The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-24 00:00:00

had been condemned (hear, hear). And I am free to say
that I believe the common sense and right feeling of this
country were never more outraged than when the Gover-
nment of Lord Aberdeen, after that vote of censure had
been passed, returned to office I may almost say unchanged
(hear, hear). A strong Government was desired, but how
was the Government of Lord Aberdeen strengthened ?
Why, it was strengthened by taking away from it two of
the most experienced statesmen of the day (hear, hear).
The right honourable gantleman opposite and two of his
colleagues have retired from office, and I think they have
retired on ample sufficient grounds (hear, hear). In my
opinion they have retired from office in a manner highly to
their own honour (hear, hear). I think the course they
have adopted, after the part they had taken in the debate
on the motion of the honourable member for Sheffield, is a
consistent and honourable course (hear, hear, hear) ; and I
think the position of the noble viscount, the Prime
Minister, is an extraordinary one (hear, hear, hear). I
ask whether the course advised by the noble lord last
Friday, or the course taken by him on this Friday, is the
proper and constitutional one for the house to follow
(hear, hear)? I cannot understand how the noble lord can
get over the objection he expressed on Friday last (hear,
hear). I can perfectly understand why the noble lord
thought it better, instead of giving his aid in the forma-
tion of a strong Government, which he was invited to do—
to place himself at the head of a weak Government (hear,
hear). I can easily understand that there might be an
occasion on which he would be obliged to take a course in
opposition to the dictates of his own judgment, but I can-
not understand how any man in the situation of Prime
Minister of this country can think it consistent with his
duty to consent to the course to-night which he disap-
proved of on Friday last, and which he declared to be in-
consistent, and not in accordance with the spirit of the
constitution of this country. (Hear ) Did the noble lord
mean what he said on Friday last, and if he did, is he now
prepared to take a course that is not in aecordance with
the constitution of this country? (Hear.) Are we to have
the Prime Minister of this country setting an example to
the House of Commons of taking a course that is not con-
sistent with the constitution? (Hear.) This is fur the
noble lord to explain ; and I confess I think the position
of the nohle lord is not that which, under such circum-
stances, the Prime Minister of this country ought to hold.
(Hear.) On the other hand, lam quite unable to agree to
the strong objection which the right hon. gentleman the
member for Carlisle expressed to-night to the appointment
of the committee, and the house must be streck with the
great discrepancy between the language used by the right
hen. member for Carlisle and the language of the right
hon. member for Wiltshire. The right hon. member fpr
Wiltshire only took exception to the proposal to inquire
by this committee into the condition of the army in the
Crimea—(hear) —and went on to state that he thought it
perfectly legitimate for the hones to agree to an inquiry
into the conduct of her Majesty's Ministers, but he ob-
jected to the proposed tribunal—he objected to a com-
mittee, but did not object to a commission—(hear)
then, why have we not had a commission offered? (Hear,
hear.) I was very glad to hear from the right hon. gentle-
man that as no commission has been offered he takes no
exception to an inquiry, at least into the conduct of
Ministers ; and, as far as my opinion goes I consider that
to be the principal object of the motion. I fear that there
may be found to be a sufficient reason for putting an end
to the inquiry into the state of the army, because I doubt
whether you will have any army to inquire into. (Hear,
hear, and some cries of Oh l'') This is not a question
of opinion or feeling, but it is a question of fact; and I fear
that I resort to ne exaggeration—l fear that lam speaking
too strictly in accordance with the facts when I make that
statement. The right hon. member for Carlisle objected
altogether to a committee. He condemned inquiry as dan-
gerous, and one of the principal arguments upon which he
relied was, that such an inquiry was without precedent.
