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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING-, MAY 6, 185 4.

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 system 0; patronage
might be adopted, recent Governments had strictly ob-
served the regulations of the navy, and Mr. Baillie was
misinformed in supposing the contrary ; and could produce
no instance of the fact he asserted. 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
political grounds, and they invariably selected the best
qualified men. He expressed great indignation at the out-
rageous lies that anonymous scribblers had put out against
Admiral Dundas.
Mr. STAFFORD was anxious to echo the sentiments
which had been expressed in regard to the ungenerous and
unworthy calumnies which had been circulated as to Ad-
miral Dundas, who had rendered Besika Bay a place of
historical interest to all future generations ; for there the
English and French fleets had lain together in peace and
concord.
Mr. COBDEN would not oppose what appeared to be
the wish of the committee as to discussion, but wished to
n ships
make an observation connected with the new system which
had been adopted as to neutrals. We had given the death-
blowcapture t o
thatpar l v
wa te
privatee
shoulde rig ,
g thato
a
charteredosfte
tphleuenemyr until
rhe
,and h
piracy, but he sug-
gested
texemptey
from
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 Portsmouth, and urged that
it was unjust to seize at sea the property of men pursuing
peaceful commerce, as it would be 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old war system of plunder, had long been superseded, by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 were 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 bo something, that in
this war we had done something for civilisation.
Mr. R. PALMER condemned the attacks which had
been made upon Admiral Dundas, but rejoiced that such
a tone had not been adopted in that house.
Lord D. STUART complained that the correspondence
in regard to the operations on the Circassian coast was not
yet produced. He had 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 satisfaction, but details were necessary to enable
us to ascertain the value of the operation at Odessa.
It ought to have been performed sooner, but all through
the war we had been too late. Ho complained of our hav-
ing 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 London
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 would be imme-
diately produced, and would completely vindicate Admiral
Dundee, 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 one 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
of 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-
tleman. 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-
posed, and that under the circumstances he assumed the
conduct of the Government had obtained the approbation
of the house 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 statei 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
I do 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 groat expenditure in which this country is
now involved. (Hear.) As I am now before you, I wish
to say one word upon the estimates, which I think ought
not to be 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 he incurred, 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 amount 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 iu 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 very
probable that it will not be exceeded. Surely if there was
at that period such a want of data before the Government,
and an absence of authentic materials that it was
not in their power, with any certainty, with any
exactitude, and with any
to placieipboenforwehtibei.ls house the real state of affairs, and the
banasisincrease of
atnhaenteti yrdeappealedprecipitate the
Why
said,
n toth thee
people, hous house
why
exposition ? (Hear, hear, and
another month, and obtainedhrfienolrethceoyrreccotudldata, havethawt waited
offininancreelaa
swaoidultdhaptrechiepiatmatoeunthte
when, sesdt:atement ? Why have
trebled?
aditure required
passed,woul betth a
tonlyestimate
i3n1,0a(t),(3)
8 weeks have
very remarkable thing that we should have(H etaree.) finltanicsiaal
estimate anticipated unnecessarily. It might
and inconvenient to the public service andto theaZlinwisatrienri
of Finance himself, who was obliged to give an estimate
the last month of each financial year, and very inconveni-
ent and injurious to the country, that they should not be
left in ignorance of their true position, so that they might
comprehend their increased liabilities and the necesslty 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 9 coo 000/. I think that ought to be explained. We
loader of h
e having greate
house, Yon
remember
hear a greatticllaetalthofe
noble Governmentlord, the
gave up the other night, with much emotion, the darling
policy of his life. cam© forward and gave up a measure

