member for Midhurst,
namely, that curiously enough the motion for the Wal-
cheren inquiry and the motion now before the house were
both brought forward on the 26th of January. (Laughter.)
Will regard to the motions themselves, my right hon.
friend could scarcely have been serious when he said that
the Walcheren inquiry was a precedent for this, for they
differ in the most essential respects. I will mention one of
those points of difference. The Walcheren inquiry was an
inquiry into an expedition which we had undertaken
single handed; the people you had to examine were your
own people ; the measure was your own measure; the
failure was your own failure. Now, is this a single-handed
expedition ? (Hear.) If my right hon. friend inquires—
and I do not envy him his task if he is a member of the
committee into the conduct of the War Department, in
connection with the expedition, and into the stets) of the
army in the Crimea, I want to know whether he will be
able so to shape his inquiry that lie will have no evidence
upon any question touching the conduct and the policy of
the French nation? (Hear, hear.) What will be the
position of the right hon. gentleman if he has to propose
to this house that we should require the assistance
of witnesses from over the water, in order to illustrate cer-
tain pointi in which the question is common to the two
nations? The policy of the expedition to Sebastopol is to
bo censured. We ought to have wintered at our ease at
Odessa. If the right hon. gentleman wants to inquire into
those points, it is plain that he must have French along
with English witnesses. (Hear, hear. But my right lion.
friend forgets this,.which is the most vital distinction that
can be drawn between the two cases—that the inquiry into
the Walcheren expedition was an inquiry after the fact.
(Hear, hear.) That was an inquiry within the legitimate
scope and office of the House of Commons. Tho Ministers
had adopted a course of action, you were dissatisfied with
the results, and you placed the Ministers upon their trial.
Your business is not to govern the country, but it is, if
you think fit, to call to account those who do govern it.
For such a purpose it is perfectly reasonable to inquire
into a past expedition, but how does that apply to the pre-
sent case ? How can you inquire into the past of the Se-
bastopol expedition without examining into the present
and the future ? How is it possible that you can conduct
the inquiry with respect to what you may call the past,
without—not damaging, but ruining—the present and the
future? (Hear, and cheers.) The real truth is this, that if
this motion be anything—if the inquiry into an actually
proceeding operation be anything—it is a motion that the
House of Commons cannot pass without violating the laws
which fix its place in the constitution, because if the
motion means anything, it means taking the conduct of the
expedition out of the hands of the Government. (Hear, and
cheers.) The Walcheren inquiry was an investigation
which was conducted by the house at the bar. The inquiry
now proposed is to take place before a select committee.
It seems to me that when a motion is made for a commit-
tee of the whole house upon a great national question,
what you moan to imply is, in a legitimate form, your
want of confidence in an existing Administration, and any
proceedings which you take in consequence of such a
motion you take with the whole weight and power of the
house, in the face of day, and before the country; but is
it really to he supposed that the inquiry now proposed is
to be intrusted to a select committee ? That is a part of
the question that can hardly be limited. I think every
man must be prepared to say " Yes" or "No" to that
question. My right honourable friend says that a select
committee is to undertake this inquiry, but that is not
the prevailing sentiment. The hon. member for Ayles-
bury (Mr. Layard) says that it is perfectly absurd to
think of intrustiug such an inquiry to a select com-
mittee. Then, why does he vote for the motion ?
Because it will despatch the Government. My hon. friend
the member for Aylesbury, I must say, is not nice
in the choice of his instruments. Tho priest of old, when
he was about to sacrifice, washed his hands and put on his
sacrificial garmentS before ho plunged the knife into the
heart of his victim, but it seems to me that the hon gentle-
man does not much care in what condition his hands are.
(A. laugh.) The merit of this motion, in the view of that
hon. gentleman, is simply that it will despatch the Govern-
ment. He does not recommend it—he does not defend it
—he abandons it; he condemns it ; he says it is unworthy
and ridiculous, and he is right. You cannot entrust your
inquiry to a select committee. (Hear. hear.) It is vain
to say that there is no limitation of your powers written
in your journals. No doubt, you may, if you please, de-
cline to transact any business in this house. You may ap-
point a select committee to transact the business of the
house, and you may take the votes of that committee in
lieu of your own. You may, if you please, split your-
selves from your honoured functions, and devolve them
upon a few of your members, but will that answer the pur-
poses of those who seek to save the army? Will it answer
the purposes of those who wish to maintain the dignity
and honour of the country ? Does the hon. member for
Aylesbury, a man of ability and honour, really think that
the people of England will allow him to deal in this way
with such questions as the present? Does he think the
despatching of a Government, however he may dislike it,
is a matter so simple that the people of England do not
care one pin howit is done, provided only the knife reaches
the heart? If the hon. gentleman thinks so he is totally
mistaken. We have been told to-night that if we rejected
this motion we should cause disappointment to the coun-
try. (Hear, hear.) Then, if you are to cause pleasure by
adopting this motion, I want to know what kind of plea-
sure it will be ? It will be a pleasure dependent upon the
belief that you are going to 'inquire into the existing state
of things. The country will not understand your doc-
trine, that you aro so short of means for attaining your
ends that, in order to despatch the Government you dis-
like, you are obliged to vote for a motion you cannot
defend. If the House of Commons say they will have an
inquiry, depend upon it the country' will believe you, but
what you wish is that the country should not believe you.