My answer to that is, that our calamity in the Crimea is
without precedent. Was there ever an occasion which called
more loudly upon Parliament than this, if there be so pre-
cedent, to establish one ? I think that this is a ease in which
a precedent must be established • and I say that, so long
as the Treasury benches are filled by the member,' of the
Government which ceased these disasters, there remain
fair and legitimate grounds for inquiry into the conduct
which led to them. As I have been selected to be one of
the members of the committee, I am very desirous, before
my name is proposed and consented to, that I should state
frankly to the Government and to the house the spirit
in which I shall enter into the inquiry if I am appointed a
member of the committee. Accidently I was not consulted
before my name was placed there by a friend of mine who
did perfectly right is agreeing to place my name there, and
who could have dons nothing more painful and disagreeable
to me than to have hesitated for a moment in putting my
name upon the committee, if, in his opinion, I could have
been of any use as a member of it. But I feel bound
frankly to state to the house the views which I entertain
with regard to the committee ; and it will then be for the
house to say whether I ought to be a member of it. I only
consent to serve upon that committee on two distinct and
clear conditions. One is, that the inquiry shall be com-
plete and searching. Public indignation and public justice
demand it. The calamity is without precedent, and the
inquiry must be searching. (Hear.) The other condition
is that, as regards the conduct of those departments
which are to be rattle the subject of inquiry, we shall be•
gin at the beginning. Do not let us be told that we are
to take this inqui:y from November. The noble lord the
member for London seemed to think, if he deserted his
colleagues upon the eve of a critical division, and then
read a correspondence written in November, that he could
evade his responsibility for these events. There never
WAX a greater mistake. (Hear, hear.) The sufferings of
our army commenced in November, disease and death
began their havoc in November, but the responsibility of
the Government commenced in June and July. That
was the time when the real responsibility for these affairs
began; and I say that if we are to embark in this in-
quiry we must do it with a full and deep sense of the
responsibility which is incurred. This house has stepped
out of its way—it has taken an unusual course—it has
appointed a committee of an extraordinary nature; but
it has den* so under extraordinary circumstances, and I
trust that we who are likely to be members of the com-
mittee will not close our eyes to the magnitude of the
responsibility under which we are to conduct that in-
quiry. (Hear, hear:) Are we to inquire into the cu cum-
stances under which our army was first sent to the Crimea?
I do not touch upon the policy of goin • to the Crimea.
That may be beyond the scope of our inquiry. Ido not
touch upon tie abstract policy. In my mind that is a
grave question which must be some day discussed ; but
are wo to inquire into the circumstances of sending that
army to the Crimea' late in the autumn, without adequate
means, ignorant of the force of the enemy, and ignorant
of the nature of thefortress which we were About to attack ?
Is that to to the subject of inquiry? I happen to know
from private sources that the very highest military autho-
rities exercised all the influence they could against this
unhappy and ill-fated expedition. I know not whether the
Queen's Government were warned ; but this I know, that,
the generals commanding were warned by military authori-
ties of no 01 d nary eminence, that if they went to Odessa
they might inflict a heavy blow upon the enemy and be
successful, but that if they went to the Crimea they knew
nothing of the enemy they were going to attack—they in-
curred frightful risk., protracted success might be more
disastrous than failure, and if they attempted to winter
there the army of England would be destroyed. It is
within my knowledge that that warning was given ; and
fearfully has every word been fulfilled. Are we to inquire
into that ? Are we to inquire why, when such an expedi-
tion was sent out, there was no reserve either at Constan-
tinople or Malta? The hon. and learned member says,
" Let us inquire into tlae conduct of the departments
which minister to that army." But what department so
important as that which ought to have had a reserve at
their disposal ? Are we to inquire into that? Are we to in-
quire why no militia yet exists from which the army could
be recruited ? Are we to inquire why our bettering train
was wholly insufficient for the object for which it was sent ?
