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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 24, 1855.

on a committee of this house relative to operations at a dis-
tance—the rebellion in Ceylon. That committee sat two ses-
sions, yet its report was utterly abortive, nugatory, and
worthless. It confessed the it competency of the committee
to deal with the subject, and ended by recommending the ap-
pointment of a commission. Your committee can remedy,
nothing because its powers are limited to this coun-
try. Now, is it to examine into the state of the army
in the Crimea ? It has no power to do so. Its power
does not extend through the medium of this
house beyond the limits of the kingdom. You can hear wit-
nesses at home, but you have no power to compel witnesses
in the Crimea. I will not speak of the conduct of my noble
friend, but it is impossible not to see the advantages of the
measure which he proposes to take. He proposes to send out
commissioners with full powers; they will search into the
truth, and Lord Raglan will have power to apply remedies.
You must spend twice the time by means of your committee,
in order to ascertain the truth, than will be required if the
other means are adopted. It is only that the really formidable
character of this committee comes out when you come to this
point. It is not a committee of punishment or remedy, but
a committee of government. It is simply the taking out of
the hands of the executive government the highest and most
delicate of its offices. lam bound to say that I think such a
proceeding is w'iolly incompatible with the real convenience
on the part of Parliament of those who hold the executive,
and entirely incompatible with the confidence and the credit
that should attach to a Minister of the Crown, whatever poli-
tical c, eed or party that minister may profess. Is the ques-
tion, then, of the transfer of public functions a great or small
question ? This question is much aggrava ed because of the
form of this select committee ; for you are by this committee
not only taking power from the Crown—you may find scot-
sional precedents for that—but you are going to delegate that
power to a small committee up stairs. It seems to be an im-
pression that this is an easy matter ; that it is easy to come
to this state of the facts, and that if the facts are not ascer-
tained it is entirely on account of the negligence .of Govern-
ment. I ask the house to bear with me while I give an illus-
stration of the case. The hon member for Aylesbury stated
one case on which it was obvious, he said, the house could
proceed at once. The dismissal of Captain Christie, the
head of the transport service, might take place at once on
account of inefficiency. Now, let me put the case to the house,
and let us see how the matter stands. It will show how the
Government of my noble friend proceeds when the facts
are clear. The honourable member for Aylesbury says—and
his statement was received as part of the case against Govern-
ment—why do you not dismiss Captain Christie after the
mismanagement ho has been shown to have been guilty of.
Has Captain Christie been put out of office ? (Hear.) Is
that all ? Captain Christie was on his way home—he had
reached Malta —when my right hon., friend, learning he had
been charged with mismanagement, made him return to the
East, in order that he may undergo a trial by court-martial.
Are these facts unknown to the house ? The hon. member
for Aylesbury says that Captain Christie is guilty of misma-
nagement. I will practically show some of the bearings of
the question by mentioning how-reports are sometimes dealt
with. Somebody comes from the Crimea in November, and
says so and so. An hon. member eomes down to the house
and reports that he has seen a gentleman, who has told him
that our army has perished—has nearly gone. Now, apply
this to the case of Captain Christie. A gentleman (Mr. Layard)
left the Crimea in November ; but then comes the hon. mem-
ber for Liulithgow, who left the Crimea in December, who,
in a plain and manly manner, declared that he had the means
of judging of the great merits of Captain Christie, and it was
with the utmost grief he heard he had been visited with cen-
sure. His testimony was that of an eye-witness, and we may
learn from this, owing to contradictory witnesses, that to get
at the truth 3,000 miles off is no easy matter. So, therefore,
I say it is better to have those who can exercise inquiry on
the spot than a committee who can only inquire at a distance.
Sir, I object to the committee on constitutional grounds. It
may seem visionary and pedantic for me to do so. I hope I
am no pedant on constitutional questions. My opinions are
of a Conservative character—(laughter, and oh)—certainly
not of an extremely Conservative character. (Oh.) Yet my
Conservative feelings revolt from taking the functions of the
executive Government, with respect to the army In the
field, partially out of the hands of Government, and con-
ferring them on a committee of this house. Sir, it is
not for me to say there is almost no precedent for
course. If you ask where is the constitution of England to
be found, is it in Blackstone, in De Lolme, in Hallam, or in
other writers on our laws—Ll say, sir, without fear of con-
tradiction, that no small part of our living and working con-
stitution is to be found in the usages and precedents of the
House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) The power of the House
of Commons, if we look at it in the abstract, is sufficient to
plunge the country into confusion; but the wise limits you
put on that power enable you to wield it without crushing
other bodies which are charged with other powers. I have
heard people say—who set aside all ideas of this kind—that
the extreme emergency of the occasion—the extreme greatness
of the calamity—make the present an exceptional case. I tell
hon. gentlemen that all bad precedents grow out of excep-
tional cases. But, suppose this is an exceptional case ; take
all the precedents you can on that score, and it is still subject
to that condition, that to meet calamity on the instant you
call into action an instrument more powerful than can be
applied. If we had power to fall back on an extreme case, I
could understand your argument. But you make your argu-
ment an excuse for bringing into operation an, instrument
that must prove weak and futile, as you are not armed with
power necessary for your purpose. Your whole argument
thus cuts the ground from under you. No answer has been
given to my right bon. friend on the subject of the fearful—
the solemn consideration he has referred to—namely, what
bearing the inquiry will have on the state and discipline of
the army of the East, and its relations with our ally. The
right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwich thinks he
has distinguished between the policy of the expedition to the
Crimea, and the circumstances under which it took place.
That task, however, the right honourable gentleman found
too difficult. But suppose a case. Suppose the question
was introduced of the lateness of the season the army went
to the Crimea, and the want of information. Did those
questions apply to England alone ? (Hear, hear.) Did the
French army go to the Crimea sooner than the English army ?
(Hear, hear.) Is the right hon. gentleman aware of the
time the besieging train left Toulon t One point to inquire
into cannot be passed by. Is the committee to inquire why
no roads were made from Balaklava to the camp If no in-
quiry—instead of ascertaining the state and the cause of.the
state of the army, the inquiry will be a frald. If you take
evidence on the subject and inquire —the answer will be—
want of labourers. Why so? Because the men were em-
ployed in the trenches. Why send so many men into the
trenches
trenches
BBeeecrisseu
toifi e thhoe,iorn
rewx tnesndt
vtaWo
ahybetswucehon etxhtee extent n
go-f
lisle and French army. I hope it will not be supposed for a
moment that I wish to insinuate a doubt as to the gallant
spirit of the French, and their disposition to lend every aid
in their power to the British general. But what the French
may justly claim from us is this, and what we should assert
for them as ourselves, is that they should be independent in