'New, if the cou❑try does believe you, and if the country
would he disappointed by your rejecting this motion, what
I ask will be the disappointment of the country when they
find, first that you have voted for inquiry, and then that
you never meant that inquiry to take place? Well, I
really should venture, with great respect, to submit upon
this question the opinion of Lord Portchester, who moved
the appointment of the Walcheren inquiry. What was
the language that he used ? He said—
" I cannot consent to delegate the right of inquiry ou this
occasion to any select or secret committee, by whom the
course of investigation might be misdirected, or its bounds
limited—before whom, possibly, garbled extracts, called do-
cuments, might be laid by Ministers themselves, in order to
produce a partial discussion. But I will not expose the case
to such a risk. It is in a committee of the whole house alone
we can have a fair case, because, if necessary, we can exa-
mine oral evidence at the bar."

rendered the step taken by the hon. and learned member
for Sheffield not only a justifiable, but a necessary and '
inevitable step ; and it appeared to me quite impossible,
after the admission, or rather the declaration, of the noble
lord, that any gentleman in this house could have found
himself justified iu opposing the motion of the hon. and
learned gentleman. This will brine me to the last obser-
vations of the Chancellor of the exchequer. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer has taken the instance of the in-
quiry into Walcheren, and has said to my right hon. friend
(Mr. Walpole), " You have urged upon us a false resem-
blance between the present state of affairs and those which
existed at the time of the investigation into Walcheren ;
but I will show you points of difference which you cannot
contest." I entirely agree with the right hon. gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are points of dif-
ference between the present case and that of the inquiry
into Walcheren. No Minister of the Crown, in the ease of
the Walcheren expedition, hail come forward and said
that the state of affairs in his mind demanded inquiry—
that, with all the advantages of his official position and of
his accumulated Parliamentary experience, there was in
that state of affairs something inexplicable to him. (Hear,
hear.) In the case of Walcheren, instead of the First
Minister of the Crown in this house making such admis-
sions, you had him urging the expediency of the course,
and telling us that information was not wanted in many
particulars, and that in others it was inexpedient to give
it. After all the arguments of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer upon this parallel between the present circum-
stances and those which attended the inquiry into Walche-
ren, let us for a moment remember what are the circum-
stances which we have to consider, and let us take that
broad and common-sense view hich the people of this
country have for some time adopted. Yon do not
deny that a great army has perished in a distant
country to which it has been sent. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer says that the amount of our loss
has been misrepresented and exaggerated. He says that
it was an army of 54,000 men, or 56,000 men, and that
there are 80,000 still bearing arms, and that only 24,000 or
26,000 therefore have perished. That is not a subject, I
suppose, worthy of inquiry. But the Chancellor of the
Exchequer at the same time dilatesupon the contradictory
accounts which exist upon the subject. Well, then, is
there not some ground for inquiry, when it is a question
whether 20,000 or 30,000 British troops have disappeared,
when the First Minister of the Crown in this house tells us,
with the advantage of his official experience, that the
I causes of that loss are inexplicable to him, and when the
Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that the greatest mis-
conceptions exist upon the subject ? I ask you, is not that
a fair ground for inquiry into a subject so interesting to
the people of this country? (Hear, hear.) But, says the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, still harping upon the in-
stance of Walcheren, would you justify yourselves in the
present instance by having recourse to means and measures
which in that instance might have been justified because
the transactions to which they referred were concluded ?
But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has totally miscon-
ceived, or has for a moment forgotten, the nature of the
motion of the hon. and learned member for Sheffield.
(Hear, hear.) The motion of the hon. and learned gentle.
man is not to inquire into the conduot of the war ; it is not
a motion which requires us to call before us French and
English witnesses, tie authorities of rival armies, persons
connected with different countries, and owing a different
allegiance. The motion of the hon. and learned gentle.
man is to inquire into the condition of the army before Se-
bastopol, and whether that condition has been occasioned
by any mal-administration of the departments connected
with the army. (Hear.) Now, Sir, this is a simple issue;
"
but I doubt whether it is an issue which can be raised and
investigated at the conclusion of the war. Suppose that
the present war were to last as long as the late great war,
can you at the end of 20 years pretend to inquire into the
condition of the army "now before Sebastopol ? (Hear,
hear.)consi
ciu n of h
conclusion
mightte struggle bteaglgelge the discussionitimatecours e to postpone to the
of
the
principles
and policy upon which it had been conducted; but the
present question appears to me to be of an instant and
urgent character, and which, if ever inquired into, can
only be inquired into at this moment. Then the right hon.
gentleman dwells upon the inevitable character of an in-
vestigation of this kind by Parliament into the admi-
nistration of those in office, and he says that it is a mockery
whether before a select committee, oe before a commit.
tee of the whole House—the investigation is a mockery,
because, he says, that carrying the motion for inquiry is
clearly a censure upon the Government. But thee was not
the opinion of Sir S. Romilly in the debate upon the Wal-
cheren expedition. Sir S. Romilly, meeting an objection
of this kind—and I quote a name which I hope is still re-
spected by the Whig party—said, " If you lay down that
doctrine, you may as well lay down the doctrine that a
man is condemned because he is put upon his trial." (Hear,
hear.) Well, sir, we have now before us the motion of the
hon. and learned member for Sheffield, to which there ap-
pears to be, so far as I can collect the course of the debate,
three main objections. The first objection is that it is a
censure upon the commander of the forces in the Crimea.
