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

'ERA

14 0 i 0 0 .14 , WEDNESDAY :ft' V fil !,Z' 1 14". ON 3 Ici L Y IS, I'6 g

committee on this point! The House will excuse me for
what lam about to read as Idoit in self-defence. It is
said that I proposed a resolution at the end of the pro-
ceedings of that committee which had only in its support
my own casting vote; now, I will ask the house when I
read the resolutions which were agreed to unanimously by
that committee, which were penned by the noble lord the
member for Totnes, what is the difference between my
resolution and that of the noble lord Impage 4, under
the head of " The conduct of the departments both athome
and abroad whose duty it is best to minister to the wants
of the army." there appeared these words :

" The Cabinet appear to have • been confident of success.
Lord Aberdeen states it to have been their impression that
Sebastopol would fall almost immediately by a coup de
main. The Duke of Newcastle says that he expected the
army, after capturing Sebastopol, would winter there, or
else, after destroying the fortress; would return to winter
on the shores of the Bosphorus. Sir James Graham has the
strongest opinion that the order for the expedition was
given at the right time, and was executed at the right time.
This report shows the results which ensued upon the frustra-
tion of these expectations. Your committee have inquired
what information the Governmenthad obtained which induced
them to order this expedition. In regard to this matter, it
may be observed that the Duke of Newcastle had, in his de-
spatch of the 10th of April, estimated the Russian forces in
the Crimea at 30,000 men, and he believes that when the ex-
pedition was ordered no more reliable accounts had been re-
ceived, Sir J. Graham says, however, that at a later period—
namely, the last week in July—he had obtained from a Cri-
mean authority a complete account of the Crimea, its localities,
its harbours, its roads, its productions, and supply of water,
and, what was most important of all, a statement of the force,
which was estimated by his informant at 70,000 men, 8,000 of
which were cavalry,. 40,000 constituted the garrison of Sebas-
topol, and the remaining 30,000 were dispersed through the
Crimea.' Vice-Admiral Dundas had, on the 10th of May,
1854, written to Lord Raglan a letter, in which, relying upon
information which he had obtained, he estimated the Russian
force in the Crimea at 120,000 men. The embassies at St.
Petersburg and Constantinople were unable to furnish any
information upon these important subjects."
It is due to the gallant lord to have this statement made to
show that he was opposed to the policy, and that the only
persons really responsible for the expedition are the Ad-
ministration who had the management of it :
_ _

" Lord Raglan, in his despatch of the 19th of July, states
that 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 autho-
rities, either as to the extent of the enemy's forces or to their
state of preparation.' "

Now, sir, I simply repeat what has been told to me, and I
hardly think that I should be violating any confidence if I
mentioned my authority, but I will not state it, although I
dare say that it is known to the right hon. gentleman. I
am informed that the authorityon which he relied wrote to
him a letter, stating that he had been in the Crimea only
once, that he spoke upon information gained upon the most
cursory travelling through the country, and that what the
right hon. gentleman called " a Crimean authority" was a
person who had only been there a few days. Observe, I
speak upon authority, and I Rae a right hon. gentleman
opposite who, I think, knows the authority upon which I
speak, because he stated to him exactly what he stated to
me. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, I come to a part of the mat-
ter which affects the noble lord at the head of the present
Administration. He was at that time Home Secretary.
Under his command was the militia of this country (hear);
and I state that, after war was declared, and before the
expedition to the Crimea was undertaken, the Adminis-
triltion took no steps to provide a reserve of force for
the army which they were about to employ on that ex-
pedition, that army being originally in numbers inade-
quate to the task which was imposed on it. Now, I
charge that against the noble lord, and I charge it as a
great error, and no mo, e ; but an error may lead to great
mischief, and I think that it has done so in the case of the
noble lord. He took no provision in respect to the militia.
The army was sent out totally inadequate, as the right
hon. gentleman himself admits. He believes that the army
of Russia amounted to 70,003 men, and we sent to the
Crimea at the utmost 25,000 men.

