On this page
-
Text (1)
-
JTOY 21,1855. j THE LiEAPm. m7
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Ikej&Rial Parliament. Indian Grievances....
xfe bad been slsadeted ; but ae had the brave and ^ aaneiLo rd Raglan , even to the verge of the grave , gpA , <> bad many other great men . He had olivaya acted in accordance with his coasuiance , and lie could aot be depraved of the satisfaction—whatever errore and mistakes he might have committed—of reflecting that he had been connected , though far beyond his deserts , with measures which had promoted the civil and religious interests of his country . He had therefore no reason to be dissatisfied with the result ¦ which had occurred , even though it should lead to his exclusion for ever from political life . XiYtton entered into review of
Sir E . BoiWER a the conduct of Lord John Russell from the period of liis secession from the Government of . Lard Aberdeen np to tlie present time ; and , by several charges of in consistency , justified the motion which lie now withdrew , owing to the resignation of the Minister against whom it was directed . He must sny he was astonished that Lord Jolin Russell did not retire from the Government the night after he returned from Vienna . The papers which had just Tieen laid before Parliament showed that , during : the latter part of the negotiations , Lord John Russell was at direct variance with Lord Clarendon ; the Foreign Secretary expressly instructing our envoy
tbat he must avoid as much as possible the system of counterpoise , and the latter basing his plan on that very system . So far as Lord Clarendon was concerned , there was a frank , hearty , and English tone in these despatches . But Lord Clarendon represents himself alone , while the Prime Minister represents the whole Cabinet . If , then , the latter concurred with his Foreign Secretary , how could he concur Iwith his negotiator ? Was it not a fair inference that Lord John Russell did not stand alone in tlie Government ? that there was not a united
Cabinet , and that Lord Clarendon was net its spokesman ? There were sonic gentlemen in the Cabinet whose opinions lie should like to knowgentlemen who luid never yet expressed their sentiments on the nature of the war , or the proper conditions of peace . What were the opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ? What were tho opinions of the First Lord of the Admiralty ? It remained to be seen whether the sacrifice of Lord John Russell had removed the only obstacle to earnestness and unity in the prosecution of the war .
Mr . Bouvkkie pronounced a high eulogy on the character of Lord John Russell ; and , in answer to certain assertions which had been made , denied that he had consented to be a party to representing to tlie late Minister that the opinion of the country , of the House , and of a large number of the Cabinet , was against him ; but immediately afterwards admitted that he had made such a representation . Tins extraordinary self-contradiction elicited loud laughter and ironical cheering from the House . Lord Paxmbkstojj criticised Sir Bulwer Lytton ' s speech with very great asperity . It was full of inconsistencies , tlie chief argument being based on the assumption that Lord John Russell , after his return
from Vienna , continued to be of the same opnuou trith regard to the Austrian proposals—an assumption which , if the hon . baronet ' s memory were good for ten minutes' duration , he must have known to be totally and absolutely incorrect , lie was , therefore , clearly guilty of one of two things—cither of deliberate insincerity , or of the grossest ignorance as a public man . With respect to his assertion that Lord Clarendon merely represents his individual opinion , did Ito believe that assertion to be the truth ? If so , he must be more grossly ignorant , not than any man , but than nny child , in London
who reads a newspaper . And when he said he should like to sec the letters addressed by the Prime Minister to Lord John Russell , he must havo known a * well as any man that the foreign correspondence of a Government is always conducted through the Foreign Minister , and through him only . Sir K . Ii Lytton had said that these frequent changes made us ridiculous in the eye * of Europe ; but there was one change which would make us still more ridiculous—a change which would bring in the lion . baronet aa the occupant of any high situation . The present Cabinet is nut divided , but resolved to carry
on the war with the utmost vigour . Mr . Disuaklx defended tin ; speech of Sir K . JJ . Ljtton , and denounced that of Lord I ' ulmorsUm na " reckless rhodomontado , " aiul as containing language towards the hon . baronet which was not loin 1 anticipated from one who holil .-i tin : position id a g entleman . Thy conduct of Lord . K . lui Russell had to » n full of inconsistencies ; tl ^ ' language of tin- (> o-Vcrnment had been ambiguous throughout , anil they uad withheld important inforniution from the lloimo . The lial talked f stand
First Lord of tho Treasury . « - ing or falling by Lord . John Ku . shoII ; but lie was neither standing nor falling- he wan it \ erely hitting on Treasury benches * . Was it , or wan itnol . u ftct tliat thero had Leen a g ; i < nural understanding between the Governments of England and Franco "M t tho terms in question would bo aeeopUnl , ami wiattliia was communicated U > Lord John RusseUV P-oxd Falmu & w-on : " No . " ] If Parliament lasted « x weeks , he believed this wtateinent would bo