Now, sir, if I thought that by any ingenuity the language
of the motion could bo construed into a censure upon the
conduct of Lord Raglan, or of any general officer in the
Crimea, I should be the ast man who would vote for it, or
who would in any way sanction it; but I cannot, I confess,
in any way apply to it such an interpretation ; and I declare
if I had written the motion myself, entertaining those feel-
ings towards Lord Raglan to which I have referred, that I
could not have devised language which I should have ima-
gined would be less likely to be supposed to contain the
slightest insinuation against the noble lord. (Hear.) The
motion refers to the condition of the army, to its physical
condition in that country. It wishes to inquire how far
that condition, which we deplore, and which we believe
calamitous, has been occasioned by the conduct, of any de-
partment of the Government. (Hear, hear.) Now, for a
moment, can such an interpretation be placed upon it? Nor
do I believe that it is one which can for a moment be en-
tertained. The seemed objection to this motion is that it
is of an unconstitutional and inconvenient character. That
I have already sufficiently touched upon in adverting to
'
the instance of Walcheren, which the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer has introduced to our notice to-night. I confess I
do not think that any inconvenience would occur from any
committee of the House of Commons visiting the heights of
Sebastopol. (A laugh.) That is an inconvenience which I
do not think the possibility of should at all influence our
debates. The question we law., consider is whether
there shall be an inquiry. into a specific eubject—tho con-
dition of the army. Such an inquiry I believe to be per-
fectly constitutional, and, in my mind, it would not be in-
convenient. But then, air, comes the third and main objec-
tion to the motion of the lion. member for Sheffield, and
that is that it conveys, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer
says, a censure upon the Government, or, as a colleegue of his
who preceded him stated, it implies a want of confidence
in the Administration. Now, sir, let us for a moment en-
deavour to understand what is meant by the want of con-
fidence which this motion is said to carry. I think we
have a right to ask from the Government, who are resisting
the motion, on the ground that it implies a want of confi-
dence, -I think we have a right to ask them this question
—ln what Government does it imply a want of confidence!
(Hear.) Does it imply a want of confidence in the Adminis-
tration which existed 48 hours ago? But the noble lord, late
the First Minister of the Crown in this house, has quitted
that Government ; and ho has quitted it with a descrip-
tion of the feelings that prevailed amen_
g its members, and
of the cordiality which animated their councils. (A laugh.)
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 London as a member of it. Well, then, is it a declara-
tion 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. (A laugh.) Do they then object to our voting
a want of confidence in an Administration which tells us
that the moment it is over, whatever may be tie result of
the motion, they will consider themselves as no longer
worthy the confidence of Parliament? (Hear, and laughter.)
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 mon with whose
principles it was unacquainted, het it never has yet 'been
called upon to vete confidence when it did not know either
the principles or the men. (Hear.) Well, then, when we
are asked to pass a vote of confidence in the Government,
or to cenveycensure, tho right hon. gentlemen opposite who
have addressedue, themembera of the Cabinet, have always
argued in this case as if the present motion was an attack
upon an individual member of the Cabinet. The whole of
this case has been argued by the Government as if this were
a personal attack upon the Minister of War. Now, Sir, for
nay part I beg to disclaim, in language as clear as I can
express my meaning in, that I entirely protest against that
Parliamentary conduct which signals out one member of a
Cabinet, and on the pretence of criticising the administra-
tion of his department, visits him with a censure from
which the other members of the Cabinet, his colleagues,
are to be exempt. (Cheers.) I have had occasion in other
instances to maintain these opinions, and I have ever acted
upon them. I have been asked myself—it was not an ap-
peal made to me in confidence, and, therefore, though I
will mention no names, I think I am not doing wrong in
speaking of it here—l have been asked, of course, by mem-
bers of the party opposite, whether I could support a vote
of censure upon tue VW) err There must he
many who now hear me who must be cognisant of the
truth of what I am stating. This, I believe, was long be-
fore the period to which the hon. gentleman has referred
as the first inauspicious day when he heard the administra-
tion of the War-office was in disfavour. I say I have
been asked whether I would support a vote of censure on
the Duke of Newcastle by hon. gentlemen upon tle other
side of the house, and have been assured that such a mo-
tion, if proposed, would be sure to be passed bya decisive
majority. But I said, as I say now, that I never will, di-
rectly or indirectly, be a party to any motion in this
house the object of which is to select one member of the
Cabinet and make him the scapegoat of a policy for which
the whole of his colleagues are equally resp)nsible.
(Cheers.) Now, sir, it is the fashion, in order to niske this
management of the case palatable for those who are op-
posed to the Duke of Newcastle—it is the fashion to say,
that it is a vote against the maladministration of his office.
Well, it is not for me to defend the Duke of Nee-castle.
We have had the character of the Duke of Newcastle
painted by his colleagues, and I have no doubt their ex-
pressions are still fresh in the ear and memory of the
house. I do not subscribe to their justice. I ony refer
to them as coming from an authentic quarter, and which,
therefore, must b supposed to draw a character !filch at
least deserves attention. It is not merely the celleague
who has quitted him who gives us an interpretative of his
re •
official shortcoming, but his yet mauling colleagues
bear equal testimony in an elaborate manner tlat the
Duke is alike deficient in energy and in experierce. (A
laugh,) Well, sir, one ought not to dispute the julgmeift
ll
own
coeagues
of a Minister made by his; but, Refer am
I from wishing to argue this case, or to conduct the debate
in any unfair spirit to the Duke of Newcastle, thet I am
bound to say that, though I cannot but ascribe to he mal-
administration of his office many if those disasers the
existence of which no one can deny and few can pilliate—
although I cannot but do this, yet I am bound b say,
am not at all certain that there was ono other number of
the Cabinet who, placed in the same situation, would not
have carried on affairs equally unsatisfactorily. (` Hear,
hear," and laughter.) If we come to the administation of
offices, so far as the conduct of the war is canceried, the
Duke of Newcastle is not the only Minister who in the
administration of his office, se in my mind entitlel to the
I notice of Parliament. There is another Secretary ,f State,
who, from tho nature of his office, is much concenect in
the administration of affairs with regard to the conduct of
I the war. It is the noble lord the Secretary of Stae oppo-
site (Lord Palmerston), whose energy anti experence we
are told are our only compensation for the dilaters we
have experienced, and the calamities which the Juke of
Newcastle has brought about. The noble lord, being the
militia entirely under his superintendence,rexeresed, of
course, considerable influence over the conduct of the
war. What has been the administration of hi office?