their judgment on such matters, and that no committee of the
House of Commons should presume to interfere. I tell you
again that the inquiry will be a mockery if you do not inquire
into the absence of the road ; and if you advance from this
and make the question turn on the distribution of labour,
and whether the road was sufficiently well or otherwise made,
with the best intention, you will find that those inquiries will
run you up into questions of the most intimate relations be-
tween France and England. The step, however, shall not be
taken without warning. The patience of the British army is
great—its discipline is admirable. I will not answer for the
temper of the army under the protracted application of such
a machinery as that contemplated by the committee of in-
quiry. It is impossible to pursue this subject without touch-
ing on ground too tender and too delicate. I may, perhaps,
have already gone too far. My excuse is, that I desire to pre-
vent great danger and. embarrassment. What are we to do ?
We are told we had better assent to this committee, because
if another government came in it might do something as bad
or worse. With great and sincere respect to right hon. gen-
tlemen opposite, I say, without acrimony, I have difficulty
in understanding the course they have pursued on
this question. lam quite sure they would not pursue it if
they themselves had succeeded to power. I have a suspicion
or hope that if Lord Derby came into power three weeks ago
—or possibly now—that we should combine to get rid of a
committee—a weak and mischievous committee—and to sub-
stitute something better. But that is not our matter. Ours
is a business of the highest consequence—to sound our con-
science, and to be governed by its verdict. Still, can we
endure to be told we ought to have thought of this three
weeks ago ; that the House of Commons world not reverse
its judgment. It is not a light matter- however, to be con-
victed of levity, though it is better to do that than to commit
great blunders (weunderstood). Nothing, however, can justify
us in concurring in a policy we think to be false and ruinous.
Since the first vote of the House of Commons, no doubt Bay
noble friend would entertain the same opinion of the com-
mittee as he did before. My noble friend is perfectly aware
that before my acceptance of office became announced to the
world, that I had the satisfaction of some conversation with
him, in which I was told that the continued opposition of
Government would be offered to the motion. This can be no
secret, for the right hon. gentleman opposite must have ob-
served this was the only meaning of a portion of the noble

lord's-speech which he then delivered. So much, then, fo
the personal and Parliamentary part of the question. I am
obliged to speak in a strain of egotism. I have advanced
opinions that are adverse to the views entertained.
by a large maiority ; but I hope I have made it clear that
the ground by which I and my right honourable friends
were actuated was not an aversion to inquire into the cala-
mities which had occurred in the Crimea, or the alleged
mismanagement. I hope the house, with its own broad
field, with its own great and noble vocation—rely upon it
you have enough to do. There is the prospect of army
reform. Why not let us close with the hon. gentleman's
proposition, and prosecute inquiry You will have to in-
quire into the whole system of admission of training and
promotion. The honourable gentleman said that merit ought
to bo the only ground of promotion in the army. I answer
that I am bound to say, when reform in the army comes to
be practically carried out on the principle that the sole basis
for public service ought to be merit, the hon. gentleman will
find that the greatest obstacle to overcome will be found
within the walls of this house. (Hear.) However that may
be, I hope the house will be content to deal with the great
question of the relation which the Indian army ought to bear
to the army, and I trust that question will be brought to a
successful issue. I regret on this question we are opposing
ourselves to popular feeling. I know that in times of public
excitement lamentable scenes have occurred—blood has been
shed, under the idea that it was a fitting atonement for the
mismanagement of the public service. When we look back,
the deeds of our forefathers fill' us with horror and shame.
We live in milder times. And the fault perhaps is that public
servants are not called to an account'sufficiently strict—(hear)
—and that responsibility is only made real, and not a name,
through the medium of a feeling of honour. No such scenes
are now to be apprehended ; the feelings of the people have
been aroused—they do not desire to be shocked by the repeti-
tion of scenes that have passed ; their feelings now find vent
at the first sight of Parliamentary irregularity (we under-
stood). But we shall see Parliamentary irregularity first of
all disappoint public expectation ; next involve cruel injus-
tice ; and last o 8 all exhibit the dark side of public disaster.
It is our duty, whether many or few, alone or attended, to
protest against this measure ; and the resistance we offer
here, with the great pain of wounded feeling, and with the
utmost respect to the representatives of the people, is accom-
panied by the fixed and unalterable determination to do that
which we conceive the public interests and our sense of justice
demand. (Cheers.)
Viscount PALMERSTON Sir, I can assure my right
hon, friends who have this evening explained to the house
the grounds on which they have separated themselves from
her Majesty's Government that I shall not utter a single
word of criticism on the course which they have thought it
their duty to pursue, convinced as I am that they acted from
the sincere conviction that their duty pointed to the path they
pursued, and that by so doing they not only intended in the
best manner to give effect to their opinions, but they per-
formed their duty to their country. I feel the greatest regret
at having lost the assistance of the right hon. gentlemen with
whom it was my good fortune to act during the last two
years, and of whom I can 'say, with perfect truth, that which
they said of those they have left, that there prevailed amongst
us the most cordial confidence, and that on those great ques-
tions now pending for action and decision no difference on
the great principles of policy which Government pursues ex.
Wed. • On the other hand, I must say that at the time when
it was her Alpijedy'i pleasure to 00=1644 t° olltle4Your to