Mr. GLADSTONE—You forgEt the allies.
Mr. ROEBUCK—I was speaking of the British army;
but the allies and we together sent a force of 50.000 men.
At that time the right hon. gentleman believed that 70,000
men were in the Crimea. Vice-Admiral Dundas believed
that there were 150,000 men there, yet we despatched an
army of 25,000 men, aided by a smaller army of French to
invade the Crimea, and at that time the noble lord who
wasat the head of the militia took no steps to provide a
reserve by means of the militia of this country. Again I
appeal to the report 3f the Sebastopol Committee :
" From the 16th of September, when the army landed in
the Crimea, until the end of October, or, as some witnesses
state, until about themiddle of November, the troops suffered
from overwork and from dysentery."
Now, the statement that the troops suffered from over-
work means that their numbers were insufficient—(hear)-
and every witness who came before us, generals, captains,
privates, all concurred in stating that the men were over-
worked. They went to the trenches for 24 hours at a time
—I am understating it. If there had been more troops their
work would have been less; and, what was more than all,
had an adequate provision been made of labour in the Cri-
mes, that seven miles at the end of the 3,000 would not
have stood in the way like a great chasm to prevent the ar-
rival of all support and sustenance from this country. I
beard the right hon. gentleman the member for South
Wiltshire, when upon the Treasury bench, say that the
whole distance between us and the army was 3,003 miles,
but that the last six was the insuperable difficulty. (Ffear.)
Why, at that time there was there, upon that six miles,
the means of making a road the most complete that na-
ture offered ; there were faggots in abundance as well as
" metalling"—in the phraseology of road-making, lime-
stone. (Hear.) All that was required was stout yeomen
arms. Thom, arms were not provided ; and at whose door
shall we lay the fault ? Clearly at the door cf the Ad-
ministration which sent an army to do a deed which no
army could do thus hampered, thus ill-provided, thus
"cabinet], cribbed, confined." (Cheers.) Why, air, if
they had had 20,000 labourers, could they not have male
that ioad in a fortnight, and should we have heard the
harrowing descriptions which we have heard of the misery
suffered by our gallant troops upon that occasion? Not
at all. Well, then, I say that upon the Administration,
and upon them alone, rests the responsibility that our
army was totally unprovided, that they went inadequate
to the occasion, that we sent a force to perform a deed
which was totally unequal to the office, and that, instead
of sitting in anxious conference endeavouring to supply
the want which their own carelessness created, Parliament
separated in August, and there was no Cabinet Council
till the middle of October. The noble lord the memberfor
the city of London was instructing the population of Glo-
cestershire, I believe, by certain lectures; the right
hon. gentleman the head of the Board of Works was
shining somewhere in Scotland—(a laugh)—and, in fact,
with the exception of the Duke of Newcastle and the right,
hon. gentleman the member for South Wiltshire, and,, I
believe, the Earl of Aberdeen—(An hon. -MEMBER.—
" The Earl of Clarendon.] lam not quite so sure about
the Earl of Clarendon; but, with those exceptions, all
were taking their pleasure from the endhof August till the
middle of October.

