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

eider upon whom that censure will recoil. (Hear, hear.)
Within the last three years the Government of the noble
lord the member for the city of London first proposed a
bill for raising the militia. That bill was taken up in a
modified form by the Government of the Earl of Derby,
much to its credit, and passed this house. From the time
that Lord Harding° has been the Commander-in-Chief
miteh lets been done towards the improvement of the army.
Is the Minie rifle nothing ? Is the ineprovement of the
Minie rifle nothing ? It is due to Lord Hardinge's admi-
nistration that every measure for the purpose of promot-
ing the rearming of the army has been taken. The most
important weapon, the Millie rifle, was first introduced
in 1851, and its improvement was effected in 1553. By it
the weapon is reduced 31b. in weight, while it is in ever.,
respect superior to the old musket of the British army. It
is a weapon capable of the most astonishing execution, as
was very reina,rka.bly demonstrated at the Battle of Taker-
man, where it inflicted the greatest slaughter which had
been known for many years. That was, as my right hon.
friend has justly called it, "the soldiers' battle," but it
would not have been fought in the way it was if it had not
been for your War Administration, first of all, employing
that effective weapon, and thereby changing altogether
the character of your infantry, and converting them from
mere machines, who fired without thinking or looking,
into good and effective marksmen, as the enemy soon
found. ( Hear, hear.) Since that time also, your field ar-
tillery has been created afresh. In 1852 you had no field
artillery. You had no guns or gun-can iages at that time
fit for the zervice. But is that all? Was it not an indi-
cation of improvement when the British corps were col-
lected the year before last at Chobliarn, with a view and
au endeavour to combine them into one army? And when
that plan was found to work so satisfactorily, was it no
mark of improvement that it was determined to follow it
up during the last and the present year? Government are
now seeking to procure, in a convenient situation, a large
piece of ground with a view of establishing a permanent en-
campment, of enabling you to make a better and more
effective use of your army than you have hitherto done,
after having allowed so much to be done for your police re-
gulations both at home and abroad. But if you intend to
censure your military department of the Government, you
must perceive that that censure will fall upon the members
of several successive Governments of this country, as well
as upon the Parliaments that were sitting at that time.
But I know it is nut intended to cast censure upon the de-
partment, but it is upon the Secretary for War that you
intend to discharge your ire. That there have been mis-
takes is an opinion against which it is vain to contend.
There are duties which it is beyond the power of man satis-
factorily to discharge. I confess, it is my own belief that
the duties of all the departments in this country are of such
a nature that no man can discharge them without being
sensible that much fault may justly be found with the
manner of his discharging them. I have not the least
doubt that this truth applies to:my noble friend the Secre-
tary of State for War. I am far from saying that my noble
friend enjoys such an exemption from all the infirmities of
human nature that he is able to devise everything wisely,
and do everything at the right time. But if you think that
my noble friend has not devoted himself with assiduity
and attention to the duties of his office, then I tell you,you
are mistaken. You may pass censure on my noble friend ;
you (the Opposition) may shelter yourselves behind this
vote for a select committee to make your attack upon him
and upon the lovernment, but I venture to tell you that
you know not the true character of my noble friend, and
that every man who gives his vote against him this night,
though he may swell the majority against and succeed in
throwing obloquy upon my noble friend, will find before
12 months have passed away, and when the true state of
the facts shall be declared, there will bo among the gene-
rous
minds of the people a reaction in his favour. (Cheers.)