form a Government, it was impossible that either I, or those
with whom I was about to act, should have shut their eyes to
the fact, that there was the committee which the house had
determined should sit, and the appointment of which we must
be prepared to meet. I stated on a former occasion the objec-
tion to the course which the house, by a large majority, had
determined, nevertheless, to pursue. Those objections, to a
certain degree, still remain. But when I considered what was
the real nature of the course the house followed, it was im-
possible not to see that when the question, originally passed
by a great majority, that the great majority which passed it
were actuated by two separate and distinct motives. A
great portion voted because they thought the inquiry ought
to take place. But unquestionably there was another por-
tion who, as has been stated by my right honourable friends,
supported the motion because they considered it was a vote
of no confidence in the Government. (Flear, hear, hear.)
Well, sir, the motion was carried. We resigned our offices.
Her Majesty then commissioned Lord Derby to form an-
other Government. That noble lord was unable to do it.
I stated to him why I thought that under the circumstances
my junction with him would not enable him to form that
strong government which it is admitted on all hands the
country requires. The attempt of the noble lord failed. My
noble friend the member for London then endeavoured to
form a Government. My noble friend was equally unsuccess-
ful. Why, then, I felt having been called on, that it was my
duty to endeavour to the best of my abilities to form a Go-
vernment—(cheers)—to form that Government which the
country so urgently required. If we had not formed a Go-
vernment, the result must, I presume, have been that that
noble lord, who felt that he could not with credit to himself,
or advantage to the country, form a Government—would
have been again obliged to make the attempt, and to present
a Government to the Sovereign the best he could find. I do
not deny that there are great objections to this committee.
But the country took it up in a different sense from that in
which many members voted for it. Many lion. members
voted for it as an indication that they had no confidence in
the Government. But the country knew no refinements of
that kind. The nation having had its attention deeply fixed
on the events that had taken place in the Crimea—having
had its feelings deeply wounded by the recital day by day of
the sufferings brought on the army engaged in these opera-
tions— the country seeing that there had undoubtedly been
mismanagement in various departments concerned in the
operations, honestly and sincerely desired inquiry. (Cheers )
Men did not first stop to ask what Government was to con-
duct the inquiry, but they said " There is something grie-
vously wrong ; we insist on an inquiry into the causes of the
mischances that have taken place." That opinion of the coun-
try reacted .on the house, and when we met after the Govern-
Ment was reconstituted, and after other attempts to make a
Government had failed, we found ourselves in this position,
that though we might not have desired the _committee,
either that it should not be appointed at all, or its appoint-
ment postponed, we had no right, any of us, to deceive
ourselves by expectations that it was possible to resist the
committee altogether, or to press the house to rescind its
former decision. I did undoubtedly think that when we
should have stated to the house the various changes,
improvements, and administrative reforms which we were
prepared to make, and the inquiries which we ourselves were
making into the causes of these mischances iu the Crimea,
that the house, for a time at least, would have foregone the
appointment of a committee, and would have waited to see
the result of the changes, and of our inquiries. But I never
would have undertaken the task of forming a Government,
nor would my right hen. friends have joined me in the task,
if we had endeavoured to stake our continuance in office on
the question whether this house would continue to affirm the
vote it had come to. We should have thought that we were
not acting worthily—that we were trifling with the house and
the country if we had determined in our minds, to shrink
from our posts if the house should not be persuaded to re-
scind the vote it had come to. No doubt there may be incon-
venience and evils attending the inquiry, but I think it a
greater evil if this occasion presented to the world the lament-
able spectacle that in consequence of personal differences in
the departments of Government—of the division of parties—
we should for a month or six weeks be unable to find a set of
public men who could present themselves to the country as a
Government undertaking to conduct the public affairs. And
at what period does this occur ! At a period when we are car-
rying on a great and arduous war—when we are engaged in
most important operations—when on the one hand energy and
vigour in the conduct of hhe war are required, and on the
other hand a great degree of conciliation and moderationmay
be required to conduct the negotiations for peace. I thiuk ,
therefore, we have followed the course which it was our duty
to pursue. I think if we had abandoned our pests on this oc-
casion—if we had set our opinions up against the deliberate
judgment of the nation—if we had undertaken the vain task
of resisting the unanimous sentiments of the people by
attempting to refuse inqniry, I think we should have un-
dertaken a vain task, and should not have performed the
duty which we had engaged to perform. (Hear, hear.) I
have been asked by the honourable member for Manchester
whether we intend to abide by those propositions of peace
which were settled by the Cabinet which existed before
the first vote of the houseon the question of this com-
mittee, and concurred in afterwards by the reconstructed
cabinet. Most assuredly we do-abide by those propositions.
Most unquestionably the instructions under which the noble
lord Ahe member for the city of London is now proceeding to
Vienna are founded on those resolutions to which my friends
on that bench were parties. And when lam asked if we are
prepared to negotiate in good faith, I say we are so pre-
pared, and that if we were not we should be unworthy not
only of holding office but of being members of this great
assembly. (Hear, hear.) We are as anxious as men can be to
be able, in terms consistent with the future safety of Europe
—consistent with the attainment of those objects for which
the war was begun—to put an end to the war by an honour-
able treaty of peace. But I think if by an over-desire for peace
we were to conclude what would be more properly a hollow
and insecure truce than a safe and honourable peace, we
would be leaving open the same sources of danger as those
which had brought us into this arduous straggle—(hear,
hear.) If we were to agree to terms which would leave
that danger in all its, former aptitude, instead of deserving
the thanks of the country- we should deserve its censure ;
for in that case we should have betrayed the trust reposed
in us, and achieved a temporary peace while we had
laid the foundation of great future calamities. (Hoar, hear.)
That then is the line Gevernment is prepared to pursue.
We have felt it our duty, in a moment of groat emefgency,
when other persons who had had an opportunity of forming
a Government were unable to do so—when the question put
to us was whether we would leave the country in, I may
say, a state of anarchy, or whether we would undertake
the Government—we have felt it our duty, I say, to under-
take the task. (Hear.) We intend to-perform it honestly and
conscientiously. If peace is to bo obtained on terms con-
sistent with future security, it will not be our fault if peace
is not so obtained. If, on the other hand, it should happen
that the abilities of the noble lord the member for London,
and the sincere desire of the Government to put an end to
the war on proper conditions, should unluckily fail, then it
will be our duty to prosecute the war with that vigour
which may be necessary for its successful termination. In
that case we are persuaded that we shall not appeal in vain
to the generous spirit of Parliament. I am convinced that
whatever differences may exist between parties who sit in .
l
different parts of the
ihouse,dewootnfaao esuE; 1 deudt
ehl
o.oba:thosepteptewhha,
raueatti
humiliating
and
riwdffl
teieavhhrt
ieaiesnntrigoec
shallwneasrse
newodpaa
ulnri
disgraceful
see
eptgfn:otlnr
personal
the
onctotgehntlati
laoatl
tegrat
ohx:ehi
tsami
hbti moment
empire not
country—the
napr
tleepercyaaitt
ety—ltheheqbetuefhase lapcsatetei
jealousies or differences on particular questions, disabling the
Parliament of this country from obtaining a Government and
those means by which alone the affairs of the country could
be properly conducted, and the arduous and difficult straggle
in which we aro now engaged brought to a successful and
honourable result. Sir, these a.e the grounds on which we
have undertaken the duty imposed upon us. If the house
and the country should think that we do not properly per-
form the duty expected from us, and if any other Govern-
ment can present itself which will be more acceptable to
Parliament and the country, then, sir, no feeling of personal
consideration—no paltry love of power will induce us to cling
to the posts we occupy longer than we think we can do so
with advantage to the country and credit to ourselves.
But until we find that wo have lost the confidence of Parlia-
ment and country—until we find that the the nation is disap-
pointed with us, and condemns instead of supporting us—so
long as we have the support of public opinion, and the good-
will of Parliament and the country, the house may depend
upon it we shall exert ourselves to the utmost, and that we
shall not quit the posts to which the Crown has selected -us
to fill. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—I am quite sure that the noble lord is
correct in anticipating that the existing Government in

the present emergency will receive a liberal and candid sup•
port from the house. But it would have been a satisfaction
to the house if the noble lord could have made it conve-
nient to assure us and the country that the Government
was really in existence. (Cheers, and laughter.) The
noble lord has omitted in his speech to answer the argu-
ments of the right hon. baronet the late First Lord of the
Admiralty, and of the right hon. gentleman the late Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, against granting the committee. But
the noble lord made another omission, almost as singular, for
he forgot that we had been collected together to-day to hear
from the noble lord that he had at last been successful in
forming an Administration. (Hear, hear.) If that be the
case, I think it shows some want of consideration in the
leader of the House of Commons permitting us to adjourn
without having the gratifying information made known to us
and the country. The noble lord says, "So long as we pos-
sess the confidence of the house and the country, we intend
to do our duty, and to retain our phices." (Hear, hear.)
But what we want to know is, who are "we I" (Renewed
cheers and laughter.) The moment, no doubt, has come of
national peril—the emergency is granted by all. All persons
in this house are prepared to lend the Government a generous
and disinterested support ; but it does not appear to me to
be a very severe condition that we should be acquainted with
the members of her Majesty's Government—(hear, hear)—
that we should at least know who those are whom we shall
support in the fulfilment of a great and onerous duty in cir-
cumstances so grave and trying. (Cheers.) In listening to
the argument—or rather to the statement of the noble lord,
for it was not an.argument—l am bound to say that I find it
neither satisfactory nor coherent. (Cheers.) I expected that
the noble lord would at least have attempted to answer the
argumentative speeches of his late right hon. colleagues ; but
was
present basedof h
the noble lord did not do so. The noble lord, however, in-
stead, vindicated d
informed
he
causes
thewthmhoeue
which
riusicpAoondmuditthiiinosinetirano
fqtuii
oourynr,
army in the Crimea. But the noble lord had opposed that
very committee, which was now to be supported by his Go-
vernment—(cheers)—he opposed it in language the most
streauous, and with opposition the most uncompromising
when he formed part of the late Government. (Cheers.)
That Government, however, ceased to- exist. It is unne-
cessary for me to refer now to the circumstances which
intervened between that day and the day on which the
noble lord received the high honour of a commission from
her Majesty to form an administration; and I only advert
to the fact for the purpose of making one observation with
the view of correcting an inaccuracy in the statement of
tta
ol
it policy
th e
the noble lord, with respect to Lord Derby's attempts to
form a Government. Lord Derby never declines}, as the
noble lord has stated, the exalted duty imposed on him
because he could not form a government ; he declined it
solely because he could not form a strong administration.
And, sir, I cannot admit that the noble lard, especially in
the position in which he now finds himself, after a ten day's
experience of his own most felicitous enterprise, has any
just reason or any clear right to plume himself on his success
over Lord Derby in this matter. (Cheers and laughter.)
Let us look to the noble lord's, former conduct as regards
this committee in contrast with his present support
of it, and in connection with his mode of dealing
with his late colleagues. Tho noble lord, when a member
of the late Government, opposed the committee 'to inquire
into the causes which have led to the present condition of
our army before Sebastopol ; I am bound to presume upon
principle. (A laugh.) Since then the noble lord has become
the head of a ministry, on which, no later than last Tuesday,
he delivered the highest possible eulogium, congratulating
the country on its possessing men of such sagacity, such
wisdom, and such high political qualities, as would live for
ever in the memory of this house. (A laugh.) The noble
lord when called upon to form an administration, formed it
upon the principle—if he formed it on any principle—(a
laugh)—Of opposing the'coramittee of inquiry. (Hear.) There
TM no other itibject, tubed, which ppire4 any conwaval,

