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

.
wished to draw a distinction, and to point out that be had
been zealous in the discharge of his duty, according to his
ability, and that he had been singled out for a victim. It
was not I who singled him out—l singled out no one ; but
because he was s 6 singled out, because he was made a
scapegoat, because he did carry on his back the sins of the
mimstryto which he belonged, and because I believed him
to be illtreated by such conduct, I expressed myself as I
did ; and for that the noble lord the member for London
says that I have brought forward toy motionlo-nightfrom
malice. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, if I had any malice
against that noble duke I should leave to him the task of
taking care of his own character. The hon. and gallant
general has moved the previousqnestion, feelingit to behis
duty to do so, but agreeing, as I believe, in the main with
the resolution which I have proposed. The gallant general
thinks it impolitic for the house to come to a decision upon
the subject and he can ask the house to adopt that course
without any slur upon his character ; but the noble lord at
the head of the Government cannot do so. The noble lord
by accepting this subterfuge confesses his errors, but does
not, as they say in legal phraseology, " avoid." (Hear.)
The adopting such a course confesses that he fears the deci-
sion of the house upon the main question—that question
being a charge which I bring against him and all his col-
leagues in the Government of Lord Aberdeen, of having by
neglect caused the miseries of the army before Sobastipol.
I should have thought that the noble lord, and more espe-
cially the noble lord the member for London, who has
hitherto borne a reputation for courage, would have been
ready, fairly and openly, to meet such a charge, and would
not have availed themselves of the shabby pretence of the
previous question. The hon. and gallant general who moved
the previous question has stated that he objects to retro-
spective punishment, but in point of fact all punishment
meat must be retrospective. The hon. and gallant gentle-
man confounds retrospective punishment with retro-
vective law, but, when a Minister allows a great army to
windle away in consequence of his want of foresight,
there needs no retrospective law to make it a crime in the
eyes of the people of England, and that is the crime with
which I now charge the noble lord, and that is the issue
which he shirks. We are threatened by the hon. mem-
ber for Kidderminster that the result of agreeing to this
resolution will be to do mischief to our alliance with
France, bat when I proposed the committee I was threat.
ened with the same thing; but the hen. member for Kid-
derminster says that misthief would have followed the ap-
pointment of the committee if it had not been for his pro-
phecy ; and I must say that I think it is a somewhat ex-
travagant pretension on the part of the hon. member to
assume to himself a monopoly of wisdom. (Hear.)
Mr. LOWE—What I stated was, that one of two things
would happen—either that the inquiry would extend to
questions of State policy, and would thus endanger our al-
liance with France; or, if it did not, then injustice would
be done to individuals.

Mr. ROEBUCK—I am in the recollection of the house,
and I distictly assert that the hon. gentleman said, that
the warning which he had uttered when the committee
was appointed had prevented the mischief which would
otherwise have arisen ; and I consider that that statement
displayed an extravagance of vanity on the part of that
hon. gentleman. Allow me, in making an end of what I
have to say, to make an appeal to the house. I have acted
in this matter as I thought it my duty to act. An inquiry
had been instituted by this house into a matter which
deeply affected the happiness and welfare of ay country-
men. A committee brought these matters to a conclusion
I came to this house to ask them if they coincided in that
conclusion ; and the right hon. gentleman the member for
Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) says most candidly that I did
no more than my duty. I now appeal to the house, and
ask them to watch over the army of England. (Cheers.)
In doing so I have done my duty ; it is for the house now
to decide whether they will do theirs. (Loud cheers.)
The house then divided on " the previous question"—
namely, that Mr. Roebuck's motion should be put from
the chair. The numbers were
Ayes lB2
Noes 289
Majority —lO7
Consequently, Mr. Roebuck's motion was not put to the
vote.

The announcement of the numbers was received with
cheers from the Ministerial benches.

The other business on the paper was disposed of, and
the house adjourned at about a few minutes before 3
o'clock, until 4 o'clock to-morrow.