for which he consented to become a member of the present
Administration, stating that ho could not take the responsi-
bility of breaking up a Government who were responsible
and liable for the war in which we are involved, and for the
measures which were required in order to carry it on with
vigour and success. This side of the house responded to
the feeling—the genuine and patriotic feeling—of the
noble lord, and we felt the necessity of devoting our atten-
tion to the plans for carrying on the war with vigour and
success, which plans the noble lord told us had been well
matured. But they could not have been matured without
going into some calculation of the expense, and I gave the
noble lord and his colleagues credit for supposing they had
great plans. I gave them credit for supposing that they
had a painful but duo sense of their position, and that
they had matured plans calculated ultimately to bring
about results which would be satisfactory to the country
and its interests. (Hear, hear.) In devising and maturing
such plans they must have been aware that this great ex-
penditure was necessary, for it must have been impossible
that the expenditure required could within the last eight
weeks have swelled from an estimate of 3,000,000/. into
one of 9,000,000/. If such were the case, and the noble
lord and his colleagues had these great plans for carrying
on the war with energy, and with the requisite vigour, why
not have told us frankly a few weeks ago the position we
were in ? (Cheers.) I want to know why the financial
' statement was anticipated by a month. It was not necessary
to anticipate it by a month ; but on the contrary, in the
circumstances in which we now found the Government is
placed, it would have been of the greatest advantage thatit
should have been postponed to the last moment, in order to
have the most authentic data in estimating the probable
demands upon the country. Instead of that, the Govern-
ment anticipate the necessary duty they aro ultimately
obliged to fulfil, and, under great disadvantages, they
come forward and tell us on the sth of March, instead of
the sth of April, that we are about to be involved in a
great struggle ; that there must be an increased demand
upon the resources of the country ; and that they must for
six months double the income tax. If they had postponed
the financial statement to its proper, its usual, and its ap-
propriate time; if they had not forced the Minister of
Finance to offer to the house the estimates prematurely,
surely, nearly four weeks ago, on the sth of April, when
the financial year was completed, they would have been
enabled to deal MOl3 fairly with the country than by mak-
ing a statement in March, coming forward with a new ap-
peal in May, and outraging, I may say, all the estimates
before submitted to us. I want to know from Government
what was the use of making the financial statement a month
before it was due ? What was the use of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer offering to us in his budget an estimate of
the resources and the demands of the country for the last
month ? What was the use of his coming forward at
so critical a period when it was most necessary the coun-
try should have the most distinct and definite idea
both of its responsibilities and resources ? by did he
come forward, with all the disadvantage- or the finan-
cial year not being concluded, to burden the country
with a large increase of taxation, which the country, for a
great object, was prepared to hear, and, at the same time,
to offer to the house the most delusive estimate of the re
sponsibilities it is incurring ever yet offered to the consi-
deration of a House of Commons? It would be more
courteous to the house if this were explained, instead of
the First Lord of the Admiralty recurring to these blue-
books again, and saying that because the Opposition do
not bring forward a substantive motion founded upon these
blue-books they must entirely approve the conduct of the
Government. (Hear.) I think when the Government are
proposing a supplementary estimate exceeding in amount
their original estimate, they ought frankly to explain the
reasons that have induced them to take their present course.
The very reason that the house is ready to support them,
and that there is unanimity in supporting the honour of
the country and of the Crown, is an additional reason
why they should give these explanations. But their con-
duct is quite inexplicable to me, and I cannot under-
stand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should
anticipate by one month the usual period of making the
financial statement. His only reason for so doing was, he
said, that the country should clearly understand its posi-
tion. It now turns out that the country does not under-
stand its position, and that it has been misled and be-
wildered. (Cheers.) If the financial statement had been
made at the usual period, we should have been four weeks
nearer the truth than we were in the month of March. I
conclude that the Government will not deny this—that
on this day month the sth of April, they must have been
complete masters of the circumstances that have rendered
it necessary for them to make this enormous appeal for the
support of the house and the country. The house will
remember that the extraordinary statement of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, made at an extraordinary time,
was the basis of a claim for an increased income tax ;
and the credit of the Government, therefore, demanded
an explanation. The proposal of the Government virtu-
ally to double the income tax was one that I do not
think could have been justified unless it had been accom-
panied by a statement of our financial position, which,
in the position of the Government, was a complete
and accurate one. If it is necessary now to increase
our burdens, and if there were then impending an increased
expenditure, not 3,000,0001., but of 9,000,0001., and the
Government at that time, or at the end of the financial
year, were in complete possession of the facts, were they
justified in proposing that increase of taxation which they
brought forward? If, a month ago, they knew that they
should want 5,600,000/. more, were the Government justi
fled in bringing forward that peculiar, that modified, and,
I may call it, that mutilated financial proposal which they
offered to the consideration of the house as the sufficient
means by which the war was to be carried on ? (Cheers.)
There is another very important consideration. What is
the use of a financial statement ? What is the use of a
Minister of the Crown coming forward and making a finan-
cial statement to the House of Commons? The use, the
precious use of that constitutional ceremony, if I may so
call it, is, that a free people should clearly understand the
liabilities that they incur in supporting the policy that
they approve. (Cheers.) It would be a very great disad-
vantage that the Government should involve the country
in war, and that they should not ask the house in clear
language for the resources required to carry on that war.
(Hear.) If they neglected to discharge that duty they would
be acting unconstitutionally ; but I say it without reserve,
that it would be much to be preferred that a Minister
should involve this country in war, and neglect to let us
know the responsibility we were incurring by sanctioning
his policy, than-that he should prematurely come forward
and offer an estimate, and make a financial statement
which should lead the country and the House of Commons
to conclude that their position was quite contrary to that
which they found themselves to be the case. (Cheers.) I
should not have risen to say this, but for the broader views
with which the right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Graham) in-
troduce.) his remarks. Having risen, I felt bound to ex-
press my opinion—anti I believe it is not a solitary one on this
side the house—that the country will expect an explana-
tion on this subject, and that it has a right to demand it.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The whole of the speech of the right
hon. gentleman who has just sat down appears to me to
have arisen from a complete misapprehension of what was
said by my right hon. friend. My noble friend the mem-
ber for Marylebone thought fit to say we had delayed
too long the declaration of war; upon which my right hon.
friend naturally, and almost unavoidably, remarked that
that was a question which it would be exceedingly proper
to have brought before the house. If the Government had
unduly delayed the declaration of war to the injury of the
public interests, that, my right hon. friend said, was a, ques-
tion on which my noble friend the member for Marylebone
might have asked the opinion of the house. Thereupon the
right hon. gentleman starts up—he considers this as a de-
fiance to himself and to his party, and he is exceedingly
angry with my right hon. friend. It certainly appears to
me that his anger was quite uncalled for, seeing that no de-
fiance was intended to the right hon. gentleman or his party.
My right hon. friend did not refer to those who are opposed
to us in general policy, but he peculiarly remarked upon
the very handsome and liberal manner in which all had
declared their adherence to the proposed vote. The right
honourable gentleman, however, takes occasion thereupon
to reiterate his opinion that the whole cause of the war
is to be found in the fact of the Earl of Aberdeen being
Prime Minister of this country, and that his holding
that high office is the cause why the Emperor of Russia
has persisted in his aggressive claims upon Turkey. That
is a question of which the right hon. gentleman may be
fully convinced in his own mind, but he has no proof what-
ever of the statement. He is wholly unable to support by
any document the statement he has made. It may be the
conviction of his own mind, but I am certain he cannot
support it. No doubt the right hon. gentleman thinks that
although the Erciperor of Russia is very ambitious—that
although he is much bent upon plans of aggression—if he
had known that the Earl of Derby would have been Prime
Minister and the right hon. gentleman Minister of Finance,
as in 1852, he would have been so struck with terror, and
so frightened with the intelligence, that his unjust aggres-
sion upon Turkey would have been at once withdrawn—
that Prince Menschikoff would have retired from Constan-
tinople, and the Sultan would have remained in undisturbed
possession of his invaded provinces. (Hear.) That nodoubt
is the entire conviction of the right hon. gentleman, but I
cannot say that I entertain it myself. Though I find fault
with the Emperor of Russia, I cannot but admire the de-
termined spirit of his character; and I belive that even
the circumstance of the right hon. gentleman being Mi-
nister of Finance, even with the promise of the mysterious
plan which he proposed a year and a half ago, would not
have deterred the Emperor of Russia from arming his sub-
jects and sending them on an aggressive march against the
Sultan. This, then, is the only conviction which the right
lion. gentleman has to state on this occasion with regard
to the cause of war. We have had the whole matter de-
bated upon the blue-books; it has been debated upon a
full review of all the despatches that were written. I
certainly do not wish to revive on this occasion any of the
arguments then used. Members of this house, and the
right hon. gentleman among them, were fully entitled
to make any observations and to enterl into any dis-
cussion upon the subject. The discussion was continued
for a considerable time ; and it ended without any
proposal of reflection upon the Government. The gen-
tlemen who sit opposite recorded their opinions by the
speeches which they made; and it will be for
the historian in future to read the arguments upon each.
side. Certainly, I don't wish to raise a discussion that ap-
peared then to have been closed. But the right hon. gentle-
man, referring to the business which is to come on upon
Monday, complains very much of a plan of finance having
been proposed two months ago which is not in conformity
with the demands we now make upon the country. The
right hon. gentleman seems again to have been under some
misapprehension, which I do not think is shared by mem-
bers of this house. He said the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer two months ago stated the general demands which
would be required for the purposes of the year, and it was
expected that no further demand would bo made. On the
contrary, I think when the Chancellor of the Exchequer
stated that he proposed for half-a-year to ask for a double
income tax, it was the general opinion of the house that
his demands would not stop there ; that demands would
be made for preparations then going on. There were
few, if any, simple enough to say " We have now come
to an end of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's de-
mands—the expenditure of the country will not be increased
beyond." But there was a little circumstance in the calcu-
lation, which the right hon. gentleman entirely omitted.
Sometimes skilful algebraical calculators omit some small
figure, by which the equation goes entirely wrong ; and in
like manner, the right hon. gentleman in his political cal-
culation has omitted one very small and trifling circum-
stance, namely, that since the Chancellor of the Exchequer
made his statement we have gone to war with Russia.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement
we were making preparations for war ; and, with regard
to those preparations, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
said that it was necessary to enact the double income-tax
for half a year. But negotiations for peace had not then
ettiilleed.,,rTe,thtelaermhaavmeebnotesn repeated occasion: in the history
of this country, particularly during the last century,
rsematigthirtmaments were prepared, and when, after
had been prepared, some means
were f'ound. 'for preserving- peace, on which those arrna-
;hheanentttsi:7l were discontinued or reduced. It was possible
again be the case. Some were more san-
guine on this point than others ; and my noble friend at