' cation. between himself and his late colleagues. (Hear.) The ,
Inoble lord confessed, in fact, that as regarded his foreign policy
there was no difference between him and Lord Aberdeen.
There was only one question, then, ou which the necessity
of a frank explanation existed as between the noble lord and
his late colleagues. The right hon. baronet ,the late First
Lord of the Admiralty has explained already why there was
not a perfect confidence between him and the noble lord,
but with a certain reserve which. 'his position imposed on
him. But the house had it from the right hon. gentleman
the alamber forWiltshire, and the other right hen. gentleman
the member for the University of Oxford; that the concession
of this committee was the subject on which they required a
clear and complete'understanding with the noble lord; and,
as I collect from them, the noble lord objected, in the expla-
nations which ensued, to the principle of the proposed in-
quiry, and expressed his determination to resist it. (Hear.)
Well, what does the noble lord do ? Last Friday night he ex-
pressed his intention of resisting the,committee. On what
ground ? On theground that it was unconstitutional. (Cheers.)
Not on any slight, paltry, or insufficient grounds, but ou the
most effective ground that could be taken in the case—that it
was unconstitutional. (Cheers.) Is it not a strange thing,
then, that the First Minister of the Crown —the head of the
new Government—should—within the space of one short„
" one little week "—be prepared to concede that which he
pronounced then to be unconstitutional? (Cheers.) And for
what reason ? Simply because- he preferred to remain First
Minister—because, on his own sho wino, no other person could
form a strong Ministry. (Laughter.) °I
apprehend, sir, there
arc others who could form a Ministry as strong as that of the
noble lord, to say the least of it. (Cheers and laughter.) The
noble lord forms his Cabinet upon the basis of opposing the
committee to inquire into the causes which have led to, the
present condition of our army iu the Crimea; and then, be-
fore a week has elapsed, we find him rising in his place in this
house, and stating that his Government is favourable to the
committee, without at the same time alleging a single reason,
or offering the slightest argument, iu support of this sudden
and extraordinary change in his policy. (Cheers.) After
listening for hours to arguments, which I think were unan-
svrerab'e, and which he might have grappled with if he chose
—and which, moreover, as the head of the Government and
as the leader of the House of Commons, he might have conde-
scended to answer—the noble lord merely intimates that he
has changed his opinion, that he accepts a proposition which
so shortly since he had rejected as unconstitutional—(hear,
hear)—and that he has alterid the basis of his Government.
And this is the man whose consistency and whose energy
is to save the country ! (Loud cheers and laughter.) The
noble lord, however, gives one reason to the house for grant-
ing the committee. He has found out since last Friday that
there is a strong, an irresistible, public opinion all over the
country on the subject of inquiry into the causes which have
led to the present condition of the army in the Crimea, and
that no ministry would be justified in opposing that feeling.
But what kind of an observer of the disposition of the nation
must the noble lord be—what kind of an observer of public
opinion in the country ? What skill must he have possessed
in feeling the pulse of the public mind, if it is only since Fri-
day last the noble lord has come to that c inclusion / (Cheers.)
That discontent that has prevailed in the country for many
months, and which has resulted in the destruction of the late
Government, never once induced the noble lord to . suppose
this committee necessary. (Cheers.) Even when the noble lord
is called upon to fulfil, perhaps, the most responsible duty
which any man can be appointed to, the duty of forming a Go-
vernment for this country--at a time when a man thinks
most deeply and feels most profoundly—if he thinks or feels
at all—the noble lord still remains quite unconscious that this
committee is necessary. (Cheers.) The noble lord is, in fact,
so ignorant or negligent of the state of the• public mind on
the subject, that he forms his Government in defiance of that
necessity, and make a opposition to inquiry the basis of his
ministry. Yet this is political sagacity—(cheers)--this is
the administrative ability which has reconciled us for two
years to the late Government— represented by the First Mi-
nister of the Crown. (Hear.) After the speech of the noble
lord, I must confess that my hopes of the future as regards
his Government are less glowing than , they have been.
(Laughter and cheers.) I have made these observations, not ,
in reference to the argument of the noble lord, but in re-
ference to his change of opinion, for which he has offered no
argument and no reason to the house. Of the necessity of
the committee I have not changed my mind, although I have
listened with attention to the arguments of Use right hon.
gentlemen the late colleagues of the noble lord against it.
(Laughter.) It has been said that this is an unconstitutional
course for the House of Commons to take. I hardly care to
enter on that question, it has been so amply discussed before,
nor should I even allude to it but for the remark of the right
hon. member for Oxford University. Sir, I did not come
down to-night to enter on the question of the expediency or
the inexpediency of the committee. I came down by appoint-
ment to hear the statements to be made and the arguments
to be used by those distinguished statesmen- late members of
the present Government--(laughter)—and to listen to the
arguments and statements of the noble lord in reply. The
right honourable gentleman took the constitutional course in
making these statements, and the house would have a clear
right to feel offended if they had not made a frank exposi-
tion of their views—as I presume it will he with the noble
lord for not making a similar statement after seceding so
lately from Lord Aberdeen's Government. I did not come
to argue or to hear arguments on the necessity for inquiry ;
that was settled by the overwhelming majority of the other
night ; and I should be glad to see any minister who would
dare to rescind that vote of the Hewn of. Commons. (Cheers.)
But lit - is impossible not to notice the arguments adduced,
however briefly. The right hon. member for the University
of Oxford taunted in, right hon, friend the member for
Midhurst for applying precedents to this case ; he did so be-
cause he saw that the arguments adduced by my right hon.
friend made an impression ou the house with which it was not
easy for that right hon.. friend to grapple. (Hear.) The
right hon. gentleman
,derides. the appeal of my right hon.
friend to precedents, and will not condescend to argue the
question, he says, on so low a ground., But the question of
precedent was introdnced by the right hon. member for Car-
lisle in his weighty and matured speech in the early part of
the evening, and the right hon. gentleman went so far as to
admit, that though adverse to decide the question upon this
ground, many precedents, and those good ones, might have
considerable effect upon its decision by the house and by the
country. (Hear.) My right hon. friend, however, complied
with these conditions. .He quoted many precedents, and
they'were good ones—some of them-the. right honourable
member for the University oven admitted to be relevant to
the issue. Some, however, there were to which that right
hon. gentleman objected. I will give him one that has not
been alluded to in this debate. It is that which occurred in
the year 1779, when Lord Cornwallis was examined before a
committee of the whole house. What was the opinion of Mr.
Burke on the subject, as given in the "Annual Register" for
that Tear? Mr. Burke said this committee produced no great
effect because of the bustle and confusion which prevaild in
the house during its continuance. This shows how incon-
venient that high authority considered a committee of the
whole house in a similar case to the present. Select commit-
tees on analogous subjects granted by the house were not one
or two—their name was legion. Ido not, any more than the
right lion. gentleman, desire to put this question on the low
ground of precedent, though I could adduce plenty of prece-
dents, in the time of Charles 11., for instance, when the con-
duct of the war by the Duke of York was made the subject
of inquiry. They are to be found in the reign of Queen
Anne ; in the reigns of George 11., George 111., and during
the regency. But Ido not place this question simply upon
the ground of precedent. I say that had there not been
precedents to meet the present ease,, it would have been
samdeemaanpderedceadreenotf.
Thetthhes the
gravestd uty o
circumstances f
character.t he
un Housed
eoArf wfiCifeinglahmrmoinnygshuasitrY6 disappeared, and the
chief Minister of the Crown in this houi,e and the right hon.
doll! nvei nrl
remedy.
gentlemen who have seceded from the Government tell us—
in possession of all the secrets of the Cabinet, as they must
be—that the cause of all these disasters is to them inexpli-
cable. (Hear, hear.) If, therefore, there were no precedent
for a committee, such as that which this house has, it would
haveformed be been n
poluvre
0d
eduty,n t.
twuhn(ieHtda Universityee rar,presenthedisastersai..)
osofAnd,circumstances,uonxdnhela
has
unparalleled
di
notwithstandingnat dos
indulged,
tlhgoa evbde
argumentpeionpwlehoifehEtahgelaringdh,t
nhootni.ngeanmtleoi
mawmhloliaelnnlmt hta
itaehoywfer
relyaepmyfia always
fmes
euimoebpinee:n:nt
that
iouoatrftttihn that
tthe
eo
a
it was the duty of their representatives—their inexplicable in their origin to ltrnheeset o
statesmen
oof t hfieri rs
oftexistence,
duty—to
uhte y
t 0
day,
inquire into the cause of those disasters. (Hear, hear.) " I
am for inquiry," says the light hon. gentlemen, " but not
for inquiry by a committee of the whole house," Well, lam
might, under ordinary
Shelli;ilsl,
that
tt
utnodweih. aotrddinoaersytehiart.
perfectly ready to admiintsmgrttraehanantitttoynou
Oil"' likely to be more cir-
cumstances, obtiin a mode of in
satis-
factory than that which is proposed by the hon. and learned
may claim the function of exam-
member, the member for
in the present • state of
, and even of recommending
admissionicanunicir-
cumstances, exam-
ining tdevisingai nncteo sa min:ha:ea:at
affairs, the country has no confidence in the Government.
It is the conviction' that no sincere and efficient relief
could be afforded by the present Administration—l make
no distinction in that respect between the past and pre-
sent Government—(hear, hear)—it is that conviction that
no efficient inquiry could be conducted under the auspices
of Ministers that caused the people to
rely upon their own
House of Commons for redress and assistance. (Hear, hear.)
The most laboured part of the argument of the right hon.
gentleman, the member for the University of Oxford,
referred to the names upon the list of the committee. He
seems to be familiar with all the sentiments and opinions of
the hon. members whose names are on that list, and he says,
quoting the opinion of a great authority, that nothing can
be done effectually unless the individual who is employed is
in favour of the task which he is engaged to execute. That
was considered—but only by his friends—as an unanswerable
argument. But does it occur to the right hon. gentleman that
that argument, if good for anything, is as much opposed to .
the appointment of every committee which is appointed to
consider the various subjects with which this house has to
deal, as it is to the appointment of that which is under our
consideration. Why, there is not a committee upon any sub-
ject which does not consist of many distinguished members
who cannot be supposed to be favourable to the subject
matter of inquiry. (Hear, hear.) Is the right hon. gentle-
man prepared to go the length of saying that the nomination
of all such committees should be resisted 1 We have heard
many sneers at Parliament, and we are told that the Con-
stitution is in danger because the noble lord at the head of
the Government has, within the present week, changed the
whole policy of his Cabinet. But, in my opinion, if you
wish to deal a blow against Parliamentary authority you can-
not do so more effectively than by impressing upon the coun-
try that the elements of a Parliamentary committee are not
adapted to the effective fulfilment of their purpose. The
noble lord opposite declared but a week ago this committee
to be unconstitutional, upon which he is to-night prepared
to stake the existence of his Government. The noble lord
has again favoured us with a flattering view of impending
peace. I believe that if pease can be achieved upon honour-
able terms the noble lord will, in his endeavour to secure it,
meet with,the support of this house and of the country. All
I can say is,
' that I hope the instructions which the noble lord
has given to his late noble colleague the member for the City
of London are conceived in a more intelligible spirit than the
communications which, upon behalf of Lord Derby, he had
with the right hon. gentleman the member for the University
of Oxford—(hear, hear)—or than those upon which he an-
nounced to his late colleagues, that the basis of his Govern-
ment was to be formed. If the noble lord the member for
the City of London has gone to Vienna to be the promoter of
peace with foregone conclusions in favour of war, it is not
satisfactory, I apprehend, for the country. I can, there-
fore, only hope that the instructions which the noble
lord the member for t City of . London has received
lir
have been couched i a franker spirit, and ex-
pressed in more Intel giblo language than the condi-
tions which he made, apparently., to bo the basis of
his Government —(hear)—, Government which, after ten days
has experienced a disastrous blow at a period when the noble
lord assures us it was most important that this country should
have an effective administration. (Hear,) But now the noble
lord does not find himself in a condition, at the conclusion of
one short week, and after all his exertions and combinations,
cannot come down and assure the country that his Sovereign
possesses at this moment a complete body of responsible
advisers. (Cheers.)
Mr. GLADSTONE,--I rise to explain ono or two points
referred to in the speech of the right hon, gentleman who
has just sat down. One of those points relates to the ques-
tion of precedents, and upon that stilaject I merely wish to
say that what I stated was, that all the precedents which
Were quoted 4 the 1'414 Mat iationm the ratiml?..!

