Sitting of 15 December 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Judgments Execution, &c.

ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL—QUESTION.
MR. LABOUCHEREwished to put a question to his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works on a subject of considerable interest to the metropolis. Hon. Members were aware that there was now a vacant space on the south side of St. Paul's Cathedral, occasioned by the recent destruction of premises, and from which the only unobstructed view of that noble pile could be obtained. He thought it would be disgraceful alike to the country and the metropolis if that vacant space were allowed to be covered again; it was understood it might be purchased for about a sum of 60,000 l., and be thought that ought to be done. He was quite aware of the difficulties which beset a question of this sort; but he would ask his right hon. Friend to state to the House whether his attention had been directed to the subject, with a view of preventing the space in question being again covered with buildings?
SIR W. MOLESWORTHreplied, that his attention had been called to the subject some months ago; and, while he entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend that the open ground to which he had alluded ought not to be again covered—it being

373
the only place from which an unobstructed view of St. Paul's could be obtained—they must remember that land belonged, not to the Government, but to the City of London, and, as his right hon. Friend had stated, was valued at the sum of 60,000 l.; now, although, he might be of opinion that it would be a gross act of Vandalism on the part of the City authorities to build upon it, he as Commissioner of Works had no power to prevent it, nor had he any funds at his disposal for the purchase of the ground in question; indeed, he did not think if he had, that Parliament ought to give 60,000 l. to the City of London for the purpose of inducing them to do their duty. He would willingly second any plan that would prevent the land alluded to being built over, provided it did not involve the outlay of the public funds, and he promised to bring the matter to the attention of the City authorities.

AUDITORSHIP OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER—APPOINTMENT OF MR. BERTOLACCI—QUESTION.
MR. WISE,seeing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Strutt) in his place, would venture to put a question to him with reference to an appointment to what had hitherto been considered a sinecure office. He wished to know what were the circumstances under which the appointment of Mr. Bertolacci to the office of Auditor of the Duchy of Lancaster took place?
MR. STRUTTsaid, he was very glad to be able to give the hon. Member the information he desired, the more especially as there had been an erroneous impression that the appointment was altogether of a sinecure character. When he held the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster his attention was directed to the state of the accounts of the duchy, which, although kept with perfect accuracy, were not kept in accordance with a system which afforded that clear, intelligible, and full information which such accounts ought to give when laid before Parliament and the country. Being, therefore, most anxious that those accounts should be placed before the country in all improved condition, the gentleman to whom he most naturally looked to effect this object was the auditor of the duchy, which office was at that tithe held by the late Mr. Lockhart. Nothing could be further front his (Mr. Strutt's) intention than to disparage the memory of that gentleman; he was a man distinguish-
374
ed in literature, and who was originally appointed in consequence of his literary eminence, and who performed his duties with punctuality and ability; but it would be perfectly obvious that a gentleman who throughout the whole of his life had been devoted to the pursuits of literature could no be expected to be perfectly conversant with public accounts, and it would have been unreasonable and unfair to assign to him such a task. As, however, it appeared to him (Mr. Strutt) that it was his duty to take care that the opportunity should not be lost of placing the office of auditor upon a new footing, with a view to efficiency, economy, and improvement, and as it appeared to him that the duties were not very laborious, and might be discharged during his leisure hours by some gentleman holding another official appointment, he thought that he could not do better than follow the example set with great advantage in the Duchy of Cornwall, where a gentleman had been appointed auditor who had great experience in public accounts, and who held another office in the public service. He therefore applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to recommend him some gentleman well qualified for the appointment, then filling some public office, whose vocations would allow him to undertake the duties of this also; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after making inquiries, recommended Mr. Bertolacci, a gentleman holding an appointment under the Board of Ordnance, as a person well qualified in every respect for the duty. The right hon. Gentleman had informed him that Mr. Bertolacci had had great experience in the public accounts, and had on more than one occasion done much service in disentangling accounts of great perplexity and difficulty, and was a gentleman of strict integrity and the highest character. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recommended that he should also consult those gentlemen under whom Mr. Bertolacci had more immediately served in Government departments. He did so, and they all concurred in giving him the highest character, and testifying as to his fitness for the vacant office. Under those circumstances he made the appointment; not, however, at the previous salary of 100 l. a year, but at the reduced stipend of 200 l., which he considered a fair remuneration for the services performed. He would only add, that he had no personal acquaintance with Mr. Bertolacci whatever, and he believed it was not until he

375
was recommended to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had ever heard his name. His only object in making the appointment was to secure efficiency and economy in the conduct of that department of the service.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS— QUESTION.
MR. J. B. SMITHinquired of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade what measures had been taken to collect agricultural statistics throughout the United Kingdom?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House, that in the last Session of Parliament a Report had been laid on the table of the House of the results of the experiment tried in three counties in Scotland, and two in England, and the House was so well satisfied with the returns that it voted the sum of 13,000 l. for further experiments in the same direction; namely, for the continuance of the system already in use in Ireland, the collection of agricultural statistics for the whole of Scotland, and for eleven counties in England. The abstracts of the returns for Ireland had already been sent in, those for Scotland had been nearly completed, and the result of the experiment for the eleven counties in England, he believed, would be returned in the course of the month of January, and probably laid before Parliament about the ordinary time of meeting.
MR. J. B. SMITHinquired whether it was the intention of the Government to extend the inquiry to the whole of the country?
MR. CARDWELLbelieved, if the present experiment turned out satisfactory, it would be further extended.

THE COAL MINES OF HERACLIA—QUESTION.
MR. EWARTinquired of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether there would be any objection to lay before the House such information as might have been received respecting the quantity and quality of the coal available in the mines of Heraclia, on the southern coast of the Euxine, and its probable utility for steam navigation and for fuel for our army?
SIR J. GRAHAMstated, that an arrangement had been made with the Turkish Government, by which the coal mines of Heraclia were to be worked conjointly for the benefit of the forces of England and
376
France in the Black Sea. The coal was of very good quality, and useful for the purposes of steam navigation when mixed with coal of superior quality. The Government hoped that about 30,000 tons annually would be raised, which would be divided equally between the forces of the two countries, and, as the working would be placed under the control of the Commissariat, there would be no difficulty about any portion that was suitable being used for fuel.

THE HOSPITALS AT SCUTARI—SCRIPTURE READERS—QUESTION.
MR. HAMILTONsaid, the Secretary at War was aware that several Scripture readers had been sent out from this country by benevolent individuals for the purpose of reading the Holy Scriptures to any of our wounded soldiers who might be desirous of their services. It had been reported that these Scripture readers had been refused admission into the hospitals, while other persons, Sisters of Charity, and members of religious orders, whose duty and object it was to promulgate their own religious opinions, were admitted into the hospitals. Considering that the majority of our soldiers were Protestants, he wished to know whether this report was well founded, and, likewise, whether any and what regulations were made by which members of religious orders, when admitted into the hospitals, were prevented from impressing their own peculiar religious opinions upon any but those of their own communion?
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he would endeavour to explain to the hon. Gentleman what were the regulations laid down for the admission of nurses, of Sisters of Charity, and members of religious orders to the wounded troops in the hospital at Scutari. The Sisters of Charity, to whom the hon. Member alluded, stood upon a different footing from the person sent out by authority of the Government to minister in a religious capacity to the troops. When it was deemed advisable to send out female nurses to Scutari, regulations were laid down that they should be admitted to the hospitals without reference to their religious creed, but at the same time that they should be under the orders of one person, and that one person was a Protestant. A certain portion of nurses were accordingly selected from different training institutions, who were all Protestants; and when the ladies belonging to the Sisters of Charity proposed to go, we told them