the head of the Government was, perhaps, the most san-
guine of any person in the country in thinking that peace
might be preserved. (Hear, hear.) There was a hope
that peace might be preserved ; and there was one Govern-
ment which seemed to share the hope of my noble friend ;
the Government of Austria, continued, oven after it seemed
almost impossible to avoid war, making propositions,
which, if they had been accepted, the Emperor of Russia
might have spared Europe the incalculable horrors and
evils of war. We were among those who entertained a
different opinion as to the probability ; but still we should
have been anxious, even at the last moment, to have
desisted from all our preparations, and to have termi-
nated the painful suspense in which we were engaged
by maintaining the peace of Europe. My belief is
that, although we might have resisted the aggres-
sions of Russia sooner than we did if Lord Derby
had been Minister, and thereby have precipitated
war, my opinion is that the people of this coun-
try would not have been thoroughly convinced that it was
necessary to support the Government in the war, unless
they had seen that the Government had exhausted every
effort to maintain peace. Well, but the right hon. gentle-
man says, "If you had been able to calculate all the de-
mands which war might bring upon you, why bring in a
partial estimate of the finance for the year—why make the
financial statement in the month of March which might
have been delayed until the month of April?" That ap-
pears a very reasonable question. But my right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave his reasons
for it very clearly. They were very simple, very prac-
tical, and very sufficient reasons. He said, "If you delay
until the month of April my proposition to increase the
income-tax, the bill which has to be introduced cannot be
passel until the month of June, and all the preparations
that are necessary—all the papers that have to be sent
out in order to collect the increased income-tax—
will be delivered, and the revenue which I ought to re-
ceive in the month of October, will be delayed until the
end of this year or the beginning of the next." That was
a very sufficient financial reason for proposing the increase
of the income tax from the sth of April. (Hear.) At the
same time I think my hon. friend did not disguise the
fact, and certainly the house was perfectly aware of it, if
war actually took place with Russia, that, in the circum-
stances which accompany war, those burdens must be in-
creased which we have hitherto supported, and that the
demands made for extra expenditure would be insufficient.
No ships containing troops and stores had then left our
shores, and therefore he thought that until the month of
May he might safely ask for only 3,000,000/. ; and that,
sum would have been sufficient if war bad been com-
menced. Then, again, with regard to the number of
men for the navy. We could not ask for the present
increased number unless the declaration of war had
taken place. But, however, as I have said, I do not
propose to anticipate the discussion which must take
place on Monday, when the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer will show exactly what are the demands of the
country at the present time. Every one knows that, in
undertaking a great war of this kind, while there are de-
mands which can be foreseen, there arise other demands
which are not foreseen, and expenditure arises on every
side, and in every shape, to increase the general burdens of
the country. It was, therefore, right that my right hon.
friend, in the month of March, should ask for that tem-
porary and provisional increase of the revenue of the coun-
try, and it is right that in the month of May he should lay
before Parliament the present prospects of the country,
and his view of what is required in the present situation
of affairs. (Hear, hear.) Ido not know that there was
any other statement of the right honourable gentleman
to which it is necessary to give any answer at this time;
but there were some observations made by the honourable
gentleman the member for the West Riding of Yorkshire
which cannot be altogether passed over. The honourable
gentleman is gratified with the character which we have
given to this war, mitigating by a great degree the
severity with which war usually presses on trade and
commerce. lam very glad that we have been able, con-
sistently with our duty, to adopt in a more mitig ited
sense the provisions of that international law which hitherto
have been enforced with the greatest strictness by this
country beyond all others. lam very glad to think that
we have discouraged the use of privateering—(hear)—
being of opinion that war ought to be carried on by the
acknowledged and legitimate forces of the several states,
and not by private individuals making what the hon.
gentleman justly calls piratical attacks upon the ships and
property of another state. And, sir, when this has been
said, I think the hon. gentleman must consider that with
respect to going any further than we have done, it is very
doubtful, even in the view which he himself would take,
being an advocate of peace, whether it would be con-
sistent with that object that we should go to the extent
which he proposes. (Hear, hear.) The honourable
gentleman says, and the argument has been used re-
peatedly before, why attack private property, even of
belligerents, on the seas, when you respect it on land ?
A cargo of salt, on board a ship is captured on the
high seas ; a cargo of salt in a warehouse on the enemy's
land, being private property, is respected. But, sir, if we
were to go to this extent, that trade between belligerents
should be carried on as usual. [Mr. Cobden—l excepted
in case of blockade]. Yes, but in case of effective blockade,
Russia is an exception ; generally the country at war with
us would have a great many ports and harbours not
blockaded, and it would come to this, that the trade of
belligerents would not be interrupted. Let us consider
whether, if that were the case, we should not deprive our-
selves—whether belligerents would not be deprived of the
means of bringing war to a close—whether we should not
be more likely to have protracted wars if the inconveni-
ences arising from wars were limited ? When a great
number of classes in the country feel no pressure from war,
they will have no desire to put an end to it; for it is on
account of those evils and inconveniences that men feel
desirous to put an end to that unfortunate state of things.
(Hear, hear.) The considerations are many, but I only
mention one or two. We prohibit contraband of war.
We do not allow pistols, swords, or cannons to be carried
to the port of a belligerent ; but if we are allowing mer-
chant ships, with their crews, to cross the seas, we are
keeping up the nursery of seamen of that country with
which we are at war, and enabling them to fit out fleets
with that warlike store which is the most useful and
powerful of any store, namely, the men who are able to