for Midhurst failed entirely in this essential particular__
that they related to operations which had been drawn
to a close; whereas the essence of this inquiry is that it is
about to take place into operaions which are still in pro-
gress. The other point upon which I wish to offer an ex-
planation is a matter of much more importance. lam
afraid I have been unfortunate -in, -expressing myself India-
tinetly upon it, otherwise my Meaning must have been
misapprehended by the right hon. gentleman opposite. The
right hon. 'gentleman has, of course, a perfect right to put
whatever construction he pleases upon any statementmade
by me or by any other hon. member ; but, as far as I recol-
lect, I never stated to the house that my noble friend at the
head of the Government told me that he would form his Go- -
vernment upon the basis of resistance to this committee, or
that I asked for any stipulations from him upon that subject.
I never made it the subject of stipulation at all. I never-
mentioned it to my noble friend until I had written to him to
acquaint -him that, after the communications we had had
respecting his foreign policy, I was ready, at his desire, to
accept office under his Administration. Subsequently, I had
the pleasure to serve him, at the time when I completed
the arrangements to take office. I then inquired of my noble
friend what his intentions were with with reference to the
committee. I never doubted him, and never thought of
askiiig (rein him any stipulations upon the subject. (Hoar,
hear.) He then stated his intentions continued to be the
same as they had been. (Hear, hear.)
• Sir G. GREY said that the explanation which had just
been made by his right honourable friend bad to a great ex-
tent relieved him from the necessity which he felt of offering
some observations to the house in reply to the speech of the
right honourable gentleman opposite. There were in that
speech repeited assumptions, without any evidence or proof,
that his noble friend near him had formed his Government•
upon
.en basisutohues of
opposition
theto theln
opt
ir proposed o soefd
the
- committee.
honourableA s
a member of Lord Aberdeen's Government he had offered a
s
and learned member for-Sheffield. Subsequently, when ho
had become A member of the Cabinet of his noble friend, he
bad come to the'ebn'clusion that in the position of unprece-
dented difficulty in which the country- was placed, it became
the duty of the Government to withdraw any further opposi-
tion to the.appointment of the committee in question. He
should, however, most emphatically deny that the Govern-
ment of his noble friend had been based upon the principle of
opposition to the nomination of the committee. The basis of
the Administration of his noble friend was the vigorous pro-
secution of the war, by all the means at his disposal, and with
all the energy which Parliament might enable him to exercise,
in order thus to secure at the earliest period possible a just
and honourable peace. When he (Sir George Grey) had op-
posed the appointment of the committee, he had taken that
course not because he wished to deny the right of Parlia.
ment to make an investigation into the condition of our army
if they thought fit, but because he entertained a deep sense
of the inconvenience which must result to the administration
of -the country from its nomination. He had felt that upon
that ground he was justified in his resistance to the motion
of the hon. and learned gentleman the member for Sheffield.
Hon. members in that house had voted for that motion froni
various reasons ; some because they were honestly desirous
of inquiry ; others because they regarded the motion as a
vote of censure upon the Government. The motion had
been carried, and the Administration of Lord Aberdeen had
then followed the only course which was open to them to pur-
sue. They had tendered. their resignations to her Majesty,
and those resignations had been accepted. In resigning the
office which he had the honour to hold he certainly enter-
tained but a very remote conception that he should again be
called upon to take a part in the Government. He, however,
had found it, in consequence of circumstances which subs°. 1
quently occurred, to be his duty to accept office under his
noble friend the member for Tiverton. Lord Derby had failed
in his endeavour to form an Administration. The hon. gen-
tleman opposite had, it was true, stated that Lord Derby had
not said he could not form a Government, but that he could
not form a sufficiently strong Government. It was quite ob-
vious, of course, that an hon. member in that house- might
collect around him a dozen gentlemen and call them a Govern-
ment. The Pueblo lord the member for Lend= had been sub.
' sequently entrusted by her Majesty with the formation of a
Government. He had also failed, and then'his noble friend
near him had taken upon himself the duty of forming an Ad-
ministration. • He (Sir G. Grey) should most gladly have de-
clined-to become a member of that Administration, not from
any want of confidence in his noble friend, but because he
deemed it to be extremely desirable that, under the circum-
stances in which the country was placed, a totally new Govern-
ment should be constructed. The country had become impor-
tunate for the formation of a Government, and -he had
felt that he would not have acted consistently with his duty
in withhholding his assistance from his noble friend. That
1 being the case, it became obvious that it would have been
an insult to the house that the new Government should at-
tempt to rescind the appointment of a committee which by a
solemn vote they had resolved to appoint. He admitted that
he had entertained a hope, when the Government was recon-
structed, and when his noble friend had announced his policy,
that the house might of its own accord have acquiesced in the
abandonment of the committee. The leaders of the party op-
posite, in that and the other house, had announced their ap-
proval of the motion for the appointment of that committee,
and the country had taken up the 'proposed inquiry as one
which it was most anxious to prosecute. Under these cir-
cumstances, he was not ashamed to say that he believed the
Government which had been recently formed could have at-
tained no useful object by attempting to stein the tide of
public opinion upon the subject, and by prolonging the un-
certainty and the confusion of a protracted ministerial crisis.
He denied altogether the proposition of his right hon. friend
the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), that the determina-
tion of the house to nominate that committee and to prosecute
that inquiry was a renewal of the vote of censure on the late
Government. Certainly no vote had been given, and no opi-
nion had been expressed by that ' house of a want of con-
fidence in the Government over which his noble friend

