On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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.

    Untitled Article

    jjo had ; been slandered ; bub so had : the- brave * and humane Eawd'Raglan , even ; to the verge-ofUhe gcave ,-amltse had manyother great men .. He had . alto-ays * noted in accordance withhie conscience , and he could nofc lje deprived of the satisfactionv-wliatever errors i andimistafces he might hav « committed' —of reflecting that he had been connected ,, though far beyond his deserte * with measu res whioh had promoted the civil an religious interests of his country- He had therefore no reason to lie dissatisfied with the result whic had occurred , even though it should lead to his exclusion for ever from political life . of

    Sir 15- Bulweb Lytton entered into a review th ' e conduct of Lord Johu Russell from the period of His . secession from the Government of Lord Aberdeen up to the present time ; and , by several charges of inconsistency , justified the motion which he now withdrew , owing to the resignation of the Minister against , whom it was directed . He must say he was astonished that Lord John Russell did not retire from the Government the night after he returned from Vienna . The papers which hud just been 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

    that ho must avoid as much as possible the system or 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 > vith his negotiator ? Was it not a fair inference that Lord John Russell did not stand alone in the Government ? that there was not a united

    Cabinet , and that Lord Clarendon was net its spokesman ? There were some gentlemen in the Cabinet whose opinions he should like to knowgentlemen who had 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 the 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 . h the

    Mr . Bouveme pronounced a higeulogy on 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 the 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 . This extraordinary self-contradiction elicited loud laughter and ironical cheering from the House . Lord Pauierstok criticised Sir Bulwer Lytton s speech with very great asperity . It was full of inconsistencies , the chief argument being based on the assumption that Lord John Russell , after his return from Vienna , continued to be of the same opinion with 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 . He was , therefore , clearly guilty of one of two things—either ol 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 ho believe that assertion to be the truth ? If so , ho must be more grossly ignorant , not than any man , but than any child , in London who reads a newspaper . And when he said he should like to sue the letters addressed by the Prime Minister to Lord John Hiissell , lie must have known as well as any man that tlio foreign correspondence of a Government is always conducted through the Foreign Minister , and through him only . Sir h . B . Lytton had said that theso freiraent changes made

    ws ridiculous in the eyos of Europe ; but there was one change which would make us still nioro ridiculous—a change which would bring in the lion , baronet as the occupant of any high situation . 1 he present Cabinet is not divided , but resolved to carry on tho war with the utmost vigour . Mr . Dishakh defended the speech of Sir \ u . JJ . Lytton , and denounced Unit of Lord l ' alinerston as " reckless rhudoniontado , " and an continuing language towards the hon . buronot which was not to ho anticipated from one who holds tho position ol a KCntlcman . Tho conduct of Lord . John liussi'll had

    bcon full of inconsistencies ; tin . ; language of the C « overnraent luul been ambiguous throughout , and they "Ad withheld important information from tho House . ' 1 'ho Ifirst Lord of tho Treasury had lalkoil ol standing or falling by Lunl . John llussi'll ; lint h <; was neither standing nor falling --he was merely . sitting on tho Treasury benchon . Was it , or was it not , a faot that thuro had l . oon a general iiiuU'rstaiuling between tho Governments of Kuglund Ji »»» l J- ' 1 " 11111 ' ) thftt tho terms in question would he uccopU ' d , antt that this waa coumiiiiiitiiilcd to Lord John itussclU PUrd Ealmkuston : " No . "] If Parliam ent IusUhI Bi weeks , he believed this wtnteinent would be

    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 Palmerston had spoken , and had shown ; byhisr 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 : Roebuck 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 George Grey denied that , as had been hinted , he had sanctioned a course in the Government which he personally disapproved . —Mr . Gladstone

    agreed with previous speakers in 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 late Minister . —The motion was then withdrawn .

    The Downing-street Pdbltc Oftices Extension Bill passed through committee . —The Stage Carriage Duties Bill also passed through committee , after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had withdrawn the 6 th clause , which imposed certain duties upon building societies . —The further reading of the Dissenters Maehiage Bill was proceeded with , and several amendments relating to matters of detail were agreed to . —The Lunatic Asylums ( Irelakd ) Bill , and the Mortmain Bjll , 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 in committee on the Metropolitan Buildings Bill .

    BARON ROTHSCIIILD . REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE . At the 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 meaning of the act .

    THE FOUR POINTS . Lord Palmerston , in answer to Mr . Layard , mentioned that some arrangements were agreed to at Vienna in relation 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 .