Mr. GLADSTONE.—Quite untrue. • •
Mr. ROEBUCK continued.—There was no Cabinet
Council daring the whole of that period. The Duke of
Newcastle stated before the committee that he wasin Lon-
don all that time; and I believe that the then First Lord
of the Admiralty was also at his post; but they are now out
of office—they have received their punishment. (Cheers,
and a laugh.) The persons whom I wish to visit are now
in office, because they were at that time indulging them-
selves, and were not looking after their duty. The .noble
lord at the head of the present Administration, where was
he ? The noble lord the member for the city of London,
where was he ? The right hon. gentleman the )-home Se-
cretary, where was he ? The right hon. gentleman the
President of the Board of Works, where was he ? Why, I
could go through the list ; and I ask, why was there no
Cabinet Council during all that time? (Hear, hear.) In
that interval the Battle of the Alma was fought—the
expedition to the Crimea was- determined on and exe-
cited. You may tell me that the expedition was deter-
mined on before ; then, why were you not iu London
to receive intelligence as to the mode in which it was
executed? (Hear, hear.) Why were you not at your
posts ? The army dwindled away ; cold, hunger, tempest
came upon them. Yon were not at your posts to minister
to their wants, and I ask the house to visit with severe
reprehension the men who so forgot their duties. (Hear.)
Now, sir, it is in evidence that the sufferings of the army
were not attributable to the army itself ; that they were
not attributable even to the governors or generals of
that army ; but they must have had a cause, and it is
for us to inquire what was that cause. It was that the
army was not adequately provided for the operations
which they had to perform. They were thrown upon the
shores of the Crimea without the means of transport, and
although we had command of the sea, and could convey to
the shores of the Crimea everything that England or the
world could offer, yet our troops died six miles from the
shore because there was not an adequate road provided by
this great country for its army. Can any one believe, Sir,
if we hat had a man at the head of the Cabinet, or in the
Cabinet, who had the spirit in him which this country
furnishes, I would say, to the humblest of her sons, with
the means will& this country affords of performing every-
thing which human art or science can accomplish—can any
one believe, I ask, that seven miles off mud should stand
between us and as gallant an army as ever left the shores
of England ? (Hear.) We let them die like sheep.
They suffered under single canvas—there was no oppor-
tunity of taking them huts to cover them—cold,
rain, snow, tempest beat upon their heads; and
the Government of her Majesty were indulging their ease
while those gallant men were enduring such extremes of
suffering. And are the representatives of the people of
England to stand idly by and witness such a dereliction of
duty? The thought is monstrous—it makes my blood boil.
The Government sent forth a body of men to fight the bat-
tles of their country, and they sent them armed as troops
were armed 30 years ago, notwithstanding all that art has
accomplished during the interval. [Sii D. L. Evans—" Some
—not all."] I am glad that the gallant general, who knows
so well the sufferings of the armyto which he was attached,
should correct me if I exaggerate; but evidence was given
before the committee that the weapon which is popularly
known as "Brown Bess" was in the hands of many regi-
ments before Sebaptopol, and assuming one-fourth of tha
army to have been thus armed—[Sir D. L. Evans—" Only
one-fifth."]—Well, one-fifth; but I saythat evenif one man
Was improperly armed it is the fault of the Administra-
tion, and the man so armed was a sacrifice to the want of
care, diligence,and foresight on the part of those to whom the
conduct of the war was intrusted. I say that it is only
proper that this house should visit with severe reprehen-
sion Persons who so carelessly dischared their duties. With
regard to medical stores, that army should never have been
sent to the Crimea unprepared with them, even if the
troops were in health to perform their duty; but before
the army left Varna plague in the shape of cholera attacked
it, and then, surely, it was the duly of the Government to
provide for it everything which the medical science of this
country could afford. What was the description given to
the committee of the wretchedness endured by the troops
before Sebastopol? They were described as broken down by
disease—disease more potent than the enemy ; they slept
under single canvas, their legs up to the knees in mud, they
were rained upon when suffering allthe horrors of diarrhcea ;
and all the other miseries to which poor human nature is
subject were experienced by that army. Was the army,
then, properly provided with medical means? I say they
were not. And upon whose head must be charged the
mischief which I am now describing? I
Say, upon the
Administration. But it is said—and I now come to a
part of the subject upon which I can hardly touch without
indignation—that the committee has already performed
that for which it was appointed. It is said that it has got
rid of all the enemies in the Administration, of those who
were the cause of the mischief. Now, sir, for my own
Part, t am far from believing that such is the case. (Hear,
hear.) It is said you have turned out Lord Aberdeen, the
Duke of Newcastle, and the right hon. members for Car-
lisle, the University of Oxford, and Wilts, and what more
do you expect ? Do you want to see everybody punished ?
I, sir, say yes ; I want to see everybody punished who de-
serves it. (Hear, hear.) I think that that argument is

unfair to those who were more immediately copeeted
with the conduct of the war. Perhaps; I may be perfnitted
to say—and I say it in no spirit of presumption—that I
think the Duke of Newcastle has been made a scapegoat—
(hear, hear)—that he has been pent into the wilderness
with the sins of the Administration on his head. (Hear.)
I think that if ever there was a man who really discharged
his duty conscientiously, that man was the Duke of New-
castle. (Hear; hear.) Ho acted according to the best of
his ability ; he was always at his post ; and he was ever
intent upon the honour of England and the welfare of the
army which was submitted to his care. (Hear, hear.) I
say, therefore, sir, that to throw all the blame upon the
Duke of Newcastle and to make his retirement from office a