(Lord Palmerston) presided. The house, on the contrary,
had voted willingly, and cheerfully, all the estimates neces-
sary for a vigorous prosecution of the war, and he thought
that there was nothing in the conduct of the house to justify
her Majesty's Ministers in abandoning their posts at the pre-
sent crisis. He deeply deplored the secession of his three
right hon. friends ; he knew how difficult, or perhaps impos-
sible, it would be to replace them by men of equally eminent
ability; and he thought it was not unreasonable that the_
Government. should be allowed a few days more to fill the
places which they had vacated. The right hon. gentleman
the member for Buckinghamshire had said that a week had
already elapsed since these vacancies had take place. (Cries
of " no," from the Opposition benches.) Ho said that the
right hon. gentleman had distinctly made that statement,
but it was manifestly unfounded, as two days only had since
elapsel; and the house.) culd not, he thought, foal surprised
that the new appointments to those offices had not yet taken
place. The right hon. gentleman ought to be the last man

to taunt his noble friend at the head of the Government for
not having been able to find at ()IWO thhe persons to fill
those vacancies, after Lord Derby had himself declared
. .

that he could not find men of sufficient experience or
capacity—(Cries of " no," from the Opposition benches,
followed by loud cheers from the Ministerial side of the
house)—on his own side of the house for the construction
of a Government. He for one found no reason for with-
drawing from the administration of his noble friend,
to whom he felt it his duty to continuo to tender his humble,
but earnest support. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MUNTZ protested against their being guided by pre-
cedents in that case. They had no precedent for the almost
total loss of an army of upwards of 50,000 men in the space
of a few months; and neither, he thought, ought they to look
for a precedent to guide them in their inquiries into so un-
paralleled a calamity.
The motion was then agreed to.
The SPEAKER then began to put seriatim the names of the
proposed members of the committee, and the names of Mr.
Roebuck, Mr. H. Drummond, and Sir J. Ellington were
agreed to without any discussion.
The name of Colonel Lindsay having nextll 3en put,
Mr. R. PHILLIMORE objected to their proceeding with
the appointment of the committee at that advanced hour.
He thought it the more unreasonable that they should then
come to a final decision on the subject, as the duties of the
proposed committee had not yet been defined, and no one
knew whether its inquiries were or were not to be pro-
spective.
Mr. WALPOLE said he believed that nothing but public
inconvenience could result from a prolongation of that discus-
sion. He could inform the hon. and learned gentleman, that,
according to the rules of the house, as he understood them, a
committee, without an express order from that house, must
confine its inquiries to events which had taken place pre-
viously to its appointment.
air T. ACLAND continued to disapprove of the motion
for instituting that inquiry ; but he felt that no good effect
could be gained by a prolongation of that controversy.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said he did not see any disad-
vantage that could. result from the appointment of the
committee, if it were to confine its labours to an inquiry
into the conduct of those departments in this country
whose business it was to supply the wants of the army.
But he felt persuaded that any attempt on the part of the
committee to enter into military matters in the Crimea
would be productive of the most fatal consequences to the
public service.
Lord PALMERSTON—In answer to the hon. baronet
I must state it is not my intention to propose any limitation
to the inquiries of the committee. It appeared to me that
the:first:and main object to be attained was to appoint a com-
mittee consisting of gentlemen in whose discretion and judg-
ment the house might repose confidence. I think the selec-
tion which has been made is one which does entitle the
committee to the confidence of the house. (Hear, hear.)
I think the names are unobjectionable ; and I, for one, am
prepared to repose in these gentlemen sufficient confidence
to think that- in the pursuit of their inquiry they will not
travel into the delicate or dangerous topics which have been
adverted to in the course of the debate. It does not ap-
pear impossible to pursue this inquiry into the condition of
our army without travelling into those questions which affect
our relations with:our gallant allies. It would be very un-
fortunate, therefore, if they should inquire into any subject or
matter which might tend to wound the feelings of our allies ;-
and I think it cannot be too strongly impressed on the gen
tlemen to abstain from any inquiry that would have so
calamitous a result. If they pursue with proper discretion
their inquiry, they will satisfy Parliament without incurring
any evil, and, therefore, it is not my intention to propose any
limitation. (Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK—It is not my intention to move any in-
structions to this committee, for I think the words of my
motion do limit the inquiry of- that committee. The words
are that they should " inquire into the condition of our army
before Sebastopol, an& into the conduct of those departments
of the Government whose duty it has been to minister to the
wants of that army." Now, it appears to me that these words
are definite, they explain themselves ; and such being the
case, I think the committee require no instructions. The
house, when it selects a committee, generally has some confi-
dence in that committee, and perhaps the house will allow
me to say a few words upon the selection which has been
made in this instance. I have to apologise to the gentlemen
whose names I used in the first instance for not being able to
carry out my original intention. I found however that those
names did not meet with the confidence of this louse, and I
therefore felt it my duty to place myself immediately in
communication with the noble lord at the head of the Go-
vernment. The result of my communication with him is,
that I have been enabled to present to the house a committee
but rarptiolln,
a prerogativet
rea
in which I think they have confidence—(hear)—and if that
committee deserves the confidence of this house it requires no
instructions. I perfectly agree with everything said respect-
ing the difficulty in the way of this inquiry. But I think
the difficulty justifies and calls forth inquiry. The difficulty
is
asto closelytrench upon possibleasn;
all that notwithstanding, wo have before us an army melting
away ; we have the people of this country demanding inquiry;
glknwowhie whe
w areeeturgenhethninegt
and I believe we should not satisfy the desires of our consti-
tuents did we not grant the inquiry I have asked for. (Hear.)
It is on these grounds, and on these grounds alone, that I
have ventured upon this delicate and, I will say, dangerous
investigation. No inquiry, indeed, could be more delicate
and dangerous ; for, depend upon it, you have a people to
satisfy who will not be satisfied until they have probed to the
bottom the circumstances which have caused the destruction
of the finest army that ever left the shores of this country.'
Mr. H. BAILLIE said he would- not move his instruction
at that late hour. But he hoped that, the committee would
be effectual and searching.' _
The names of Mr. -Roebuck, Mr. 'Drummond, Sir J. Pak-
ington, and Colonel Lindsay, as members of the -committee,
were then put and agreed to. ..-4
On the sum of Mr, 1490 rd WI% 112611194-7

