The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-02 00:00:00

in the opinion of one of the most experienced of our states-

men, a Minister is to be exempted from the penalty of his mis-
conduct—the censure of this house—merelybecau=e he happens
to be au old comrade of the right hon. hart they will be amazed
at the doctrine, and confess that they have heard from him a
sentiment well calcuated to shake their confidence iu public
men. (Hear, hear.) But I acain ask did Ministers send
money to General Williams ? Who will rise in this house and
assert that they did. Not ole single piaster dil they send.
The soldiers of five nations were wanted—every man of them
—at Sebastopol. Was the money required there elk'? Were
all the balances of the Exchequer likewise and of the banks
needed at Sebastopol ? The noble lord at the head of *he War
Department should have known, if any one did, what are the
sinews of War; yet it will not be asserted that he sent any
supply of them. ( Hear, bear.) On subjects of fina ,ce the
Chancellor of the Exchequer is, of course, a high authority.
Without meaning any disrespect to him, however, he must
Permit me to say that I did not concur with him in thinking
that the fall of Kars was neither a military nor a political
disaster. But on questions of finance, whatever our political
opinions, we naturally listen to anything that falls from the
right hon. rentleman with the respect duo to his high posi-
tion. Ho knows the value of money, and does not pretend
for a moment to deny that any sum, however small, would
have been of advantage to General Williams. "But," says
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, " supposing we had pro-
posed a vote of money, what chance should wo have had of
carrying it with the opposition to which we should have been
subject ?" That is the strangest doctrine that I ever heard a
that Minister of State advance in the House of Commons. (Hear,
hear.) The functions of an Opposition under our form of
Parliamentaryrery
mGoinviesitleiiniekuutowarse elaetar thel defined
dureas lee intro-
duces,
nahltelli-
if they have weak points in them, will naturally en-
countergbile. !Every
animudversinn. The country expects it ; but "there
are limits to this resistance. and I defy any Opposition to per-
sist for any length of time in a course antagonistic to the na-
tianal feeling or to common sense. The legitimate remedy of
a Minister lies in an tutimate appe 41, if need be, to the tribu-
nal of public opinion. But I lay it down with confidence as
a maxim which the right hon. gentleman cannot controvert,
that it is the duty of the Government of this country to pro-
pose all such measures as they believe to be ess..ntial to the
public welfare, without the least reference to what may be
the conduct of an Opposition. The assertion of a ditTerent
principle is a libel on our institutions, and I say, " Perish our
Parliamentary constitution if its spirit be such that in a period
of war—in a critical emergency —a Minister dare not avail
himself of the national resources because he fears the criticism
of au Opposition." (Cheers.) Yet we have been told hi this
debate that we are not, to allude to the extraordinary doctrines
advanced by the Minister in defence of his conclnct ; and the
hon. member for Edinburgh, accusing us of faction, says it is
Inot of the slightest consequence that we should trace national
calamities to their source, and that the assertion of the most
dangerous principle is, forsooth, to go unchallenged in the
House of Commons. But if the position taken by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer was constitutionally so untenable, haw
does it work practically ? The noble lord at the bead of the