The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-18 00:00:00

TFE SIJN, LONDON,, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 18, 1855,

leagues whether, except on the question of discipline in the
laboratory, I was involved in any difference with either."
But far the best testimony that can be borne to the
services of Sir Hew Ross is the evidence taken before
the committed as to the state of the artillery sent
to the Crimea. It will be remembered that Captain
Shakipeare and Viscount Hardinge both spoke in high
terms of the state of the artillery, its equipment, and every-
thing belong,ing to that department ; and I have here a letter
from Lord Raglan to Sir Hew Ross, dated June 1, 1855, in
which he says :
" I observe that blame is freely thrown upon the Ordnance.
Now, my belief is that the board have done better than any
other department. The artillery are well equipped here ;
the men had what was requisite for them sooner than the
rest of the army, and altogether they seem to have done
everything that was possible for the service."
But if injustice has been done in the case of those who were
present to speak for themselves, what shall be said of those
accused behind their backs, and who knew not what were
the charges made against them ? (Hear, hear.) Too many
of these, alas ! have been removed from among us, and are
indifferent now both to your censure and your praise ; but
I fear their last moments were embittered by the thought
that their services were so little appreciated. (Hear, hear.)
I am perfectly certain that the hon. and learned gentleman
in the attacks which he has made has done nothing but
what he considered to be his duty, and I feel assured that in
the course which he has taken he thought that he was acting
up to the wishes of his constituents and of the country at
large. But, depend upon it, the people of this country are
too generous and too just to approve, in their calm and sober
moments, what is so contrary to their principles of justice.
(Hear, hear.) The committee themselves shrank from such a
step, and when the hon. and learned gentleman proposed a
resolution to condemn the conduct of Lord Raglan he was
only enabled to secure the support of one hon. gentleman.
(Hear, hear.) And, suppose that these re-solutions had been
carried, what would have been the answer given to them,
and how would they have been received by that army now
deploring the loss of their chief ? What would have been
their answer to the charge that Lord Raglan had no sympathy
with and neglected the men placed under his charge ? With
the permission of the house, I will read two letters upon this
question, not from staff officers, or from men who had any
interest or connexion with Lord Raglan, but from regimental
officers, doing their duty in the trenches. The first is from
an officer in the 34th Regiment—a regiment which has suf-
fered as much as any regiment in her Majesty's service. He
says—

" Poor Lord Raglan died last night very unexpectedly,
which has put us all out of spirits, for be was universally
liked, and the men would have done anything for him."
(Cheers.) Another officer says,—
By Lord Raglan's death the British army has suffered a
greater loss than it has had yet to encounter. (Hear, hear.)
Throughout the army, as far as I can hear, there is but one
universal expression of regret. If those who have been so
lavish of their virulent, scurrilous, and undeserved abuse of
poor Lord Raglan will now have the goodness to point out a
successor who can efficiently fill his place they would save
much trouble."
(Hear, hear.) Why, sir, I believe that there is not a man in
the army who is not now lamenting the death of Lord
Raglan, and I believe that his great anxiety for the army
and what he must have suffered from the insinuations
and *barges which have been made against him may have had
the effect of precipitating his end. (Hear, hear.) But what-
ever I may feel with regard to the conduct of the Government
and with regard to the state of the public departments at the
commencement of the war, I cannot but complain of the con-
duct of this house in constantly interfering with the executive
Government and in pressing forward upon every occasion to
make attacks upon officers founded solely upon anonymous
letters in the newspapers. (Hear, hear.) The very idea of
an army in the field being accompanied by a host of newspa-
per reporters, upon whose statements the Government are
call,d upon every day to institute inquiries into the conduct
of the men in command of the troops, and who are constantly
throwing out insinuations against those who have undertaken
the most responsible duties, is most absurd. (Cheers.)
Well might Sir John Burgoyne say that the expedition to
the Crimea was altogether an exceptional case, and I am
perfectly satisfied myself that many instances could be
given to show that the interference of this house and of
the Press has had a most injurious effect. (Hear.) I am
not one of those who were very sanguine as to the results to
be derived from the appointment of the Sebastopol Commit -
tee. I always thought it impossible for that committee to
conduct as it ought to be conducted, such an inquiry as that
which was intrusted to them. I admit the great assiduity of
the gentlemen who composed the committee, and their anxi-
ous desire to arrive at a just conclusion, but, after all, their
labours ended in a vote of censure upon men most of whom
had already left office. Under all the circumstances of the
case, I think that the wisest thing this house could do would
be to adopt the proposal which I have to make to them, and
pass on to the previous question. Without looking on to the
future further than to take warning from what has passed, it
should be our endeavour to look forward, and with one united
heart and voice to carry on the war with that vigour which
can alone insure success. (Hear.)