Mr. R. PHILLIMORE movod that Sir G. Grey be substi-
,uted.

The SPEAKER.—The hon. gentleman mast give notice of
its amendment. (A laugh.)

Mr. Layard's name e was then agreed to, as also was that of
Mr. Ellice.
On the name of Lord Seymour,

Mr. GLADSTONE.—I think I heard the noble lord say
that unless some distinct instructions were laid down for the
guidance of the committee he would not act on it.
Mr. DISRAELI.—If the noble lord will act as chairman of
the committee, I am sure it would be worth all the instruc-
tions that eonld be given. (Hear, hear.)
The name was then agreed to, as also were Sir G. Lewis
and General Peel.
On the name of Mr. Bramston,
Mr. CORRY moved the substitution of Captain Scobell,
pursuant to notice. He thought one naval officer at least
should be on the committee. (Hear, hear.) •
The SPEAKER was about to put the question, when
Mr. ROEBUCK observed that they could examine as many
naval men as they pleased, therefore he did not see the ne-
cessity of substituting Captiin Scobell. (Oh, oh.)
Lord PALMERSTON suggested that they should take the
committee as it stood.
Captain SCOBELL would prefer any other naval officer to
himself. But, to examine harbour accounts—Balaklava, for
instance—a naval officer was necessary. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE thought the names might be taken as they
stood, and, if necessary, on a future occasion, the name of a
naval officer might be added, (No, no.)
The SPEAKER put the question.
The house then divided, when there appeared.
For retaining the name of Mr. Bramston 101
For substituting Capt. Scobell
Majority for Mr. Bramston's name
On the motion that Mr. J. Ball be a member of the com-
mittee,
Mr. BENTINCK opposed the motion, and gave notice that
on Monday he should move that the name of Sir George
Tyler be substituted, as it was indispensable that at least one
naval officer should be on the committee.

Mr. BERESFORD gave notice that he should, on Monday,
move that Mr. Miles be added to the committee, as he was a
connection of Lord Raglan ; and when the character of the
noble lord was to be assailed in that way it was most essen-
tial that some person should be appointed who would watch
over the interests of the noble lord.
Mr. ROEBUCK said this was the first time he had heard a
proposal to place a relative of a man in the dock on the jury.
Mr. MILES trusted the hon. and gallant member would not
persevere in his motion, as he had every confidence in the
committee that had been appointed, and thought the charac-
ter of the noble lord perfectly safe in their hands. He thought
it was the civil departments of the army that ought to be in-
quired into.
Mr. NAPIER said, before a man was placed in the dock it
was usual to prefer a bill of indictment.
The house then divided, when there appeared--
For retaining the name of Mr. Ball 9B
Against
Majority
The name of Mr. `Ball was then added to the committee.
Mr. ROEBUCK then moved that the quorum be seven.—
Agreed to.
The orders of the day were then read over.
The Consolidated Fund Bill went through committee.
The Nuisances Removal Bill and Diseases Prevention Bill
went through committee.
The Army Service Act Amendment Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Consolidated Fund (20,000,0001.) Bill was read
time. a third
The house adjourned at a quarter past two o'clock.

P.ARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FEB. 23.
ARMY BEFORE SEBASTOPOL.

Committee nominated :—Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Drummond,
Sir John Pakington, Colonel Lindsay, Mr. Layard, Mr.
Ellice, Lord Seymour, Sir George Lewis, and General
Peel :—Motion made, and Question proposed, " That
Mr. Bramstbn be one other Member of the said Com-
mittee:"—Amendment proposed, to leave oat the lame
of " Mr. Bramston," and to insert the name of " Captain
Scobell," instead thereoC:—Qttestien put, " That the
name of ' Mr. Bramston ' stand part of the Question :"
The House divided ; Ayes 101, Noes 80.

AYES.-101.
Acton, J. Godorich, Via.
Baines, Bt. Hon. M. Goodman, Sir G.
Baird, J. Gordon, A.
Ball, J. Grace, 0.
Baines, T. Greaves, E.
Beamish. F. Grcgson, S.
Biggs, W. Greville, Col, F.
Bignold, Sir S. Grey, Sir G.
Bonham-Carter, J. Hall, Sir B.
tiouverie, Hon. E. P. Thistle, Alex.
Brocklehurst J. Heneage, Geo. H.
Brotherton, J. Herbert, H.
Buckley, Gen. Horsman, E.
Carnac, Sir J. Ingham, R.
Cavendish, G. Keogh, W.
Christie, Samuel King, P.
Cowper, W. F. Kin;, J.
Craufurd, E. 11. J. Lacon, Sir E.
Deedes, W. Laslett, ST.
Dent, J Layard, A. H.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. Lace, T.
Duncan, Viscount Lushington, C.
Duncombe, T. Macgregor, Jas.
Dunlop, A. Milner, W.
Dunne, M. Mitchell, T.
East, Sir J. Molesworth, Sir W.
Ebrington, Viscount Monet, Viscount
Egerton, E. Montgomery, Six G.
Fitzroy, Hon. H. M•styn, T.
Forster, C. Mulgrave, Earl of
Forster, J. Murrough, J.
Fortescue, C. North, F.
Fox, W. 0 borne, R.
Freestun, Col. Otway, A.
French, F. Palmerston, Visct.
BOES-80.

