The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-20 00:00:00

THE SUN LONDON„ FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 20 1855

I \IPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) I
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Duke of ARGYLL presented a great number of
petitions in favour of this hill.
The E trl of EGLINTON presented several petitions
against the bill.
Lord PANMURE presented several petitions in
favour of the bill.
The Earl of GALWAY presented several petitions
in favour of the bill.
The Duke of MONTROSE presented petitions against
the bill.
Lord BERNERS presented a petition against the
Maynoot.h grant. The noble lord said, seeing the
noble lord the Minister of War in his place, be begged to
ask him whether the returns relative to the militia,
ordered by this house in May last, would soon be pre-
sented ? -Also, whether the new regulations for the
army extended to the militia ? He further wished to
receive some information as to the warrant lately
issued relative to soldiers' widows. He hoped that in
}he case of unmarried men the advantages propesed
would be extended to the mothers and sisters of the de-
eased soldiers.
The Earl of HARDWICKE begged to make an ob-
servation before the noble lord answered the question,
relative to officers similarly situated in the navy, and
expressed a hope that a warrant would be issued in
regard to the navy.
Lord PANMURE said in reference the militia re-
turns that they had taken considerable time to
prepare, but he believed that they would soon be laid.
on the table of the house. With respect to the second
question, the Government had under consider-
ation the propriety of applying the same principle
in regard to the deductions from the bounty given
to a soldier to the case of the militia. It was not deemed
desirable to give any pension to the mother or sister of
a deceased officer, but it was in the power of the Trea-
sury to make exceptions when special reason was shown.
The Earl of HARDWICKE directed the noble lord
to the part of the subject he had referred to. He (Lord
Hard wieke) saw no distinction between the two services
in such a case. The widows of naval officers who lost
their lives in war were quite as much entitled to consi-
deration as those in the other service.
Lord PANMURE made no reply.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a great num-
ber of petitions against the Scotch Education Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
Sussex in favour of closing the public-houses on Sun-
day. The noble duke also presented several petitions
against the Scotch Education Bill.
THIRD READINGS. - _ .

The following bills were severally read a third time
and passed, namely, the Mid Kent and North Kent
Railway; Severn Valley Railway (amen trnents); Somer-
set Central Railway (amendments) ; East Kent Rail-
way (Extension to Dover )
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Duke of ARGYLL, in moving the second read-
ing, said the bill recognised the parochial schools as the
basis, and he was prepared to defend them from many
of the charges which had been brought against them. It
was evident that they could not rest with the present
system as it stood, and if the bill was rejected another
must be brought in. He therefore hoped their lordships
would pass the present bill, which he was satisfied would
promote sound and useful education in Scotland, and
although not favoured by any particular party, it was
approved by a large majority of the people of that
country.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCIT, believing that the bill
would retard rather than advance useful and religious
education in Scotland, moved that the bill be read a
second time that day three months.
Lord BROUGLIA NI w •s so hampered with fears and
doubts with respect to the measure that he thought Go-
vernment must either withdraw the bill, or consent to
modifications which would lead to its rejection else-
where.
The Earl of EGLINTON opposed the bill as unne-
cessary, for it overturned an admirable system of long
standing, and was not likely to promote the spread of
education.
Lord PANMURE supported the bill, the principle of
which he believed was popular with the greater part of
the people of Scotland. He was satisfied that sooner or
later a similar measure must , e passed.
The Earl of HADDINGTON supported the amend-
ment.
The Duke of ARGYLL then asked leave to withdraw
the bill, which was opposed by the Duke of RICH-
MOND.
Their lordships divided, when there were—
For the amendment
Against
Majority...
The amendment was therefore carried.
[We understand that, after the proposition made to
withdraw the bill, and the rejection of that offer by its
opponents, the supporters of the measure voted in the
majority.]
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, this bill
was recommitted.
BURIALS BILL.
This bill went through committee.
Lady and Lord Raglan's Annuities Bill passed through
committee.