sufficient holocaust to the anger of England, is an act of in-
justice to which I will not consent to be a party. I say
the same with regard to the right hon. member for IN ilts.
(Hoar, hear.) No man could have been more intent than
that right hon. gentleman had always been upon the hon-
our of his country, and on performing the duties of his
office. I do not mean to say that he did not often do
wrong. I think he did ; but then I draw the distinction
between him and other members of the Administration,
that he was conscientiously endeavouring to perform his
duty and was always at his post—(hear, hear)—and his
kindliness of spirit was always pervading the office to
which he belonged. (Hear, hear.) I say that that right
hon. gentleman and the Duke of Newcastle acted to the
best of their abilities for the welfare of England ; and that
they should be offered up as a sacrifice for the sins of the
rest of the Administration is an act of injustice which I
think that this house cannotbut disapprove—(hear)—when
there are those who have done the injury still holding the
seals of power, while the least guilty have gone out of
office. With regard to the right hon. gentleman the late
First Lord of the Admiralty, I hope he willexcuse me say-
ing that I think he made some senoras mistakes. I think
he made a grave mistake in building large ships of war,
when, in my opinion, he ought to have built marine batte-
ries of email vessels, but at the same time there was about
him a desire to do his duty, which does not appear to me
to have boon evinced by the other inembeg of the Govern-
ment. I say, therefore, that it is no satisfaction to me to
have got rid of those individuals. I am glad that any man
who has done wrong is out of office, but what I want is,
that all who have done wrong should go out—(hear)—and
I hope that the house will support me in that desire. I feel,
Sir, that to adequately bring forward this resolution re-
quires a strength beyond that which I possess, for myfeeble
body is only now borne up by the indignant spirit within.
I have seen a brave army of Englishmen pining and melt-
ing away in destitution. I have seen them thus in conse-
quence of the error.; and the supineness of the Administra-
tion, and I have seen the persons who formed that Adminis-
tration come back to office unstricken by any expression of
opinion on the part of this house. It is now manifest that
the Administration which I wish to censure have been guilty
of wrong, and whether the result. of carrying my resolution
be to transfer power from those who sit on this side of the
house is to me a matter of total indifference. All that I wish
for is justice, all that I desire is to see that we shall never
again be in the position of calling on i body of our brave
fellow-countrymen, and at the same time sit here night
after night faced by a body of men by whose supineness
and errors they are being consigned to an untimely grave.
(Hear.) In this spirit I have moved the resolution which
I now, sir, place in your hands. lam aware that I have
inadequately performed the duty which I have undertaken,
but I have done so to the best of my ability, and I now
leave the question to the decision of the house. (Cheers.)

General PEEL, in moving the previous question, said—The
resolution, sir, which the hon. member for Sheffield has placed
in your hands, in the first place, calls upon this house to ex-
press a deep feeling of regret at the sufferings of our army
during the winter campaign in the Crimea. To, that portion of
the resolution I am sure that every member of this house will
' cordially assent, and I think would also be willing to add some
expression of admiration for the fortitude which that army
displayed daring all its privations. The resolution, however,
goes on to say that the house, coinciding with the resolution of
their committee, that the conduct of the Administration was
the first and chief cause of the calamities which befel that
army, do hereby visit with severe reprehension every mem-
ber of that Cabinet whose counsels led to such disastrous re-
sults. Before the house consents to agree to that resolution,
it ought to consider what are the principal considerations
which it embodies. Now, sir, I think that, if the words of
the resolution convey any meaning at all, that meaning is an
expression condemnatory of the policy of the expedition to the
Ci imea. Now, I am not prepared to come to that conclusion,
or to condemn the policy of that "xpedition. I voted against
that resolution in the committee, and I am not prepared to
adopt it now. It is perfectly true that little was known of the
state of the Russian army, or of the Russian fortresses in the
Crimea, but if no expedition' was to be undertaken without
full and accurate information of the facts I venture to say that
the allied armies would have attempted nothing at all against
a country so situated as Russia. (Hear.) No great object can
be gained without running some risk in its attainment. (Hear.)
The best test, however, of the expedition to the Crimea
is, that there was a:better chance of success on the
first landing of the army than there has ever been since ; that
there was a better chance of taking Sebastopol by a coup de
main—a sudden assault—than by a protracted siege or cam-
pAign in the field. Another point to be considered is the
state of the allied armies at that time. They had been de-
pressed by sickness and inaction, and it was absolutely ne-
cessary that some means should be resorted to in order to
restore their spirits. Above all, however, the state of public
feeling at home must be looked to. Throughout this coun-
try there was a general opinion that some blow ought to be
struck, and I will venture to say that if nothing had been
attempted we should have been called upon to condemn the
Government for not doing that which we are now asked
to pass a vote of censure upon them for doing. (Hear,
hear.) But, independently of the policy of going to the
Crimea, the hon. and learned gentleman has made great
complaints that the army upon its arrival there was not
provided with sufficient land transport. Now, I speak
with great deference in the presence of the hon. and gallant
gentleman. (Sir D. L. Evans), but I do not concur in the
blame cast upon the authorities in this respect. I believe
the great object of the expedition to the Crimea was to laud,
lu tile rust inAance, the greatest possible number of combs-
batants ; and, even if we could have had greater naval trans-
port at our command, it would have been far better to em-
ploy it in conveying more troops and more cavalry than in
supplying the means of land transport. It has always ap-
peared to me that the reason the army did not advance im-
mediately after the Battle of the Alma was not from the
want of land transport, but from the necessity of protecting
the wounded ; and I have little doubt that if the forces of

