proposal, and his (Lord John's) only doubt was, whether he should not then have relinquished office; but he had adopted the advice of Lord Palmerston, and determined to continue his connection with the Government, having communicated to Lord Aberdeen his views as to the changes in the War Department, which he deemed indispensable to remedy its imperfections. In dealing with the motion of Mr. Roebuck, he was, however, bound to reflect whether he could fairly and honestly say, "It is true evils do exist, but such arrangements have been made that all deficiences and abuses will be immediately remedied;" and he could not honestly or without betraying the confidence reposed in him make that statement. He considered that he could come to only one conclusion-that, as he was unable to give the only answer that would stop inquiry, it was his duty not to remain a member of the Government. Accordingly, on the 23rd of January, he placed in the hands of Lord Aberdeen his resignation, which was accepted by Her Majesty. There was a report, he observed, that the suggestion he had made to Lord Aberdeen in November, to place the seals of the War Department in the hands of Lord Palmerston, had been adopted. If so, he was glad, he said, that his retirement had contributed to the change.

In conclusion, he said, "he should look back with pride to his association with many measures of the Administration; particularly with Mr. Gladstone's financial scheme in 1853. It had been remarked that the Whig party had not had its fair share in the distribution of power in that Administration. Previously to that time an

unjust belief prevailed that the Whigs were an exclusive party, wanting all office for themselves. "I believe that opinion to have been unjust, and I think that the Whig party during the two last years has fully justified the opinion I entertained. I will venture to say, that no set of men ever behaved with greater honour, or with more disinterested patriotism, than those-I might indeed say the whole-who have supported the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen. It is my pride, and it will ever be my pride to the last day of my life, to have belonged to a party which, as I consider, upholds the true principles of freedom; and it will ever be my constant endeavour to preserve the prin ciples and tread in the paths which the Whig party have laid down for the guidance of their conduct." (Cheers.)

Lord Palmerston said it might be expected he should not allow the address of his noble friend to pass without some observations on the part of the Government. He assured him and the House that nothing could be more painful to himself officially and personally than the step Lord John had felt it to be his duty to take. He admitted that a public man had a perfect right to quit office whenever he considered that his continuance in office could not be reconciled with his sense of duty. When the correspondence between Lord J. Russell and Lord Aberdeen was communicated to him, he (Lord Palmerston), with his colleagues, urged Lord John not to secede from the Government, and he consented to remain; but from that time his noble friend did not revert to his proposal. He admitted that Lord John might have had a difficulty in

meeting Mr. Roebuck's motion, but it was evident, he thought, that there were in his mind sufficient constitutional objections to that motion; and if he was decidedly of opinion that a different person ought to be at the head of the War Department, he should have given the Government an opportunity, before Parliament met, of saying whether the proposal should be adopted. The course he had taken

was not in accordance with the

usual practice of public men, and was calculated to place the Government in a position of embarrassment, in which, at the hands of a colleague at least, they ought not to have been placed.

On the 25th of January, the fact of the resignation of Lord John Russell was officially announced in the House of Lords by the Duke of Newcastle.

Earl Fitzwilliam insisted upon the right of Parliament to know the causes of which had induced the leader of the House of Commons to adopt such a step.

The Duke of Newcastle said, in reply, that Lord John Russell had not yet made his statement in his place, and that until he had any comment or any attempt to elicit the cause of his resignation would be unfair to him; and the Marquis of Lansdowne closed the conversation by observing that it was not the duty of any other person to state for Lord John Russell the reasons for his resignation, which, he believed, would be done by the noble Lord himself on the day following, and which he alone was competent to state.

On the following day, the Earl of Aberdeen gave a brief explanation of the circumstances of the resignation. He said he was not fully possessed of the motives

which might have induced his noble friend to adopt that course, but he could not do better than read the letter which he had received :

"Chesham Place, Jan. 23, 1855. Mr. Roebuck has given notice of a "My dear Lord Aberdeen,of the war. I do not see how this motion to inquire into the conduct motion is to be resisted; but, as it involves a censure upon the war departments, with which some of my colleagues are connected, my only course is to tender my resignation. I therefore have to request tion of the office which I have the you will lay my humble resignahonour to hold before the Queen, tude for Her Majesty's kindness with the expression of my gratidear Lord Aberdeen, yours very for many years.-I remain, my truly,

"J. RUSSELL."