The following bills were read a third time :—The
Dwellings for Labouring Classes Bill ; the Dublin Car-
riage Acts Amendment Bill ; Christchurch (Todmorden)
btarriages Validity Bill ; Burial of Poor Persons Bill ;
and the D wellinghouses (Scotland) Bill.
The Crime and Outrage (Ireland) Continuance Bill
was read a second time.
The Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland) Bill passed
through committee.
After disposing of the other business of the paper,
their lordships adjourned.

86

• -85

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
The Lords' Amendments to the following bills were
considered and agreed to:—Bat row Harbour, Birlien•
head and Liverpool Docks (Trust Property of Birken•
head Dock Tru-tees, &c.), England and Leland Im-
proved Communication, Furness R tilway, and Liver•
pool Docks.
The Inverness Bridge Bill and Marshall's Charity Es
tate Bill were read a second time.
PETITIONS.
Viscount EBRINGTON presented a petition from the
Rev. C. C. Layard, cotnplainin,g that he had been re
fuse I admittance by the Bishop of Exeter to a benefice
in Devonshire, to which he was lawfully presented by
Sir J. Kenna way, though he had received conainenda-
tiorts and testimonials from two bishops, a number of
clergymen, and two congregations among whom be had
laboured.
ADJOURNED DEBATE ON MR. ROEBUCK'S
MOTION.
On the order of the day fur the resumption of the de-
bate on this subject,
Mr. ROEBUCK presented a numerously signed peti-
tion from Birmingham, praying that the house would
adopt the motion before it, and pursue its consequence
--impeachment. The hon. and learned gentleman also
presented petitions to a similar effect from Oxford and
Bradford.
1 Mr. OTWAY also presented a petition from various
parts of the metropolis with a like object.
( The debate was then resumed by
Mr. W. GASKELL, who observed that if the motion
before the house were stripped of the various die-
guises in which it had been clothed, it was sim-
ply whether the House of Commons who voted
the Sebastopol Committee was or was not prepared to
affirm the decision to which that Committee had
arrived. (Hear, hear.) That Committee was voted
by an immense majority. They had imposed a
most arduous duty on the Committee, which its
members had discharged with the greatest ability
and impartiality, and if the only alternative was
the adoption of the motion of the hon. and
learned member for Sheffield, or a refusal to ex-
press any opinion upon the subject, and thereby
to vote confidence in the Administration, he
(Mr. Gaskell) bad no difficulty whatever in preferring
the former. (Hear.) The committee had acted nobly,
and had not shrunk from expressing as its opinion that
it was the Government who were the chief cause of
the difficulties and disasters which attended our army
in the East ; but he should have been better
pleased with the words of the resolution if it had been
directed more particularly against the head of that Go-
vernment in partict.lar. (Hear, hear.) He admitted
with readiness that some errors might have been com-
mitted, which it would be unjust and ungenerous to
visit with censure upon the late Administration. But
these must be errors of a kind against which human
foresight could not provide. He could not say he thought
_ the errors of the late Government were of that cha-
rac-er. (Hear, hear.) He did not believe sending
_ peremptory messages to our generals, without being ac-
queinted with the local circumstances in which they were
situated ; or invading a country like the Crimea without
first acquainting ourselves accurately with its resources
and means of defence were errors which could in any
way be placed in such a category and palliated as such.
(Hear, hear.) The fact was there was a fatal and funda-
mental: error at the root of the expedition, which was a
total want of any definite policy or purpose in the ob-
ject of the war. (Hear.) This wee doubtless partly
owing to the constitution of the Government, which at
that period represented in its members every opinion
in regard to foreign and domestic policy ; and, although
it included many men of tried ability and experience, it
was not susceptible of any unity of person in action.
(Hear, hear.) But for ad this, it seemed to him the
First Minister of the Crown was alone responsible.