the allies had at once advanced the result of that glorious
battle would have been the immediate fall of Sebastopol.
(Hear, hear.) That, however, is a point on which I think
neither the hon. and learned member nor myself is the best
judge. Well, although Ido not blame the policy of the ex-
pedition to the Crimea, I must say that I cannot observe
in it any of that sagacity which the hon. and gallant mem-
ber for Cambridge (Colonel Adair) refers to in his resolu-
tion. (Hear, hear.) It is quite evident that the Govern-
ment looked forward to only one result of the expedition,
and that a successful one. It was not until after the 18th of
October that the failure of the Allied armies to produce the
anticipated result first opened the eyes of the commanders to
the fact that a long and wotracted siege would be necessary,
and not only to that fact, but to the still more lamentable one
that if they could not succeed in their enterprise, neither
could they withdraw. The Allied armies were forced to en-
counter a winter in the Crimea, and that they were subjected
to the misfortunes which consequently befel them was 'not a
matter of policy, but a matter of necessity. Then, again,
the great cause of these calamities= the cause to which I have
ever attributed all the sufferings to which our troops were ex-
posed—was from our having commenced great military pre-
parations with inadequate means. (Hear.) Did not the Go-
vernment in the first instance send out a greater army than
the reduced state of our establishment permitted of ? It is per-
fectly true that the Duke of Wellington advised this country
never to enter into a little war; but even a greater misfor-
tune than entering upon a litle war is to enter upon a great
war with little means. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, you
sent out every available man you could lay your hands upon,
having no reserves to fall back on for the supply of those
casualties which sickness and engagements with the enemy
are sure to entail. lam fully borne out in that description
of the state of the army by a paragraph in a memorandum of
my right hon. friend the then Secretary at War. That me-
morandum, which is dated Nov. 17, 1854, has reference to the
increase of the army, and this is the description which the
right hon. gentleman gives
" England has not usually been very successful at the
commencement of her wars, for the reason that she does
not in time of peace maintain an army largo enough to be
capable of lasting as well as sudden extension. (Hear.) It
Is pos.lible, as this year has shown, to create, at very short
notice, a very efficient and, for us, considerable army ; but
it is quite another thing to maintain those numbers and that
efficiency. The army of the East has been created by dis-
counting the future. (Hear.) Every regiment at home or
within reach, and not forming part of that army, has been
robbed to complete it ; the depots of the regiments under
Lord Raglan have been similarly treated."