equip and fight those ships. (Hear, hear,) I think we
have gone as far as is prudent to mitigate the evils of war.
If we go beyond what we have at present done, instead of
bringing on peace, which is the object of all legitimate war,
we may produce a chronic st ,te of war which would be a
great evil to Europe and to the world. (Cheers.) My noble
friend the member for Marylebone, in alluding to some
transactions in which this country was engaged, said, if
we had but taken part with Turkey and allowed Omer
Pacha to subdue the Montenegrins, Turkey would be in a
far better situation, and would not have at thi, moment to
dread the attack of the chief of the Montenegrins and
his bands. But there is one important consideration
which escaped my noble friend on this occasion. The Go-
vernment of Austria, not then in concert with Russia,
acting in the view of the Austrian interests, said, "We
cannot bear war on our frontier, carried on by the Sultan
of Turkey and the Christian inhabitants, who, practically,
are the free inhabitants of Montenegro." I believe that
one reason why Austria could not bear that war going on
was, that she foresaw Russia would interfere on behalf of
the Montenegrins, and she would have a most inconvenient
and harrassing war on her frontier. That conjecture may
be wrong, but, be it as it may, Austria said clearly, "We
will not,bear this war on our frontier, and if Omer Pacha,
on behalf of the Sultan, .enters Montenegro, in order to
subjugate and destroy that people, we shall send in an
army to oppose the Sultan's forces." Supposing we had in-
terfered, and, instead of advising the Sultan, as Lord
Malmesbury did in the first place, and as I did when I
succeeded to the Foreign-office, not to send a costly expe-
dition to Montenegro, had advised the Sultan to persist iu
his determination to go to war with Austria, what should
we have had at this moment? We should have had Rus-
sia and Austria combined in war against Turkey. Would
Turkey have been better off? Would it be an advantage
to Turkey that Austria as well as Russia should be opposed
to her in arras ?
(Hear, hear.) Is it it not a great advan-
tage to Turkey that Austria is now in an expectant atti-
tude, dreading the ambition of Russia, and ready, if ne-
cessary, to oppose in arms the consequences of that ambi-
tion. (Hear, hear.) There is nothing, I think, in the
whole course of these negotiations which has been
so beneficial to the cause of Turkey—so beneficial to the
cause which we defend as this—that Austria has not felt
that sympathy with Russia that might have been expected
—that, on the contrary, she has felt the interests of Aus-
tria to be involved in the further aggrandisement of Rus-
sia. She has, far from using her influence in promoting
the views of Rossi., been using all means to resist the
aggression of Russia, and thereby given the greatest
assistance and protection to Turkey. I think, there-
fore, my noble friend is entirely mistaken in his views
of the policy of this country with respect to the affairs of
Montenegro. (Hear) hear.) Let me say again that, al-
though the Government of Austria has not taken that par t
which I should have wished, of interfering in the very
commencement of these transactions in putting herself by
our side in order to enforce the views we have entertained
on this subject, the feelings of Austria on this subject are
quite in accordance with those of England and France.
They have been defined in a protocol, in which thosesenti-
ments are declared ; and my belief is, that if the aggres-
sion of Russia should be pushed to the extent to attempt
the destruction of Turkey, that Austria will appear in
arms, in order to resist her. (Cheers.) I am quite sure
if, instead of taking the course which produces such a
result, we had provoked, defied, or incited Austria to
interfere on the part of the Montenegrins, we should have
committed one of the greatest faults in politics. (Hear,
hear.) And, after :-11, it to the union of the four powers
against this unprincipled attack we must look to insure
the safety of Europe, and to end all these expenses which
are attendant on a declaration of war. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI said—Sir, there is one point so re-
markable, so anomalous, in the speech which the noble
lord has just addressed to us, that I cannot help briefly
adverting to it. I complained that the Government anti-
cipated unnecessarily by a month the making their finan-
cial statement, the result of which is, that they offered to
the house a deluding estimate and a deceptive budget.
(Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.) Now that
was the point of which I complained ; and the consequence
is, that within eight weeks of their statement being made,
and within four weeks only if the date by custom had been
followed, when it need to have been made—we are called
upon to vote a sum of nearly 6,00J,0001. in the shape of a
supplementary budget. But how does the noble lord ac-
count for this circumstance? What is his vindication for the
conduct of the minister? I confess I listened with no little
surprise as with evident self complacency the noble lord
' substantiated my case. The noble lord says, "the right hon.
gentleman forgets this important circummt.,nce that between
the financial statement and the present time a great event
occurred—namely, the declaration of war." But I say the
Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have made his fin-
ancial statement as usual after the lapse of the financial
year. And when, however, did this declaration of war
take place ? The end of the financial year was the sth of
April ; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, following
the usual course, might have made his statement on the
10th of the month. But the declaration of war was not
made until the 27th of March, and that proves the great
expediency of not having been premature in his statement.
Surely, the minister who at the beginning of March called,
in the most formal manner, the attention of Parliament
to the state of the finances, ought to have had a tolerable
anticipation of what was going to happen in a month.
So there wore irresistible reasons why the financial state-
ment should have been made at the usual time, and why
we should not have been placed in the situation in which
we are, and why the minister should have had an oppor-
tunity of putting a comprehensive and veracious statement
before the country. And that was the reason alleged by
the noble lord to account for this unreasonable, this strange
departure from usual custom. Why, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer wanted to get 3,000,0001. of money, and he
could not get it unless he made a proposition at the be-
ginning of the month of March; so that at the beginning of
the month of March the attention of Parliament —with
war impending according to th© general confidence of the
country—and according to the repeated declarations and
warnings of the ministers themselves --the attention of
Parliament was formally called to the finances of the coma-