(Hear, hear.) The fact was, the country wanted an in-
telligible policy with regard to the war, but any policy
of the kind was prevented by the conflicting opinions
which distracted the Cabinet. (Hear.) Under these
circumstances he could not give his vote for the amend-
ment of his hon. and gallant friend (3eneral Peel), and
still less could he vote for the motion of the hon. member
for Cambridge (Cu]. Adair). As an honest man he felt
bound to record his vote in favour of the original mo-
tion, believing with its hon. and learned mover that the
conduct of the late Administration was the chief cause
of the dreadful calamities with which our devoted army
had been visited. (Cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the course
that had bean pursued by the Government, and put it to
the house whether it could in point of fairness blame the
noble lord at the head of the Government for the act of
his predecessors ? (Hear.) Her Majesty, before the
noble lord came into office, had called upon the leaders
of the Conservative party to form a Government ; and
that having failed, what then took place ? Why, all
thou called upon the noble lord at the head of the

Government to be at its head, and steer if he could the
vessel of the State into safe and quiet meters. (Hear.
hear.) He vents red to say that the hon. and learned
member for Sheffield bad brought forward the motion
for political purposes, and he defied him to deny it,
Mr. ROEBUCK—I do deny it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—WeII, then, I must
confess I cannot understand the course that the hon-
ourable member for Sheffield intended to pursue.
He thought the attack that had been made
upon the noble lord at the head of the Government
had been anything but fairly dealt with. Ho had not
sought the present position in which he was placed, but
it had been forced upon him by the country and the cir-
cumstances that hal taken place ; and was it justice, he
would ask, to visit—which was the object of the present
motion—the sins of the late Government upon the
present noble lord at the head of the Government ?
The hon. and learned gentleman then proceeded to refer
to the report of the Sebastopol Committee, in which it
was stated that the culpability for much f what was
ouffered by the army was charged upon the late Lord
Raglan. That, he continued, was the opinion of the
hon. and learned member for Sheffield ; but now that
the illustrious general had fallen a victim to his devotion
to the public service, the honourable and learned
gentleman came down to the house and passed
a tardy eulogium on the merits of the departed
commander—but finding that the late noble and gallant
general could no longer be held responsible for his alleged
misdeeds the hon. member for Sheffield turned round
and charged those misdeeds upon the Government. He
contended that to turn round upon a Government which
had now for so long a time prosecuted the war success-
fully and triumphantly, simply upon some statements
in the report of a Parliamentary committee, was
most inexpedient and unjust. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
He quite considered that when the right hon. member
for Hertfordshire brought on his motion it was under
circumstances which gave him a perfect right to do so.
The noble baronet perceived that there were counsels in
the Cabinet which were calculated to produce timidity,
instead of inspiring confidence and energy in the conduct
of the war ; and the noble lord, therefore, brought for-
ward his motion with a view of doing away with these
counsels. But when the object against whom his
motion was directed retired from office, he withdrew it
at once. (Hear, hear.) The motion before the house
appeared to him to be founded upon a very different
principle—he meant party feeling and factious oppo-
sition ; and he did hope that the house, out of a sense of
justice, equity, and fairness would give it a decided
negative. (Cheers.)
Mr. WHITESIDE was disappointed at the speech of
the Attorney-General.. He was in hopes to have beard
something from the learned gentleman upon the subject
of which the present motion affirmed, and what it con-
demned, but instead of that the hon. and learned gen-
tleman hail only come forward to support his colleagues,
and uphold their actions. The hon. and learned member
then went on to decry the course that had been pursued
by the Administration with respect to the army in the
Crimea, and referred to evidence that bad been adduced
on the subject. He protested against the censure
that had been cast by the noble marquis (Granby)
upon the House of Commons and the English people,
and he was sorry to see thlt he had an ally—the
right hon. gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty.