377
that we were willing to accept their services; but at the same time observed, that we could make no difference between them and persons of any other religious denomination in regard to the regulations that had been laid down; and he was bound to say that the Sisters of Charity made not the slightest objection. As the question of the hon. Gentleman included what regulations were made for securing practical acquiescence in this, he would read an extract from the instructions addressed to Miss Nightingale—
"I feel confident that, with a view to the fulfilment of the arduous task you have undertaken, you will impress upon those acting under your orders the necessity of the strictest attention to the regulations of the hospital, and the preservation of that subordination which is indispensable in every military establishment; and I rely on your discretion and vigilance carefully to guard against any attempts being made among those under your authority, selected as they are with a view to fitness and without any reference to creed, to make use of their position in the hospitals to tamper with or disturb the religious opinions of the patients of any denomination whatever, and at once to check any such tendency, and to take, if necessary, severe measures to prevent its repetition."
The Sisters of Charity assented to those regulations, and entered into an engagement that they would on no account make any attempt to enter into religious controversy with the wounded. The Scripture readers stood upon a different footing. It was not true that no provision had been made for the reading of the Scriptures to the wounded and the sick. Chaplains of different denominations had been appointed to administer religious consolation to the troops. It was, however, impossible to admit of an indiscriminate admission of persons professing to be ministers of every denomination into the hospitals. The army might be said to be divided, religiously speaking, into members of the Church of England, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics. He trusted he need not say that he considered all to be equally good Christians; and though soldiers were not theologians, at the same time it was most important that every precaution should be taken to prevent the introduction of religious controversy among them. There were sent out to the army in the East and to the hospitals at Scutari chaplains being members of the Church of England, Presbyterian chaplains, and Roman Catholic chaplains, in nearly equal proportions to the requirements of the numbers of the army of each denomination.
378
But, in addition to these, there had also been a number of Scripture readers employed, who were selected from among a body of deserving men, and placed under the orders of the chaplains. He had seen a statement in the newspapers that certain persons described as Scripture readers had been denied admission into the hospital at Scutari. This he understood had arisen; but he spoke under reservation, because he judged only from one or two private accounts he had seen; but he apprehended the fact was, that certain persons acting as Scripture readers had gone out of their way, and, without any authority from home, had been admitted to the hospital, and had distributed tracts of a controversial character. That was evidently in violation of the rules of the hospital, and the proceedings which had consequently been taken, he felt bound to say, were absolutely necessary for the purpose of carrying out the regulations of the hospital, the objects of which were solely these, that every effort should be made to afford religious consolation to the troops, but at the same time to prevent the introduction of religious controversy among them.

VOTE OF THANKS TO THE ALLIED FORCES IN THE CRIMEA.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, in rising to perform the task which I have under taken, I have the satisfaction of knowing that, however feebly or incompletely that task may be performed, I shall have the sympathy of this House. I cannot doubt that all those who are concerned in, and who approve, the expedition that has been sent to the Crimea, will cordially join in acknowledging the deeds of valour, constancy, and fortitude which have been, and which they had a right to expect would be, performed; and I should say, still more strongly, that those who thought that the expedition was unwise, that it was undertaken with inadequate means, and that our army was exposed to duties for which it was unequal, will still more be inclined to admire the superhuman efforts that have been made by that army. I therefore, Sir, proceed with this task in full confidence that the House will heartily approve of the Motions which I am about to submit to them.
In performing that task, I may, perhaps, say at the outset that I shall endeavour, as far as possible, to avoid repeating the details of actions, a narrative of which has been given by Lord Raglan

379
in his own clear and admirable language. I shall also endeavour to avoid entering into any question of tactics, or of military criticism. I hold that we are none of us well qualified to perform that task—one which can only be adequately performed by those who are not only practically familiar with the art of war, but who also know all the circumstances of the operations which have been undertaken, and of the manner in which those operations have been conducted. If I were to give an illustration of my meaning, I would mention that in a History of the French Empire the historian, in recounting the operations which occurred at the battle of Wagram, states that the first Napoleon, having carried the battle to a certain extent, and seeing the victory incline in his favour, ordered certain manœuvres to be performed; but that he said afterwards that there was another manœuvre which would have been far more decisive, and would have led to far more splendid results, but that, as his army was not at that time composed of those veterans who were accustomed to war—as many of his troops were young and inexperienced—he could not rely upon their steadiness for the manœuvre, which was of a difficult and delicate nature. Now, Sir, a military critic, having discovered that such a manœuvre might have been performed, might have easily blamed that great commander for not having undertaken it; but he, knowing all the circumstances, and being aware of his position, the ground on which he was to operate, and the temper and disposition of his troops, was no doubt very correct in the tactics which he adopted. So, likewise, in regard to every military operation; unless you know exactly the nature of the ground on which the general is to operate, and unless you can count exactly upon the force which he has at command, and likewise upon the state and temper of his army, it is impossible for you to judge accurately with respect to the operations that are by him performed. Now, I say this, because it is my intention only to state what are the operations which have been performed, without making any comment upon them. I have no doubt that they were performed with very great ability. I have no doubt they were performed according to the best judgment that could be arrived at under the circumstances. But I do not intend, on this occasion, to meet any objections which may be made as to any particular course of
380
conduct taken by our army on any particular day.
Now, Sir, let me proceed to state the position of Lord Raglan. Lord Raglan was chosen by Her Majesty to command the expedition which was sent to the East. That choice was dictated by the reflection of the services which he had already performed both in the army and in other capacities. Lord Raglan, when he was a young man, might, under the influence of a very powerful family connection, have obtained any position he might have aspired to; but the only thing he asked of the Government of that day was to be attached to the staff of Sir Arthur Wellesley. He was attached to that staff; and from that time every step that he has gained in rank in the army has been due to his merit, and to his merit alone. I remember him perfectly well upon several occasions when I had the honour of being at the head-quarters of the Duke of Wellington in the Peninsula, performing all the duties of military secretary to that great captain, at a time when he had not only to conduct the military correspondence of the army, but also the correspondence with the Government at home, with the Secretary of State, with the Secretary at War, and with the Portuguese and Spanish Governments. This was business amply sufficient to employ any office in this country which has the most business to perform, and yet it was all performed by Lord Raglan, owing to the clear head and facility of despatch which he possessed, amid the hurry of arms; and that without for a moment allowing his attention to be diverted from his duties in the field. After accompanying the Duke of Wellington in his long career, and being severely wounded, he was at length appointed to a position in the service in which he was called upon to perform other and more important duties to his country. And if the character of the army of this country has been in any degree exalted, and if the selection for promotion that has been made shows how much desert has been attended to, it is in a great degree to Lord Raglan that the country has been indebted for these results. Such was the man, therefore, who was appointed by Her Majesty to command the army in the East; and let me say, further, that having been so appointed, he at once commanded the confidence and affection of the British army, and in a very short time he obtained the entire confidence and the hearty co-operation of the