I think that fully bears me out in saying that there is no very
great proof of sagacity iu the policy which sent out so much
larger a force than you had reserves to keep up. (Hear, hear.)
But, although I think the Government were ill-advised in
giving way to the cry raised in this house, throughout the
country, and by the press—for it was in this way that the
Government were urged on to this undertaking—l will not
condemn them on that ground, for I believe their mistakes
originated in their desire vigorously to carry on the, war, and
I infinitely prefer such a determination to the more peaceful
spirit which was evinced by some members of the Cabinet, but
you have no doubt placed yourselves in a position from which
there is now no retreat, and I believe there is not a man in this
house who does not wish that every exertion should be made
in order to carry out the objects for which our gallant army
and that of our brave ally have so nobly fought. I cur
assure the hon. and learned gentleman I; is from no party mo-
tive that I will not agree to his proposition. I have recorded
my party predilection by the vote I gave- on the resolution of
the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire,
the professed object of which, resolution was to turn out the
Government; and I did so, sir, because I believe the time has
arrived when a better, because a stronger, Government should
be formed from this (the Opposition) side of the hoUse.
(Hear.) But, although entertaining this party feeling, I
never will be a party to casting a censure upon honourable
men, who, in my belief, have exerted themselves to the ut-
most of their power in performing the duties of their office.
(Hear.) I believe that far too much of this sort of blame has
been cast upon individuals in the course. of our proceedings
in the committee—(hear)—and I am certain that some of our
best public servants are deeply hurt by the* insinuations
thrown upon there in the course of that inquiry. I have in
my hands a letter from tho late Lieutenant-General of the
Ordnance, an officer whose character is far too high and
whose services are too well known to render it' necessary for
me to dwell upon them. (Hear.) He writes to me to request
that I will take any opportunity which the forms of the house
admit of to vindicate his character from what appears to him
to be an unfair attack. "It has," ho says,—
" Caused me considerable annoyance to be exposed to such
a charge, from so high an authority, after a prolonged service
in which I have endeavoured faithfully to discharge my
duty, and (as I had hoped, until now, it was allowed)
with credit to myself. After the perusal of the report I only
find one point upon which any ground of censure is directly
applied to me, and that is the charge that, from the lan-
guage of Sir Hew Ross, it would seem that 'he was imper-
fectly acquainted with tt e constitution of the board of which
he was a member.' This I emphatically deny, for I had
made myself perfectly acquainted with my duties, both as
Lieutenant-General and as a board officer. The
of my position early called my attention to these points, and
had the examination been carried further to give me an
opportunity of explanation, I should only have illustrated
the evidence of Colonel Anson in 1849, which went to prove
that, though one board officer may constitute a board, yet
that for all important questions the signature of a second
officer is desirable, and in some cases indispensable."
As a member of the Board of Ordnance for five years, I can
state my cordial agreement with the evidence given by the
gallant ()facer. Sir Hew Ross then goes on to say :
" With regard to the general censure on the members of
the board, what Over may have been the differences that ex-
isted, my conscience acquits me of any want of judgment
and temper,' and I can with confidence 'weal to my col-

N"

!coves 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 I
services of Sir Hew Ross is the evidence taken before
the committee as to the state of the artillery sent
to the Crimea. It will -be remembered that Captain
Shakspeare and Viscount Hardinge both spoke in high
terms of the state of the artillery, its equipment, and every-
thing belonging 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 tn. 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 resolutions 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 he 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 *halves 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 aro
called 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, aruVirth one united
heart and voice to carry ou 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 nat be submitted for consideration. If the
house were to fake 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 therefore4ecline 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 the 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 remains 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. He 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 be 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 up in 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 got 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 committee 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 thdir own Ministers would be used
against the Emperor of the French by those who were opposed
to his policy. How could a cordial alliance be maintaino.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 bon. 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 uo vote of censure could be passed by the members 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 one ; and no such
vote of censure could heconsistently 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, had 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.
The Marquis of GRANBY thought the motion calculated
to weaken the executive, and he would, therefore, support
the 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 responsible for what was done
by the War Minister, of which ho was entirely ignorant. Ho
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. The
evidence that was admitted in the Sebastopol Committee was
such 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 coming.to such a resolution
as t was now upon to agree to, except the unanimous
opiinionoftheccanomed mittee 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 giving ex-
pression in that house to the feeling he entertained respecting
the conduct of the Government on this question. No one 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 I Was the present Cabinet, as representatives of the

late Cabinet, iesPonsible ter 'our &asters, 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 low 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 had 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 had 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 there any 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 were 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 ho
had-not brought forward this motion ; and he would forfeit
. _ . _ .