He then proceeded to state that two months previously he was aware that Lord John Russell was dissatisfied with the conduct of the war, but after the explanations which then took place, he was surprised at the receipt of the letter. He said he received that great loss with deep regret, and reminded the House that at the formation of the Government he expressly stated that he never would have ventured to undertake the formation of an Administration, had he not secured the active co-operation and assistance of his noble friend. Under these circumstances, and in ordinary times, he might perhaps have himself adopted a different course; but in the then condition of the country, and of the war, and of Her Majesty's Government, he felt it due to their own honour, to their own consistency, and to their sense of duty, to meet that motion

which was to be made that night in another place, which would decide whether a censure was to be pronounced upon Her Majesty's Government or not.

Immediately after Lord John Russell's explanation in the House of Commons, Mr. Roebuck brought on his motion. He began by stating that an army, unparalleled in numbers and equipments, had left our shores, and was then admitted to be in a condition that wrung the hearts of the country. There were two questions,-what was the condition of the army before Sebastopol, and how had that condition been brought about? The army had been reduced from 54,000 to 14,000, of whom only 5000 were fit for duty. They were without clothes, shelter, ammunition, food. What had become of the 40,000 missing? [Here Mr. Roebuck showed signs of great bodily exhaustion.] How, he proceeded, had that condition been brought about? By the incapacity of the administration at home and abroad. At Balaklava there were stores sufficient for twice the army; but having transported them 3000 miles, the administrators of the army were defeated by the last seven miles, and the troops were deprived of what they required for their existence. Confessing physical inability to continue his speech, Mr. Roebuck moved for a Select Committee, and sat down.

Mr. S. Herbert, in resisting the motion, observed that the first cause of the demoralisation of the army was to be found in the system we had pursued for the last 40 years. The English army was a collection of regiments, in every one of which there existed a perfect regimental system; but the field officers in command of the regiments had

never seen a brigade, and were unacquainted with the organisation of large bodies. The men, too, in this highly-civilised country, never learned to do anything for themselves. We had never entered upon any great war, he remarked, which did not begin with great reverses; but in the present instance there had been also great military successes. After detailing the measures adopted by the Government to provide adequate supplies of stores for the army, he contended that it was unjust, without information, to lay blame upon absent men. The Government had no wish to conceal any portion of their conduct in this matter, and every information required should be laid upon the table of the House. He insisted that great delusions upon this subject prevailed in the country. He detailed the steps taken to remedy defective arrangements by the Government, which had acted, he said, upon every practicable suggestion. He endeavoured to show, upon various grounds, the inexpediency of the motion, which was calculated, in his opinion, to paralyse the action of the Government at home and of the authorities abroad. The Committee would either gain no information, or it would be obtained at the expense of the army. He asked the House, if it made up its mind to take this course, to avow it at once by a plain and intelligible decision. The Government stood in a precarious position; it had received a heavy blow by the secession of one of its most important members, and he hoped the House, considering well the course it ought to take, and the perils which surrounded the country, would decide the question at once, and in plain language.

The next speaker in the debate was Mr. Drummond, who dwelt at considerable length upon various instances of mismanagement, in support of the charge, that an army three times victorious had been left to be utterly destroyed by the gross incompetence of those who should have supported it-the Earl of Aberdeen and the Duke of Newcastle.

Colonel North attributed the chief blame of the defects of the army organisation to the refusal of the House of Commons to grant money for military purposes.

Mr. Monckton Milnes could not believe that a Committee was a fair and proper tribunal for such an inquiry, and opposed the motion as constitutionally unjust.

The Marquis of Granby digressed into the question of the policy of the war, which he condemned, being convinced that the Emperor of Russia never intended to seize upon the Ottoman Empire, and that the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe was not the real object of the war. Although he did not approve of the Committee, he should vote for it as a vote of want of confidence.