381
generals of our Ally, the Emperor of the French. When we have to consider that our operations were to be conducted in common, and that they were to be conducted in common with the forces of an ally with whom we had not been at all events accustomed to co-operate in the field, however intimate the alliance between the two Governments might have been during a period of peace, the House and the country will see that it was not only by his decision and valour in the field—and greater valour was never displayed—but that it was likewise by other and no less necessary qualities, that Lord Raglan has been of so much service to his country.
And now, Sir, I will proceed to that expedition and those contests in which some of the best blood of this country has been shed; and when I say the best blood of this country, I by no means intend to refer to any particular rank, military or social; for I feel that among the best blood of this country is the blood of those sons of labour who, having entered the military profession, have devoted their whole hearts to their duties—men who have stood in the field of battle without the hope or expectation of being distinguished by those rewards by which men in higher stations are often swayed, but who have performed their duty nobly, reckless even of their lives, at the same time with a feeling of religious obligation that all must admire; for while they have endured with the greatest firmness the assaults of their enemies, they have shrunk with the utmost avoidance from committing the slightest outrage upon any one. I am confident that these children of the peasantry of England are of no less worth in blood and courage than the sons of the highest and the noblest of the land. The embarkation of the British troops took place towards the end of August. In a despatch of the 29th of that month Lord Raglan mentions the acknowledgments that he thinks are due to the officers of the British navy (of which I shall take notice hereafter, when I come to that part of the Vote) for the assistance they had given in order to effect the embarkation of so great a number of troops. The expedition proceeded to the Crimea. There was some question with respect to the place of disembarkation. Lord Raglan himself preceded the fleet in a swift steamer, surveyed the coast, and found that some points which had been thought of as landing-places for the troops were
382
guarded by numerous redoubts and fortifications, and at length fixed upon a place for disembarkation, to which he obtained the assent of Marshal St. Arnaud, the commander of the French army. This selection was so judicious that the whole army was disembarked without opposition, and the important operation was effected safely and completely in the course of two days. Here was already a proof of the skill of Lord Raglan, which was calculated to give great satisfaction to this country. Having landed on the 14th of September, the army proceeded, and effected a march of considerable length on the 19th. On the 20th of the month they marched two miles further, and, finding the Russian army intrenched on the heights above the Alma, they attacked it, and in the course of two hours made themselves masters of those heights, the Russian army making no further attempt to retake and occupy that position. It was a position well chosen and of great natural strength—so strong that the right of the Russian position Was quite unassailable from the precipitous nature of the ground; and it is generally believed that Prince Menchikoff, who there commanded, said it was a position in which the allied army might be kept at bay for three weeks, and be thereby prevented from proceeding to the siege of Sebastopol. Yet such was the brilliant valour of the British and French troops that they carried those heights. The Light Division of the British army having encountered a heavy shower of musketry and grape which, for a time, thinned their ranks, the brigade of the Guards and the Highlanders came up and attacked the position with such vigour and determination that the Russians yielded the heights, never again to attempt their occupation. I have already said that, with regard to the details of this action, Lord Raglan has told them in the clearest and fullest manner. I may mention, however, some circumstances relating to that noble Lord himself. Marshal St. Arnaud carried at the same time the left of the Russian position. The charge of the French was so impetuous and so vigorous that the Russians yielded the ground, and the French army was established on the heights which they bad occupied. On the British side great masses of troops were collected. Lord Raglan, seeing the great force with which he had to contend, desired an officer of his staff to go to a height which he pointed out, and see if there was any

383
chance of approaching it with our guns. The officer returned and said he thought it was possible, and Lord Raglan immediately directed two guns to be carried to the height. The Russian artillery was so powerful and so incessant that many of the artillerymen who manned those guns were killed in ascending the height; but the guns were placed where Lord Raglan had desired, and an officer of Isis own staff fired the first shots that were discharged from them. They were not effective; but presently they got the range, and other shots were so well directed against the masses of the Russian infantry, and made such chasms in their ranks, that after a time the whole mass began to move, the columns were shaken, and the Russians compelled to retreat. This was a proof, as I think, conclusive of his skill as a general—his seeing with so much accuracy in what point the enemy could be assailed, and directing, with that coolness which belonged to him, and with that decision which is likewise his characteristic, the mode in which the vast forces of the enemy might be most successfully opposed. While I speak of the coolness of Lord Raglan, I may, perhaps, be permitted to mention what has been named by an officer of his own staff—that, thinking he exposed himself too much—that he had gone too far in advance, a place where the Russian fire was exceedingly not, and that the life of a commander ought not to be so risked—one of his staff said to him that he thought he was exposing himself too much; when Lord Raglan's answer was, "Don't speak to me now; I am busy." There is nothing of epigrammatic wit, there is nothing, perhaps, of heroic sentiment in these words, but they were the words of an English gentleman attentive to his duty, and quite regardless of any danger while he was discharging it. After the battle of the Alma the army halted for a time, while both the military and the seamen of the fleet were employed in assisting the wounded, in carrying the wounded to the ships, and in burying the dead. The English and French army then proceeded, and the river Katcha was crossed without any difficulty, the Russians having abandoned all defence of that river; but when they came to the Belbek they found on the course of that river certain works of defence which the Russians had constructed to prevent the disembarkation of the military stores of the allied forces. Great consultation was ac-
384
cordingly necessary, when it was considered whether those works should be attacked—whether the army should proceed, as had been originally intended, to attack the north side of Sebastopol, or whether some other course should not be taken? It was decided that, instead of occupying themselves in reducing these works, the army should at once and at all risks, march across the woods to the south of Sebastopol and endeavour to make themselves masters of Balaklava. That march was accomplished on the 25th of September with great skill, the army being exposed, of course, to the dangers of a flank attack while they were performing it; but it was most successfully performed. They seem to have surprised the Russian commander, for the rearguard of the Russian force was met on the right of Sebastopol, between Bakshiserai and that place. The English and French army proceeded without difficulty to make themselves masters of the heights and the country between Balaklava and Sebastopol—an operation which was performed with great skill and success. But immediately after this operation Lord Raglan had to lament that the officer with whom he had co-operated, with whom he had consulted both as to the original decision upon the undertaking of the expedition, the means of embarkation and disembarkation, and the fight of the Alma, was so reduced by illness that he could no longer continue the command. Marshal St. Arnaud, with that heroic spirit which distinguished him, determined to persevere to the last in performing his duty to his Sovereign and his country. He was determined that, though in a few weeks, perhaps in a few days, nothing but his cold dust might remain, that dust should not be without its laurels. He retired from the field, went on board the fleet, and in a day afterwards expired. We must all lament an officer who had shown so much gallantry and so much heroism, and with whom our own army had so much reason to be satisfied; and we shall always acknowledge him as an officer who, to the last day of his life, had performed his duty. I cannot omit here the words in which Marshal St. Arnaud spoke of the conduct of Lord Raglan at the battle of the Alma, because they are words coming from the chief of the army of another nation, and which, while they show the generosity of the writer, at the same time worthily show the character of him who was the object of them,

385
"The bravery of Lord Raglan," writes (Marshal St. Arnaud) "rivals that of antiquity. In the midst of cannon and musket shot he displayed a calmness which never left him." The command of the French army then fell into the hands of General Canrobert; and it is with great satisfaction I can state that, both in previous concert and ever since he has had that command, Lord Raglan and General Canrobert have acted together with the rivalry only who should best serve the common cause—with no other rivalry, with no species of jealousy, but each admiring and applauding the character and actions of the other. On the 28th of September the army occupied the heights in the neighbourhood of Sebastopol. About ten days had elapsed when, after a full examination of the ground, the impression of Sir John Burgoyne and other eminent officers—but I mention Sir John Burgoyne because he was best qualified to give an opinion on the subject—their impression was, that the task would be far more difficult than had been supposed. It had been imagined that, the regular fortifications of Sebastopol on the land side never having been perfected, the allied armies might have begun operations close to the town, and destroyed those defences—they considered that with such artillery as they had, the capture of the town might have been readily effected. When I look back to the letters that were written at that time by various officers and transmitted to us by our Ambassador at Constantinople, I find a confident anticipation that Sebastopol would soon fall. Sir John Burgoyne, however, on examining the ground, found that, as the hills where they parted and fell towards Sebastopol opened into wide ravines separated from each other, the troops that were placed on one part of a hill could not co-operate with those on the other: he therefore found that it would be very difficult to carry on the operations in the way originally intended, and that it would be dangerous, above all, to leave any part of the English forces unsupported on such ground as I have described this part of the neighbourhood of Sebastopol to be. It was accordingly resolved to bring as much heavy artillery into the batteries as could be brought, and our soldiers, day after day and night after night, laboured with singular perseverance in order to place in position a sufficiently large amount of heavy guns to destroy the defences of the place. But it was obvious that, from the moment that determination—that necessary deter-
386
mination—was taken, the prospect became one of a very distant kind; for the Russians, having a great quantity of heavy artillery in Sebastopol, having likewise all the guns of their large fleet which lay in the harbour, and having a considerable garrison, besides the crews of the ships, and without counting the population of Sebastopol, would have a force equal to, if not superior to that of the allies. From that moment, therefore, the task became one of very great labour and difficulty; but both on the French side and on the side of the British nothing was left undone in order to hasten on the works, and to open a formidable fire on the Russian fortifications. On the 17th of October that fire was opened, and produced very considerable effect. Many of the guns in the Russian batteries were dismounted, and some of their works were for a time nearly destroyed. At the same time the fleets, both English and French, came near the forts towards the seaside, and opened a most formidable fire for some hours against those defences; but, that fire not having produced the effect of leaving the place open to the immediate assault of the allies, the Russians occupied the night always in repairing the defences which had been destroyed, and in replacing other guns as substitutes for those which had been dismounted. In this manner, therefore, the siege went on till the 25th of October; when the Russians, coming round by the valley of the Tchernaya, made an attack on our outposts at Balaklava. These redoubts were occupied by Turks, and the Russians succeeded in making themselves masters of them. They advanced a great force of cavalry; but the heavy cavalry of the British, not regarding their superiority of numbers, attacked them with great gallantry, and forced them to retire. On the same day, by the misconstruction of an order that had been given by Lord Raglan, an attack was made by the light cavalry upon the line of the Russians, comprehending their batteries of artillery, which were guarded by other batteries in flank, and by large bodies of infantry and cavalry. Nothing could be more distinguished than the bravery of the British troops on this occasion. I believe at no time in the annals of the British army has courage been more signally displayed, We may lament the misconstruction that occurred—we may lament the fruitless result of the action, and that it did not produce the effect which, under different circumstances, it might have