Lord R. CECIL seconded the amendment. He pointed the
attention of the house to the inconsistency of the speech of the
hon. and learned gentleman with the terms of the motion.
Colonel ADAIR had placed an amendment on the paper,
justifying the expedition to the Crimea, and regretted to
learn from the Speaker that according to the forms of the
house it could net be submitted for consideration. If the
house were to take a generous view of the case, they might
come to the conclusion that the disasters in the Crimea might
be attributed to other causes than those stated by the com-
mittee, such as the novel mode of warfare resorted to in the
defence of Sebastopol, which could not have been foreseen ;
the storm in the Black Sea, leading to the loss of some of our
largest transport ships, and other causes. As to the amend-
ment, he was nearly as much opposed to it as the original
motion, for it sought to prevent the house from passing an
opinion on the subject, and he should therefore decline to vote
on either.
Mr. CONOLLY said the policy of going to Sebastopol was
not raised by the motion before the house ; the charge was,
that the means to insure success were utterly inadequate, and
it was, therefore, that the house was called upon to censure
those who had been entrusted with the management of the ex-
pedition, and had neglected furnishing proper supplies to our
suffering army. He gave his cordial support to the motion of
Mr. Roebuck.
Mr. LOWE said that when tho Sebastopol committee was
nominated he took the liberty of objecting to it, on the ground
that its investigations, if complete, would require the exami-
nation of witnesses necessarily absent on the public service
and the raking up of matters which had better remain secret;
and if incomplete, would be full of the grossest injustice to
individuals, and in every respect unsatisfactory. He also ob-
jected to it because it was an inroad on the stability of the
executive Government. Ho now asked whether those objec-
tions, very ill received at the time, had not been borne out ?
(Hear, hear.) The committee themselves acknowledged that
their investigations were incomplete and partial ; and, if so,
he asked with what face could the house pretend, upon the
authority of such evidence, to come to any judgment
upon the character and conduct of the meanest indivi-
dual in England, much less of a whole Cabinet and body of
statesmen ? (Hear.) No judge or jury would convict the vilest
criminal upon evidence which appeared on its face to be par-
tial; and he maintained that the House of Commons was
bound by, the same principles of justice as the smallest bench
of magistrates in the country. It would be inconsistent, after
what he had said, to examine the report of the committee to
see how far it justified the censure proposed by the hon. and
learned member for Sheffield, because, although it might affect
their views and influence their conduct with respect to the
future, as a judicial document to found a censure uppn it was
absolutely worthless. (Hear.) It was said that the sufferings
of the army arose from the circumstances under which the
expedition was undertaken and executed. But then the unfor-
tunate circumstances under which the expedition was executed
arose from the winter campaign, and the winter campaign
arose from our being unsuccessful in our attempt to get into
Sebastopol. The committee should not have attached any stain
to the characters of honourable and upright men without hear-
ing the whole evidence that could be got ; and the whole evi-
dence could not be got, inasmuch as the men who ought to
have been examined were absent on the public service. Nor'
could such a committee make any inquiry into the conduct of
our allies. Nevertheless, that committed was a source of great
danger to the Anglo-French alliance, and, notwithstanding
all the care and caution which the members of that committee
had displayed, the result was that the House of Commons was
called upon to decide whether it should pass a vote of censure
on the acts of the French Emperor. If they did wisely, they
would forbear going into the question at all, for it was one
which did not affect solely the English Cabinet; but every
censure they passed against their own Ministers would be used
against the Emperorof the French by those who were opposed
to his policy. How could a cordial alliance be maintaine,l, if
we were to drag into discussion and subject to censure the
acts of the Government of the country to which we were
allied ? (Hear.) The hon. member did not seek to cen-
sure the Administration of Lord Aberdeen, for that Admi-
nistration no longer existed ; but he sought to lay his finger
upon every man who had formed part of that Administration,
and to follow him with a species of ostracism through life.
