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

the power of the militia voluntarily to offer themselves for
embodiment. Between the months of April and Septem-
ber we Was embodied 17 regiments of militia by volun-
tary offers. We were restricted in one respect ; we could
not embody more than could be put into barracks. But
from October to December 33 regiments more were em-
bodied, so that we had 110 regiments of militia embodied
by the end of December, making 38,000 men of an effec-
tive force. (Hear, hear.) Some people argued one way
and some the other. Some complained that we did not
embody the whole of the militia, others contended that it
was not a force applicable to the circumstances of the war.
But the nature of the militia was that it gave recruits
for your army, and though we could not embody
all, all were under arms, and the number enlisted
under arms up to November was 5,500, and the
number since enlisted was 12,700, so that we have actually
18,000 mon given to the regular army from the militia
since the war began. We are greatly indebted to the corn-
manclingofficers for their zeal and self-denial, but for which
we could not have had this great augmentation of recruits.
These militia recruits, too, have been found infinitely more
available for service than younger men. (Eloar, hear.)
Well, then, I do not feel that I am open to any blame for
the manner in which I have made the militia available for
the public service. But if the honourable and learned
gentleman meant a direct censure against those members
of Lord Aberdeen's Government who were not imme-
diately in war departments, he at least might have given
them the opportunity of being heard before his committee.
So far from thinking that they should form part of the
inquiry, he never called me or my right hon. friends
before the committee- we were never summoned, nor was
a question asked us. If our conduct was to be impugned
we should have been asked what we had to state
in our defence. (Cheers.) But I think this is a strange and
singular Parliamentary movement. I can conceive that a
person who thinks that a Government are doing something
injurious—l can understand a person calling on Parliament
to interpose and sweep away a Government which is hur-
rying the country on the way to ruin ; but the hon. and
learned genitlewan does not impeach us for anything we
are doing as a Government existing. (Hear, hear.) He
goes back to November and December last, though his
motion is made in the month of July. His motion is
founded on circumstances which have ceased to exist, and
there is no part of his motion which has reference to the
conduct of the Government that now occupies the Minis-
terial seats, and that is charged with the conduct of the
affairs of the country. But it may be fetid, though he
did not maintain it, that the present Government is
guilty of the same Inches that he imputes to the Go-
vernment of Lord Aberdeen. How is that the case?
The ermy which was in November and December in a
condition so painful to the feelings of every one who
heard of it is in a different state now. (Hear, hear.) Is
it now in a state that it is necessary for Parliament to find
a remedy ? Exactly the contrary. It is in as fine a con-
dition as any army that ever existed on the face of the
earth. In spirit, in everything that constitutes efficiency
in military affairs' it is a pattern to be imitated, instead of
an example to be deplored. (Cheers.) There is nothing
upon which the ceeduct of the Government can be im-
peached with regard either to the military or the naval
service. Then what is the object of the motion? The hon.
and learned gentleman avows it plainly. It is not against the
Government of Lord Aberdeen. He talks indeed of our train -
ing all the men of mark on this side of the house. He means
no such thing. What he wants is that the house should in-
terpose to remove the Government of the day. Has he shown
any grounds tor it ? Not the slightest in the world. All
he has been able to allege is, that in the months of Novem-
ber, December, and part of January, the army was in a
bad condition. The hon. and learned gentleman calls upon
the house to vote a censure upon the Government of the day
not for any misconduct of the Government, but because,
forsooth, evils existed in the autumn and winter of last
year which have now ceased to exist. Although no doubt
the merit of their cessation is due in great measure to the
brave and gallant officer in command of the army, I think
that if the Government is to be blamed for that which
may locally go wrong, they are also entitled to praise for
that which locally goes right. The hon. and learned gentle-
man has censured the Government of Lord Aberdeen on
one ground, which is totally without foundation. He says
that the members of the Government neglected so en-
tirely the conduct of these great and important affairs that
from the month of August to the middle of October
there was no meeting of the Cabinet, and he implies
that the ministers were all absent from their pests. Why,
sir, who were at their posts? There was the Duke of
Newcastle, the Secretary of State for War, who, I believe,
never left his post for a single hour. There was my right
honourable friend the Secretary-at-War, who was also con-
stantly at his post in London. There was my right honour-
able friend the first Lord of the Admiralty, who, I believe,_r3
was hardly ever absent from his duty. There was the First
Lord of the Treasury, Lord Aberdeen, who was constantly
in town ; and Lord Clarendon, the Secretary
most
Foreign affairs. Is not that a Cabinet ? Five
with thus?
important membersof the Government, charged itnetounus°Y.
require
departments, the business of which might have mot at any
deration, were all on the spot, and might
required. But
hour of any day foro tShtea to for
on which a council 7::et Altogether out
were the other members of the Geyer
ceased
of reach ? The hon. and learned h
al
eon: lvar es :been required,
memberi askedt r
aewna
cyhhe
moment
folmLwee
unit s
t.