try ; our resources and burdens were estimated for a great
and imnending strul --An I for what ? That th
Chancellor of the Exch .quer should. by calling into play a
vast and deceptive machinery, be able to get 3 ,000,000/. at
the end of the year. Was there ever such a peddling vin-
dication offered for the conduct of a minister? (Cheers
from the opposition benches.) Why, if he could have got
10,000,0001. by adopting such a course—if he could have put
the country in a strong position—if he could have availed
himself of the general sympathy and resources of the coun-
try and the confidence of Parliament, and had raised a large
loan or made arrangements for any emergency or any dif-
ficulties that might meet him, I could understand the argu-
ment of the noble lord. (Renewed cheering on the opposition
benches). But that such an unprecedented course, realising
such contemptible results, should be resorted to—so that
before eight weeks have elapsed since the announcement
of your budget, you are obliged to come forward with a sup-
plementary estimate for such an amount—is, to my mind,
a course of conduct the most surprising I have ever heard
of. (Loud cheers on the opposition benches.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said—The right hon. gentleman says
that 3,000,0001. of money is a very small sum. Now, it ap-
nears to me, sir, that no financial minister that we have
had since the enactment of the income tax, in introducing
that tax, ever thought it an immaterial circumstance to
bring forward the subject very early in the year. That is
the view which the finance minister has taken on the sub-
ject, and when it is proposed to double the income tax the
same argument applies. The house will not, I believe, think
it strange that the statement was wade in the month of
March because only a difference of 3,000.0001. was thereby
affected. Now, what is 3,000,000/. ? The right hon. gen-
tleman seems to me to be talk ng of a sum of about half-a-
crown, and seems to say what does such a sum signify to
the Exchequer. If, however, the right hon. gentleman
thinks so lightly of 3,000,000 t., I must say it is pretty evi-
dent that he is no longer Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. HENLEY complained that Lord John Russell had
adopted Mr. Cobden's phrase of piracy as applied to priva-
teering, which no more deserved such a name than did the
Queen's revenue vessels. He believed that even what the
Government had done in this respect would have a tendency
to prolong war. Ho thought the country had reason to
complain of the large amount of the estimates now brought
forward, but would not deny that the Government had pre-
viously given intimation that there would be some further
demand

