The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-06 00:00:00

difficult position, and had been unjustly attacked for
supineness.
Mr. B. OSBORNE, in answer to 'Mr. Baillie, said that
though he did not deny that a better r system of patronage
might be adopted, recent Governme ants had strictly ob-
served the regulations of the navy., and Mr. Baillie was
misinformed in supposing the contr s,ry ; and eould produce
no instance of the fact he assert, ed. The appointments
were very fairly distributed. As regarded the appoint-
ment of officers, the responsibility of the Admiralty was
too great to allow them to base their appointments on
politicallfi 1 ou n d
He and
expressed they
Brea'inve viably
nselected t thethe best
qua men.
out-
rageous lies that anonymous scribt data had put out against
Admiral Dundas.
Mr. STAFFORD was anxious to echo the sentiments
which had been expressed in rega rd to the ungenerous and
unworthy calumnies which had 1 )een circulated as to Ad-
miral Dundas, who had rendereo/ Besika Bay a place of
historical interest to all future gf.meirations ; for there the
English and French fleets had lain together in peace and
concord.
Mr. COBDEN would not opposia what appeared to be
the wish of the committee as to diFicussion, but wished to
make an observation connected with the new system which
had been adopted as to neutrals. We had given the death-
blow to privateering, that chartered piracy, but he sug-
gested that we should go a step further, and exempt from
capture all private ships of the enemy until they were
caught in the act of breaking or attempting to break a de-
clared blockade. He instanced the case of the recent cap-
ture of a Russian vessel near Portsraouth, and urged that
it was unjust to seize at sea the property of men pursuing
peaceful commerce, as it would b to do so on shore. The'
old war system of plunder, had long been superseded, by
civilised nations, by a commissariat, and it would be a
glory for England to set the example by abandoning the
right of robbing poor people who ware simply conveying
their property for sale. Then, as a question of policy,
England had always 80,000,000/. of property afloat, and
we were probably paying at the rate of two or three mil-
lions for insurance against war capture, for the sake of
the miserable captures made. But he would only argue
the question on the ground of justice. He referred to the
approbation with which he said the house had heard that
the peaceful part of Odessa had not been injured, and he
expressed his hope that it would be understood that this
line of conduct, which might have been expected from
Admiral Dundas, was that which only would be approved
by Parliament. It would always be something, that in
this war we had done something for civilisation.
Mr. R. PALMER condetnned the attacks which had
been made upon Admiral Dundas, bat rejoiced that such
a tone had not been adopted in that house.
Lord D. STUART coratplained that the correspondence
in regard to the operations on the Circassian coast was not
yet produced. He ha,(l not condemned Admiral Dundas,
and approved of the feeling which had prompted his de-
fence ; but if he had been unjustly attacked, the fault
lay with the Government. It had been represented to
the public at home that the Russian flag was to be
swept from the Black Sea, as the only means of
carrying out our policy, which had certainly not been done,
for the Russians had carried on offensive operations which
would have been prevented had more ships been cruising
in the Black Sea. He had been assured that at Sinope
large fleet might lie in any weather; and had our fleet
been there they would have maintained a sufficient watch
over that sea. He had heard the news of to day
with seAisfaction, but details were necessary to enable
us te, ascertain the value of the operation at Odessa.
It craght to have been performed sooner, but all through
th', war we had been too late. He complained of our hay-
i,ig showed subserviency to Austria, by having prevented
Omer Pacha from putting down the former Montenegrin
insurrection, and having thus prepared the way for the
present revolt. We had not been rapid enough in follow-
ing up our declaration of war—it should have been a word
and a blow. He hoped that we should now atone to the
Turks.
Mr. DRUMMOND briefly vindicated Admiral Dundas,
complained of civilians meddling with military and naval
commanders, and attributed the destruction of Sir John
Moore to his fear of the gabbling gossip of the Loudon
press, also describing General Godwin as a victim to the
press of India.
Sir J. GRAHAM expressed his satisfaction at the una-
nimity manifested by the committee. He said that the
correspondence as to the Circassian affair wonld be imme-
diately produced, and would completely vindicate Admiral
Dundas, and he referred, with great satisfaction, to the
thorough cordiality that had existed between the French
and English fleets, to which the admiral's conduct had so
greatly conduced. The attacks upon the admiral had been
confined to one paper, and ono by no means of the highest
character. As regarded Sinope it had actually been tried
by 18 sail as a roadstead, and Admirals Hamelin and Dun-
des had both decided that it was unsafe as well as disad-
vantageous as a station for a fleet which might have to
defend Constantinople. In further answer to Lord D.
Stuart, he said that the policy of Government was, of
course, matter for the consideration of Parliament; but
expressed his conviction that the Government had acted
wisely in deferring war to the last possible moment, and
he denied that since the declaration a single unneces-
sary delay of action had taken place—contending, on the
contrary, that remarkable and successful efforts had been
made in sending out fleets and soldiers. In reply to
Mr. Baillie, he declared that all the appointments he
had made had been made on account of the fitness of
the parties selected. He felt gratitude for the mode in
which the project of the Government had been treated.
Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I observe what the right hon.
gentleman said at the close of his remarks, but I cannot
quite reconcile it with the observations he made a few
weeks ago, and I think that if ho desired to preserve
unanimity amongst us, he might have avoided defying the
house, as he has defied it, to bring forward a vote of want
lof confidence in the Administration. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM—I did not think I had adopted a tone
of defiance. I did not intend it.