But now, what are the grounds of this motion? You are
going to condemn my noble friend on account of the condi-
tion of the army. I believe that is the statement. You have
an impression that there were no roads, no clothing, no
houses, but little food, a want of ammuaition, and dreadful
confusion at Balaklava, and I must not forget to add, that
the hospitals were most defective. Now, I must beseech
the house to reflect how long these complaints have been
rife in this country. I think, if you go back, it was in the
middle of the month of December that they were first heard
of. (No, no.) Parliament met in the middle of that month,
and the then state of the army was fully discussed in this
house. The house heard the statement of my right hon.
friend the Secretary at War. They believed that statement,
and I believe they were justified in giving their credence to
it. Complaints there were at that time, and complaints
there ever must Ise both in the army and the navy. But I
think you will agree with me that it was not the duty of
my noble friend, in the case of every complaint, to write
to Lord Raglan, who was engaged in such gigantic duties,
and having on his mind matters of such vast responsibi-
lity, and call upon him to put the matter right, as if he
were some officer of a department of Somerset-house. The
duty of my noble friend was to give credit to such com-
plaints, and when they assumed the character of some
general neglect arising, in all probability, from want of
eeergy or prudence on the part of some one in office, then
was the only time for my noble friend to entertain such
complaints. Well, a discussion on the state of the army
took place on the 12th of December, when my right hon.
friend stated the condition of that army, and the house in
general was satisfied. Since that time these complaints
have become more rife, and, I am sorry to say, redundant.
Now, what was the duty of my noble friend under those
circumstances? What was the utmost he could do? Was
he to recall Lord Raglan ? (Hear.) Well, I hear a solitary
cheer; but I apprehend that is not the real sense of the
house. Lord Raglan either deserves your confidence or he
does not ; but if he is to have your confidence it is neces-
sary that he should have it whole and entire. (Hear.) It
is impossible for any man to discharge the duties incum-
bent upon Lord Raglan—such duties as have rarely been
combined in the hands of any individual—unless he has
the full confidence and the full support of Government
and of the Parliament at home. Is the choice of Lord
Raglan to be blamed ? Did the Government err in that
choice ? Did the incompetent Minister at 'War, my noble
friend the Duke of Newcastle, show his incompetency in
that choice ? Why, it was approved by the universal voice
of the country. (Cheers.) Were the events that followed
that appointment of a nature to shake the confidence which
the Government reposed in Lord Raglan ? On the con-
trary, you have voted him unanimous thanks—not only
your unanimous, but your enthusiastic thanks—for his
brilliant services in the field. (Cheers.) Her Majesty has
conferred upon him the highest military honours which it
was in her power to bestow. I know this also, that, be-
sides the difficulties which a general in the field has to eu- ,
counter, Lord Raglan has bad the further duty-- not less I
essential—to perform, over and above the ordinary duties 1
of a soldier, of giving life and practical vigour to that alli-
ance between England and France—(hear)—of which it is
all very well for us to speak in this house—for, so far as
wo are concerned, it is a matter very easy to deal with—
but it has been upon Lord Raglan practically that the task
of maintaining that alliance has fallen. (Hear, hear.)
I believe there cauuot be two opinions as to the way
in which Lord Raglan has maintained that alliance.