387
caused; but that cannot be the least disparagement to the valour of these men, who were ready, at any risk, and with these immense odds against them, to charge the enemy they saw before them and whom they were directed to attack. The works of the siege continued, those works being in themselves very laborious, occupying a far more than ordinary proportion of the besieging force, and the more fatiguing because a great portion of the men had been taken away by sickness—cholera having not yet ceased in the camp of the allies. It was in this state of things that an immense effort was made by the commanders of the Russian forces—perhaps I should rather say, by the Emperor of Russia himself, for two of his sons were present—in order to overwhelm the forces of the allies, which remained on the one side, besieging a great fortified place with a numerous garrison and intrenchments defended by a prodigious artillery, and, on the other, confronted by a Russian army. That attempt was made, it has been said, by 60,000 men; but I think it probable that the number was not less than 80,000. They were troops who had not been present at the battle of the Alma—troops did not know the enemy they had to encounter. These troops, raised to the utmost pitch of fanaticism, and, it is said, their courage animated by other means, came in vast columns to the attack of the British position on the heights of Inkerman on the 5th of November. Lord Raglan has related the events of that battle. He has stated how, in the darkness of the night and in the fog of the morning, the Russians were able to place a very large artillery force—not less than ninety pieces—and to advance vast columns close to the English position. In that darkness and thickness of the fog it was impossible to exercise the powers and the discrimination of a commander. It was impossible to survey the field or to direct operations. There were only about 8,000 British soldiers in that field; but though their numbers were few—though they had been weakened by sickness and battle—though they presented themselves ragged from the labours and privations they had gone through—though, and the darkness, they could hardly recognise the companions and comrades of their own regiments—though a great portion of them came after twenty-four hours' hard work in the trenches—though they had not time even to take a scanty meal before they met this
388
powerful enemy, yet they retained unquenched and unquenchable the spirit of British soldiers, and that spirit bore them on to victory. It was, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary at War truly said the other night, the battle of the soldiers. But yet that band of heroes, exposed as they were to an artillery against which nothing for a very long time could have stood, might have been—not driven from the field or defeated—but might at last have been forced to lay down their lives on the heights, which the enemy, in consequence of their overwhelming numbers, might then have occupied, had there not at this very moment arrived, after the English had for hours withstood a most determined attack, a reinforcement of our French Allies, commanded by General Bosquet, one of the most distinguished chiefs in the French Army, who directed with great skill and valour the troops he led to the spot. The French soldiers rushed on with such impetuosity that they saved the day, and preserved both armies from disasters which might otherwise have overwhelmed them had the Russians gained any part of the position, and from that had been able to continue the attack against the Allied forces. Still, including these French troops, there were but 14,000 men of the Allies engaged in this famous action; and I believe, in respect to the destruction of the enemy, scarcely any battle has been equal to it. More than 5,000 dead were left on the field of battle by the Russians, and it would be a moderate estimate to say that three times as many must have been wounded; so that these 14,000 Allied troops caused a loss to the enemy of far more than their own number. I believe, Sir, that no modern annals contain the history of a battle which redounds more to the honour of those who gained it than the one I am now alluding to. It has cost, indeed, the loss of many a gallant man—it has caused desolation and misery to many families, but I am persuaded that the renown of that battle will last and its effects will be appreciated for generations to come. We have seen that in the course of that battle, there were many vicissitudes of success; but we have seen that the heroism of those brave troops prevailed; and they who had to meet such troops—they who have to give an account of what it is to attack such troops—will be slow to think that Russia can ever gain the advantage in the war she is now waging against soldiers so indo-

389
mitable. I will now advert only to the general operations of the siege, and to the assistance we have received from the Navy. The general operations of the siege, as I have stated, have been conducted by officers of great experience, and have been of the most laborious kind. The sufferings and privations of our troops have been such as never before were equalled; and, in alluding to the losses we have sustained, I cannot omit mentioning one name—the name of a general who fell at the battle of Inkerman—because, from his character, his talents, and his former services, the country had every reason to expect to see in him a complete military commander. I allude to Sir George Cathcart. Possessed of great ability and of a high spirit, he was so universally esteemed that, when the question of sending out a Governor to the Cape upon some emergency arose, that great military authority the Duke of Wellington concurred in thinking that no more skilful commander and no wiser chief could be selected than Sir George Cathcart. I remember witnessing last year, after he had just returned to this country from that important mission in which he had fulfilled the expectations of his Sovereign and his country, the joy and exultation with which he hailed his good fortune in being at once appointed to a command in the Crimea. To the last hour of his life—to the last moment of his life—according to those who saw him, that feeling of joy and exultation seems to have continued, and he appears to have had no other ambition and no other wish than to devote his life to his country, and to spend the last drop of his blood in her service. Such are the men who do honour to this country, and by this country the name of Sir George Cathcart never will be forgotten.
Sir, having said thus much with respect to the Army, I now have to state that it will also be my duty to propose a Vote of Thanks to the Navy for their co-operation. I have mentioned that Lord Raglan, at the commencement of the operations, said that the zeal and efficiency of the Navy in performing the service of embarking and landing the troops was beyond all praise, and that from Admiral Dundas down to the lowest sailor there were exhibited the same zeal and the same eagerness to discharge the duty efficiently. He notices especially the conduct of Sir E. Lyons. In relating the Battle of the Alma, and after expressing his deep feeling of gratitude to the officers and men of the Royal
390
Navy, he says, in words which I think I ought to quote—
"They watched the progress of the day with the most intense anxiety; and, as the best way of evincing their participation in our success, and their sympathy in the sufferings of the wounded, they never ceased from the close of the battle till we left the ground this morning to provide for the sick and wounded, and to carry them down to the beach, a labour in which some of the officers oven volunteered to participate—an act which I shall never cease to recollect with the warmest thankfulness. I mention no names, fearing I might omit some who ought to be spoken of; but none who were associated with us spared any exertion they could apply to so sacred a duty. Sir Edmund Lyons, who had charge of the whole, was, as always, most prominent in rendering assistance and providing for emergencies."
Thus it is that he speaks of that distinguished officer, who, together with those men who so acted, is an honour to the profession to which he belongs, and from whom, I trust, we may expect, in the course of the war in which we are now engaged, great and brilliant services. A man of greater ability, in whatever duty he may be employed, I scarcely ever met with, and his meritorious conduct is well known to his country. After this operation, Sir Edmund Lyons was again most forward in the operations at Balaklava, entering the harbour at the same time that Lord Raglan was descending upon that place, and from that moment to the present he has been most prominent in rendering every assistance to the army. After the fire against Sebastopol had commenced, Lord Raglan and General Canrobert asked Admiral Dundas and Hamelin to co-operate with the fire of their ships on the batteries on the sea side. This service was willingly undertaken. The injury, as I have said, to the land batteries was not such as to justify the troops in attempting an immediate assault, and therefore the fire of the ships did not produce effect, except for the time; but had the army been able by their batteries on shore to lay open the place, as seemed to have been expected, then the diversion caused by the navy would have been most useful. I believe that every officer engaged on that service performed his duty most excellently, and to the perfect satisfaction of his superiors.
After moving these votes, I shall next venture to propose one of an unusual eharacter—one, perhaps, without precedent—but, considering the feeling of the country, one to which this House will no doubt readily agree. I mean to propose a