Mr. LAING said that Mr. Henley might look upon pri-
vatebring as a Conservative institution, but the country
would approve of its suppression, and be argued that the
principle contended for by Mr. Cobden ought to be carried
out.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY considered that the house had
hardly been fairly treated in the matter of finance.
Sir J. GRAHAM, in answer to an inquiry by the last
speaker, said that the largo item for freight of transports
included the purchase of three iron steamers of the first-
class, and that other purchases were contemplated.
Mr. M. GIBSON signified his assent to the principle
of Mr. Cobden, and his dissent from the doctrine that a
proclamation of war made every Russian the enemy of
every Englishman, and gave the latter the right to rob the
former. He contended that it was most unjust to treat
property on sea and on land on an unequal footing. And
he allowed that on principle there was no difference be-
tween robbery by a ship of war and by a private vessel,
and did not see that Government had any right to grant a
monopoly of robbery. He specially pitied the Finlanders
coerced by Russia and plundered by England. He also
desired explanations as to the prizes which had been
taken, some of which, he thought, had been wrongfully
captured.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that only one of the captured
vessels had been released, on the ground that it had been
wrongfully taken.
The following votes were then agreed to :-
461,7001., wages to seamen, &e.
200,0001., victuals for seamen and marines.
5,0001., Admiralty Office.
2,0001., establishments at home.
47,0001., wages to artificers at home.
1,0001 , wages to artificers abroad.
697,3311., naval stores—for building and repair of ships.
On the vote for transports,
Mr. WALPOLE asked for what period the contract had
been entered into with respect to the towing of transports ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that it had been entered into for
four months, with a power of continuing it fur twelve
months.