I believe it has been—indeed I know he has said it has
been—almost the great object of his mind to maintain and
to confirm that alliance—(hear, hear)—and not to confirm
it in its form only, but to animate it with the warm spirit
of generous affection and attachment. (Cheers.) Well, I
think there cannot be two opinions as to the manner in
which Lord Raglan has discharged that sixty. Then I
suppose you would not have recalled Lord Raglan when
complaints appeared in the newspapers, or when an ar-
ticle appeared, written by some editor, stating that he
should have been recalled. What, then, would you have
done ? Because the practical question before us turns to
a great extent upon this point. I want to know whether,
when these complaints became rife, you would have re-
called the subordinate officers of Lord Raglan ? Would
you have recalled the heads of the medical depart-
ment, of the commissariat, of the quartermaster-
general's, or of the adjutant-general's department? I
name these departments because they include the
principal persons engaged in the administration of
the army. I fully admit that facts have been made
known to the Government, especially since the beginning
of December, of such a character as it was impossible for
them to overlook. I think, however, that it was not their
duty to recall the officers of Lord Raglan, without commu-
nicating with him. The confidence which they reposed in
him made it their duty—their absolute duty—in point of
common justice and decency—to ask him to investigate
these charges. It was their duty to apply to him—to re-
mind him of the powers lodged in his hands—to let him
inquire into these complaints, and then act accordingly. I
venture to say that that is the course which my noble
friend the Minister for War has pursued. He has re-
ceived from Lord Raglan statements in answer to the re-
presentations which were made in the month of December,
and measures have been taken which he trusts will lead to
a great improvement in the condition of the army. Some
hon. gentleman has said—l think it was the hon. baronet
who preceded me—that it is not our duty to cure evils,
but to prevent them. It is our duty, he says, to prevent
evils in an army. I admit that it is our duty, to the best
of our power, to do so ; but the hon, baronet has not shown
that these evils could have been pre tented by anything
that depended upon my noble- hie d the Minister for
War, or upon her Majesty's Government. I apprehend
that the state of the case is this :—The officers of Lord
Raglan are responsible to him ; Lord Raglan is responsible
to the Government ; the Government is responsible
to the House of Commons. (Hear, heat.) You may
say, "It takes a long time to follow out this responsi-
bility, and in the meanwhile the mischief is going on."
That is perfectly true, but the question is, can you find a
shorter way to a remedy? That is the whole question.
The Government could not find a shorter way to a remedy
by recalling Lord Raglan; if they had done so the country
would have cried out upon them. The Government could
not have found a shorter way to a remedy by recalling the
officers of Lord Raglan without previous communication
with him, and without affording him an opportunity of
retaking a fair statement of the facts. They could not have
pursued either of these courses, and are you to determine
whether yen will dismiss the Government or not, before
they have had an opportunity of bringing these grave
matters to issue in the only way open to them in reason
and justice? The hon. baronet says that this is a very
slow process, and I admit it is so, but the matter is an im-
portantone. I know that the hon. baronet, when he speaks,
is remarkable for conciseness, but all men have not the
same talent ; and I beg to assure the hoe. baronet that my
object is to put the point as well as I can, and as shortly
as I can, to the house. (" Hear," and a laugh.) You say
you widh to shorten the process ley the course you are
about to take, and I want to know what you really mean
by the inquiry which you contemplate. It has been said,
that this is a question of confidence, or no confidence, in
the Government, My answer to that is, that the House
of Commons is net called upon to vote confidence in the
Government at the present moment. When the Govern-
ment produces its measures to the hoarse, then, no doubt,
it calls upon the house, either directly or indirectly, for a
vote of confidence ; but, at present, the question is not
whether you shall pass a vote of censure or not. (Hear.)
That distinction is a plain one, and it happens to have been
brought out in a very marked manner at ono period in the
history of this country. Daring the existence of the Shel-
burne Administration a question arose whether an union
should be formed with Lord North or Mr. Fox, the
party of Lord North and that of Mr. Fox constituting the
Opposition of the day. I find in the "Memoirs and Cor-
respondence of Mr. Fox" this passage :
" The preliminaries of peace had been signed, and were
laid before Parliament on the 27th of January, 1783. The
terms were not, in general, approved of, and the Ministers
thought a vote of approbation by Parliament absolutely
necessary for their continuance in office. Lord North de-
clared that he would. oppose any vote of censure, but that
he could not concur in a vote of approbation, If they
come for an address,' said he, they make us judges, and
they must make out their case.'"

Lord North declined to support the address which the Go:
vernment wanted, though he would not support a vote of
censure, and in consequence of his declining to support the
address he lost the alliance of the Ministers, and was in-
duced to attempt the Coalition. Now this is the question
at the present time. The motion now before the house is
a disguised vote of censure. In saying se, I mean no dis-
respect to the hon. and learned member by whom it was
proposed, for I am quite sure there is no man in the house
Ifwi cavil*" of ptitoptias doliboratoly a clisvind olocto of