    JIR . ROEBUCK S MOTION . Mr . Roebuck , infringing 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 the soldierly qualities and eminent services of the late Lord Raglan —a tribute which lie was the more disposed to render , because the world believed that ho had done that gallant spirit some wrong . The committee had condemned every member of the late Administration ; and it was tho duty of the House to pass

    sentence . Sonic of the members of that Administration had been excluded from office , and so far they wore punished ; but he conceived that tho se who remained , and formed part of the present Government , were far more guilty than the ministers who luvvo been sacrificed . The Duke of Newcastle , Sir Juinos Graham , and Mr . Sidney Herbert , had shown groat zo . il and industry in their respective departments , though uiKiuestionably they had committed faults . He could not observe an equal dogrec of energy in those who aiv still enjoying the aweots of hi

    office . Ho thought tho late CSovorninent ghly oulpublo for entering on tho expedition against Sebustopol without suflloiont knowledge of the resources of the enemy , and for sending no more than 25 , 000 Knglish ; and ho specially charged Lord Palmorston with neglect in not earlier organising , tho militia , so that a hotter reserve might have boon formed . " While the army was dwindling with cold , hunger , and disease , all tho members of tho ( . iovornmont , with the oxoontion of tho Duke , of Newcastle , wore awuy from thoir posts , taking their pleasure from the end ot August to October . The House should visit with its censure tho men who had so fur forgotten their

    idutieff . A >» for the herd ; who follow libe-sheep their jleaders ' - track , they- should not- be held' exempt front punishment ,, even t&oagh they were insignificant ? AQ 1 he desired was justice . —Mir : Habfbeild-seconded ' tfaemotfon . General Peel > by way of amendment , moved the 1 previous question . He thought the House should not look back , except to profit by past errors . — -Lord Robert Cecil , who expressed a similar opinion , seconded the amendment . He thought , though the terms- of the motion might be vindicated in the ' abstract , they had the appearance of an acrimonious " and vindictive personality . —Colonel Adair , being ' precluded , as a matter of form , from moving the amendment of which he had given notice , and the object of which was 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 . Conolly ' 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 in--complete . Besides * the censure would include the-Emperor of the French , and might thus endanger our alliance .- —The Marquis of Granbt spoke in favour of the amendment , not wishing-to weaken the executive now that we are positively at war , though he thought the war in the first instance unnecessary . —r Mr . J . G . Phillimorb , Mr . Gordon , Sir J . Walsh , and Lord Seymour spoke against the motion ; and Mr : MAcrrrRE in its favour . —Sir Jabies Grahast

    thought the House ought to come to some decision on the conduct of the late Administration that night . —Sir John Pakington denied the truth of Mr . Lowe ' s observation that the inquiry was incomplete as regards ^ his 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 or wrong , but whether it had been properly carried out . —Sir Charles "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 shrunk 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 . Gaskexl 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 Attorney-General opposed it , conceiving that the House would not be justified in censuring Lord Palmerston and his 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 his accession to his present post , the war had been conducted with the utmost vigour . —Mr . Whiteside 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 . The 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 Russell agreed with Mr . Whiteside that all the members of a cabinet arc responsible for its measures ; but he accused Mr . Roebuck of being actuated by mnlice in bringing forward his motion . The expedition to Sebastopol was undertaken after the defeat of tho Russians at Silistria , under tho belief that the public would be dissatisfied if tho war were not vigorously prosecuted . There was good reason to believe that iSebastopol would fall ; and , at

    any rate , considering the results which would accrue from its reduction , tho trial was worth tho risk . All the information that could bo obtained was obtained ) and tho absence of the Government from town during the autumn was no injury to tho public service . The total Cabinet was responsible for having sent out tho expedition , bub was not responsible for tho details of management . With respect to tho tendency of tho motion , did tho House think it desirable that wo should have another change of Government ? Committee

    Mr . Briomt held that the Report ot the more than made out tho case submitted by Mr . Roebuck , and that it was impossible to retrain irom doing something with that Report , lie ^" "J that Lord Pulmersto .. was . speoia \ ly Wty"' }™ cnCo Lord John Russell , having turned Queon s i yi luico , should , like all persons in th . it ^^ J *?™' * , bo exempt from punishment , riuuo 1 ad btlii . a , cabal i . f tho Cabinet against Lord . John l *«* . oll , » £ cause of hi « being inclined to peace . Iheguuoral mmoro Lor . 1 l ' almerston was most disrespectful o that House . Ho had no confidence in tho present

    Untitled Article

    JJtTITSr-21 , JLB&O . J JTJtffJSJ LEABER . 5 $ ^

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), July 21, 1855, page 687, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2100/page/3/