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

must become very limited ; and no doubt that is a theory very
agreeable to a Ministry, from whatever party selected.
To say that opposition is only to be justified by a division
sufficiently successful to upset a Ministry, is to lower poli-
tical conduct to a selflsa and sordid standard. It is telling
the people of this country that their Parliament is not to be
an assembly where the relative merits of different principles
of Government aruto be discussed and debated ; where the
pulse-of the nation is to be felt ; and where the passions even
of the people are to be represented ; but that it is to be a
clever, well-organised, mechanical assembly, where nothing
is to be considered but selfish consequences and the mere am-
bition of the individuals who are fortunate enough to obtain
a seat in it, and where the distribution of power and enjoy-
ment are to be, in fact, the sole objects held-in view. It is
not so that I have understood the character of Parliament ; it
is not so that I have conceived the duties of opposition.
(Hear.) There is a ready answer for a Minister to a captious
and factious Opposition. Be will appeal, and, generally speak-
ing, not without success, to the independent feeling of this
house, and if he is not supported here he will appeal without
fear to the country. (Hear.) But so long LI we represent—
whether our opinions be erroneous or not—a great force of
public opinion on any question- which we bring forward, so
long as we vindicate, though we.be a-minority —and it is the
necessary consequence of our Parliamentary system that an
opposition should be a min rite—the principles of Govern-
ment and the policy which we thinkright we are fulfilling our
duty, and not all the swagger of a Mihistry, not all the flip-
pant taunts of its followers, will •deter us from taking that
course which we believe to be founded on right and justice.
(Cheer's.) No majority, however aceideutally gained, can de
prive discussion of its consequences nor prevent the force of
truth—if truth be on the side of our opinions—ultimately
prevailing. (Cheers) It is thought, and justly thought, to be
a very great inconvenience to have to address you, Sir, at the
end of a long and protracted debate. Every public docu-
ment, which has been referred to as au oracle on the first
night of debate has lost its inspiration in the course of
the speeches which haVe been delivered. Every paper,
Which was scarcely understood when first introduced to the
notice of the house, has become worn and littnidar whin
three or four nights of discussion have intervened, and all
Vie arguments which are obvious have become obsolete. There
is not an opinion which can be enforced, if it is just, which
has not been examined, and all that is left to one who ad-
dresses you under these circumstances is the dreary duty of
repetition.' There is, however, a counterbalancing advantage,
which, were I as dexterous as the right hon. member for r..7ar-
lisle, I would make greater use of than unfortunately my
abilities will allow me. There is this to be said, when we
come to the conclusion of a debate the circumstances of the
discussion have taken the relative positions of importance
which they must ultimately occupy, but which when it com-
mences they unfortunately never can occupy. The principles
which are of great importance when the debate is opened have
found their proper position in men's minds as it proceeds,
and at the end we have this advantage, that we see the real
nestion at h sae divt sted of all those extraneouscircumstanci s
which masses of documents and the ingenuity of speakers
have cast around it; and we have therefore the opportunity
of addressing the house, as briefly as I shall endeavour to do
the present oceasion. What is the real point which we have
to decide upon '1 The right kon. gentleman who has ad-
dressed the house with so much art has said that the subject
under discussion may be divided under two heads—the con-
duct of the ambassador, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, and the
subsequent conduct of the Government iu the summer of 1855.
These, he says, are the two points which we have to consider
in calculating what may have been the causes which led to the
fall of Kars. With great respect to the• right lien. gentle-
man, I cannot agree with him in that division of his. Ido
not consider that the conduct of the ambassador is a moiety
—certainly not a principal moiety— of the subject. Let us
look a little at this question of the conduct of the ambassa
der, because the observations of my hon. and learned friend
the member for Enniskillen on this part of the subject
have been very much misunderstood. I draw from them
inferences quite the reverse of those which were drawn
by the right honourable gentleman the member for Carlisle.
(Hear.) When the fall of Kars was first known iu this coun-
try—l speak of circumstances notorious, lam sure, to mem-
bers on both sides of the house —there was undoubtedly an in-
stantaneous, feeling of sorrow and indignation. (Hear.) I
hardly ever remember au occasion when our troops bad not
been engaged and when our own immediate interests—in-
terests, at least, which the mass of the population would
look upon as immediate—were not affected, on which that
feeling was so deep and so prompt. (Hear.) What hap-
pened ? Mysterious whispers were heard from those who
knew it was impoSsible to deny the nature and consequences
of the catastrophe, and who, feeling how disgraceful and in-
jurious the event must be to the Governmen!, were anxious to
palliate it as much as possible. It was darkly said, that if we
only knew the truth we should find that the Government
were perfectly blameless, that there was another influence at
Work which had produced all the mischief. For a consider-
able time, in a most powerful and consistent manner, by the
Most able machinery, th,e public mind was kept quiet by the
intimation that there would at last be a revelation, that it
'Would at last be known, what was che criminal influence
Which had caused the sad disaster, but that wo must wait for