But no vote of censure could be passed by the thembers sit-
ting on the Government side of the house on the members of
the late Administration, for it was mainly the members of the
late Administration who formed the present ono ; and no such
vote of censure could beconsistently passed by the Opposition
side of the house, because when Lord Derby received instruc-
tions from her Majesty to construct a Government, his only
hope of success in doing so was by applying to the members
of the Government who were then retiring from office. Thus
both parties, by themselves or their leaders, bad precluded
themselves from passing any vote of censure ; and he was very
glad of it, because by passing such a vote they must censure
the French Government as well as their own, they would be
acting on the most imperfect and incomplete information, and
they would be contradicting their own deliberate opinions.
Th• Marquis of GRANBY thought the motion calculated
to weaken the executive, and he would, therefore, suppor
th• amendment.

Mr. J. PHILLIMORE said the Cabinet, as a whole, were
responsible for any errors which might be committed; but it
was absurd to say that the censure should Individually at-
tach to every member, for that would be to make the Secre-
tary for the Home Department respOusible for what was done
by the War Minister, of which he was entirely ignorant. He
would, therefore, oppose the motion.
Mr. GORDON considered that the resolution on which the
hon. member for Sheffield proceeded was not sufficient to jus-
tify the house in coming to such a conclusion as he desired to
draw from it, or to cast any stain upon the characters of
public men who had grown grey in the public service. Tho
evidence that was admitted in the Sebastopol Committee was
suqh as would not have been allowed by any court of justice
in the kingdom; but whatever was the value of the evidence,
nothing could justify the house in comingito such a resolution
as it was now called upon to agree to, except the unanimous
opinion of the committee that they should do so, whereas it
was well known that the resolution which, had been referred
to was carried only by the casting vote of the chairman. He
should feel it to be his duty to vote against the motion of the
hon. and learned gentleman. _

Sir J. WALSH thought that public opinion and the house
itself were as much to blame for the expedition to the Crimea
as the Government which had decided upon sending it. He
felt there was great difficulty in coming to a vote on the ques-
tion, and he would therefore vote for the amendment of Gen.
Peel.

Mr. MAGUIRE said that he should not have risen but for
the strange silence of members of the Government on a ques-
tion of the greatest and most vital importance. Last night the
noble lord (Lord Palmerston) showed vaunting courage, and
even a pugnacious disposition towards the opposition when he
knew their hands were tied in consequence of the conduct of
the subordinate members of his own Government, who got the
noble lord (Russell) thrown overboard to save the rest of the
crew. The noble lord's present silence contrasted strangely
with his Donnybrook-like pugnacity last night. (Laughter.)
He should be ashamed of himself if he shrank from givinc, ex-
pression in that house to the feeling he entertained respeAing
the conduct of the Government on this question. Noone could
deny the utter mismanagement of the expedition to the Crimea,
and he thought the noble lord was bound to give some
pledge that there would not be a repetition of
the same
calamities. He thought that there was not that vigour which
we had a right to expect, for no more had been done in the
Baltic this year than had been done last year. Russia was
becoming powerful, not so much from her own energy as from
our want of it. The question before the house was whether
the Government was responsible for the conduct of the war
or not ? Was the present Cabinet, as representatives of the ,

late Cabinet, responsible for our disasters, for the issuing of
the green coffee to the troops, and for the want of a road
from Balaklava ? Were they not responsible for having
brought law some 10,000 or 12,000 of the finest troops in the
world ? The hon. member (the Hon. A. Gordon) had said
that whilst attending the committee his heart had sunk with-
in him at recollecting the number of reputations which were
perilled, but his heart should have sunk within him when he
recollected the number of lives which had been lost. Another
hon. member had said that the number of reporters who fol-
lowed the army was absurd, and that the press had caused
much mischief. Now he boasted that he was a member of
that press which had done more for the salvation of the army
than all the members of the Government, for without the press
not one soldier would have left the Crimea alive. It was not
the press which had sent the troops to the Crimea unprovided ;
the press had urged upon the Government that the troops
should be sent, not unprepared, but prepared. Were the Go-
vernment prepared for the Baltic campaign at this moment,
yet had not the press urged upon them the importance, not of
large ships, but of gun and mortar boats ? Had not every in-
dependent member who had spoken done the same, and yet
they were as unprepared now as when they sacrificed a gal-
lant admiral because he would not knock his head against a
fort. The very nomination of the committee had upset the
late Government, and some members of the Cabinet had re-
tired, but were they not to make amenable those who still
remained ? The country had no confidence in the Cabinet,
and there was nothing that showed it more than the utter
absurdity of the hon. and gallant general—he spoke of him