• On the 6th of last February the noble lord gave reties, to
. 1 this house that he should ask leave to bring in sills for
the establishment of the Irish and Scotch militia. There
was not the filiglate§t resistance offered to moDuzoo so

Sir, I therefore submit to this house, if they think, as they
may think, that the time has come when it is fit to put a
period to the existence of the present Government, that
they have no difficulty, and need make no difficulty, in
the choice of legitimate means for that purpose. The Go-
vernment cannot continue a week in office vathout sub-
mitting to you proposals for measures which are required
for the service of the country. Why, then, do you not
meet them in the way in which the constitution points
out? Can you give an example in the whole of your his-
tory of a time when the House of Commons has thought it
worthy of itself to put a period to an Administration by
means such as this—by means of a character so indirect
and so tending to deceive and delude the country ? (Hear,
hear.) Sir, I venture to say this in conclusien :—You may
deprive us of the character of Ministers, but we remain
members of Parliament, and as members of Parliament we
have a common interest with you in the character and in
the dignity of the House of Commons. Now, sir, what is
the foundation of that character and of that dignity ?
Your power is a gigantic power, but it is gigantic on ac-
count of the prudence, on account of the • sense of justice
and of propriety with which you are commonly content to
wield it. (Cheers.) Rely upon it, the House of Commons
in this free country can no more afford to disregard the
rules which -former prudence has laid down, or stoop to
the use of indifferent means to delude the country with
promises which it does not mean to fulfil, than can any
other body, however inferior. It is as needful for the
House of Commons as it is for any body in this country—
I would say that it is more needful for it—to remain with-
in
the limits which are marked out for its province, if it
wish to continue on the proud eminence to which the la-
bours of those who preceded you have raised it. If this
motion be passed, as it is quite possible that it may, no
doubt it will bring great relief to the members of the Ad- '
ministration, but it will .impose upon you a corresponding
responsibility. You may net feel it. I see here many who
have had but a short experience in this house, and 'who are
called upon to vote upon a great question without perhaps
having the means of fully seeing all that it involves. For
my own part, this I say—that I am sensible, whatever Go-
vernment may :wino oub of the ashes of that which may be
about to fall, that it will be the duty of every patriotic
citizen to render to it every support which he conscien-
tiously can give it. Further, with respect to those who
may vote for the motion which is now perhaps about to
pass, I venture also to say that it will be their duty—the
duty of the men—the duty of the party, be they who they
may—if they should be.called upon to assist in filling the
vacuum which they have gone to such lengths to create,
not to shrink from that task. Whether they do so or not,
however, I earnestly hope that the house, in the vote
which it is about to give, will recollect its respect to the
country, and will consider the mode of proceeding which
it is about to adopt. For my part, I believe that mode of
proceeding to be worse than useless so far as regards the
army in the Crimea. Your inquiry will never take place
as a real inquiry; or, if it did, it would lead to nothing
but confusion and disturbance, increased disaster, shame
at home, and weakness abroad ; it would convey no conso-
lation to those whom you seek to aid, but it would carry
malignant joy to the hearts of the enemies of England—
(cheers)—and, for my part,
I ever shall rejoice, if this mo-
tion is to-night to be carried, that my own last words as a
member of the Cabinet of the Earl of Aberdeen, had been
words of solemn and earnest protest against a proceeding
which has no foundation either in the constitution or in
the practice of preceding Parliaments, which is useless and
mischievous for the purpose which it appears to contem-
plate, and which, in my judgment, is full of danger to
the power, dignity, and usefulness of the Commons of
England. (The right hon. gentleman resumed his seat
amid loud cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—After the remarkable admissions which
have been made in the course of this debate by members of
the Government, it is unnecessary for me to-night at all to
indulge in that " slow" process which the right hon. gen-
tleman has been reminded of by the hon, baronet on this
side of the house (Sir E. B. Lytton), and to which he so
good-humouredly alluded. Sir, this debate was commenced
by a gentleman to whom we always listen with attention
and respect ; and when he suddenly ceased from addressing
to us those observations which in this instance, as in all
others, would have been received in that spirit, remember..
ing that he was an accomplished orator, I almost at first
supposed that it was an artifice of rhetoric, when he merely
moved the resolution which he has now, Sir, placed in your
hands; for if there ever were a resolution, upon a great
question of national interest submitted to the House of
Commons which required no arguments to support it, no
illustrations to illuminate it, and no arts of oratory to-en-
force and recommend it to the adoption of the house, it
was, in my opinion, the resolution which the hon. and
learned gentleman submitted to us on Friday last, because,
after the hon. and learned gentleman had risen, in pargn,
ance of his notice, to bring that resolution before our eon,
s:deratiori, a noble lord, who had been bnt within a few
hours the chief Minister, of the Crown in this house, had
admitted the case of the hon. and learned gentleman—had
made an important public declaration which, .0 Tay mind,

G, JANUARY 30, 185.5.

wise, so important, so urgent. Well, February passed,
' and the bills were not introduced, though unopposed.
They were not introduced by a Cabinet which must at
that moment have known that war, if not inevitable, was
at least impending. (Hear.) February passed. March
arrived. On the 28th of March war was declared. One
would have supposed that Ministers who had declared
war, who must have known that a militia was the only
sure basis of a reserve in this country, would not for a
moment longer have delayed the introduction of these
important bills respecting the Scotch and Irish militia.