received by a majority of the House as authentic . Lord John Russell , who had met the giants of debate in former times , had feared to meet this motion . But in his stead Lord Falmerstdn had spoken , and had shown , by his language and the tone of his , mind , that , if the honour and the interests of the country are longer committed to his keeping , the first will be degraded , and the last betrayed . Mr . Roebtj-ck said that Lord John Russell had , by his disingenuous conduct , given the country to understand that he was an energetic advocate for war , at a time when he was at issue with the Cabinet on the proposals for peace . He ( Mr . Roebuck ) had
thus been deceived , and had voted against Mr . Disraeli's motion , when , if he had known the true state of the case , he should have supported it . Lord John Russell had neglected his duty to the country , to the House , and to truth . But there were many reasons for believing that several traitors still remain in the Cabinet ; and these should be made known . —Sir Geouge G-kky denied that , as had been hinted , he had sanctioned a course in the Government which lie personally disapproved . —Mr . Gladstone
agreed with previous speakers m condemning the conduct of Lord John RusselL It was desirable that the Government should give explanations upon several points connected with the papers recently laid before the House . As for the Austrian proposition on the Third Point , which Lord John Russell supported , it was almost identical with the last of the Russian proposals which he ( Mr . Gladstone ) had advocated , though for doing so he had been severely censured by the bate Minister . —The motion was then withdrawn .
The DowyiKG-sthbet Pctbi-ic Oftices Extek-8 ros Bill passed through committee . —The Stage Carriage Dunns Bill also passed through committee , after the Chakcellob of the Exchequer had withdrawn the 6 th clause , which imposed certain duties upon building societies . —The further reading of the Dissenters Marriage Bill was proceeded with , and several amendments relating to matters of detail were agreed to . —The Lunatic Asylums ( Ireland ) Bixl , and the Mortmain Bill , were read a third time and passed . The House of Lords on Tuesday was merely occupied in forwarding several bills a stage . In the Commons , the morning- sitting- was chiefly occupied hi committee on the AIetropoljtaj * Btrira > - ings Biix ..
BARON ROTHSCHILD . —BKFORT OF THE COMMITTEE . At tlie evening sitting , the Report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the validity of Baron Rothschild ' s seat was read at the table . The Committee ' s decision was that Baron Rothschild , in the matter of the 16 , 000 , 000 / . loan , was not a contractor -within the moaning of the act .
THE F 0 CR POINTS . Lord Palmerston , in answer to Mr . Layard , mentioned that some arrangements were agreed to at Vienna in rebition to the Four Points , but they were merely parts of a whole . The allied Governments considered themselves free from the past . Austria was bound by treaty to occupy the Principalities , and to defend them against Russia . With regard to the commission said to be sitting at Vienna , he knew nothing of it . MR . KOEBUCK ' S MOTION .
Mr . Boebcck , in bringing forward his motion , the object of which was to visit with severe reprehension every member of the late Cabinet whose counsels led to the disasters in the Crimea , briefly narrated the circumstances under which the committee was appointed , and spoke in high terms of tho soldierly qualities and eminent services of the lute Lord Rnglun —a tribute which he was tho more disposed to render , because the world believed that ho liad done that gallant spirit some wrong . The committee had condemned every member of the late Administration ; and it was the duty of the House to pass sentence . Some of the members of that
Administration had been excluded from office , and so far they were punished ; but ho couceived that those who remained , and formed part of the present Government , were far more guilty than tho ministers who have been sacrificed . The Duke of Newcastle , Sir James Craham , and Mr . Sidney Herbert , had shown groat zeal and industry in their respective departments , though unquestionably they had committed faults , He could not observe an equal degree , of energy in those who < uv still enjoying the sweets of oillcc . He thought tho late Government highly
culpable for entering on the expedition against bobastopol without sufficient knowledge of the resources of tlie enemy , and for sending no moro than 25 , 000 KngUsh ; and he speeially charged Lord Falmerston with neglect in not earlier organising the militia , so that a better reserve might have been formed . AVhile the army w : i « dwindling with cold , hunger , and disease , « ' 1 I the members of thu Government , with the exception of the Duko of Newcastle , were away from their posts , taking their pleasure from tho end ot August to October . The . House should visit with its censure the men wk > had so far forgotten their