He believed he spoke the sentiments of the whole mem-
bers of the house when he said that the Sebastopol Com-
mittee's report had been drawn up by a noble lord who
was entitled to the highest confidence. The great ques-
tion involved lay in a nutshell. Was, or was not the
noble lord correct in the conclusions to which he had
arrived as embodied in the report ? He admitted the
noble lord might shake off the responsibility of this mo-
tion, but there was a responsibility to posterity and to
his own conscience from which he could not be absolved.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I rise to speak on this great ques-
tion without any wish to diminish or to undervalue its
great importance—(hear)—still less to deny or avoid any
responsibility which I may have to encounter. (Hear.)
Therefore I cannot accept, and I hope my noble friend the
First Lord of the Treasury will not accept the excuse made
by the learned Attorney-General—(loud cheers from the
Opposition)—placed upon the ground that when the cir-
cumstances in question occurred he had accepted the post
of Secretary of State for the Home Department. (Hear.)
It is my belief that every member of Lord Aberdeen's Ca-
binet is, and must remain, responsible for the acts of that
Cabinet so long as he remained a member of the Ministry.
(Hear, hear.) This is a great question—a question of jus-
tice and of policy, because there can be no doubt that
while it is eminently a question of justice, it is not a
question of justice only. (Hear, hear.) The House of
Commons, in its deliberative capacity, holding the scope,
and directing by its vote the men and measures of this
great country, ought always to consider, first—what the
precise justice of the case requires ; and next, what may be
the effect of the vote it is requested to affirm, in view of
the general interests of the country. I remember well
being told by a man who was a distinguished member of
this house at the time of the Walcheren expedition, and
he was no friend to that expedition—l mean Mr. William
Elliott—a man no less distinguished for his virtues than
for his talent, and who was not friendly to the existing
Government—l remember he told me that he thought the
decision come to by the House cf Commons en the sub-
ject of the Walcheren expedition was a decision in con-
formity with the wishes of the country ; because, though
the country found much to blame in the character and
conduct of that expedition, and of the ministers who
planned and carried it out, still that it was the opinion of
the country that the ministers were carrying on the war
with vigour and effect on the whole, and that it would be
injurious to the interests of the country to dismiss them
from office. I say this as an example for the course taken
by a House of Commons having a proper notion of its
functions. (Hear.) In the first place, as I have said,
there can be no doubt that this is a question of justice.
But in looking at it as a question of justice, I must be
permitted to remark on the manner in which the hon. and
learned member for Sheffield stated his case to the house.
(Hear.) Nothing can exceed the gravity and importance
of the decision at which the hon. and learned member asks
the house to arrive. (Hear.) According to his opinion—
and I will not now stop to dispute or discuss it—it is a
motion to disqualify from power—to exclude from office—
every man in this house who may have promoted or car-
ried any great measure of what is called Liberal police-
(Cheers, anddissent.) The followers of Earl Grey in cal rying
the Reform Bill, the followers of Sir Robert Peel in carry-
ing Free-trade, are alike denounced and disqualified by
the hon. and learned gentleman's motion. (Hear, and
no.) For an hon. and learned gentleman, who at least
professes liberal opinions, this is a great store That
none but men whose opinions are opposed to Catholic
emancipation, to reform, and to free trade—(cries of " oh,
an l cheers)—be the characters of all others ever so high,
and their talents ever so great, should be qualified for con
ducting t e affairs of this great country is tobject which
poses and wishes to
the hon. and learned gentleman
effect. (Hear.) Well, if the issue is to be so great a one
I should have thought that the hon. and learned gentle-
man would have cautiously kept within tae overstated lie of
truth and accuracy; that he would not have st a
she(' one of the charges ; and that, in at
the
house to come to a decision on them, he would not press
the case unfairly against those whom- he was about to
attack. (Hear.) eked yet I cannot but observe that in
several instances the statement of the hon. and learned
gentleman is anything but a fair or correct cue. (Hear.)
One instance of his inaccuracy has been noticed by my
right hon. friend the member for Carlisle. In giving a
quotation from Lord Raglan's letter, ray right hon. friend
pointed out, as the house will remember, that the hoe.
and learned gentleman omitted that part referring to the
known acquiescence of the Emperor of the French in the
expedition.