The vote was then agreed to.
ARMY ESTIMATES.

Mr. S. HERBERT said he would endeavour as shortly
as possible to state the details of the estimate which he had
to propose in addition to that already granted. He had to
propose an addition of 15,000 men to the army, making,
with the former addition, a total increase on the year of
40,000 men. The desire to render the army as effective as
possible during the war had led the Government to con-
sider the present organisation of regiments. In the esta-
blishment of different regiments the greatest variety
existed. Some regiments consisted of 1,200 men in two
battalions—others of ten companies ; in India they had
twelve companies, and there were regiments of 500 men,
and 800 men, subdivided in a certain manner. The present
system was obviously a very bad one, leading, as respected
the officers, either to a want of promotion or to placing
them on half-pay, to the great injustice of those men who
had bought their commissions. At the present moment,
when arduous and difficult service was required in the field,
it was clearly impossible to allow that state of things to
exist. Of late years the custom in the English service had
been to have one battalion in the field and a similar bat-
talion as a reserve at home. The French regiments con-
sisted of three battalions, one at home and two abroad.
In our service, therefore, the reserve was as large as the
force in the field, and that was necessarily an expensive
system. Sooner or later the reserve battalions were sent
abroad, and were thus lost as a reserve at home. The
Government had considered that the proper manner
of maintaining the regimental system was to lay down
a fixed rule. They proposed, therefore, to augment
all regiments to twelve companies—eight to be for
service, and four as the reserve at home. That
would give the best distribution of officers, and the
skeleton would remain fixed—capable of expansion in
time of war, or of contraction in time of peace. By means
of the system which he had proposed of twelve companies
to each regiment, it would be in the power of the Govern-
me t to contract or expand the army to the ex tent of
53,000 men. For the last twenty years there had been
constant augmentations of officers, followed by constant
reductions, and he believed that in the long run the cost
had been greater than it would have been had the other
plan been adopted. At present a regiment was supposed
to consist of 860 men. It was intended to increase the
number to 1000. In the English service a fifth might safely
be deducted from the regiments for orderlies, pioneers,
commissariat guards and other occupations ; so that to get
800 men into the field, the regiment would require to con-
sist of 1,000. Bat that number was still further diminished
in time of war from exposure to climate and other causes.
It was quite clear to him that, in order to be able to send
800 men into the field, each regiment should consist of
1,400. The total additional number of men proposed to be
raised in the year was 40,000. The ordinary casualties of
the army required an annual supply of 12,000 men, so that
52,000 would have to be raised for the year. He believed
that even at a time when the greatest efforts were made,
the number of men raised in Groat Britain in one year
never exceeded 40,000. He hoped, therefore, the commit-
tee would see the difficulties in which they were placed
in raising so large a number in one year. During the last
war, by means of the ballot for the militia, a sort of indis-
creet compulsion was used to obtain men for the army.
At present we had a militia force of nearly 70,000 men, all
of whom had been obtained without the ballot. In con-
sequence of the demand for labour, and high wages at pre-
sent, recruiting would be carried on with some difficulty ;
but during the last three months recruits had bean
raised at a greater rate than they bad ever been at
any previous period. Within the last three months
they had raised at least 10,000 recruits. It ought
also to be recollected that the next two or three
months would be the time when they would most likely
obtain men from the militia, for it was found that men
volunteered more readily after having been two or three
weeks in training in the militia. In mentioning the militia,
ho might be allowed to bear his testimony to the effect of
the measure introduced on that subject by the right hon.
gentleman opposite. He had seen a great many officers,
commanders of militia corps, and he must take that oppor-
tunity of expressing his sense of thevaluable services which
they had rendered to the country. They were naturally
desirous to keep up the number of their regiments ; but,
in spite of that, their sense of duty to their country had
led many of them to encourage their men to enlist into
the line. He had every reason to hope, therefore, that in
the course of the year they would be able to raise a large
force. He (Mr. S. Herbert) might state further, that there
was a misprint—not of any importance, however—in the
estimate, as regarded the number of men. The number of
men to be voted was 14,799. That number, together with
the number previously voted, would give an increase on
all ranks of 40,492 for the year, at a cost of 7,157,4831.,
being an increase over the last year's estimate of 032,000/.

Colonel DUNNE expressed a desire to have second bat-
talions In regiments abolished. It was absurd to continue
the system for depots, for the second battalions were for
almost all purposes separate regiments. He feared that
the enlistment in the course of the year would not be as
extensive as the right hon. gentleman anticipated. During
1814-15 the number of recruits for the line amounted to no
more than 9,148. The insult to Ireland, implied in not
calling out the militia in that country, would have a pre-
judicial effect on recruiting. It was desirable the commit-
tee should be informed how the new officers were to be
disposed of. What number of officers was to be added to
each regiment, and whence were they to be drawn? There
were many officers on half-pay who wished to sell oat, and
would do immediately if they were placed on full pay,
and by this means the deadweight would be considerably
reduced. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman had omitted
to state whether he contemplated any increase of the
cavalry. This was the most inefficient branch of the ser-
vice. No regiment could bring into the field more than
300 sabres, and, he believed, that we had not more than
7,000 cavalry fit for service. Our artillery, however, was
the best in the world, and for that we were indebted to
the present commander-in-chief.
Colonel LINDSAY was desirous of learning whether it
was intended to make any increase in the number of
officers attached to regiments serving abroad. At present
there were only three officers to each company, and he
thought that the number should be increased to four.
Mr. S. HERBERT said it was intended that every re-
giment should consist of 12 companies, eight being for ser-
vice, and four for depots. He could give no promise that
second battalions should be abolished, the balance of opi-
nion being in their favour. As regarded the suggestion
that four officers should be attached to each regiment
serving abroad, he understood that the experience of this
system during the last war was not in favour of its revival.
With respect to cavalry, he believed it was intended to
augment its number, and it would be made in a manner
best calculated to insure efficiency at the smallest possible
cost. The Government would take care that no officer
should remain on half-pay who was fit for service when an
opportunity should occur of employing him.
Mr. HUME did not grudge money to carry on the war,
as the country was at war; but he wanted to know who
was responsible for its expenditure. In every other
country there was a Minister at War; in this country
there was none, though the office had been several times
recommended. No one knew whether the responsible
person at present was the right hon. gentleman or the
Duke of Newcastle. As the army was efficient. he (Mr.
Hume) desired it should remain so, so long as it was
needed ; but it could not be so without responsibility
somewhere. He did not mean to oppose the vote ; but
he certainly thought that the house had a right to know
who was responsible—whether the right hon. gentleman,
the Duke of Newcastle, the Commander-in-Chief, or the
Government altogether. There should be a unity in the
action of an army, and there was none in which there was
less than the British army, because of the present system
which did no justice to either men or officers. The result
would be that the 140,000 men of which it was composed ,

would not be efficient for more than half that number. A
proper person 811.,iild ;,1;!..3:7t10d to tto,la3t, tha whole
details of the army, if the t ;over(' welt t wished to have the
confidence of the country. It was a disgrace to the coun-
try to see the British army frittered away for want of
unity of action, arising out of the want of responsibility
in question.
Colonel NORTH asked whether the officers to be added
would consist of a captain and two subalterns, or three
officers? .
Mr. HERBERT--Of threo officers.