Promised in February, promised in March—on the 28th of
which month, as I said, war was declared—April passed,
and these bills were not introduced. May passed away,
June passed, or almost passed, and these bills were not
introduced, but on Midsummer night the noble lord the
Home Secretary, who, we are told, is the only man who
can conduct the war, introduced these two bills for the
establishment of the Scotch and Irish militia. The conse-
quence was, we were at war ; the regiments of the line
were taken from Ireland, the English militia was sent to
garrison Ireland, and this country was left quite unde-
fended, while, at the same time, the means of supplying
our resources were proportionately diminished. (Hear,
hear.) I should like to know, if the Duke of Newcastle
had done this, whether his colleagues would not have been
pretty sure to have blazoned it forth in his catalogue of
misadventures and maladministration? (Hear, hear.) It
happens, however, to be in the department of another Se-
cretary of State, who, in the administration of his office,
is such a paragon of Ministerial adroitness and ability that
wo are told he is the only man who can make up for the
laches of his colleague. Sir, I say this in a spirit, I sin-
cerely hope, of constitutional justice. I do not doubt that
the Duke of Newcastle was placed in an office which he
was not equal to, for all his colleagues, with the exception
of the hon. gentleman, have assured the house in the most
elaborate manner that that was the case. (A laugh.) But,
sir, I say the Duke of Newcastle has done mailing for
which his colleagues in the first place are not as responsi-
ble as himself; and placed in a new office with the most
laborious duties, and at a period of such crisis and slifficalty,
it peculiarly became the colleagues of the Duke of New-
castle to hare been well aware of what he was doino• to
have sustained him with their counsel and their sympathy;
least of all did it become them, when he was involved in a
difficult position, as he is at present, to have quitted him ;
or, if they remained with him, to have risen in the House of
Commons in order to decry his abilities and denounce his
administration. (Cheers.) I have no personal or political
relations with the Duke of Newcastle. I need not remind

he anticipated injurious consequences in the conduct of the
war from the want of experience and energy of the Duke of
Newcastle, and yet he never objected to the office of Mini-
ster for War being conferred on the Duke of Newcastle,
because it gave him the means of saving the balance of
power, and introducing as Secretary for the Colonies a sup-
porter of his side. (Hear, hear.) Thus, in tho struggle
to preserve the balance of power, the noble lord was victo-
rious ; but he got bolder, and, not satisfied with his suc-
cess, he invaded the principalities, and attempted to drive
out the Minister for War also. (Hear, hear.) That expe-
dition has, however, been no more successful than was
that of the Russians, and what are the consequences? We
are called on to decide upon the motion of the hon. mem-
ber for Sheffield, which her Majesty's Ministers tell us they
consider a vote of want of confidence. Well, sir,:that motion
is before the house, and we must vote upon' it. The vote
which I shall give is One which, I believe, will be the vote
of the majority of the house. Personally,' I care nothing
for the consequences, but I feel called upon to decide on
an issue which Ministers have interpreted into a question
of approbation or confidence. I care not by what name it
is called, and I must decide according to the opinions I
entertain. Sir, I have no confidence whatever in the exist-
ing Government. (Cheers.) I told thorn a year ago, when
taunted for not asking the House of Commons to ratify
that opinion of mine, that as they bad no confidence in
each other a vote of want of confidence was superfluous.
I ask the House of Commons to decide if 12 months have
not proved that I was right in that assumption, although
its accuracy was then questioned. (Hear, hear.) What,
confidence has the noble lord the late President of the
Council in the Minister for War? What confidence have

this variety of Ministers in each other's councils? They
stand before us confessedly as men who have not that mion
of feelings and of sympathy necessary to enable them suc-
cessfully to conduct public affairs. (Hear.) The late
President of the Council, in scattering some compliments
among the colleagues he was quitting, dilated upon the
patience and ability with which the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs had conducted the duties of his depart-
ment. lam not here to question those valuable qualities
or that patience, but I say that all the patience and all'the
ability with which the Earl of Clarendon may have ad-
ministered are completely lost by scenes like this, and when
the Ministers of this country have themselves revealed
their weakness to foreign Courts all the ability and patience
of that statesman cannot make up for the weakness which
is known to prevail in the councils of England. At all
times such a circumstance must be injurious, but at the
preseit moment it may be more than injurious. Two
years ago England was the leading Power in Europe, but
is there any man in this house who can pretend that she
holds that position now ? If this be the case—if we are
called upon to decide whether the Hells* of Commons has
confidence in the Ministry, when the debate is commenced
by the secession of the most eminent member of the Go.
vernment—when affairs are in a calamitous state, and
when we are told by the late Lord President that the con•
duct of the war is intrusted to a Minister who he thinks is
unequal to the task—l ask the country—l ask the Minis-
ters themselves, whether they can complain that a mem-
ber of the Opposition should give his vote according to the
belief which he entertains that the affairs of the country
are intrusted to a deplorable Administration ? (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I did not intend to have addressed
the house upon this subject, nor do I now intend entering
upon the general question, but some personal allusions have
been made to me, which I cannot altogether allow to pass
silently. Ido not mean, however, to enter further into the
question of the differences of opinion between myself and
the First Lord of the Treasury, or the foundations of the
statements which have been made by the right hon. gentle-
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ido not contro-
vert the accuracy of ony one of the statements; but if I
were to enter into various details as to the letters which I
wrote in the beginning of October to the Duke of New-
castle, and the answers which I received from him, and
the circumstances respecting my subsequent representa-
tions upon that and various other subjects with regard to
the conduct of the war, I think I could show that the
statement of my right hon. friend does not complete the
history of the transaction. (Hear, hear.) But it appears
to me to be far better to lay aside any notion of my own
vindication, and to omit any facts which might tend to a
practice which I think very inconvenient, of stating on a
subsequent occasion transactions which have passed be-
tween members of the Cabinet. Although I have said
thus much, Ido not know that I should have risen for
the sole purpose of doing so ; but I could not so easily pass
by a phrase of the right hen. gentleman opposite (Mr.