Mr. ROEBUCK.—I quoted from the reports drawn up
by the member fir Totnes.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The hon. and learned member
must also have had it in the evidence—(cheers)—and there-
fore, in mercy, if not in justice, ho should have given to us
who are accused the benefit of what hen new to be these fact.
(Cheers.) But the hon, and learned gleman accus the
members of Lord Aberdeen's Cabinet with being absent
from London with some few exceptions. I will speak by
and bye of this charge. The hoe. and learned gentleman
said, we " let them die like sheep. They suffered under
single canvas—there was no opportunity of taking them to
huts to cover them—cold, rain, snow, tempest beat upon
their heads, and the Government of her Majesty were in-
dulging their ease while these gallant men were enduring
the extreme of suffering." Here the house will perceive
that the hon. and learned gentleman tried to make his
attack, and actually did so, on the ground that while cold,
hunger, and tempest decimated the army, the members of
Lord Aberdeen's Government, with one exception he stated,
were not at their post. Now, what is the fact ? The proro-
place last year on the 12th of
gatAugust,°n o fanPdarflrioamm Parliament okatt
to the 15th of October there was no
complaint, and all was ready. Was it before the 17th of
October that " cold, hunger, and tempest" afflicted the
army? Were we absent from our posts after that day,
when the army dwindled away ? The hon. and learned gen-
tleman knows well enough we were not. But knowing that
for a certain period of Lord Aberdeen's Government the
members of that government were notin London, and know-
ing also that for a certain period cold, hunger, and tempest
decimated our troops, the hon. and learned gentleman, with
a most perverse ingenuity, attached the two periods to each
other, and produced a false application of both facts—no
doubt for the sake of pure justice—as aeharge against those
ministers. But this is not he Firs Lord o
all. Tt f the Ad-
miralty showed the house that it was impossible the gene-
ral charge against the Ministry made by the hon. and
learned gentleman could lie, as he had stated that certain
members of the Administration might be exempted from it.
It might be true that certain members of the Cabinet more
immediately connected with the supply of the wants of the
army should be more culpable than others, but it was
possible that that the Secretary at War, the First Lord of the
Treasury, and the First Lord of the Admiralty could be
blameless, if the other members of the Cabinet were to be
condemned for the ill-peiformanee of their duty. I say,
therefore, that anxious as the hon. and learned gentleman
is for justice, he has misconceived his case—he has so mis-
led himself, he has so indulged in the sort of pleasure he
seems to have in accusation and making charges, he was so
delighted with the opportunity of throwing blame, he has
such an abundance—I will not say of venom—l will not
say of poison—(laughtele—but of vituperation, that he
cannot refrain from applying it, even though it does not
make anything in fevour of his case, I could not help
remarking the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman.
(Laughter.) The hon. and learned gentleman always dis-
appoints me in his speeches. (Laughter.) He begins with
a strong exordium, he places in strong language and with
great effect his charge before the house ; he ends with an
admirable peroration ; but with regard to facts to sup-
port that charge, which ought to be abundant, and with
regard to arguments based on those facts, there are none.
(Hear.) His speeches have no substance
andy want a
middle. (Laughter.) There are the head the claws of
the bird of prey—astughter)—but the inside is nothing but
straw. (Laughter.) Such was especially the case with the
speech of the hon. and learned gentleman the other night.