391
Vote of Thanks to General Canrobert, and to the French officers and men who have co-operated with Her Majesty's forces. Sir, such has been the feeling created by the gallant acts performed by Englishmen and Frenchmen conjointly—two manly nations that have always respected each other—that I believe the bonds of friendship thus formed between two nations will not be easily dissevered. These two nations, the most enlightened, the most intelligent, and the most spirited of Europe, may well act in alliance together, and give an example to the world of duties resolutely performed and of high principles adequately maintained.
Sir, I likewise mean to propose a Vote lamenting the fate of those who have perished in these actions; and offering the expression of our condolence to the families of those brave men who have died in the service of the country. I wish there was not a part of the task I have to perform which, though I think I cannot omit it, I cannot approach without some feeling of repugnance. All the accounts we have received from those who witnessed the battle of Inkerman—and there are some similar accounts with respect to the battle of the Alma; but all those relating to the battle of Inkerman state, that when the officers and soldiers of the allied army fell wounded on the field of battle, the Russians, instead of taking them prisoners, bayoneted these unfortunate men on the field. Lord Raglan and General Canrobert, deeming the introduction of such a practice so abhorrent from humanity, and a departure from the usages of civilised warfare, were of opinion that it ought not to pass unnoticed; and consequently Lord Raglan ordered evidence to be taken by the Judge Advocate on the spot. Twenty-four witnesses, officers and soldiers, were examined, and they deposed to having witnessed those acts of barbarity on the part of the Russian soldiers, instigated, as they thought, in some instances by Russian officers. The commander of the allies sent an officer with a flag of truce to Prince Menchikoff, to represent the circumstances to him, and to state that he felt quite convinced that such acts must have been committed against the Prince's orders, and to express a hope that the Russian commander would take measures to prevent such barbarities in future. I wish I could state that the answer of Prince Menchikoff expressed that horror which might have been expected from an officer in his posi-
392
tion at such inhuman acts. He stated that it was not the custom of the Russian army to give no quarter; but he added, that the Russian troops might have been excited, because a church had been sacked by some detachment of the allied forces. It is said—whether truly or not I do not know—that a church had been entered by some of the allied soldiers, and had been sacked; but that that circumstance should be mentioned as any palliation of acts so barbarous as I have alluded to, is, I must say, not to the credit of the Russian commander. We all knew what was the conduct of the French and English soldiers towards each other, when they met in conflict on the battle-fields of the last war. We all know that in the Peninsula, after a battle was over, they would meet on the banks of the same stream, with their cross-belts off, as the Duke of Richmond said, help one another, and converse together in the most friendly manner, showing that they mutually respected each other. We all know that when a vidette was seen by the advancing army, whether English or French, the troops approaching scorned to fire on or capture a man standing alone, but, helping him on with his knapsack, they told him to fall back on his own comrades. Such actions, Sir, are characteristic of civilised nations, and in such a spirit one would have hoped that this war in the nineteenth century would have been conducted. The atrocities I have alluded to show, not certainly that any Russian General would order such cruel acts to be committed—not certainly that the great Sovereign of the Russian empire would countenance them—but that the enemy we have to deal with, if they should ever obtain a dominion over any great part of Europe, would, instead of civilising and improving, not only destroy the arts of peace, but barbarise the practices of war. I therefore trust for this, among other reasons, that the cause of England and France may be triumphant, believing that it is connected with all the best interests of civilisation, with the progress of humanity, and with the spread of real religion. Men who had been thus excited by fanaticism, as we know the Russians were previously to the Battle of Inkerman, who were called upon in the name of the Christian religion to take up arms and go into the field of battle, were guilty, within a few hours, of acts such as I have stated. Let us trust that the Government of Russia,

393
ashamed of these deeds, will take some means to prevent their repetition.
Sir, there is one thing further I have to say, and that of a more agreeable nature to myself, and with respect to which I trust I shall have the concurrence of this House. It was said, in reference to one of the victories gained in the course of the last war, by Mr. Wyndham, that, for his part, he would rather have to celebrate a gallant feat of arms performed by the British army, than the conquest of a whole archipelago of sugar islands. I am convinced that that saying of his was as spirited and wise as it was forcible and pointed. It is in these things that the life of a nation is seen; it is by actions such as we have to commemorate to-day, that the spirit of a nation is maintained from age to age. It is by battles and victories such as we have the glory to record in our history—by battles such as the French have likewise to record in their annals—it is by battles and victories such as those to which I have had to call the attention of the House to-day, that each nation owes its separate existence; and it is such exploits that make each country ready to defend its independence at any cost. We have been for years, all of us, the Parliament, the people, every class, engaged in speculations and practices connected with the progress of wealth, the arts, machinery, and improvements of peace; and we have shown that these studies and that devotion to these pursuits have not in the least abated the courage which belongs to the entire nation. We have shown, whether English, Scotch, or Irish, that a similar spirit animates the whole United Kingdom, and that we are ready to peril in a just cause all that is most dear to men. I say again, Sir, that the victories which have been gained in such a cause as the present, and with such a spirit as the nation has shown, must not only redound to the fame and glory of the country for future generations, but enable it to present itself to all aftertime as an object of regard, respect, and admiration to the whole world. The noble Lord concluded by moving the several Votes of Thanks, which are identical with those moved by the Puke of Newcastle in the House of Lords—see p. 323.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, there have been occasions in the history of this country, when Votes similar to these have been proposed to the House, when Members have entered into criticisms upon the conduct of
394
commanders and the policy of Ministers; but I am sure that however much we may venerate Parliamentary precedents, the House must have sympathised with the noble Lord, when he said that to-night there would be no difference of opinion upon the Motion which he was about to submit to our notice. Sir, the noble Lord has treated the theme which he has introduced in a manner so entirely worthy of its interest, that it would be unnecessary and unbecoming in me to enter into any detail of those actions which recently commanded the admiration of the world. But, Sir, I feel that I am expressing the opinion of all present when I say that this is no common war, that will some day be covered with the mere dust of history. I feel, Sir, that this is a war which will rank with those great struggles that produce not only historians, but in time poets even, to celebrate their lasting achievements; like those famous deeds of the Crusades, handed down to the wonder and admiration of men—and many of which have been accomplished in the memorable region where these great exploits are occurring. If I may for a moment allude to what seems to me a characteristic feature, there is a singular completeness in this the first campaign of the allied armies which has scarcely attracted observation. The campaign commences by the allied troops taking by storm one of the most difficult positions in the world, an almost impregnable position; and it concludes virtually two months after by the same force defending a similar position from a similar attack by an immense force. Thus we see, both in assault and in defence, the same troops, exhibiting the same admirable and unequalled qualities. Between these almost epic events, I ought not to forget there is a brilliant episode—the fight of Balaklava—that was a feat of chivalry, fiery with consummate courage, and bright with flashing valour; and though I cannot presume, with the authority of the noble Lord, to single out the names of great commanders for the applause of the House of Commons—I cannot forget, I cannot refrain from calling to your recollection, that the two commanders on that memorable occasion almost recently sat amongst us on these benches, and that they, I am sure, will peculiarly value the sympathy of the colleagues whom they have quitted. Sir, the noble Lord has very properly said that it is not for us to criticise the tactics and the strategy of campaigns; but it is open to us to draw some moral conclusions