Paxton, Sir J.
reel, F.
Perry, Sir T.
Philipps, J.
Phillimore. J. G.
Ricardo, 0.
Ricardo, P.
Roebuck, J.
Russell, F. C.
Sawle, C.
Scholefield, W.
Seymour, W.
Shelley, Sir J.
Smith, W.
Somerville, Sir W.
Steel, J.
Strait, E.
Sullivan. Michael
Talbot, C.
Thompson, G.
Thornely, T.
Waterpark, Lord
Whatman, J.
Whitbread, S.
Wilkinson, W.
Williams. W.
Willoughby, Sir H.
Wilson, J.
Winnington, Sir T.
Rise. A.
Wood, Sir C.

T ELL ERS
Hayter, W.
Berkeley, G.

Adderley, C.
Anderson, Str J.
Archdall, 31.
Bailey, C.
Ball, E.
Barrow, W.
Batavia, Capt T.
Bent tick, G.
Bowyer, G.
Bramley- Moore, J.
Bunbury, Capt. W.
Chill, Smith
Co a, it A
'wan. C.
Disraeli. B.
Duncan, G.
D uncom be, I fon . A.
Diricombe, lIon.W.
Dundas, G.
Da ['cc, C.
Evelyn, W.
Fitztierald, Sir J.
Fitz;erald, W.
Galwey, Sir W.
Gardner, R.
George, J.
aladstone, Capt. J.
Grogan, Edward

Gwyn, 11.
Herbert, Sir T.
Hev wend. J.
Hilyard, It. C.
Hume, W.
Keating, It.
Kendall. N.
Knatchball, W.
F.
Kniglaley, R.
Knox, Col. Li. W.
Land tot, W.
Lennox, Lord A. F.
Lidd,ll, 11. G.
Macartnoy, G.
M.tiann, J.
Macgregor, John
Macguiro, J.
l'Af,lins, R.
Mandeville, Pis.
Miles, AV.
Dr.W
Montgomery, 11.
At)ore, G.
Isloirbray, J.
Mailings, J.
Naas, Lord
Napier, J.

New legate, C.
North, Col. J.
Oakes, J.
O'Brien, P.
Pakenham, Capt. E.
Pak'ngton, Sir J.
Parker, R.
Percy, T.
Minn, T.
Pilkington, J.
Sl-I,ly, F.
Sinljth. Sir W.
Spooner, R.
Stanhope. J.
Stsnley, Lord
Taylor, Col.
Tud way, It
Tyler, Sir G.
vanee, J.
Vansittart, 0.
Walpole, S.
Whiteside, J.
Woudd,
Wyndham, Gets.

TELLERS,
Corry, 11. T. L.
Packe, C.

Motion made, and Question put—" That Mr. John Ball
be one other Member of tie said Committee :"—The
House divided ; Ayes 98, Noes 62.

AYES-98.

Alton, Joseph Grace, 0. Perry, Sir T.
Anderson, t•ir J. Greville, Colonel F. Phi Ilimore, J. G.
Baines, Rt. Hon. M. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir G. Finn'', T.
Baird, J. Hall, Sir Benjamin Pilkington, J.
Boamish, F. Hustle. Alex. Ricardo, 0.
Biggs, W. Ileneage, Geo. 11. Ricardo, S.
II mlutin-Carter, J. Herbert, H. Roebuck:J. A.
iSouverie, Hon. E. P. Heywood, J. Russell, F. C.
Brocklehurst, J. Horstrian, E. Sadleir, John
Brotherton, J. Ingham, R. Sawle, C.
Buckley, Gen. Keating, R. Scholelleld, W.
..;'avendi,ll, C. C. Keogh, W. Scully, F.
Cowan, C. King, J. Seymour. W.
Cowyer, W. F. Laslett, W. Shelley. Sir J.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Layard, A. H. Somerville, Str.W.
Deedes, William Luce T. Steel, John
Dent, John Dent Lushington, C. M. Strutt, Hon. E.
Duckworth, Sir J. T.D. M'Cann,!J. Sullivan, Michael
Buick!), George Milner, W. M. E. Talbot, C.
Buncombe, Thomas Mitchell, T. A. Thomrson, G.
Dunne, Michael Molesworth, Sir W. Thornely, T
Ebrington, Viscoant Itionck, Viscount Waterpark, Lord
Egerton, Edw. C. Montgomery, Sir G. Whatman, J.
Fitz Gerald, Sir John Mo,tyn, E. Whitbread, S.
Fitzroy, Henry Mulgraye, l? arl of Wilkinson, W.
Forster, Charles Murrouga, J. P Willoughby, Sir H.
Forster, John North, F. Wilson, J.
Fortescue, C. S. O'Brien, P. Winnington, Sir T.
Freestun, Colonel Osborne, R. Wise, A.
French, Fitzstephen Otway, A. Wood, Sir C.
Gardner, Ti. Palmerston, Viscount TELLERS.
Goderich, Viscount Paxton, Sir J. Hay ter, W.
Goodman, Sir G. Peel, F. Berkeley, G.

NOES-62.
Berkeley, G. . Gwyn, Dowel Worth, Col. J.
Adderley, C. B. lllldyard, R. C. Oakes, J.
Archdall, Capt. M. Dame, W. Packe, C.
Bailey, C. Kendall, N. Pakenham, Capt. E
Ball, E. King, J. Parker, R.
Barrow, W. Knatchbull, IV. Percy, J.
Bateson, 1. Knight, F. Smijth, Sir W.
Beresford, Rt. Iln. W. Knox, W. S. Smith, W.
Bowyer, G. Langton, W. li. P. G. Spooner, R.
Bromley-Moore, J. Lennox, Lord A. F. Stanhope, J.
Banbury, Capt. W. Liddell, 11. G. Stanley, Lord
Carnac, Sir J. R. Macartney, G. Taylor, Colonel
Child, Smith MacGregor, James Tad way, It.
Cole, 11. A. Maguire. J. F. Vance, John
Jorry, 11. T. L. Matins, Richard Vansittart, G.
buncombe, Hon. A. Michell, William Whiteside, J.
Duncombe, Hon.W.E. Montgomery, 11. L. Wyndham, Gen.
Dundai, G. Moore, G.
Evelyn, I. J. Mowbray, J. R.
Fitzgerald, W. R. S. Mullings, J. R.
Galway, Sir W. Naas Lord
George, J. Napier, J.
Grogan, Edward Newdegate, C.

TELLERS.

Bentinck, G.
Mandeville, Visconti'

THE LONDON GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT•

FOREIGN-OFFICE, FEB. 22.
The Queen has been pleased to approve of Don Juan
Martinez Villergas as Consal at Newcastle for the Queen
of Spain.

DOWNING-STREET, FEB. 21.
The Queen has been pleased to appoint James Meleuedl-
tub, Charles Bradshaw-, Donald Kennedy, and Alfred
Ross, Esquires, to be non-elective Members of the Legia•
lative Council of the Colony of Victoria.

BOARD OF TRADE, WHITEHALL, Fin. 21.
The Right Honourable the Lords of the Committee of
Privy Council for Trade and Plantations have received,
through the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a c•pY
of a Despatch from her Majesty's Consul at Tahiti, en-
closing copy of a Regulation, recently issued by the French
Imperial Commissioner at Tahiti, directing that, from and
after the Ist October, 1854, vessels carrying the British
flag shall be treated in the ports of Tahiti and Moorea,
upon the same footing as vessels under the French flag.