during the tdhaeiltyimcoem.
mluwniacsawitiotnhiwinthhirgeihet
at which my advice or presence
I say
that
this is an unworthy attempt
ye.rfbroughtntmhee their
rmt
duties,
uhhtaietershe
at
so
with my colleagues.
a very few hours wouldcioos
n.enha haverGg Government
who were devoting themselves
to cast blame upon in
like thefive colleagues whom I
near hear.) It is anand unworthyne at-
temptnever
quitted
matter to such an extent as to
tqouitthteedeonthsceiiernt
have mentioned.
easedvetso
to cast blamentup
exist, to misrepresent
convey the impression that there wore not constantly in
London sufficient members of the Cabinet to have taken
into consideration and have determined upon anything
oec in (Hear.)
October. Letit
The alsot,atbtlee
of
that might have required immediate deliberation or deci-
gnte rememberedhAlmathwatas ftheouCgabbt to-
wards m
the end of September, and,
suf-
ferings of the army did not
in point of fact, the
commence until after the
meeting of the Cabinet—until all the members of the Go=
vernment were at their posts in London. 'Without long
delaying the house _from the decision to which I hope it
will come, I Must-say that I accept the previous question
moved by the hon, and gallant member, because I agree
With those who think that the inquiries of the committee

which they had declared it to be their intention to support.
Here was, according to the noble lord, a vote of censure on
the Government, and how was it met ? By a motion which
literally implied that the house declined to express an opi-
nion on their conduct. But it appeared to him that the
house had something to consider beyond the question of
confidence in Ministers, or in the gentlemen who sat oppo-
site to him ; and to that the noble lord had not alluded in
the course of his speech. The motion referred to the con-
duct of statesmen who were no longer members of the Ad-
ministration, and they, much to their honour, insist that
the verdict of the house should bo explicitly taken
respecting them. Was justice to be stepped, to use the
words of the Attorney-l4eneral ? No ; they said, "We
protest against the convenience of the Minister being the
cause of subjecting us to an imputation which ought to be
cleared up to the satisfaction of the house." Let the house
remember what had been the course of events with regard
to this motion. A few months before a committee to in-
quire into the state of the army before Sebastopol had
been appointed by an immense majority of that house.
What was the cause of the appointment of that com-
mittee? Was it the feeling of the house? No; it was
the feeling of the country. As lnkerman was said to
have been the soldier's battle, that committee might have
been called the people's committee. (Hoar.) After a pro-
tracted iuve:tigation, a decision was come to, and the
chairman of that committee now submitted a resolution
embodying the case on which that decision was founded.
He thought it only right that the house should express an
opirion on that resolution one way or the other, and that
the conduct of the noble lord respecting it was the most
unauthorised he could remember. The course the noble
lord took was to deny the conclusion of the committee,
and the value of its researches. The noble lord said that
the assumption of the committee that the Cabinet were
not present in London, anti did not meet in August and
September, was unfounded. But if the noble lord wan
satisfied that that statement was untrue, ought he to take
refuge in the previous question ? Ought he not rather to
have said, "Those labours of the Sebastopol committee are
superficial—they have been conducted in a spirit unbe-
comieg the occasion, and they have nulled the people. I
will not permit the authority of the Government to be in-
jured by these unfounded statements'. I will vindicate my
policy and the character of pubic men, and I call upon you,
the House of Commons, not to falter in a doubt even, but to
declare your opinion, that this committee have not done their
duty fairly, but have performed it in a fraudulent spirit—
they have misled the country and poisoned the public mind,
and unless you come to a decision which shall vindicate
us, we cannot consent to carry on the Government." That
was the duty of the noble lord. But the noble lord said.
this was a party motion. Aliarty motion brought forward
by wham ? By an hon. member who, six weeks ago when
he brought forward a motion involving the existence of the
Government, voted in favour of the noble lord. (Hear.)
In considering the course they ought to take they were to
be influeneed first by the unequivocal demand of the right
hon. tuembsr for Carlisle and his late colleagues, that the
opinion of the house should be taken on the real question
at issue, and still more they were bound to have regard to
the feeling out of doors that the validity of the report of
the Sebastopol committee, which had been questioned by
the noble lord, should be tested by the opinion of the house.
He lamented that they were called upon by the amendment
of the gallant general to evade the real question at issue ;
but if he (Mr. Disraeli) lied only party objects in view, he
should be well satisfied that that course had been taken.