with the greatest respect. (A laugh.) It bad been said that
it was highly desirable to carry on the war with unity, and
as with one mind on the part of the Cabinet, whilst every
revelation showed that behind the curtain there was nothing
but a cat and dog life. (A laugh.) He had voted for this
committee because he thought that inquiry was right, and
he believed that the evidence which bad been given crimi-
nated every member of the Government. To a certain ex-
tent the late members of the Government were guilty, but
they were no more guilty than those who remained to sit on
the Treasury bench. He believed that the Duke of New-
castle, for instance, had done more than any other member
of the Government, for he had remained in town to do his
duty, while some other members of the Government were
amusing themselves going round the country showing the
gracefulness of the scholar, combined with the dignity of pub-
lic men. Was thereany member of the Government who could
turn his mind to the subject of the Crimea without a shudder
running through his frame, when he thought of the awful
sacrifice of life that had taken place ? All who had fallen at
Alma, Balaklava, and Inkermann wore as nothing to the
number who had fallen by the swords of the incompetents
opposite.• He thought the hon. and learned member for
Sheffield would have been unworthy of his high position if he
had not brought forward this motion ; and he would forfeit
that position if he did not bring the matter to a decision at
once. (A laugh, and cries of " Question.") He well under-
stood that mitigated cockcrow from the back benches, but
he thought that ho was speaking to the question as much as
honourable members who had preceded him. Discussion
upon. these matters had been deprecated for fear it might
damage the French alliance, but there was no fear of that,
for the competency of the French contrasted with our in-
competency. At a time when their cavalrywas ready to take
the field our cavalry were gnawing their tails off. (Loud
laughter.) He meant that the horses were gnawing each
other's tails off; and, although his slight mistake might
cause laughter to those gentlemen behind the Treasury bench,
he could only say that the reality had caused no laughter in
the Crimea. When our troops were starving the French troops
were well fed ; the French hospitals were well managed, while
the British hospitals were filled with horrors which it made one
shudder to contemplate, and the recollection of which ought
to bring a blush of shame to the cheeks of the members of the
Government. Was the country to forgive blunders which
had brought 10,000 men to an untimely grave ? and was it to
overlook disasters which could have been prevented by
placing the right men in the right places ! Re hoped that
some member of the Administration would rise in his place
and state to the house why the present Government were not
liable to censure for the mismanagement of the expedition to
the Crimea.
A short interval having elapsed, during which the house
appeared to be awaiting a statement from some member of
the Government,
Sir J. GRAHAM rose and said,—Sir, I have waited until
the last moment in expectation that some member of her Ma-
jesty's Government would rise—(hear, hear)—upon an occa-
sion of such importance to indicate to the house the course
which they thought ought to be pursued. I imagine that,
considering the present advanced period of the session, and
the business which remains to be transacted, it is for the pub-
lic advantage, and also in accordance with the wishes of the
house, that this debate should be closed this evening. (Loud
cries of Hear, hear.) I, unlike the hon. gentleman who has
just spoken, do not think that the evidence before the Se-
bastopol Committee sustains the resolution before the house,
and although I was a member of the Government at the com-
mencement of the war and during some period of its prose-
cution, and had made up my mind to vote against this
resolution, still I have waited with respectful attention
to ascertain the course which the present Government,
lately my colleagues, proposed to pursue. I have felt
that, with regard to this matter, my portion is to a
certain extent different from that which they occupy. I
originally opposed the appointment of the Ncommittee and
persevered in my resistance, and when the Government of
my noble friend arrived at the conclusion that they would not
resist its appointment I felt myself bound to resign the office
which I hail the honour to hold, and therefore my position is
somewhat different from that occupied by the Government. I
have heard with great pleasure the speech of my hon. friend
near me (Mr. Lowe), and in joining him in resisting the ap-
pointment of the committee I entirely adopted the views
which he expressed, and on the present occasion I shall act in
a manner identically the same. I cannot think, after a com-
mittee has been appointed by so large a majority of this house
after so much expectation has been excited in the country,
that it is possible, with due consideration for the feelings of
the people of this country, to give the question upon which
it reports the absolute "go by." Without entering into the
technicalities involved iu the speech of the lion. and gallant
general, I think that if his amendment were agreed to it
would give rise to a great deal of misunderstanding out of
doors. Before this inquiry was instituted I saw the danger
of it, and many of those objections which I ventured to take
to it have, I think, been confirmed by the course taken by
that committee. The committee have abstained front making
any political inquiry, sensible of the danger of that course,
but that very abstinence has rendered the inquiry incomplete.