a time before the scapegoat was indicated. At last the fact
was published, and the vapegoat was indicated by the same
Machinery. Every means—l will not say which a Govern

rnents can influence, because we know that all Government,
aro totally uninfluential—a Government never influences any-
body nor anything—but every means which power, ingenuity,
and some feeling of despair could command was set to work

to prove that it was the ambassador at Constantinople who
Was the real cause of the disaster. Some days before this
blue-book .was published we were told that 62 despatches,
Addressed to the ambassador by Colonel Williams, had re-
Ittained unanswered, and the people of England were asked
whether an ambassador who left 62 despatches unanswered on
so important a subject had sot betrayed his country I Public
indignation was excited against Lord Stratford, and there
was one of those strong but premature verdicts pronounced

against him which are often as unjust as they are precipitate.
I am not here to vindicate the conduct of Lord Stratford dt
/Wenn with respect to General Williams. ,My hon. and

learned friend doe; not bring Lord Stratford's conduct before
the house to be branded by its verdict. Look at the resolu-
tion. What reference is there in it to that part of the sub
ject ? My hon. and learned friend was neither able nor w 1
_ _

iing to defend the conduct of Lord Stratford to General Wil.

~. - --- -.---- ----- -- -- ------
limns, but in ilje volume. which cont,ins all the confidential
correspondence between Lord Stratford and the Government,
here is a passage which my hon. friend the member for Dor-
setshire said he could not believe though he had read it, in
which the Secretary of State complains that he has appealed
_..

often and often in vain, and continues to appeal in vain, to

the ambassador. All the correspondence is placed before.the
house—much of which it was not necessary to place before'
us, according to the view now supported by the Government
—and an amendmeNt was placed on the paper by an hon.
gentleman whO sits behind the noble lord, which, if it had
any object at all—there certainly are people who have no ob-
ject iu life, and for aught I know the member for Leominster
may be one of them—(laughter)—was meant to divert the
storm from the heads of the Ministry and to direct it ou the
head of Lord Stratford do Itedclitfe. My hon. and lea ned
friend was forced to go into the question of the conduct of
Lord Stratford towards General Williams because the Govern-

went placed the whole of that correspondence upon the.table.
It was impossible to avoid giving au opinion upon the conducl

of that eminent person, an TI I defy any person of a generous
disposition, or who has a due regard to the public service of
this country', to avoid expressing such opinion with the ulmost
frankness, The conduct of Lord Stratford, as shown by the
d)cuments which her Majesty's Government have placed upon

the table, was indefensible. But the argument of my hon.
and learned friend—an argument in which I perfectly con-
eur-,a constitutional argument, and, like all constitutional
arguments, a just and generous one—is this—lf Lord Strat-

ford has sinned so grievously, you did not recall him ; and

therefore you, and you alone, are responsible for his conduct.
(Hear, hear.) It was the unnecessary placing on the table
of the whole of this correspondence with regard to Lord