Disraeli), where he said that the transactions in which I had
been engaged with Lord Aberdeen would be considered in
the language of tie last century as a "profligate intrigue."
(Hear, hear.) Now, if the right hon. gentleman means
that in the habits of invective of the last century a false
imputation of that nature world have been addressed by
one statesman to another, I have no objection to the
phrase ; but if the right hen. gentleman means to say that
a true character would have been given to that transaction
by those words, I beg leave most solemnly to deny the im-
putation. (Hear.) It has happened ea more than one
occasion that a Prime Minister has been called upon to
state to one of his colleagues that the office which he held
might be more efficiently held, at the moment, by another
member of the same Cabinet. I remember a transaction
in which I was not engaged otherwise than as a mere spec-
tator, but of which a full history may easily be learnt
by the right hon. gentleman—l mean the case of the Earl
of Derby. The office of Secretary for the Colonies was
placed in fresh hands at that time, when a question of no
loss magnitude than the emancipation was under discus-
sion. It was then desirable that the office of Secretary
should be filled by a man of the influence, the weight,
and the talents of the Earl of Derby. (Hear, hear.
Earl Grey had no hesitation in stating his conviction to Lord
Goderich, and Lord Goderich gave way to that commu-
nication. Well, I never heard that that was denominated a
profligate intrigue. If it was a profligate intrigue, it must
have been a profligate intrigue to get possession of the
seals of the colonial department ; but if it was a profligate
intrigue it was a transaction which enabled Lord Derby to
hrlug furw.uil, witu inc aunsty which all admired, the plan
for the emancipation of the slaves. But the right hon.
gentleman has alluded to another transaction—the Wal-
cheren expedition, and the conduct of Mr. Canning to
Lord Castlereagh. The conduct of Mr. Canning to Lord
Castlereagh was this, that he did not conceive that Lord
Castlereagh was qualified to conduct the Walcheren expe-
dition. He stated that conviction to the Prime Minister,
And he requested that a communication might be made to
Lord Castlereagh. But it was not so made. Ho was in-
formed, I think months afterwards, that the communica-
tion was not made, and in the end it appeared to Lord Cas-
tlereagh that Mr. Canning had connived at the suppression
of that communication, and a duel took place in conse-
quence. Now, was there anything similar in this conduct,
whether worthy of blame 'or not in Mr. Canning ? That was
somewhat intricate, and my impression is that Mr. Canning
was not to blame, but has it any resemblance to my con-
duct to the Duke of Newcastle I wrote immediately after-
wards, ou the very next day, to beg that letter might be
shown to the Duke of Newcastle—(hear, hear)—and,
cordingly, in the very next letter I received from the Earl
of Aberdeen, two or .three (lays afterwards, he stated
. that both the Duke of Newcastle and the Secretary
at War had been fully informed of my commu-
nication, and that both of them stated, as I should
have expected, that they were willing to concur in
any arrangement for the public service. Therefore, whether
the arrangement that I proposed was a good ono or a
bad one for the public service, there was no concealment
whatever. I never desired to conceal from them—l did not
conceal from them—the opinion that I held. It was a pro-
posal, it might be called .in favour, others might say it was
'for the advantage, but it was to impose a very onerous bur-
den on the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I
have seen so much of the evil consequences of small sections,
of families acting together, that I advisedly, of my own part,
did not speak to others, and I so far kept clear of anything
like intrigue that I spoke to Lord Aberdeen alone. It was,
as I thought, conducive to the public service ; and when my
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that
at that time there was no general impression against the ad-
ministration or the Duke of Newcastle, I beg leave to say
that that will prove by subsequent reflection to have been a
reason in favour of the arrangement. If the change had been
made at that time it would only have been said that the Duke
of Newcastle, who had only hitherto had no experience in an
office which had attached to it so much importance at the be-
ginning of the war, had taken another office of Secretary of
State, and that the arrangement was made for the public bene-
fit, whereas if any change had been made such as that hinted
at the other day, it would have been supposed to have been

the house that there are many reasons why that is not a
very popular name on this side of the house. The Duke
of Newcastle, as a politician, was trained aid bred on the.
Conservative benches; he owed his introduction to, and
hie success in, public life to this party; and, in our opi-
nion, he conducted himself to this party, at a peculiar
moment, with an acerbity of feeling, and an ambiguity of
conduct, which, in his present forlorn condition, we can
afford to forget. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) But, sir, I
protest against the convenient method which is now
brought into habit of placing all these disasters either
upon the maladministration of an" individual or the ill-
working of a system. (Hear, hear.) Whatever may be
the faults of that system, when worked by able men, it
has accomplished great things. (Hear, hear.) I shall not
enter into that branch of the question at this hour of the
night, because I believe that the calamities which we all
deplore have not been brought about only, or even princi-
pally, by faults of administration, but by rather an erroneous
policy, for which certainly the Cabinet must have been
responsible, and not a solitary Minister. (Hear, hear.) I
think the designs of the Cabinet were hastily conceived.