According to the opinion of the committee itself the inquiry
was anything but satisfactory, for in the report it is stated
that-
" The fulness of the investigation has, moreover, been re-
stricted by considerations of State policy, so that in the out-
set of this report your committee must admit that they have
been compelled to end an inquiry which they have been
unable satisfactorily to complete."
The hon. and gallant general has referred to the insufficiency
of the British force originally sent to the Crimea, and he has
dealt with the question as if it concerned only the English
force ; but did the committee take the same view of the sub-
ject ? Tho committee stated that the great evils which had
occurred were to be traced to the excessive fatigue of the
British troops, and the report says that the fatigue necessarily
resulted from the inadequacy of the force for the task assigned
to it. But, does the report pause there ? No ; it goes on
to say,—
"The British army was a portion of an allied force. The
whole scheme of the siege, the extent of front to be defended,
the positions to be maintained, and the works to be under-
taken depended on military considerations, and were decided
upon in conjunction with our allies. Your committee regard
these matters as beyond the limits of their inquiry."
There is another point to which I wish to call the attention
of the house. I have the highest opinion of the candour and
love of truth of the hon. member for Sheffield, but he has, in
quoting from a letter of Lord Raglan, inadvertently, made a
most important omission. The hon. and learned gentleman
left it to be inferred that Lord Raglan was influenced in un-
dertaking the expedition to the Crimea against his own judg-
ment by the English Government. Now, I may say just in
passing that the instructions given to Lord Raglan left him
the fullest discretion as to whether he would undertake the
expedition or not. The hon. and learned gentleman read a
passage from the despatch of Lord Raglan, as it appears is
the report of the committee, but not as it appears in the de-
spatyh itself. The passage read by the hon. and learned gen-
tleman was,—
" The descent on the Crimea is decided upon more in
deference to the views of the British Government than to
any information in the possession of the naval and military
authorities, either as to the extent of the enemy's forces or to
their state of preparation."
That was the way the hon, and learned gentleman read the
passage ; now observe the important omission. The passage,
as written by Lord Raglan, is,-
" The descent ou the Crimea is decided upon more in defe-
rence to the views of the British Government, and the well-
known acquiescence of the Emperor of the French."
Now, the omission of the words " and the well-known acqui-
escence of the Emperor of the French" appears to me a most
important alteration. Nor is that all. Tho house will, per-
haps, allow me to read a short passage from a French news-
paper bearing on the motion now before us. The Assemblee
Nationale, entertaining the opinion that this subject had
better not be reopened, observes :
" But England was not engaged alone in that expedition.
In order to judge with equity the conduct of the English
Government, it is proper to know what was its share in the
initiative and the decision ; it is proper to know, in all
their details, the circumstances under the pressure of which
it was proposed, or deliberated, or resolved upon." And it
makes these pregnant inquiries—" Does Mr. Roebuck reckon
on proposing these questions ? Are the Ministers prepared
to answer them,"
Most decidedly Mr. Roebuck was not prepared to put such a
question—most decidedly the English Government was not
prepared to answer it, if he had. But I will not press this
part of the subject further; I only wish to explain the vote
which it will be my duty to give on the present occasion. I
resisted the appointment of a committee. I did not think
that the investigation could be pushed to the extent which
would satisfy the ends of justice, and, if pushed to the full
extent, which would bo necessary to render it satisfactory as
an inquiry, I believed that considerable danger would ensue,
(Hear, hear.) That danger has been avoided by the pru-
dence of the committee; but I say I do not think justice
has been done. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, if a mem-
ber of this house possessing such opportunities for the
formation of a sound judgment as those enjoyed by my hon.
and gallant friend who has moved the previous question—if
ho really entertains, on the whole, the opinion that the par-
ties accused are entitled to their acquittal—it will be said
that I, fearing the result of this inquiry, did the utmost in my
power before the inquiry was entered into to prevent its in-
stitution, and now, when the investigation is complete, when
the evidence is before the house, when the judges who heard
that evidence are capable of pronouncing a decision—l, hav-
ing sought to burke the inquiry, now shrink from asking the
the judges to pronounce their decision. Sir, I cannot
place myself in that position, and I certainly shall think it
my duty to resist the previous question, in the hope that
the house, having fully deliberated upon this important
matter, and having the materials for forming a judg-
ment before them, will pronounce a decision—ay or no—
whether the members of Lord Aberdeen's Government were
guilty of such misconduct in their high offices that they de-
serve the severe reprehension of the house. (Hear, hear.)