why those huts which were essential, net only to the com-
fort, but to the lives of the soldiers, were never prepared or
sent out, or the order given—as I understand—until the
third week in November ? (Hear, hear.) It was perfectly
clear at the end of September that we were involved in a
protracted struggle, that we could not take Sebastopol by
a coup ,de main, and that we had, in all probability, a
winter campaign before us. Still, there were no huts or-
dered until the third week in November. Are we to inquire
into that? These are some of the subjects, wholly irre-
spective of the condition of the army an l the conduct of the
generals, which deeply implicate the conduct of the Go-
vernment. Are we to inquire into these things? If we do
not it will be a mere mockery of au inquiry, and thecoun-
try will regard with indignation and disgust what they
will deem to be only an evasion of that inquiry. These
are the opinions which I have thought it my duty to state
upon the nature of the inquiry before us. If it should be
the opinion of the house that, having expressed these views
I am precluded from taking apart in the committee, if they
think that with these strong impressions I am unable to act
judicially, I shall at once acquiesce in that opinion. If, on
the other hand, it is desired that. I should be a member of
that committee,lshall discharge the duty im posed upon me
as fairly, usjustly, as impartially as I can, but I hope that
the understanding of the house is, that I, at all events,
can only serve upon that committee upon the condition
that the inquiry shall be fall and complete—that there
shall be no evasion—and that, be they high er low, in office
or out of office, at home or abroad, those who are guilty of
this unhappy calamity shall be discovered and exposed.
Mr. WORTLEY said, that if this were a mere party
question he should feel that his position in that house
should prevent his taking any part in it ; but as he but
seldom obtruded his opinion upon the house he trusted
that he should be excused if he asked to be allowed t• give
expression to the strong feelings which were in his mind.
He had voted against this faquiry, with the full persuasion
that it was a most unconstitutional-proposition and that it
would eventuate in no good to the country. But if ho had
entertained that opinion at the time when he gave that
vote, certainly every speech which he had heard that
evening—he spoke not of hie hon. friends who sat before
him (Sir J. Graham and Mr. S. Herbert), but the speeches
which he had heard from every quarter had tended to con-
firm kin in the opinion which he had originally formed.
All admitted that if not an unconstitutional, it was a very
exceptional course to adopt, and that it was an inconve-
nient and a dangerous course; and few denied that it was
accompanied with manifest injustice. He did not presume
to pass any
opinion upon the statements which had been
made by the right hon. member for Carlisle or the right
hon. member for South Wiltshire • because he agreed
with the hon. member for Manchester, that the question
of whether a man was to accept office or to secede from it
was above all others one which should be settled in a
man's own conscience; but he presumed to say that if he
could imagine himself to have been in their position, and
to have held the places which they held, he did not think
that he could with honour have taken any other course

thaa that which they had adopted. (ajar, hear.) He
regretted exceedingly that the noble lord at the head of
the Government had so lightly yielded and conceded the
committee, and, while admitting the difficulties against
which he had to contend, he intact say that, in his opinion,
it would have been for the best interests of the country if
the noble viscount had endeavoured to avert it. He enter-
tained three cardinal objections to the appointment of this
committee. The first objection was that it might possibly
endanger the alliance between this country and France,
and, even among those who spoke most despondingly of the
state of affairs, every one felt that the French alliance was
essential to the success of the expedition. The right hon.
baronet who last addressed the house said that the inquiry
—if inquiry there were to be—ought to be moat searching,
and he would readily admit that statement ; for, if it were
not a most searching inquiry, a feeling, difficult to allay,
would be roused among the people of this country. The
question which would have to bo answered was—" Why
did you go to the Crimea so late in the season?" And was
that question applicable to English generals alone? (Hear.)
That inquiry must aloe refer to what at one time were
scornfully deemed " timid counsels," but which perhaps
were the most wise, and could that part of the inquiry be
confined to llnglish commanders alone ? (Hear, hear.) If
there was to be an inquiryinto the present state of the army
before Sebastopol, and whether that army might not have
been in a better position than it was, the question must
arise as to whether it would not have been better to attack
Sebastopol 24 hours after the battle of the Alma, and could
that inquiry refer to Lord Raglan alone? It was matter of j