395
from the great events which are occurring around us; and we may at least draw this conclusion from the war which has broken out. I think what has occurred has shown that the arts of peace, practised by a free people, are not enervating. I think that the deeds to which the noble Lord has referred, both of the commanders and the common soldiers, have shown that education has not a tendency to diminish, but to refine and raise, the standard of the martial character. In these we may proudly recognise the might and prowess of a free and ancient people, led by their natural and traditionary chiefs. These are all circumstances and conditions which are favourable to our confidence in the progress of civilisation, and flattering, I hope, to the consciousness of every Englishman. Sir, there is one point on which I could have wished that the noble Lord had also touched—I know there were so many subjects which he could not avoid touching, that I share the admiration of the House at the completeness with which he appeared to have mastered all his themes; but when the noble Lord recalled to our recollection the deeds of admirable valour and of heroic conduct that have been achieved on the heights of Alma, Balaklava, and Inkerman, I could have wished that the noble Lord had also publicly recognised that the deeds of heroism in this campaign have not been merely confined to the field of battle. We ought to remember the precious lives given to the pestilence of Varna, and to the inhospitable shores of the Black Sea; these men, in my opinion, were animated by as heroic a spirit as those who have yielded up their lives amid the flash of artillery and the triumphant sound of trumpets. No, Sir, language cannot do justice to the endurance of our troops under the extreme and terrible privations which circumstances have obliged them to endure. The high spirit of an English gentleman might have sustained him under circumstances which he could not have anticipated to encounter; but the same proud patience has been found amongst the rank and file; and it is these moral qualities which have contributed as much as others apparently more brilliant, to those great victories which we are now acknowledging. Sir, the noble Lord has taken a wise and gracious course in combining with the Thanks which he is about to propose tonight to the British Army and Navy, the Thanks also of the House of Commons to
396
the army of our ally. Sir, that alliance, which has now for some time prevailed between the two great nations of France and England, has in peace been productive of advantage; but it is the test to which it has been put by recent circumstances which, in my opinion, will tend more than any other cause to confirm and consolidate that intimate union. That alliance, Sir, is one which does not depend on dynasties and diplomacy. It is one which has been sanctioned by names to which we all look up with respect, or with feelings even of a higher character. The alliance between France and England was inaugurated by the imperial mind of Elizabeth, and sanctioned by the profound sagacity of Cromwell. It exists not more from feelings of mutual interest than from feelings of mutual respect, and I believe that it will be maintained by a noble spirit of emulation. Sir, there is still another point upon which, although with hesitation, I will advert for a moment. I am distrustful of my own ability to deal becomingly with a theme on which the noble Lord so well touched; but nevertheless I feel that I must refer to it. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord that he intends to propose a vote of condolence with the relatives of those who have fallen in this contest. Sir, we have already felt even in this chamber of public assembly how bitter have been the consequences of this war. We cannot throw our eyes over the accustomed benches where we miss many gallant and genial faces without feeling our hearts ache, our spirits sadden, and even our eyes moisten. But if that be our feeling bore, when we miss the long companions of our public lives and labours, what must be the anguish and desolation which now darken so many hearths? Never, Sir, has the youthful blood of the country been so profusely lavished as it has been in this cause—never has a greater sacrifice been made, and for ends which more fully sanctify the sacrifice—but we can hardly hope now, in the greenness of the wound, that even these recollections can serve as a source of solace. Young women, who have become widows almost as soon as they had become wives—mothers, who have lost not only their sons, but the brethren of those sons—heads of families, who have seen abruptly closed all their hopes of an hereditary line—these are pangs which even the consciousness of duty performed, which even the lustre of glory won, can-

397
not easily or speedily alleviate and assuage. But let us indulge, at least, in the hope—in the conviction—that the time will come when the proceedings of this evening may be to such persons a source of consolation—and when the memory of those who are departed may be mitigated by the recollection that their death is, at least, associated with imperishable deeds—with a noble cause—and with a nation's gratitude. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by seconding the Motion of the noble Lord.
The first Resolution having been put—
LORD HOTHAMsaid, unwilling as he was at all times to trespass upon the House, he could not reconcile it to his feelings to refrain from expressing how cordially he was prepared to concur in the Motion which the noble Lord the President of the Council had made. The noble Lord had alluded to the time when he happened to be at the head-quarters of the Duke of Wellington during the Peninsular war, and to the opportunity which he had then of seeing how completely our present Commander in Chief in the Crimea performed all the various duties of the office which he then held. He was sorry to say, for one reason at least, that he but too well remembered that time also; but having, also, constantly seen Lord Raglan by the side of his illustrious chief, he rejoiced to find that he had turned the lessons in the art of war which he had then received to such good account. He, therefore, hoped it might be permitted to him, as one who had long known the noble Lord, though not with any degree of intimacy as to induce a feeling of partiality in his mind, but simply having learned to respect him for the manner in which he had discharged his public duties—he hoped it might be permitted him to express the satisfaction which he felt at seeing the noble Lord placed in a position of such eminence, and that he had been enabled to render services to the country of such a nature as to merit the Thanks of both Houses of Parliament. It would ill become him, after the speech of the noble Lord—a speech which, indeed, comprehended everything necessary to be said on such an occasion—to enter into any details of the various matters to which the noble Lord had referred. He was confident, however numerous and however brilliant may have been the services which the armies of this country had heretofore been called upon to perform, there had been no British
398
troops ever exposed to greater difficulties, to greater privations, to greater dangers than those to which they were now about to vote the Thanks of the House. He was anxious, also, to say that he thought the House of Commons had good reason to be proud when it recollected how many of its own Members had shared in the triumphs which they were now acknowledging. They had unfortunately lost some of those whom they had been in the habit of seeing on those benches; while others were still preserved to them whom it was hoped would long be able to continue their important services. According to the rules of the House there could be but one hon. Member, who, from his situation, would be mentioned by name, in this Vote—he meant the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans). The hon. and gallant Member might be assured that whatever differences of opinion may exist in that House between the party sitting opposite to him, and himself, they were not disposed less readily than those sitting on the other side of the House to appreciate his distinguished services, and that the proposal now before the House would be concurred in by those on the Opposition benches with the same cordiality as it would be agreed to by his nearest and dearest friends. But he must not forget that they were about to vote their Thanks likewise to the sister profession. It would be presumptuous in him, having no connection with the navy, to say more than that it fully deserved their Thanks. The British navy had done what it had always done—rendered ready and efficient co-operation and support to the British army. And quite sure he was, that if the British army was ever engaged in any operation, however difficult, the success of which depended on the efficient assistance of the sister service, that that assistance would be rendered in the most ready, zealous, and meritorious manner. He would only add one word in allusion to another vote which the noble Lord intended to propose—that to the army of His Majesty the Emperor of the French. Whether that Vote was usual or unusual—whether it were sanctioned by precedent or not, he was of opinion that the occasion fully justified the course which the Government proposed to take, and he should as fully and cordially concur in that Vote as in the other Votes which the noble Lord proposed.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that it had hitherto