If that shall be the decision of the house, however,
harsh I may feel it to be—however inconsistent I may think
it with the best interests of the country—however much, in
the circumstances of the present moment, it may narrow the
choice of the men who for the advantage of the public service
should be selected for places of high trust—however much it
may contract the number of those who can henceforth be em-
ployed in the honourable service of their country—yet I think
that would be better than to shrink from a decision which it
seems to me right should be pronounced. Certainly, there-
fore—though I regret that' we have not the light which the
noble lord at the head of the Government might have thrown
upon the course we ought to pursue, and though I should have
been glad to have had the advantage of his advice—yet my
position is somewhat different from his, and basin.' made up
my mind as to the course upon which, upon the whole, I
think it would be my duty to take, I thought it respectful and
right to state shortly to the house what that course was.
Lord SEYMOUR said if there was no evidence to warrant
the censure of the house upon the late Government, so neither
was their any evidence for their acquittal; and be was NU'

prised, therefore, at hearing his right hon, friend say he
would oppose the previous question because the house ought
to pronounce an opinion, when, by his own showing, they
had no evidence to enable them to do so. He thought there
was no use in going back to past errors. What they wanted
was security for the future ; and sufficient had- been done
without such a motion as that of the hon. and learned mem-
ber for Sheffield to insure that every energy would be em-
ployed to prevent a recurrence of those evils which they all
deplored.

Sir J. PAKINGTON, like the right honourable baronet
(Sir J. Graham), had expected that some member of the Go-
vernment would announce the course they intended to take.
(Hear, hear.) The right honourable baronet had adopted a
manly and straightforward course, and did not wish to shelter
himself under the previous question. Now, why did the
Government shrink from stating their intentions ? Last night
they avoided a vote of censure by sacrificing the most eminent
of their colleagues. If rumour spoke true they were now about
to avoid a vote of censure by sheltering themselves under the
equivocal course of the previous question. The hon. and learned
member for Sheffield had appealed to the members of the com-
mittee to give him their support on this occasion, and he (Sir
J. Pakington) was prepared to give him his support. He had
arrived at that decision with reluctance and pain, (Oh, oh,
and cheers.) He knew not why, in making that statemeEt,
he should be interrupted with murmurs, for he had never
spoken with more sincerity. (Hear, hear.) He considered
that the vote which he was about to give involved a censure,
not only on the ministers opposed to him, but on other men,
of the highest honour and character in the house, who were
members of the Government of Lord Aberdeen: (Hear, hear.)
The country was in a state of great peril, the public mind
was uneasy and anxious, and the house was not at liberty
to draw those nice distinctions- to consult those feelings of
personal delicacy which might properly animate it at other
times, but must give that vote which it believed to be right.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned member for Sheffield had
called on the house to decide whether they would ratify the
report of the committee, which, for all practical purposes,
was a unanimous report ; for in substance it differed very
little from the draft report of the noble lord opposite (Lord
Seymour), which contained a censure on the Government, but
which was rejected by the committee, who considered that if
a censure was pronounced, it ought to be pronounced in more
direct terms. The noble lord prepared a second form of words
which also contained a censure, and which also was rejected,
as not being sufficiently pungent in form, and the words of the
chairman were at length adopted. (Hear, hear.) In his (Sir
J. Pakington's) opinion, any member of the house who might
have a doubt about meeting this motion would have that doubt
removed by the complete inefficiency of any reasons which
were heard againist it. The right hon. member for Carlisle
had taken up one reason which had been advanced by the
hon. member for Kidderminster, and had argued that the in-
quiry was incomplete. But that was an evasion of the ques-
tion. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir S. Pakington) denied that the
inquiry was incomplete, as far as this question was concerned.
There were other matters into which the committee might
have inquired, and to that extent the inquiry was incomplete,
but he denied that the report before the house was incom-
plete. There was nothing in the report, or in the conclusion
to which the committee came, which was not sustained by
the evidence. Auy one who would compare the report with
the evidence would see that the objections of the right hon.
member for Carlisle and the right hon. member for Kidder-
minster were not founded. The hon. member for Kidder-
minster said that the house was assembled that night to dis-
cuss the policy of the Emperor of France, but he (Sir J.