Colonel NORTH asked, further, whether, on their re-
turn home, they would be joined to the service companies ?
He wished also to call the attention of the right hon. gen-
tleman opposite to the defects which at present prevailed
with respect to the regulation of our militia force. The
position of that force was at present very different from
that in which it stood twelve months ago. There was then
a considerable portion of the regular army at home, and
the militia were enabled to derive great service from the
instruction in drill which they received at the hands of the
regular soldiers, and, what was of still more importance,
acquired a sort of military tone from mixing with them.
Of that advantage, however, they hive since been deprived.
The regiment which he happened to command at present
consisted upon the whole of no less than 1,235 men. The
major of that regiment had served in the army, and he had
one captain, also, who had served in the Austrian army, and
who was a most excellent officer. The remaining captains as
well as the lieutenants and ensigns,had never worn a redcoat
in their lives until last May With respect to the non-com-
missioned officers, he had to state that the permanent staff
consisted of 20 men, but there were several vacancies which
he could not fill up. He did not rise to find fault with the
Government, but he must observe that the system which
was adopted with respect to the militia was wrong, and
must sooner or later lead to disaster and disgrace.
Colonel SIBTHORP had no hesitation In saying that he
was one of those who had heard with great satistaction the
speech which had been made by the right hon. gentleman
the Secretary of War on behalf of the Government. He
felt perfectly satisfied that the right hon. gentleman was
justified in asking for increased estimates for the purpose
of maintaining the characterof the country and of securing
the Throne and the Church. (Laughter) When the subject
relating to the militia came specifically under their notice
he should be ready to discuss it.
Sir J. FITZGERALD hoped the right hon. gentleman
the Secretary at War would direct his attention to the
promotion of the more efficient discipline of the cavalry
regiments. _ _ _

Colonel LESLIE suggested for the consideration of
the Secretary at War the wisdom and propriety of ap-
pointing another second lieutenant to each company of a
regiment.

lord HOTHAM said the Army List showed that the
senior lieutenants in some regiments were considerably
junior to the senior lieutenants in others, and he trusted
his right hon. friend would take this point into considera-
tion, and in the matter of promotion not lose eight of an
officer's standing in the army.
Mr. HENLEY did not object to the increase of 14,000
men ; but there was nothing in the paper which the right
hon. gentleman had laid upon the table to lead to the in-
ference that there was to be such an extensive change in
the organisation of the army as the right hon. gentleman
had sketched out that night. And he thought it was
hardly fair to ask the house to express a decided opinion
upon the subject without due consideration.

Mr. S. HERBERT—The scheme merely consisted in
assimilating the army generally to the position of the regi-
mentsemployed in India.

Sir W. -JOLLIFFE was glad to bear that the organisa-
tion of the army was to be improved. He must say, how-
ever, that he regretted there was no fixed place in which
the rifle corps could be permanently organised and trained,
and thought that we ought to possess for armament at all
times two efficient rifle brigades, consisting of not less
than six battalions, instead of four, which was the present
number. He also wished to direct the attention of the
right bon. gentleman to the extremely inefficient state of
the cavalry still remaining in this country, than which he
could assure him nothing could be more deplorable. It
was utterly impossible to form them into squadrons ; and
this he said as an officer who had served a seven years'
apprenticeship in a cavalry regiment under that distin-
guished man, Sir Joseph Thackwell. A different organi-
sation of the cavalry was, in his opinion, even more desir-
able than that of the infantry.
Mr. S. HERBERT—The augmentation of officers would
apply to all the regiments of the line and the Rifles, but
there was no intention to increase the number of battalions
either of the Rifles or the Ist Foot. With regard to what
the hon. gentleman had said respecting the cavalry, he
thought it was more necessary at present to devote atten-
tion to the organisation of the infantry.
After a few words from Lord LOVAINE, the vote was
agreed to, as also was the vote of 300,000/, to defray the
expenses. _

ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.
Mr. MONSELL said that at that late hour, and after so
protracted a debate on the estimates introduced by his right
hon. friends who preceded him, he should content himself
with merely moving the votes under the head of Ordnance
Department. The total amount was 742,1321. Vote 1
comprised 30,0001., for the purchase of horses ; pay and
additional pay, and allowances on foreign service, 21,333/. ;
travelling expenses, 2,000/. ; total, 53,3331. Vote 2 con-
sisted of barrack supplies, 30,000/. ; great coats, 44,621/. ;
boots and shoes for troops in the field, 22,1131. Total,
96,734/. Vote 3 consisted of 2 0001. for increased establish-
ment of clerks. Vote 4 consisted of 104,1901., under the
head of wages, including 72,6731. for laboratory, and car-
riage department 20,0001. Vote 5 comprised the cost of
stores at Woolwich and the Tower, and amounted to
455,8751. Vote 6 composed of 20,0001, special engineer-
ing servicesin connection with the expedition, and 10,0001.
for the erection of barracks at Aldershott.

The several votes were agreed to without discussion.
The house then resumed, but immediately after went
into committee on