399
always been his misfortune to act in opposition to Her Majesty's Government, and therefore it was now some consolation to be able to rise and join his voice in that of the general expression of gratitude and admiration for our army. As it had been his good fortune to be an eye-witness of the heroic conduct and sufferings of the army, he should feel that he was almost neglecting a duty if he did not express his cordial concurrence in this Vote. The noble Lord had given the House a detailed account of the campaign from the time of the landing in the Crimea to the battle of Inkerman; and he trusted that he (Mr. Layard) might now be allowed to mention to the House some few instances of individual heroism which had occurred in the course of that campaign, and which deserved especial notice. No sooner had our troops set foot on the shores of the Crimea, than, spite of the difficulties and discouragements to which they had before been exposed, they showed that they were made of the old British mettle. They wished but for one thing—to be led against the enemy. In the cavalry skirmish which took place on the day of the advance previous to the battle of the Alma, Captain Maude, of the Horse Artillery, greatly distinguished himself, and by the skilful management of his guns, completely drove back the Russian cavalry. On the following morning, a sight which had scarcely been ever before witnessed by most of those there, was presented to the British army. Those who reflected that the greater number of the men who were about to be engaged had never seen war before, trembled for the result. The storming and capture of the nearly im-impregnable position of the Alma was an achievement of unexampled valour. The combat on that day was worthily commenced by the French troops, and it was then that General Bosquet first displayed those great military qualities which had given him so high a reputation with both armies. The French soldiers under the command of that gallant officer scaled the almost inaccessible cliffs on the left flank of the Russians, and while they did so, the left of the British advanced on the centre and right flank. These gallant men carried everything before them, and in less than three hours the enemy was completely defeated and the position occupied. While they paid a just tribute to the valour of the British and French troops, he could not forget the services rendered by the British navy.
400
The representatives of those who fought under Nelson united, like their predecessors, the two great elements of heroism—the greatest courage combined with the greatest tenderness. On the memorable day of the Alma, though our sailors took no part in the action, they did all in their power to succour and sympathise with those who fought and bled in the common cause. On the day following the battle, the ships of the inshore squadron sent on shore their crews with hammocks, and before nightfall a large number of our wounded men were taken on board the fleet. After the celebrated flank march to Balaklava—on which, he would not dwell—the siege commenced, and then the conduct of men who from morn to night passed their time in the trenches without food or shelter, under a severe climate, and at the same time exposed to the heavy fire of the enemy, exhibited instances of the noblest fortitude and heroism. He was sorry the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had not alluded to the first battle of Inkerman, that of the 26th October, because it was a remarkable example of a small number of men defeating, with great loss, a very large force entirely on account of the admirable mode in which they were handled. This feat was due to the ability of General Sir De Lacy Evans, who had thereby increased the high reputation which he previously enjoyed in the British army. On the opening of the attack upon Sebastopol on the 17th October, the army and navy displayed equal courage; but his noble Friend having already spoken of the gallant actions of the army, he would mention two signal instances of heroism which had occurred in the navy. It would be recollected that that gallant commander, Sir Edmund Lyons, brought his ship, the Agamemnon, within 800 yards of such a mass of guns as was, perhaps, never before brought to bear upon any vessel, and, with only two feet of water under his vessel's keel, he received, from twelve o'clock in the day till nearly sunset, almost the entire fire of the Russian batteries. The depth of water in front of the batteries not being known, it was most important that soundings should be taken, in order to ascertain how near the Agamemnon could go to the shore. Admiral Lyons, therefore, sent for a young man named Ball, in command of a small vessel, used for transport and towing purposes, and addressing him said, "Will you go in before me and sound, and, if you come out, you shall have your

401
commission?" The young man, without hesitating a moment, went on board of his ship, and with the utmost calmness advanced before the Agamemnon under the most terrific fire, and, having performed the service required of him with the utmost coolness, escaped untouched and reported the result to the Admiral. A feat of intrepid daring like this was scarcely excelled in the annals of warfare, and showed that our navy was still a nursery of heroes; and he noticed it in that House because it was an instance of the display of courage by an inferior officer which did not find its way into any official despatch. Again, during the action, at one time Admiral Lyons thought it necessary that some other ship should come in and take off part of the fire which was directed against the Agamemnon, and with this object he made signals, which unfortunately were not seen by the fleet. The Admiral having expressed his wish on the quarterdeck to communicate with some vessel of war, his own nephew—and this made the incident a more touching trait of heroism—his own nephew at once volunteered to proceed in a small open boat to the Bellerophon. Having obtained his uncle's consent, he went to that vessel, amidst a most terrible fire, and brought her to the side of the Agamemnon: this gallant officer was Lieutenant Coles. Examples of this description showed how the old spirit of the British Navy still survived; and in further corroboration of this fact he would relate an anecdote which he thought peculiarly characteristic of the British seamen, and which was illustrative of the feelings with which Sir Edmund Lyons was regarded by the men under his command. Before the attack of the 17th a report prevailed that the Agamemnon, being at Balaklava, would not go into action, but that her commander was to take the charge of another steamer, and lead the attack. One day, therefore, Admiral Lyons was summoned to the quarterdeck, where he found the whole of his ship's company assembled. The man whom they had chosen as their spokesman then advanced and said, that the ship's company had mustered together because they had heard that the Admiral was about to take the command of the squadron which was to attack the batteries of Sebastopol, but intended to lead in another ship; and, said this man, speaking for the ship's company, "We think it very hard, sir, that having had all the work we should have
402
none of the sport." The gallant Admiral at once assured them that, wherever he went, there his ship's company should go too. The noble President of the Council, in describing the affair of Balaklava, had omitted an incident which was worthy of notice. The House was aware that our light cavalry charged between two flanking batteries—the one on its right and the other on its left; and that before them was drawn up, he might almost say, the Russian army—cavalry, artillery, and infantry. Our light cavalry fought their way under this terrific fire with a heroism and a courage that were hardly paralleled, but were terribly cut up by the batteries on each flank, and in especial by one on the left. It should be remembered that at this critical period a squadron of Chasseurs d'Afrique were ordered to attack the battery on the left, and with an indomitable valour, only equalled by that of our own troops, this small body of forty men advanced against it under the deadliest fire, carrying it, and enabled the survivors of our devoted band to come out of action and return to their tents. Out of the forty Chasseurs who performed this service two officers and fourteen men were left dead on the field. And, while upon the subject of the battle of Balaklava, he must touch upon a topic on which he would appeal to the House's sense of justice to listen to him for an instant. He alluded to the conduct of the Turkish troops, which had been most severely reflected on. It was easy to cast blame upon others when we perhaps deserved it in some degree ourselves; and, although he admitted the possibility of British troops being able to hold the redoubts which were occupied by the Turks for a longer period than those troops did, yet, in order to correct the misrepresentations that had been made relative to this matter, he begged leave to quote a passage from Lord Raglan's despatch describing the action at Balaklava, in which his Lordship seemed to justify the abandoment of these redoubts by the Turks. Lord Raglan wrote—
"The low range of heights that runs across the plain at the bottom of which the town is placed was protected by four small redoubts hastily constructed. Three of these had guns in them; and on a higher hill, in front of the village of Camara, in advance of our right flank, was established a work of somewhat more importance. These several redoubts were garrisoned by Turkish troops, no other force being at my disposal for their occupation. …. The means of defending the extensive position which had been occupied by the Turkish troops in the morning having proved

403
wholly inadequate, I deemed it necessary, in concurrence with General Canrobert, to withdraw from the lower range of heights, and to concentrate our force, which will be increased by a considerable body of seamen to be landed from the ships under the authority of Admiral Dundas, immediately in front of the narrow valley leading into Balaklava, and upon the precipitous heights on our right, thus affording a narrower line of defence."
In fact, these redoubts were so hastily constructed as to have been untenable. The Cossacks jumped their horses over them, yet the Turks, though unsupported, did for some time defend them; and although, as he had said, they might perhaps have been defended some short time longer, no military authorities would be of opinion that they could have been successfully held for any considerable period. He had felt it only due to the Turkish troops to make that explanation to the House. He came now to the battle of Inkerman, which was indeed, as it had been described, one of the most glorious victories ever recorded. It would be recollected that General Sir De Lacy Evans mentioned in his despatch the names of three officers, among whom was Lieutenant Conolly, who bravely, at the head of their pickets, held their ground against an overwhelming mass of the enemy for nearly half an hour; and that he also commended the bravery displayed by a sergeant named Sullivan. Now, in Lord Raglan's despatch the names of the officers were specified, but that of the sergeant was omitted. He knew that this omission occurred by reason of a rule in the service, but he sincerely hoped that there would be some relaxation of the strict usage in this respect in future. At the second battle of Inkerman the Russians advanced against our position at daybreak in enormous masses. Our Second Division at first had almost alone to resist this overwhelming force, and yet regiment after regiment and company after company entered the field and remained there fighting incessantly until their ammunition was exhausted and they were almost borne down by force of numbers; at length General Bosquet came to their assistance; and he (Mr. Layard) could not refrain from bearing his testimony to the coolness and calm decision exhibited by that officer during this eventful day. Halting his division at first out of fire, he advanced with his staff to examine the position of the enemy, and then he sent his troops quickly into action to the assistance of our men in a manner which decided the
404
fortunes of the fight. The French troops then distinguished themselves beyond all praise. He could not, before he concluded, help referring to one other point. In the vessel which conveyed him homewards there was a large number of Frenchmen who had been wounded in the battles of the Crimea. Among them he saw many privates and non-commissioned officers, bearing on their breasts the order of the Legion of Honour and other orders of merit which had been conferred on them for their bravery. As these men stood before him, showing the pride with which they regarded the honours bestowed on them, he could not help feeling a deep regret that we had not some similar mode of testifying the country's approval of such services. It occurred to him that there were men in our army who, though but its rank and file, would feel as proud of orders of merit, if given to them, as the officers who commanded them could be. It occurred to him that men who returned wounded or disabled to this country, with orders of merit on their breasts, would be more likely to have their future course in life beneficially shaped, and influenced by sentiments of honour and of a just pride, than men who were hastily or indiscriminately rewarded in the field by small pecuniary donations and gifts of that kind; and he therefore earnestly hoped that some higher mode would be adopted by the Government for acknowledging the prowess of our soldiery. In conclusion, allow him to say, that he was one of those few who thought the time had come when, without questioning its political necessity, and however great might be the sacrifices imposed by a struggle of this character, war was almost necessary for our national safety and our national honour. There had been many who believed that the people of this country had relapsed into a state of effeminacy—that a long peace of fifty years' duration had destroyed that British spirit to which we owed our liberties and our high position in the scale of nations. The recent events in the Crimea must, however, have dissipated all such gloomy apprehensions—the troops who fought at Alma, though they had never seen a battle before, showed that they possessed the true British spirit. Would that that great Captain who had been the noblest exemple to the true British soldier had been permitted to tarry a little while longer among us, that he might have seen that the British soldier