Pakington) felt bound to dispute the accuracy of that state-
ment. (Hear.) A more erroneous or unfounded conclusion
could not be arrived at. This was the indentical bugbear that
had been raised up against the committee. (Opposition
cheers.) This the bugbear with which it was endeavoured
originally to stifle inquiry. It was said that there would be
danger to the French alliance in inquiring into the conduct of
the war. But what had been the result ? The right hon.
baronet the member for Carlisle had that evening very fairly
admitted that the committee had altogether avoided that
danger, and he (Sir J. Pakington) contended that not only
was the house free from any danger in recording its opinion,
but he would go further and say that nothing could be more
dangerous than to close the lips of members from expressing
constitutionally their opinions on the conductkof the Govern.
ment because we were connected in alliance with another Go-
vernment. (Hear.) There was, therefore, no reason, on the
ground of the French alliance, to prevent the house from
stating whether or not they agreed with the decision of the
committee. Neither was there any reason for taking shelter
under the motion of the previous question. (Cheers) His
hon. and gallant friend (General Peel) had made remarks on
the report of the committee, and had taken exception to some
parts of it ; but he was a party to that report, he had sat on
the committee, and by every rule he was as much a party
to those parts of the report as any other member. His hon.
and gallant friend stated as another reason for moving the
previous question that the motion involved the policy of going
to the Crimea. That he (Sir J. Pakington) denied. (Cheers.)
Neither in the words nor in the intention of the hon. and
learned member for Sheffield was the policy of going to the
Crimea involved. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Roebuck.) Had
that policy been so involved in the motion, he (Sir J. Paking-
ton) could not hesitate to support it, for he was one of those
who disapproved of that policy. (Hear.) If hon. members con-
sidered the state of affairs at the time when that policy was
adopted, they might well hesitate before affirming that it was
the wise one. The siege of Silistria was raised, the Danubian
principalities were evacuated, Constantinople was safe, and all
the objects for which the war was originally declared were at-
tained ; it was, therefore, a grave question whether the whole
policy of the war should have been changed, and that instead of
a defensive we should have embarked on a war of aggression.
An honourable member had that night anticipated a British
occupation of the Crimea. Was that the intention of the
Government ? His belief was that from the first invasion to
the present her Majesty's Government had never any definite
idea of the result of the expedition. (Opposition cheers.)
They were told by the noble lord in a recent debate that even
in the event of a successful aggression they were not at liberty
to ask for any cession of territory. Only two iconditions could
have justified that expedition—that we had a sufficient force
for the undertaking, and that wo had a moral certainty of
success. But that question of the policy of the expedition
was not before the house. The question raised by the hon.
and learned member's motion was, be the 'policy in the ab-
stract good or bad, were the Government of tho day justified
for an hour in attacking Russia with inadequate means, and
hazarding the honour and glory and prestige of England in
this rash expedition ? (Cheers.) In his opinion, the expedi-
tion was a violation of every rule of war and of every dictate
of prudence. They had the evidence of members of Lord
Aberdeen's Government on these points. They had the lan-
guage of the Duke of Newcastle on the 10th of April, when
he wrote to Lord Raglan that before the siege of a fortress so
strong, the necessary information should be obtained on many
points on which little was then known. There was prudence
and proper caution in that advice. But not a word of answer
did the Government receive. The months of April, of May,
of June, passed by. On tho 29th of June the Government
were still in ignorance of the strength of Sebastopol, of the
Russian force in the Crimea, and of all those points of in-
formation which the Duke of Newcastle' said it was in-
dispensable to have before the Government ordered the
army into the Crimea, In July they received an answer,
but it was that Lord Raglan could not obtain the infor-
mation. But in the course of the inquiry evidence was
given by Lord Aberdeen that, though the expedition was
directed in complete ignorance of all information neces-
sary, the Government did receive in July what they be-
lieved to be correct statements. They were to'd that the
Russian force in the Crimea was 70,000 men, and yet the
Government of this country staked the army of England, and
sent only 25,000 British soldiers to cope with 70,000 Russians.