(Laughter.) I have looked at the precedents in such cases,
as one looks to see how others in the same predicament as
ourselves fared. I read the speech of Mr. Ponsonby
alluded to by the honourable and learned gentleman, and
I have read the speech and charge of Lord Porchester on
the subject of the Walcheren expedition ; and I see
that those eminent men took pains to marshal their facts
as the foundation of their arguments, in asking the
house to come to a conclusion. (Hear, hear.) Has the
hon. and learned gentleman done so ? He has not. He was
so boiling over with indignation that he could not stoop to
fact or argument. Indignation, no doubt, may make good
VO/11011, but it is no substitute for argurneut ; and the hen,

and learned gentleman omitted all argument. The course
taken by the hon. and learned gentleman reminds mo of an
eloquent passage in a speech of a man of great genius and
power, the late Mr. Curran. Addressing the Lord Chancel-
lor of the gar, he said, " I am aware that truth is to be
sought only by a slow and painful progress, while error hops
with airy and fastidious levity over fact and argument, and
perches upon assertion, which it calls truth." That is the
course taken by the lion. and learned gentleman ; he has
hopped over argument with airy and fastidious levity, and
perched upon assertion. (Laughter.) With regard to this
great question, two distinct questions in themselves have
been confounded together by the hon. and learned gentle-
man more than by any one who has spoken on the subject.
The first of these questions—one upon which the committee
of inquiry was appointed—namely; to consider the con-
duct of the Administration with respect to supplying the
wants of the army in the Crimea. This appears to me to
be a fit subject for inquiry. I believe the people of this
country, indeed, would never forgive this house if we
lad refused this inquiry. Differ on the subject we may ;
and I am rather of the opinion with Lord Castlereagh, in
respect to the Walcherea expedition, that investigation
should be con,* ed. But be that as it may, this investiga-
tion might be eenducted to an issue without raising any
other issue than the wants of the army. (Hear.) It might
be that the French army was well supplied, or that it was
ill-supplied; but that was not the question. (Hear.) The
mode of reinforcing and providing for the wants of the
English army was a question quite independent of the
mode of providirens for the French army. But is that the
question brought before us by the honourable and learned
gentleman ? It is not. It is, indeed, very difficult,
if not almost impossible, to say what is the exact
question brought forward by the honourable and learned
gentleman. But the right honourable member for Droit-
wich and the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last
seem to think that the charge is, that the Government,
with an insufficient knowledge and insufficient prepara-
tions, sent the expedition to the Crimea, to accomplish an
impossible task. (Cheers.) Is that the charge ? lam stand-
ing here to be tried ; perhaps condemned. It is only fair I
should know the particulars of the indictment. (Hear.)
What are those particulars ? Are there any ?or does the
hon. and learned gentleman mean to trust to the chance of
the vagueness of his motion, and so win votes against the
ministry upon one ground, while he leaves open another ?
(Hear,) That,wass not the course taken by Lord Palmerston
in respect to the Walcheren inquiry. Ho drew up an ela-
borate series of resolutions, based upon fact, and supported
them by argument. The hon. and learned gentleman,
however, in his love, I must suppose, of truth and justice
(cheers and laughter)—does no such thing ; on the con-
trary, he finds it expedient to conceal the exact nature of
his charge, and he leaves us to guess what it is he accuses
us of, only stating what he proposes to effect. (Hear.) With
regard to the second question involved in this great ques-
tion, it is of a totally different nature from the first. I
have said that in the report on the inquiry you might find
that the army.had not been duly supplied • that there had
been wilful neglect, and that certain official persons, there-
fore, might be censured. That would not embarrass or
engage our alliance. (Hear.) But when you ask whether
the army sent to the Crimea was eittfficient for the purpose
you touch on a totally different ssubject—(hear, hear)—
because you will be obliged to ask also in such case whe-
ther the Ministers of the Crown had duly consulted with
the French Government on what was to be jointly effected
in the war? Whether the number of French troops
which had been agreed on had been sent? Whether the
English Government were satisfied with the force that
had been sent ? Was it the French Government that was
deficient, or the English Government? Did that defi-
ciency, if such existed arise from the number of troops
sent by the French Government being less than was agreed
on, or from a want of transport for there being provided ?