duties . As for the herd , who fbilow like sheep their leaders * track , they sfoorfld not be held exempt from punishment , even though they were insigniffcattf . All he desired was- justice . —Mr . H . £ j >* TEUy seconded t & emotion . Gener al Pbex , by -way of amendment , moved the previous question- He thought the House should not look back , except to profit by past errors . —Lord KOBEwr Cech ,, who expressed a similar opinion , seconded the amendment . , He thonght , though the w ^ Jr i motion might be vindicated in the abstract they had the appearance of an acrimonious and vindictive personality . —^ Colonel Adaib , beine precluded , as a matter of form , from moving thl amendment of which he had given notice , and the objeet of which ^ as to express an opinion that the counsels determining the expedition were consistent
with a wise and sagacious policy , made some remarks in vindication of the opinion thus expressed , and in . opposition to Mr . Roebuck ' s censures . —Mr . Conollt supported the original motion . —Mr . Lowe was of opinion that his original objections to the appointment of the Committee had been fully borne out . It was impossible for the House to come to a verdict upon evidence which was avowedly partial and incomplete . Besides , the censure would include the Emperor of the French , and might thus endanger oar alliance . —The Marquis of Geanb ? spoke in favour of the amendment , not wishing to weaken the executive now that vre are positively at war , though he thought the war rn the first instance unnecessary . — Mr . J . G . Philliwore , Mr . Gordons' , Sir J . Walsh , and lord Seymottk spoke against the motion ; and Mr . Magctke in its favour . —Sir James Grahlame
thonght the House ought to come to some decision on the conduct of the late Administration that night . —Sir John Pakixgtox denied the truth of Mr . Lowe ' s observation that the inquiry was incomplete as regards this particular question ; nor was the House trying the conduct of the French Emperor . The question raised by the motion was , not whether the expedition itself was right ot "wrong , but whether it had been properly carried out . —Sir Charxes Wood said the Government would vote for the amendment of General Peel , on the ground that the inquiry of the committee is imperfect . Had it been perfect they would not have shrank from a decision on the main question . Mr . Roebuck had , with great inconsistency , censured those Ministers who were not immediately * responsible for the war arrangements , and acquitted those who were . —On the motion of Mr . ( Jaskell the debate was
adjourned-The debate was resumed on Thursday , and protracted until a very late hour , the house not adjourning until ten minutes to three . —Mr . Gaskell having spoken in favour of Mr . Roebuck ' s motion , the Attoe . xey-Gexek . vx opposed it , conceiving that the House would not be justified in censuring Lord Piiluaerston and liis colleagues for acts committed by a previous Administration , and upon evidence confessedly imperfect . The object of the motion was to make the present First Minister specially responsible , although he held in the previous Government an
office which had no connexion with the management of the war , and although since bis accession to his present post , the war had been conducted with the utmost vigour . —Mr . Wiiiteside contended that all the members of a cabinet are responsible for the acts and councils of each individual member . The attempt of the Attorney-General to prove the contrary was unconstitutional . Tlie evidence of the Sebastopol Committee was not imperfect as regards the authorities in this country—the persons against whom the motion was directed ; and it was perfectly justifiable to revert to the acts of the late Cabinet .
Lord John Rlssei . l agreed with Mr . Whiteside that all the members of a cabinet are responsible for its measures ; but he accused Mr . Roebuck of being actuated by malice in bringing forward his motion . The expedition to Sevastopol was undertaken after the defeat of tlie Russians at Silistrio , under the belief that the public would be dissatisfied if the war wore not vigorously prosecuted . There was good reason to believe that Sebastopol would fall ; and , at
any rate , considering the results which would accrue from its reduction , the trial was worth tlie risk . All the information that could be obtained was obtained ; and the absence of the Government from town during the autumn was no injury to the public service . The total Cabinet was responsible for having sent out the expedition , but was not responsible for the details of management . AViih respjct to tlie tendency of the motion , did tho House think it desirable that we should have another change of Government ? Committe
Mr . UnujiiTheld that the Report of tlie e more than nrnde out tho case submitted by Hir . Hoebuck , and tluit it was impossible to reirum iron * doing soWthiiiff with that llt-port . lie ^ " ^ T ^* that Lord l ' aluurston was spoduUy tfuilty ; buttliat . Lord John KiuukII , having turned l * i « j « . " ™*» ffi should , like all person * in that " iHtf » ^ , $ teZa be exempt from punishment a hero 1 adjj n , J cabal in the Cabinet agamat Lon Joh » Ku ** J , because of i . i- ^ ' ^^ l ; : * Sit dl ^ S ! { rSSS ' lfoiit HotS no confidence in the present
Jtoy 21,1855. J The Lieapm. M7
JTOY 21 , 1855 . j THE LiEAPm . m 7
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), July 21, 1855, page 3, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_21071855/page/3/
-