(Hear.) I think they attempted to accomplish them with
inadequate means. (Hear, hear.) I think that they wen,
not sufficiently aware of the nature of the enterprise in
which they had embarked, and that they showed through-
out the whole conception and management of their scheme
a want of foresight, of firmness, of depth, and of all those
resources which became a Ministry who had embarked in
as enterprise of ~such vast importance. Why, sir, the
right hon. gentleman the Chaioellor of the Exchequer has
been this very evening referring to the Walcheren Expedi-
tion. I remember those debates, and I am sure the noble
lord the Secretary of State opposite (Lord Palmerston)
must also remember them. I am only a reader of those
debates, but he was a listener. I remember it was
pointed out by very able members of this helm that
the Government of that day were so very ignorant
that they had endeavoured, by a coup de main,
to take one of the strongest fortresses in Europe, and they
found out, when about to accomplish that project, that the
fortress was defended more strongly than they had been
led to believe. If you only put Sebastopol for Antwerp
you have the history of the present expedition. But it
was held to be a great misdemeanour on the part of that
Ministry to have undertaken a scheme which involved the
siege of so strong a fortress without having previously ob-
tained ample and accurate information as to its defences.
(Hear.) Why, we now hear from the Ministers themselves
that they were surprised at the resistance which had been
experienced there and the strength of the place before which
our army under their directions have sat down. And then
we are told the ill administration of an individual Minister
can account for the disastrous consequences which must
necessarily result from such a want of statesmanlike saga-
city. The noble lord (J. Russell) the other night defended
himself on account of his conduct during an autumnal tour.
But it is not so much of autumnal tours that we complain
as of winter campaigns. (Hear.) The Secretary of State
for the Colonies to-night and the Secretary at War the
other night taunted us with our timid opposition to the
Government. The Secretary of State for the Colonies,
when he acceded to office some months ago, made his first
appearance in that capacity by taunting us for net bring-
ing forward a vote of want of confidence in the Govern.
ment. He has returned to-night to his suggestion of that
political remedy. I think we have had quite enough of
these taunts from the right hon. Secretary. I am not
ashamed to say we have exhibited a timid opposition to
the Government. That has not been because we were
afraid of the Government or the consequences of our oppo-
sition if we undertook it • lint beslswas uo wsso tissia on
account of the unparalleled disasters which we found
accumulating over the country. Wo did so because the
country was involved in war, and, whatever might be
our opinion as to the impolicy which occasioned that
war, we felt it our duty cordially to support the existing
Government in carrying on the war with vigour and offi-
cdeupy. And if we now offer no longer a " timid opps-
sitioa„"-it is because we find that, notwithstanding the
support wo gave them—notwithstanding the fact that there
has been no vote, either of money or of men, which we
have not cordially supported—notwithstanding the fact
that during all this agitatinc, period there has been only
one measure connected with the war which the Opposition
has resisted, and that was a measure universally condemned
by the country, notwithstanding the Parliament and the
country alike have upheld them, have placed in their
hands unlimited means, and have offered at no time a cri-
ticism on their acts, the Ministry have so managed affairs
that they have broken up from their own disaster, and the
army of England e as never in so perilous and calamitous a
condition as at the present moment. (Hear.) The right
hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer com-
menced his speech by dilating—with that eloquence which
he so easily commands—on the terms of perfect confidence
which have prevailed from the first among all the mem-
bers of the Coalition Government. The house listened
with tender surprise to the revelations of the right hon.
gentleman, and with that admirable consistency of which
the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so consummate a mas-
ter, he concluded his description of this affectionate and
perfect confidence existing between all these gentlemen by
assuring the house that neither he nor his colleagues wore
aware 24 hours before it was known to the public of the
important secession of the noble lord the leader of the
Heim of Commons. (Hear.) Notwithstanding this un-
broken confidence, it seems that some of the. Cabinet had
to walk down to this house, and, from their accustomed
places, hear for the first time that their leader had quitted
his office. The most important speech made during this
debate, which it is impossible to pass over unnoticed, was
the speech of the noble lord the late President of the Coun-
cil, in which he explained to the house the reasons which
had induced him to quit office. I listened to that speech with
a feeling shared, I am sure, by the vast majority of the
house. I listened to that speech with amazement. When
I listened to that speech it seemed to me I was listen.
ing to a page from the 2lfeneoirs of Babb Doddington.
Such an all-unconscious admission of what in the 18th
century would have been called a profligate intrigue, but
which in our more mealy-mouthed century must be desig-
nated by more euphemistic phrases, is not to be matched
in that record which commemorates the doings of another
Puke 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
are told every day that it is our blessed lot to livein an age
of progress, and yet we have this confession in our purer
days of morality that the noble lord the late President of
the Council goes to the Prime Minister, and tells him that,
in consequence of " antiquated imbecility," as the noble
lord opposite (Palmerston) might say, but in consequence
of incapability and incompetence on the part of a Minister
of War at the present moment—in consequence of that
Minister not being " the active spirit of the whole ma-
chine," he (the Lord President) proposes that one Secretary
of State should be dismissed, and another colleague, the
slunk. INon. member for Wilts (Mr. S. Herbert), shoWlti be
superseded altou.su.... sa"t. au. We nave
heard of some things before in this country, some " in-
trigues," to use the language of Lord Perchester, who has
been this evening referred to. We remember the conspi-
racy by which Mr. Canning and Lord Wellesley conspired
successfully to eject Lord Castlereagh from the Cabinet,
and the recollection of those deeds is still a stain upon the
memory of Mr. Canning. But there was this in the last
instance which exceeds the conduct of the Cabinet which
conducted the affair of the Walcheren expedition, there
was this difference—the colleague for whose behest and be-
nefit the conspiracy was intended was selected as the au-
thority to rebula with Spartan severity, with more than
Lacedemonian rigour, the illustrious conspirator who had
sacrificed himself in the disinterestedness of friendship.