All this implies an inquiry into other subjects, and I agree,
therefore, with the noble lord the member for Totnes, that
inquiry on this point would necessarily be incomplete
until we should know what had been agreed upon, and
what had been admitted. (Hear, hear.) It would be im-
possible, therefore, to come to any just conclusion on the
question. (Hear, hear.) Well, again, with respect to one
great cause of the suffering of the army in the Crimea—
suffering and distress with which I am sure one and all
have the deepest sympathy. No one can entertain a doubt
of the effect of the hardwork in the trenches in diminish-
ing the army ' comparing its condition from the 10th of
November to the 14th of December, it was one of great
suffering and mortality from this cause. Every one knows
that the French army by our side was conducting, as I
may say, a separate siege. But this is delicate ground.
Are you prepared to tread it ? Are you prepared to in-
quire whether Lord Raglan asked the French general to
support him ? Or, if he did, what was the answer of the
French general ? Whether the French general did or did
not make sir or seven miles of trenches? Whether he could
spare men in such case ? Or whether Lord Raglan asked
such assistance? (Hear.) This is delicate ground I repeat—
(hear)—bat it is nevertheless quite impossible that you can
come to a vote of censure in connection with this question
until you know these facts. (Hear.) The hon. and learned
gentleman keeps all these difficulties sedulously out of
sight. It is for these reasons, therefore, that while I con-
cur in the view that it would be more satisfactory, perhaps,
to all parties to come to au exact vote of aye or no on the
subject, still I cannot deny that the hon. and gallant officer
who moved the previous question, and the noble lord the
member for Totness, who supported it, have good parlia-
mentary grounds for negativing the motion. (Hear.) But
passing to the great question, which it is iuipcssible to say
whether it has been raised or not by the hon. and learned
gentleman—(laughter)—l will state in a few words what
consider to be the offence charged against those who
ordered the expedition to the Crimea, and the answer,
so far as I can give it, to that charge. An army
was sent out from this country and from France, the im-
mediate purpose of which was to defend the capital of the
Turkish empire from occupation by Russia. However, it
was found, from the losses suffered and the resistance
offered at Silistria, that the Russians had retired from the
principalities. I own it surprised me very much that the
feeble entrenchments of Arab Tabia should have held the
whole Russian army on the Danube in check for nearly a
year, and defeated their attempt at invasion. But such
being the case, it became a great question what should be
done with the allied armies? Every one will agree with
me that if they had been withdrawn from Bulgaria, whi-
ther they had been sent, and recalled to Constantinople, it
would give rise to general disappointment, would cer-
tainly induce a belief that the war was not pressed with
vigour, and might even encourage Russia to think that
she could defend herself for years. (Hear, hear.) The
question then to be decided was, was the army to be sent
beyond the principalities ? We knew that Austria was
then quite willing to drive Russia out of the princi-
palities, but that she would not cross the Pruth. We had,
therefore, to consider what would be the position of the
allied armies if they had advanced—the position of 60,000
or 70,000 men on those large and wasted plains, opposed to
the whole force of Russia, without adequate resources—for
the army could not march without the means of transport ;
it would take two or three months to reach the Russian
army, therefore, and no one doubted that the Russian
army was superior in numbers to our army, not very strong
numerically in the first instance, and weakened by disease
in the other. Therefore that course could not be taken. It
was therefore decided to send the army to the Crimea.
Hon. gentlemen said that we had no sufficient information
on the subject. We had all the information that could be
obtained. (Hear, hear.) Different results, no doubt, were
to be derived from that information, but it is always the
case in war. I observe, indeed, that a great commander
in Spain, during the late war, did not know the number
of the English army opposed to him. We had informa-
tion ; it was not to be relied on implicitly ; and Lord
Raglan so stated it, in reply to the Duke of Newcastle.
We had information that the Russian army in the field
was about 4i,000 men, and in the garrison of Sebastopol
about 15,000 men, making about 60,060 in all in the
Crimea. The question then arose, was it possible to take
Sebastopol with the forces of the allied army ? I believe
it was. (Hear.) If wo had effected that object before the
long defence of that fortress had increased the Russian
obstinacy, I believe that it would have shortened the war,
by inducing the Emperor of Russia to listen to reasonable
terms of peace. (Hear, hear.) It is now the fashion to
say that Sebastopol could not be taken ; bat Ido not hold
with that fashion. There are now artificial defences of
great strength where on that occasion last year the town
in great part was defended by a single wall. (Hear, hear.)