that position if he did not bring thOmatter 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 he 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 cavalry was 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'conld 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
bad 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 ! He 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 bo 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 evidenc3 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 bad made up my mind to voto 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 committee 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 had 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
bear 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 byso 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 in the speech 81 the hon. and gallant
general, I think that if his amendment wore 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 from 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 hav% 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 I The 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 7 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-
spatch 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 bf 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 on the Crimea is decided upon moro 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. The 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 i 3 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 ho 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 be 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
he 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 ryas 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
nob!o lord at the head of the Government might have thrown
upon the course we ought to Pursue, and though I should havo
been glad to have had the advantage of his advice—yet my
position is somewhat different from his, and having 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 auy evidence for their acquittal; and ho was sur-

prised, therefore, at hearing his right. 'hon. friend say be
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 sufacient 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. Pakiugton) 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 statement,
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, a,,d 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 against it. The right hon. member for Carlisle
bad 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 J. 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. Any 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
tho war. But what had been the result The ;ight bon.
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 bo more
dangerous than to close the lips of members from expressing
constitutionally their opinions on the conduct of 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
lion, 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, ho 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) denidd. (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. meMbere 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 antipipated 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'oven
in the event of a successful aggression they were not at liberty
to ask for any cession of territory. Only two conditions could
have justified that expedition —that we had a sufficient force
for the undertaking, and that we 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 tho policy in the ab-
stract good or bad, were the Government of the 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 Newca.-tle 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 the 29th of Juno 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 told 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 frith 70,000 Russians:
The first event was the battle of Alma—a most glorious baftle
but he believed that all military men would eoncur 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 bad reason tube-
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. He (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 wore
to trust for a reserve ? 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 he 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 these 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 bo painfUl On per-
&null 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 gentlethan.
Sir C. WOOD was surprised to hear the right hod. 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 =Sure. 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 London—(bear, hear)—and were 'perfectly prepared
to resist tile moti ,n 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 in 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 committee, .
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 p,olicy
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 ho believed the expedition to Sebastopol was a
wise undertaking. (Hear, hear.) No doubt success had not
attended the expedition up to that moment, but they had the
opinion of those on the spot that success was almost withiu
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 mouth of June he held an 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 the words which the hon.
and learned gentleman had submitted to the committee; but
for which, to their credit, only one man coald be found to
give his vote. There, the hon. and leaned 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-

castle and Lord Aberdeen. They were removed from deco,
and, the whole Government paid the penalty imposed/an them
by the censure of the House of Commops, and resigned toge-
ther. After two intermediate attempts had,beeu made by
ether persons to form a Government his noble Irdind formed
one, including three gentlemen who peculiarly belonged to
the Government of Lord Aberdeen; one of whom Lord Derby
had attempted to include in an administration to be formed by
himself. (Hear, hear.) These three gentlemen Subsequently
retired from the Cabinet, and then another attack was di-
rected against his noble friend-. -(Hear, hear.) He (Sir C.
Wood) thought that the charges against the Duke of New-
castle, the right honourable baronet the member for Carlisle,
and the right honourable gentleman the member for Wilts,
were most unjust, and he congratulated them on the testi-
mony which the honourable and learned gentleman had on
that evening borne to the effteiency with which they had dis-
charged. the duties of their departments. He always thought
that the time would come when such an opinion would do
justice to the exertions they had • made in their several de-
partments; but, sanguine though he was that such would be
the case, be little expected that such justice would be done
to them by the honourable and learned member for Sheffield, ,
who was seldom so complimentary in his language—(hear,
hear)—and nothing but a perfect conviction of the truth of
what he said could have caused him to pay a compliment so
extraordinary when coming from him. (Hear.) The hon.
and learned gentleman, then, having entirely acquitted those
gentlemen who managed the several departments connected
with the war, went on to bring charges against other mem-
bers of the Government, who certainly could not interfere
with the management of those departments. He (Sir C.
Wood) had certainly not the slightest inclination to throw off
any responsibility belonging to him as the colleague of the
noble duke the late Minister of War and the right honourable
gentleman the late Secretary-at-War ; but the honourable and
learned gentleman must have a strange notion of the way in
which the business of Government was conducted when he
said that the colleagues of these Ministers were guilty of the
mismanagement of departments, which in the same breath he
stated to be admirably managed by those who were at the
head of them. (Cheers and laughter.) The noble duke was in
London, and according to the hon and learned gentleman,
managed his department with admirable skill and assiduity,
but his right hon. friend the then Secretary for the Colonial
Department (Sir G. Grey), who was absent in Scotland in at-
tendance on her Majesty, was to be censured for not having
interfered with its management. (A laugh.) His right hon.
friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty had, het elieved,
never left town in the course of the autumn for a single day,
except in the discharge of his duty; a compliment, therefore,
was to be paid to his right hon. friend, whilst he himself, as
the then President of the Board of Control, was to be cen-
sured becausehe had not interfered with the Admiralty. The
then Secretary-at-War was in town, and was accordingly
complimented, whilst his hon. friend the President 'of• the
Board of Works was to be censured for his non-interference.
(Laughter.) All of the Ministers still remaining in office were
to be censured for net having meddled with business that did
not belong to them, and interfered with departments which
the hon. and learned gentleman said were admirably managed.
(Cheers.) The hon. and gallant general who had moved the
previous question, no supporter of the Government, but an
active member of the committee, as well as the noble lord
behind him, by whom' this report had been drawn up, both
agreed that the evidence taken was incomplete, and that it
was impossible to pronounce a satisfactory decision upon it.
Her Majesty's Government did not think they were justly
chargeable with shrinking from any responsibility belonging
to them, when they concurred in opinion with these two dis-
tinguished members of the committee, differing in polities and
sitting on opposite sides, but agreeing that the proposal of the
hon. and learned gentleman was not one that should be
adopted by the house. (Cheers.)
Mr. GASKELL moved the adjournment .of the debate.
Viscount PALMERSTON—I hope the house will come to a
decision to-night. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI had aiso hoped that the house would have
come to a decision to-night, but the only re Ison why they
had not done so was the gre tt delay which had taken place in
members of the Government rising to speak. But for that,
the debate would have been so far advanced that the house
might have divided, but he did not know whether, under pre-
sent circumstances, it would be possible for them to do so.
Mr. BRIGHT hoped the house would not be put to the
trouble of dividing on the question of adjournment. He did
not know that during this whole session a question had been
brought before it of such immense importande as this.
Viscount PALMERSTON—With regard to no person hav-
ing risen from this bench earlier in the evening, there were
obvious reasons why—(loud ironical cheers from the Opposi-
tion)—reasons why other persons might wish to deliver their
opinions. (A. laugh, and hear.) If the house wished that
the debate should be adjourned, of course he should not offer
any opposition. •
. .
The debate was then adjourned. •
Mr. ROEBUCK inquired to what day it was to be ad-
journed?