The noble lord the Secretary of State (Lord Palmerston)
performed his part in a most feeling manner. The noble
lord was sincerely shocked at the conduct of the Lord
President of the Council quitting his colleagues with-
out due notice. I should have thought the memory of the
noble lord (Palmerston) might have softened his language
of rebuke ; for, if he could only recal a period some twelve
months ago, when, if I recollect aright, the noble lord
equally as suddenly—at as perplexing a moment—when
the question of peace or war hung in the balanc&—quitted
his colleagues. The only difference is, that on that occasion
the noble lord did not condescend to give us an explana-
tion as candid as that offered to the house by the noble
lord the President of the Council. (Hear, hear.) The
noble lord appeared to take great credit to himself be-
cause he has increased the area of his party, and has always
been ready to receive men of ability who have chosen to
enlist under his standard, and he seemed to urge that
point as if he were vindicating himself from attacks upon
the existence ofa coalition Government; but no one objects
to a combination between pnblio men who have acted in
different parties. The noble lord the Secretary for the
Home Department was once a member of the Tory party ;
Lord Derby was a member of Earl Grey's Administration.
There is no stain upon the character or honour of public
men, or no inconvenience to the public service, in states-
men, however they may have at one time differed, if they
feel themselves justified in so doing, acting together in
public life. All that the country requires of public men
when they do so act together is, that they should be iidcm
de rcpubtica—that upon all great questions they should
entertain the same views, that in subjects of policy,
whether foreign or domestic, they should be animated by
the same cbnvictions and the same sympathies in carrying
out their policy. But, with regard to the existing Gc-
vernment—if it still be an existing Government—all have
seen that, during their career, it does not appear that
upon any great question, whether domestic or external,
they have been animated by the same spirit and sympa-
thies. It is to that circumstance that we must attribute
the fact that they have been so unsuccessful in carrying
their measures or prosecuting their policy. What has been
the theory that seems to have kept together the various ele-
ments of the Cabinet ? Tho balance of power is the theory
which both sides have attempted to support. That this
is so appears from their own admission. The late Lord
kregidont is breaking up the Cabinet, because from the Ant

the effect of public opinion, and the Duke of Newcastle would
have been represented as the victim of public opinion. I be-
lieve that if the arrangement that I proposed had been fortu-
nately adopted at that time, it would have been conducive to
the public service ; that it would not have injured the
reputation of the Duke of Newcastle, who must always
be considered a man of sound judgment in public affairs, and
well qualified to fill public office, although, as I stated at the
time, I did not think he had authority sufficient to conduct,
in spite of every obstacle, the vast operations which the war
against Russia demanded. I have nothing further to add.
I do not wish to go beyond this personal explanation, but the
charge of having been guilty of a profligate intrigue was one
I could not sit under. (Cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON—There is one point in the speech
of the right honourable gentleman opposite on which I hesi-
tate not to express my cordial and entire concurrence.
Tne right nonourame gentleman has stated that the
motion does not single out the Duke of Newcastle as
one member of the Cabinet for special condemnation, but
that the whole Cabinet, who are his colleagues up to the
present time, are equally responsible with him for those
matters on which his conduct appears to be attacked, and it
is on that principle that we "stand to submit to the judgment
of the house. We have stated that we consider ourselves to
be jointly and in common responsible. Therefore I disdain,
on the part of the Government, any of that unworthy pro-
ceeding which the right hon. gentleman has imputed to some
one, and said, iu the course of this debate, that wo had en-
deavoured to throw upon one member that which, upon the
principle of the constitution, ought to be shared by all.
With regard to the Duke of Newcastle, I must in justice say
that public opinion has done him great injustice, and I am
sure that a juster estimate will be formed by posterity of the
ability displayed by the noble duke in the service of his
country. Much has been said about coalition Governments.
It is a very common opinion that the Government which now
stands here, being formed of persons who were not always of
the same party, retained in itself the division which belonged
to its original elements, and that we were always thinking
about the balance of power and arranging ourselves accord-
ing to the parties to which we might respectively belong. I
can confirm amply what was stated by might right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that in all the dis-
cussions which have taken place among the members of the
Government regarding matters with which as a Government
we had to deal, we never thought of the party to which we
originally belonged, but each man spoke his sentiments of
the matter in hand, and there was no other diversity than
that which would arise between men of the same party who
take a different view, as must necessarily happen among
any given number of individuals. But I warn gentle-
men against giving encouragement to what I must call
clamour against coalitions, because I venture to say in the
present state of political parties in this country, you never
will be able to carry on a Government but more or less on
the principle of coalition. •We do not deny that there are cir-
cumstances connected with the state and condition of the
army in the Crimea which had been afilictin7, and I may sAy
to a certain extent, so far as it goes, had been calamitous and
deeply to be deplored. Those evils, h wever, had very much
arisen from circumstances in some respect s independent of the
control of man ; in other respects, from that inexperience
which necessarily must be felt among the incidents of a go-
vernment who are called upon after a long period of peace,
when the different branches of the military service have had
no practical experience, suddenly to perform duties of the ut-
most importance in a great and difficult military operation. I
admit, undoubtedly, that there is in the domestic distribution
of the military department much in which improvement is ur-
gently required ; that there is, also, in regard to the arrange-
ments of those branches of the service which had been con-
nected with the execution of the details of Military operations
abroad, much in which there may be great and material im-
provement. But it is hardly to be expected that after so lonig.
• a period of peace, when the army has never been in a condi-
tion to act as a body, and wien it was impossible to train up
the different branches of the service so as to be instructed in
those dutiox which they twit be called vh tv perform, when