Mr. DISRAELI—I certainly should not have risen now
if I had not been under that impression, after having paid
careful attention to the observations of the right hon. gen-
t.:;man. I certainly understood him to say that all the
documents connected with past transactions, or, as he calls
them the blue-books, were on the table, that they had been
discussed, that no vote of want of confidence had been pro-
pesed, and that under the circumstances he assumed the
conduct of the Government had obtained the approbation
of the horse and of the country. That is what I under-
stood the right hon. gentleman to say, and I therefore rose
to guard myself from being supposed to participate in that
feeling. The country is now at war. Whatever may be
thought of the cause of war, it is at war ; and, under such
circumstances, I agree, as I have before stated to the
house, that her Majesty ought to be zealously supported.
Whatever may have been the cause of war, under these
circumstances I do not think it is the duty of any gentle-
man sitting opposite to the Government to propose a vote
of want of confidence in the Administration. If the
opinion of the country was that we should go to war, and
Government insisted upon maintaining peace, it would
then, I think, be proper to ask the House of Commons to
decide which course to adopt ; but when there is a general
understanding, whatever may have been the cause of the
war in which we are engaged, that it is one which must be
looked upon now as inevitable, it would be pursuing a very
improper course, notwithstanding an opinion that war
might have been originally avoided, to ask the House of
Commons to declare a want of confidence in the Adminis-
tration. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman com-
menced his observations by saying that he presumed every
body thought this war was necessary. Far from agreeing
in that presumption, I say now as I have said before, that
Ido not think war was necessary. (Cheers.) The war in
which we are engaged, perilous and extensive as it is, is a
war which is to be attributed entirely to one man, to the
character, career, and conduct of the Prime Minister of
this country. (Cheers from the Opposition.) I have said
so before, and that is my opinion still, and when the right
hon. gentleman assumes what he has done to-night, I feel
called upon to guard myself against misconception, and to
state that I have seen no reason whatever to change the
opinion I have before expressed. I think if Lord Aberdeen
had not been Prime Minister of England, England would
not have been at war at this moment with Russia—(cheers
from the Opposition),—and that those results which are
necessary to maintain the balance of power and the peace
of Europe might have been realised without incurring the
danger and the great expenditure in which this country is
now involved. (Hear.) As lam now before you, I wish
to say one word upon the estimates, which I think ought
not to he passed unnoticed. It is only two short months
since the financial statement was made. It was made one
month before the terminationlof the financial year—a very
unusual course, and a course only to be accounted for by
very remarkable circumstances. What were those circum-
stances ? I think it was well known that we were about
to be engaged in a great struggle, and that there was an
, acknowledged necessity for a very considerable increase of
expenditure. As I understand it, her Majesty's Ministers
thought it the most frank, honourable, and honest course
to anticipate the period of placing before the country its
financial condition, and at once to let the House of Com-
mons and the country understand that a grave and extra-
ordinary expenditure was about to be incarred, and that,
of course, great sacrifices were not only to be expected,
but were necessary. It was understood by the house and
the country that Government, on the whole, in taking the ,
remarkable step of making the financial statement a month
before it was necessary, showed a confidence in the country
and the House, which was appreciated. In round num-
bers, we were then told that our revenue was in a state of
great prosperity, and that there was a surplus of 3,000,0001.,
but in consequence of the perilous position in which we
were placed we had to incur an increased expenditure of
6,000,0001., so that we were to be prepared for a deficiency
of 3,000,0001. in one year. The country was then called
upon to proceed at once to make a considerable sacrifice
by the virtual doubling of the income-tax, and I ask the
house whether, when that sacrifice was made, it was
not made with the most perfect unanimity, and with
even confidence in the Government. (Hear, hear.) Two
months have now elapsed, and only one month since the
financial statement need have been made, and we are
asked for supplementary estimates to the amend of
5,600,0001. (Hear, bear.) If it is necesaary for the honour
and interest of the country to vote 5,600,0001. supple-
mentary estimates, the House of Commons will never hesi-
tate to do it. They are prepared even to go further for
such objects, but surely two months ago her Majesty's
Ministers ought to have formed some more correct esti-
mate of the demands upon the public service than they ap-
pear to have done. (Opposition cheers.) I should like to
know on what grounds it was supposed, only two months
ago, that an increased expenditure in consequence of the
war to the amount of 3,000,0001. sterling would be re-
quired, and it is now found such increased expenditure
will amount to 8,600,0001.? And this, mind you, is an esti-
mate made in a state of war, when certainly it is not varyprobable that it will not be
exceeded. Surely if there was
at that period such a want of data before the Government,
and such an absence of authentic materials that it was
not in their power, with any certainty, with any
exactitude, and with any approximation to accuracy,
to place before the house the real state of affairs, and the
an increase of the they
precipitate the financial basis upon whichiappealed to the house for
burdens upon the people, why
have
said exposition ? (Hear, hear, and
mWhontyh, and obtai
anotherc cheers.) ee r s.)
wdhen they could have waited
more correct data, that they
would precipitate the financiale statement? Why have
said that the am374,ooofc.n,crwereend expenditure required
rez
_before 8 weeks have
would be only
passed, that estimate is nearly
very remarkable thing that we trebled?
?have
It might beawkward
(Hear.)the financial
estimate
ce and to the Minister
of estimate anticipated unnecessarily.vi
and inconvenient to the public ser •
of Finance himself; who was obliged to give
anthe last month of each financial year, and verre' lsne°timatenin
eut and injurious to the country, that they shoulelnnovt be
left in i,norance of their true position, so that they might
comprehend their increased liabilities and the necessity-and
amount of their increased sacrifices and burdens. But in
this case, before 8 weeks have passed, we find that, instead
of a deficiency of 3,000,0001., the deficiency amounted to
nearly 0,000,0001. I think that ought to be explained. We
hear a great deal of Government having great plans. You
remember that the noble lord;the leader of this house,
gave up the other night, with much emotion, the darling
policy of his life. He came forward and gave up a mown