ViscountPALMERSTON —To Thursday,
On the motion of Lord R. CECIL. a return was ordered of
the names of all parishes in cities and Parliamentaiy boroughs.
in England and Wales in which (during the let. 15 .years)
church rates have been refused, and since that refusal have
ceased altogether to be collected, specifyingtlie Population of
each parish, the number of churchei n it, and. whether
divided into ecclesiastical districts. , , .

Mr. WILSON obtained leave to bring in a bill to give effect
to a convention between her Majesty and the United States
of America.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.—ADJOURNED 'DEBATE.
The br er of the day having been read for resuming this
adjourned debate, and the question having been put,
Mr. V. SCULLY moved that the debate be now adjourned,
Mr. SPOONER saw no reason why the debate should be
adjourned, and the only object of moving it was to' prevent
the house entertaining the question.
Viscount PALIIERSTON said surely the hon. gentleman
could not be serious in asking the house to resume at this time,
of night (half.past 12 o'clock) a debate which, without any
great spirit of prophecy, he might predict would last a great
many hours. The hon. member would best consult the con-
venience of the house in not wasting another hourin-discus-
sing a question which must inevitably be decided against him.
The house then divided, when there voted—
For the adjournment of the debate 97
Against it
Majority —9 ,

Mr. KIRK immtm-fiatftfy moved that the debate he adjourned
till that day three months.
The house again divided--
For the motion 93
Against it
Majority... —3
The announcement of the numbers was received with loud
cheers, especially by the Irish members.
The Lunatic Asylums and Regulations Acts Amendment
Bill waszead the third time and passed.
The Sale of Spirits (Ireland) Bill was read the third time.

A verbal amendment, moved by Colonel DUNNE, sub
stituting the word " district" for ,the .word "jurisdiction,'
was agreed to.

Mr, MACARTNEY then moved the adjournment of the de,
hate.

25
•
Majority —36
After some further conversation the bill was passed.
TREASURERS'OF COUNTIES (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
TRINITY COLLEGE (DUBLIN) BILL.
This bill was passed through committee.
The other orders were then disposed of, and the house ad
journed at half-past one o'clock.

The house divided, when, there appeared—
For the motion..
Against