Was it impossible that the allied army, landing in the
Crimea, should gain a great victory, and that the gates
of Sebastopol should be thereupon thrown open to them ?
(Hear, hear.) I believe it was possible. I remember
very well that that brave soldier the late Marquis
of Anglesea said, when the French and English armies
were united together in emulation, nothing could resist
them. We found it so at the Alma. (Cheers.) Was it
not possible after this great victory to press on to Sebas-
topol and take it while the Russian army was in confusion?
But if that was not done, was i t impossible to the allied
armies to attack the weak defences which then existed on
tho south side of Sebastopol, and make themselves masters
of the town ? It has not so happened certainly ; such is the
fortune of war that we cannot make anything sure. But
I say that it was well worth while to incur the risk for the
chance of striking so great a blow ; and that those who
made the expedition, therefore, sought a great prize which
not only triumph but peace would follow. (Cheers.) That is
one part of the case. The other part of the case regards
those whose duty it was to supply the expedition ; and as
the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, as well as
the hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire, applied
observations to me as the depreciator and accuser of the
Duke of Newcastle, I shall take the liberty of referring to
those aguments. I beg leave, therefore, to say that the
comparison instituted by the hon. and learned gentleman
in the first instance is inapplicable to me, and, therefore,
altogether out of place. There was no secret made of the
accusation of the Duke of Newcastle • on the contrary,
the Duke of Newcastle was fully informed of the whole
nature and contents of the correspondence in question.
li
Not that the Duke of Newcastle was deficient in the con-
scientious discharge of his duties. He was both a con-
scientious and a laborious Minister ; but then he had not
sufficient authority in his office to carry on with energy and
effect a great war, such as that in which we were engaged.
That was my opinion. It might be wrong, and it was not
shared by my colleagues, who had the fullest confidence in
the administrative ability of their colleague. Then, with
respect to the number of British troops and the supplies
sent out. No one can deny who looks at the evidence, that
in spite of defective organisation—we having been left too
long in peace, and without adopting sufficient remedies and
reforms—that in spite, I say, of defective organisation,
there was great activity shown in dispatching to the Crimea
all that the army required. No doubt, many defects could,
and have been pointed out—some by the hon. member for
Totnes—owing to the defective organisation and the evils
that have flowed from such defective organisation ; but the
useful labours of the committee will not have been thrown
away, if with that knowledge which we have acquired,
the noble lord (Lord Panmnre)will be enabled to give more
concentrated power to the War Department, and thus
prevent those delays which have occurred owing to want of
due correspondence between the several departments of
Government. That, I think, will be a great advantage,
but it does not form a sufficient case on which to ask the
house to pass a vote of censure on the administration, or
a case on which to oast blame on the whole of the
administration employed in conducting public affairs.
Could they say that, considering the obstacles which
the Minister of War fcund with respect to sending
out huts and clothing, this furnished a good ground for
such a censure as the motion of the hon. and learned gentle-
man proposed ; nay, the hon. and learned gentleman felt
this view so strongly that he goes to another ground en-
tirely, though he does not positively refer to it. If this is
the case, that at the commencement of a great war, we,
having sent an expedition composed of as fine an army as
could be conceived; that army, however, not being success-
ful, though most successful in battle, in the immediate ob-
ject for which it was dispatched, the capture of Sebastopol
—is it, or is it not, desirabili that this house should inflict
its censure on those who projected that expedition. I own
_e
it appears to me, if the house come to that conclusion, the
house will commit a great injustice—will commit aegreat,
th
injustice against men who, when they engaged i_telt
w yrsr,
o _
endeavoured to the best of their power—andintehmLvs
or;
men of no ordinary capacity who formed member
4"
aea
Lord Aberdeen's administration—who end
best of their power to direct a blow g 5