The first event was the battle of Alma—a most glorious battle
—but he believed that all military men would concur with
him in describing it as a battle fought against all human pro-
babilities, and that if the Russians were as true to themselves
and fought then as they subsequently did at Inkerman, we
might not have gained that victory. He had no hesitation
as to the course his duty prescribed to him to take on this
motion, and he should add that there was nothing in the
conduct of the present Ministers of the Crown which dimi-
nished that sense of duty on his part. The events of the pre-
vious night had shaken the country. They had reason to be-
lieve that the Government had not played them fair. And if
they considered the present circumstances they were still
without knowledge or assurance that the Government were
even yet taking adequate means for providing reserves for
our army. Ho (Sir J. Pakington) asked where was the re-
serve of the Foreign Legion, of which they had heard so
much ? Where was the militia of England to whom they were
to trust for a reserve f There was no part of the conduct of
the Government more culpable than their neglect of the militia
when embarking in this great war. They ought to have a
militia force of 120,000 in the three kingdoms, but it ap-
peared from a return which lie had obtained that the militia
force of the three kingdoms amounted only at that moment
to 50,000 men. He believed also that the army was not now
at the strength which the house had voted, and theso were
all-important points bearing upon the war. It appeared to
him that the Government had neglected the great interests
intrusted to their care, and though it might be painful on per-
sonal grounds, his sense of duty was clear and strong ; and
acting upon that sense of duty, he felt bound to give his sup-
port to the motion of the hon. and learned gentleman.
Sir C. WOOD was surprised to hear the light bon. gen-
tleman repeat what had been denied on the previous night by
those best competent to do so, when an accusation was made
against them of having shrunk from a vote of censure. His
noble friend stated on the preceding night that they were pre-
pared to fight the battle of the noble lord the member for the
city of Loudon—(hear, hear)—and were perfectly prepared
to resist the motidn of the hon. baronet the member for
Herts. (Hear, hear.) It was not with the wish, or with
anything but the unwilling consent of his colleagues, that
Lord John Russell had resigned. (Hear, hear.) The right
hon. baronet was not justified iu saying that they now
shrunk from any responsibility that belonged to them, but
they were prepared to vote with the hon. and gallant general
—(ironical cheers)—and in taking that course they were not
shrinking from the discharge of their duties. (Hear, hear.)
It was true they opposed the appointment of the conimittee,
because they believed and thought the inquiry must be im-
perfect. The investigation had proved, as they predicted it
would do, an inconclusive inquiry, and that was the ground
on which they would vote for the motion of the hon. and
gallant general. (Hear, hear.) If the inquiry were perfect,
and if all were disclosed that should be disclosed, they would
be the last persons to shrink from the result. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon, baronet said he did not see the reason why
the question that had been raised should involve the policy
of the expedition to the Crimea, but the words were scarcely
out of his lips, when he asked if they were justified in going
to the Crimea, and he said that in going to the Crimea they
had violated every rule of war and dictate of prudence.
(Hear, hear.) Ho (Sir Charles Wood) was not disposed to
shrink from the responsibility of the expedition to the
Crimea, and he believed the expedition to Sebastopol was a
wise undertaking. (Hear, hear.) No doubt success bad not
attended the expedition up to that moment, but they had the
opinion of those on the spot that success was almost within
their grasp. The hon. and learned gentleman said that the evils
were to be traced to the chasm of six miles between Balaklava
and the camp, and he charged the .want of a road to fill up tha
chasm entirely upon the Administration, but he should like
to know when the hon. and learned gentleman had come to
that conclusion, for in the month of June he held au opinion
diametrically opposite. (Hear, hear.) He Sir Charles Wood)
regretted that the noble and gallant lord, to whom the hon.
and learned gentleman had done tardy justice, was deprived
in his life-time of the credit to which he was entitled—(hear)
—but they.now began to appreciate the value of the noble
lord. (Hear.) The following were tho words which the hon.
and learned gentleman had submitted to the committee, but
for which, to their credit, only one man could be found to
give his vote. There, the hon. and learned gentleman said
that Lord Raglan was in a great degree immediately respon-
sible for the sufferings of the army, and that if the requisite
forsight had been shown by him, much of the misery arising
from the want of the road from Balaklava would have been
saved, (Hear.) •A month ago Lord Raglan was the cause of
the disaster, but Lord Raglan was removed from the charges
of the hon. and learned gentleman, and he now found it con-
venient to place the responsibility solely on the Leads of the
Government (Hear.) But what said the committee in their
report ? That the probable failure of the communication was
not brought to the notice of the Duke of Newcastle until it
was too late for him to take measures in England to remove
the deficiency. The hon. and learned gentleman said that the
object was to pass a censure on the members of the present
Government who were members of Lord Aberdeen's Govern-

ment ; but in the early part of the discussion on this question
they had heard nothing but charges against the Duke of New-