himself proposed as to justify its withdrawal.—After a
long discussion, in which Mr. Bouverie, Lord Palmerston,
Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Roebuck, Sir G. Grey, and Mr.
Gladstone took part, Sir Bulwer Lytton's resolution was
withdrawn by consent.

On Tuesday, July 17, Mr. ROEBUCK rose to move his
Resolution of Censure upon the late Government in
Consequence of the Report of the Sebastopol Committee.
He referred to the gloomy reports which had led to the
appointment of that committee, and he reminded the
house that the evidence taken before that committee
substantiated to the letter the gloomiest of the gloomy
reports that were circulated. He paid a warm tribute
to the merits of Lord Raglan as a soldier whose death
in the service of his country would ever hallow his
memory. He read the censure which the committee
had passed upon the members of the late administration,
which, he said, compelled him, as chairman of the
committee, to bring forward this resolution. He divided
Lord Aberdeen's cabinet into three separate parts.
First came Lord Aberdeen and the Duke of Newcastle.
Then came the more important members of the cabinet
—Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, Sir J. Graham,
Mr. Gladstone, Lord Clarendon, and Mr. Sidney
Herbert. All the rest he considered to be a mere herd;
but their insignificance ought not to shelter them from
condemnation. It was said this motion was of too
sweeping a nature, and that it would ostracise every
man of mark on the liberal side. He was sorry to say
that was true; but it was not his fault. He did not
commit the wrong—he only administered the punishment.
His charge against the ministers was, that when
the war was imminent they made no preparations for an
event which they must have known to be certain.
Another charge against them was that no adequate
reserves were provided for the army, which was originally
too small for its purpose. The conclusive evidence of
this was that no road was provided from Balaklava to
the camp, which left our army naked and unprovided,
and caused them to die like sheep. But then it was
said that this committee had done its work, and that
they had got rid of all the elements of mischief. Of
that he was very far from being confident. Besides, he
did not think it was fair that some members of that
cabinet should be dismissed, and others retained. In
particular, he thought that the Duke of Newcastle had
been made a scapegoat for the sins of others. He would
say the same of Mr. S. Herbert. He did not say Mr.
Herbert was not often wrong; but he was conscientious
in the performance of his duty. Who then were to be
punished? Those who now were enjoying the sweets
of office. He would have all punished, and not a part,
and therefore he directed his censure against those who
remained still in power. After apologising for his
physical debility, which would not allow him to proceed
further, he concluded by moving the resolution.—
General PEEL moved the previous question. The
resolution of the committee, if it meant anything, meant
condemnation of the expedition to the Crimea. In that
condemnation he was not prepared to concur. It was
true the expedition was undertaken without sufficient
knowledge; but if ministers had waited till they were
well informed, they never would have undertaken any
expedition whatever. At the same time he could not
see the sagacity in planning the expedition which Mr.
Adair pointed to in the motion he intended to bring
forward. It was plain that ministers never contemplated
anything but immediate success, and that the preparations
for a winter campaign were not thought of till it
was discovered that the army could neither take Sebastopol
nor raise the siege. But though he thought the
government was not wise in yielding to the clamour of
the country and the press, he was not prepared to
condemn them on that account. He was in favour of
ousting the government by fair means, and he would be
no party to censuring public men, which he believed
was already doing immense injury to the best
interests of the country. After reading extracts from
private letters, to show the mischief that was being
done, he entreated the house not to dwell upon
what could not now be recalled, but to join their
efforts for bringing the war to a successful conclusion.—
The motion was supported by Mr. Conolly and Mr.
Maguire; and the amendment by Mr. Lowe, the
Marquis of Granby, Mr. J. Phillimore, Mr. Gordon and
Sir J. Walsh.—Sir J. GRAHAM having expressed his
regret that no minister had risen to state the intentions
or the wishes of government, said he had resisted the
appointment of the committee, believing the investigation
would not be pushed to an extent consistent with
justice, or that, if pushed to such an extent, political
danger might arise from the inquiry. That danger had
been avoided, but justice had not been satisfied. The
inquiry was now complete and before the house, and he
thought it their duty not to shrink from pronouncing
their decision. He should feel it his duty to resist the
previous question, in the hope that the house, having
all the materials before it for pronouncing a judgment,
would pronounce a decision, ay or no, whether the
members of Lord Aberdeen's government deserved the
reprehension of the house.—Lord SEYMOUR had
objected to the committee on many grounds, but when it
was appointed he had made up his mind not to shrink
from his duty. No doubt the evidence was imperfect,
for the committee was continually stopping because they
were treading on dangerous ground. He did not think
that the country was animated with vindictive feelings,
and that future zeal would atone for past deficiencies.
—Sir J. PAKINGTON said Mr. Roebuck had appealed
to the members of the committee to support him, and
he was prepared, with great reluctance and pain, to
give him that support. He considered that the
insufficiency of the reasons brought against the motion
justified every member in supporting it, and he treated
the arguments of Mr. Lowe and Sir J. Graham as mere
bugbears, called up to persuade the house to overlook
the real point at issue. Having entered at some length
into the reasons which had induced the late ministry to
undertake the expedition to the Crimea, he condemned
their conduct, nor did he think the present cabinet were
to be exempted, for recent transactions had shown that
they had not dealt fairly by the country.—Sir C.
WOOD denied the conclusions of the preceding speaker.
The object of the motion, according to the proposer,
was to censure the present government, who were
members of the late cabinet, but they had heard nothing
but charges against Lord Aberdeen and the Duke of
Newcastle. They had retired from office, and with
them the whole cabinet had retired. After several
intermediate attempts, the present government was
formed, including three gentlemen peculiarly associated
with Lord Aberdeen. These gentlemen had also retired
since that time, and although many charges were
brought against them for their connection with the
conduct of the war, he was satisfied the country would
eventually do them full justice. He could not agree
that the other members of the government were
responsible for the management of departments with
which they did not interfere, although he would not
throw off any responsibility which attached to them or
their colleagues. The debate was adjourned to
Thursday.

On Thursday, July 19, the Adjourned Debate was
Resumed by Mr. GASKELL, who supported Mr. Roebuck's
motion.—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the motion,
contending that it was unjust to visit on Lord Palmerston,
now at the head of the government, the punishment
due to the shortcomings of the Aberdeen cabinet.
—Mr. WHITESIDE replied to the Attorney-General,
and rested the question upon the doctrine of ministerial
responsibility—the accountability of a cabinet for the
acts and counsels of every individual.—Lord J. RUSSELL
could not accept for himself, and he hoped Lord
Palmerston would not accept, the excuses offered by the
Attorney-General. The question to which Mr. Roebuck
had invited them was of a very grave nature. It
amounted to this—that every leading man on the
liberal side of the house was to be expelled from office,
and almost excluded from the house; and that the men
who opposed the Roman Catholics, who opposed reform,
who opposed the repeal of the corn laws, were alone to
conduct the affairs of this country. It might have
been expected that a person professing liberal opinions
would at least, in moving such a resolution, confine
himself to the strictest accuracy in point of fact. But
was that so? The accuracy of, some statements had