Stratford and Mr. Commissioner Williams which forced us to

form the opinion which my hou. and learned friend ha

:frankly and fully expressed. My lion, and learned friend

refuses to include Lord Stratford in the motion which he

_asks the house to adopt, because the Government, by not yo

calling the .ambassador, has made itself responsible for his

conduct. lam not surprised that a Cabinet Minister has, in
a manner becoming one who occupies such a position, sanc-
tioned and adopted that constitutional theory. Why, sir, it

there are any principles which ought to regulate us in. our oh
ervations on public men, they are the two principles never to

permit an attack to be made upon a particular Minister when

we believe that the whole Cabinet is responsible for his con

duct—(hear, hear)—a species of attack which I have ever re-
sisted: and which I hope I shall never sanction—and never

to allow that. any person employed in the service of her
Majesty abroad—however outrageous, however iniquitous,

ho;vever ruinous, in our opinion, his _conduct may be—is
guilty so long as he is not recalled by hor Majesty's Govern-
ment. (Hear, hear.) I suppose the noble lord (Lord Pal-
merston) will concur with me that these are the principles
which ought to guide our conduct. Bnt, sir, I cannot agi •
with the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) that the conduct

of Lord Stratford is by any means an important portion of

the subjeetAuider discussion. It is not touched in the reso
intion. . 4.-

Sir J. GRAHAM—The nen-recall of Lord Stratford.
Mr.' DISRAELI—But the non-recall of Lord Stratford is
not referred to in this resolution. I think the question is-of
a much simpler kind. Somewhat more than a year ago that
happened to the Government of Lord Aberdeen which
the President of the Board of Control (Mr. V. Smith)
says we want to do to the present Government; It. was
" upset." There is not the slightest wish to " upset",.the.
present Government here. (Cries of " Oh, oh !") We are
not the men for that. If we wanted to " upset" a Govern-
ment we should seek an artist on some of the benches behind
the noble lord (Palmerston). (Laughter and cheers.) We art
plain men, quite content to assert our opinions and vindicate
cur principles. We are so silly, sooth, that we actually ex-
press in our resolutions that which we say in our speeches.
(Hear.). But, sir, rather more than a year ago the hand of a
very fine,artist " upset" (as the President of the Board of
Control said) the Government of Lord Aberdeen. We had rr,
idea that that Government was going to be " upset." We
thought it was the strongest Government which this country
ever possessed; and I suppose had there not been in the
Cabinet one who was equal to the occasion it never would
have been "upset." (A laugh.) Let me remind the house
What was the ground on which the noble lord the member for
London (Lord J. Russell) left that Cabinet and sealoc its
doom. It was frankly expressed. The noble lord found fault
• with the conduct of the war ; and mainly, specifically, par-
ticularly, and precisely with the conduct of the war in Asia.
,
(Hear, hear.) The hon, member for Aylesbury ha made a
speech upon that subject, which reminds me that the hon.
member (Mr. Layard) said the other night that he had been
continually bringing the war in Asia before the house, and
asked us wby we had not supported him,—in fact, spoke of
us in language almost as contumelious as that of the Scotch
members to-night. (A laugh.) I will take this opportunity
of saying, on the part of myself and my friends, that we arc
quite unconscious of the laclees of which the hon. gentleman
has accused us. I perfectly recollect that the hon. member
for Aylesbury was in the habit of giving notices of motions
upon almost every night of the sesdon ; but at this mo-
ment I have no recollection that he brought forward one
of those motions. (Hear, hear.) Constant visions I have
'of excited houses called together to hear the revelations
of the honourable gentleman, and alm"st equally constant
ones of Occasions on which—of course prompted by the
most patriotic motives—he felt it his duty not to embarrass
her Majesty's Government. (A laugh) That the hon. mem-
ber did once make a speech on the war in Asia, there is, I
believe historic evidence, because that speech threw into a
musing mood the noble lord the member for London (Lord J.
Russell), and made him contemplate the position of his Cabi
net, and his responsibility to his country ; and it was that
speech, like the first move iu the " House that Jack Built,"
which ultimately destroyed the Government of Lord Aber-
deen. (Laughter.) Now, sir, why was the Government of
Lord Aberdeen destroyed i It was because he did not elfi-
.

ciently conduct, because he entirely neglected, the war in
Asia. Well, that—to use an expression lately adopted from
the German—is the " standing point" of this question. We
have been told several times in the course of thi, discussion
that we must look to dates. I will look to dates. At the
°ad of January, 1855, the Government of Lord Aberdeen is
destroyed by. a colleague, who of course, acted wider' some

sense of responsibility, because he neglected the war in Asia.
If you look to dates, you will find that about the same time