Mr. W. S. Lindsay said, that as the Government would not adopt the measures he thought necessary he should give his support to the motion, but not as a vote of want of confidence. He should also sup. port it because he believed a large portion of our noble army in the Crimea had perished through neglect, and a further reason for his vote was the state of the transport service.

Mr. Layard, after criticising the defence of the Government, offered by the Secretary at War, enumerated flagrant instances of mismanagement with reference to the

army in the very teeth of warnings, describing the state of things he had witnessed at Balaklava, and the defective manner in which the departments were conducted. He should vote upon this motion, he said, as a question of confidence or no confidence, and how could he vote confidence in a Government which had proved itself so utterly incapable not only of carrying on the war, but of managing a diplo macy? This was not a moment to hesitate; we must have men-and they were to be found-capable of carrying out a policy worthy of this country.

Sir G. Grey said, he opposed the motion without the slightest doubt or hesitation, thinking he should betray his public duty by sanctioning a precedent for committing such an inquiry to a Select Committee, and he was surprised that any one should assent to a motion the only effect of which would be to paralyse the exertions of the Government at a most critical period. But he did not rest his opposition upon this ground alone; he had other and wider grounds. He admitted that the House was entitled to the fullest information, limited only by considerations of public interest; but this motion involved a grave and serious cen- sure upon departments of the Government which was not deserved. He did not assert that no mistakes had been made, or that there had been no want of foresight; but he believed that the evils were not the result of incapacity or ignorance, but mainly of the inexperience arising from a 40 years' peace, and it was unjust to lay the blame of these results upon any man. Hav ing replied to Mr. Layard, Sir George adverted to the explanation given by Lord John Russell,

and observed that he did not understand that, when his noble friend suggested that the offices of Secretary at War and Secretary of State for the War Department should be combined and placed in the hands of a member of that House, he considered it essential to the con

duct of the war. He (Sir George) admitted that, knowing what the feelings of the country were, he could have wished that, when the original appointment of War Secretary was made, it had been conferred upon Lord Palmerston.

Mr. Walpole said, after the speech of Lord J. Russell, it appeared to him totally impossible to resist an inquiry of some kind, and the only question was, what that kind should be. After the declaration made by the noble Lord, a refusal of inquiry would create disappointment and dissatisfaction throughout the country. He denied that an inquiry would be detrimental to the public interest. It would be precisely similar to the inquiry instituted into the Walcheren Expedition, except that that was conducted before the whole House; but he thought a Select Committee infinitely preferable. As to its hampering the army authorities, nothing could be worse than their present position, at the mercy of writers of private letters charging the generals with incapacity.

Mr. V. Smith, contrasting those parts of the speeches of Lord Palmerston and Sir G. Grey which referred to the state of the Cabinet, said that, if this was simply a question of confidence or no confidence, he should be prepared to vote quite at his ease, for he could not vote confidence in the Government as it existed that evening. But he put that question aside, and with respect to the proposed inquiry, who,

he asked, were to be the witnesses to be examined? There ought to be a Commission on the spot. Such an inquiry before a Committee of that House would be utterly impracticable. He should vote against the motion.

After a few remarks from Colonel Sibthorp, Sir J. FitzGerald, and Mr. Knightley, the debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr. Stafford, by whom it was resumed on the 29th of January. He detailed in a long and instructive speech the results of his own personal experience and observation during his visit to the Crimea. At the outset, however, in reference to the resignation of Lord John Russell, and the reconstruction of the Government, he said that the House should not deal with this Minister or that, but hold the whole Ministry responsible. He had heard with indifference the statement of Mr. Sidney Herbert, that a Commission had been sent out to inquire into the affairs of the hospital; because, however that Commission might report, it would not absolve the Minister of War or the Secretary at War from the responsibility; it would only expose their complete and unhappy failure. He expressed his approval of the choice of Smyrna as a site for a new hospital, as the position of that at Scutari, and the atmosphere at Constantinople, were unfavourable to the healing of wounds. Abydos was well chosen as a spot for a hospital; and if the stores were ready it would not turn out a failure. But when he was there, there were 400 soldiers, and only two bottles of port-wine in store. He described the bad state of the hospital at Scutari; men lying on mattresses upon a floor of unglazed porous tiles, stained with feculent