(llear.) But the gravity of the question, and the reality
of the issue, he should .rave thought would have rendered
it impossible for any perion whose conduct was called is
question by the report of the committee to consent to
shelter himself under such a subterfuge—he should have
thought that the noble lord would have been the first to
call upon the gallant general not to embarrass the decision
of the house by interposing the previous question. But
they were told that if they passed such a motion as had
been submitted by the hon. and learned member for Shef-
field, they would ostracise the great majority of public men
who now sat on the ministerial benches. He (M.r. Disraeli)
heard now for the first time that a Minister against whom
a vote of want of confidence was passed, was ostracised and
for ever after prevented from holding office under the
Crown. (Hear.) Why, there were few statesmen in that
house who had not at some time or other been subjected
to such a vote. The noble lord had previously been a
member of a Government against whom such a vote had
been carried, and yet he was in office, and the noble lord
the member for London had suffered the same kind of
condemnation ; and that he was not still sitting on the
Treasury bench was not because he was ostracised by a vote
of the House of Commons. They had a dissertation from
the right lion, baronet the Home Secretary on ministerial
responsibility ; but the right hon. baronet appeared to be
inconsistent in his argument. At first he was for complete
and undivided responsibility among the whole body of
Ministers ; but he concluded his speeeh by a pathetic de-
scription of the hardship of a Secretary of State for the
Home Department being expected to call every slay at the
Admiralty to know how things were going on in that de-
partment, or of a President of the Board of Control having
to wait at the Foreign•offiee to see that the right despatches
were sent off. What did the right hon. gentleman mean ?
Wes he for ministerial responsibility or not ? The noble
lord had referred in conneet'fre with the appointment of the
committee to the late attempt of Lord Derby to form a
Ministry. But the friends of LotdiDerbycantiouslyguarded
themselves (certainly he himself had uut done so)—against
expressing any opinion when they supported the motion
for a committee, further than that there ought to be an
inquiry. And did the noble lord moan to say that in the
interval when the inquiry was going on Lord Derby was
to assume that the result would be eliminatory to the
statesmen who were then the advisers of her Majesty ?
. Such an assumption would not have been very charitable
to the noble lord opposite and his colleagues. He had,
s however, seen statesmen invited to join a cabinet upon the
faith of a solemn pledge as to the policy which would be
s pursued, to find, after being trepanned into the acceptance
• of office, that pledge violated.

Lord PALMERSTON—That is not true.
Mr. DISRAELI—Ho used the term in a Parliamentary
sense. What he meant to say was that the right
ri honht.
h g
onen-
e .
leman the member for Oxford University, g
member for Wilts, and the right hon.
In
member
b on the faith of
eCarlisle
r for
had been induced to join the
au understanding in referen:e Governmenttoitttheee which m
otion for the ap-
pointment of the Sebastopol committee,
Y
understand-
ing not having been maintainceedttie leftoffice. The noble
lord had to-night put forward fresh claims to the confi-
dence of the country. He said he was carrying on the
war with vigour and energy, that the country was deter-
mined upon continuing the war and carrying it on to a suc-
cessful issue, and that the noble lord was the only man
and
circurustances,
determination,eeu
unde su hhe
appealed
to
who could satisfy that
the House of Commons whototeelyo
wa., glad to hear from the noble lord this
they would interfere by a v _ sure to prevent him.
Ile (Mr. Disraeli)
doing and
account of what he 1k Ag intended to 'AO. * What
had been the description given that very night of the
course*
the noble lord was put suing by General Evans ?
That gallant general had said he had confidence in thepro-
fessions of the noble lord, but that his deeds did not re-
alise those professions. This was the opinion of the highest
military authority in the house, who had recently returned
from the seat of war. ($ ear.) ear.) The gallant general had
complained that neither the Turkish contingent nor the
Foreign Legion were yet embodied ; and yet the gallant
gentleman was the devoted political adherent of the noble
lord. Probably his in
account be
reliable than the narrative of the naobdleetaliolredd honime' wasself. more
l'he
noble lord had sought to defend his conduct in regard to
the militia ; but he could not deny the broad fact that he
delayed for months to put the act into operation, and whoa
questioned about it, said that ho did so on account of the
expense. (Hear.) Frequent allusion was made in that
house to the probable effect which these discussions might
have on our relation with France. Any public man who
pursued that course, and availed himself of such a pretext,
did more to endanger the alliance, and shake it to its cen‘
tro, than all those who took the opposite side. The divi-
sion was now about to be called, and be blushed to think
of the result. After two nights' debate, with the whole
country watching their proceedings, they were coming to
a vote which could confer no honour or credit on that as-
semblage collectively, or on any individual in it. (Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK replied. He said—l take shame to
myself for once in my life. I have indulged in panegyric ;
but, like almost all other men who attempt a character
to which they are not accustomed, I have failed in
representing it, and have failed also most completely
in making myself understood. (Hear, and a laugh.)
Perhaps I may fail again in attempting to make an expla-
nation, but, as I shall not attempt to eulogise, perhaps I
may be successful. I did object to making the Duke of
Newcastle a scapegoat. -I gave the noble duke credit for
industry and good intentions; and I said that he had done
his duty according to his ability. Did Igo one whit be-
yowl the truth in ie saying? Then lam turned rend
.upon-because I am said to have eulogised the noble dale
I
and to have excluded him from the operation of the rose-
Wien WWII normal Sir, I did no such thin i but I