405
had not degenerated! The feelings with which he joined in the Vote of that evening were greatly increased by the recollection that, united with the vote to the British army, was a vote to the brave troops of our French ally, and be trusted that that friendship which had been cemented between the two armies in the field of battle might be still further fostered by sentiments of mutual admiration, confidence, and respect, and prove of lasting benefit to the civilised world.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to a practical point. This was a commemoration, not only of the living, but of the dead. It was impossible to forget how many eyes had been closed in death in the region of the Crimea. He wished, therefore, to suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they should take into their immediate consideration the position of the families of those British officers who had died in the battle-field. When we asked the British officer to sacrifice his life for his country, we made upon him a just demand. But when by our army regulations we asked him to go forth for the defence of his country's interests, and to leave his family in a reduced position, and in many cases in absolute penury, we asked more than a nation had a right to demand of any man. He (Mr. Milnes) was aware of the difficulties with which cases of the kind to which he referred were surrounded—he knew how the organisation of our army was mixed up with our social position—but he was sure that Her Majesty's Government would only be carrying into effect the desire of the country if they at least repaid to the family of those officers who had fallen, or might fall, in this war, the regulation price of their commissions. His right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had stated that more than one case had occurred of brothers having fallen in the present war. He (Mr. Milnes) begged to call the attention of the House to a case in which two brothers had fallen at Inkerman. Those brothers were officers in the same regiment, and both of them there sacrificed their lives for the honour of their country. One of them had loft a widow with several children. Those brothers had invested the whole of their fortunes, and the one the greater part of his wife's fortune, in the purchase of their commissions; so that this family, to whom the nation was now re-
406
turning thanks, was left with no other inheritance, and no other means of support, but the contributions of the benevolent and the glory of the name which they bore. This should not be. He could assure his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War that he could not do better than direct his attention to the cases to which he had referred. He trusted that this country would not, when next it had to return thanks to the officers of the British army, be troubled with the disgraceful reflection that no effectual requital had been made to those families, who had been ruined by the fall of their relatives in the battle-field.
MR. H. DRUMMOND: Sir, I was very glad to hear the tacit and well-deserved rebuke communicated by the noble Lord in his admirable speech to those dilettanti civilians who become critics upon subjects and upon men, being totally incompetent to form any opinion. I can, of my own experience, give another illustration similar to that given by the noble Lord. I remember at the close of the last war dining one day with Sir George Murray. Colonel Nugent and some other celebrated men were present. Marshal Soult had sent the plan of the battle of Toulouse to Sir George Murray, and he said—"I don't think that we have got it right; I wish you would correct it, if it be not; but it seems to me that the Duke of Wellington would never have made so false a move as he appears to have done." I asked Sir George Murray whether he was right, and in reply, he said—"Yes; but he did not know the moral character of the troops with which he had to deal. The whole depends upon that, and unless a general be informed of the circumstances which sway a commander's mind, he is incompetent to form a correct opinion upon the matter." Now, Sir, I am glad to find something like a return to penitence upon the part of the hon. Gentleman behind me who has just sat down; for he thinks it necessary to vindicate the character of the calumniated Turks, who were not only charged with running away from the enemy's fire, but also of helping themselves to the dinners of the British officers and men. I hope that the hon. Member will go on in the spirit of justice. I can only say to him—
"Macte nova virtute, puer."
I hope, Sir, that we shall hear no more of his imputations upon admirals. I hope

407
that we shall have no more imputations cast upon the personal courage of our admirals. I hope, Sir, that we shall hear of no more instances of violated hospitality in a gentleman who took advantage of the kindness and the hospitality shown him, to write home anonymous attacks upon the conduct of Admiral Dundas. ["Go on!"] No, I am not going on. I shall wait to hear spoken in this House what has been written anonymously—then I shall go on. We have much, Sir, for which to thank our commanders and men both in our army and navy. We have, above all, to thank Admiral Dundas, who, despising the critiques of men who are incompetent to form an opinion upon his conduct—despising the bad advice of ignorant men—despising "Our own Special Reporters," has preserved his fleet in such a condition that, even though we are no longer the besiegers, but the besieged, it is nevertheless in a position which is both safe and honourable.
MR. LAYARD: Sir, I hope I shall be allowed to defend myself from the attack that has just been made upon me. ["Order!"] I know that I am out of order; but still, I think, after the language that has fallen from the hon. Member near me (Mr. Drummond), that I may appeal to the indulgence of the House. Sir, no person regrets more than I do myself the unfortunate circumstance that has occurred. I wrote a private letter—a letter which I had not the remotest idea would be published. Unfortunately, however, that letter was published; and its publication has caused me very great pain. The letter was written on board of the ship of a gallant officer who received me, as he receives everybody, with a kindness shall never forget. I went to that gallant officer and told him that my letter had unfortunately been made public, and that, if he were called upon, as I conjectured he would be, to ascertain the writer, he was at liberty to give my name to Admiral Dundas. Unfortunately, in that letter I had referred to a private letter from Admiral Dundas which had been shown to me by a gallant captain in the service of Her Majesty. I addressed myself to that gallant captain and said—
"As I have been guilty towards you of a breach of confidence in so far that part of the letter which you read in my presence has been published in a letter to a friend of mine, any reparation that you may ask and that is in my power to give, I am willing to afford."
408
With regard to Admiral Dundas, I further said—
"Express to him also the deep regret I feel that a private letter should have been published containing a charge which I would only have made in the House of Commons, and not in a newspaper anonymously; but that as the charge has been made, the only reparation I can give him, if he insists upon it, is to reiterate that charge publicly, giving him the opportunity of meeting it, and that I am ready to do."
I had hoped that Admiral Dundas's friends would not have been indiscreet enough to accept this challenge. Accusations such as that made by the hon. Gentleman on my left (Mr. Drummond) have been heaped on me, but I have held my peace—I have said nothing; but as the hon. Gentleman has challenged me this evening, I am ready in my place in this House, if called upon to do so, to substantiate the charges which my letter makes—to substantiate them from the despatches written by Members of the Government, and on the evidence of those who have served under Admiral Dundas and have witnessed his conduct in this campaign. I say this with deep regret, because I feel that the character of a British admiral is at stake; yet the character of England and of the fleet of England is at stake likewise; and as this insinuation of anonymous slander had now been thrown out, if Admiral Dundas's friends dare me to do it, I am ready to support the charges that I have made.
Resolutions agreed to, Nemine Contradicente.
On the fourth Resolution being read,
CAPTAIN DUNCOMBEsaid, that after what had taken place he had expected that some Member of the Government would have risen to vindicate the honour and character of Admiral Dundas. He feared, after what had transpired, unless something were said to the contrary, the present Vote might, perhaps, be taken as merely a formal one. He regretted that the First Lord of the Admiralty had thought it consistent with his duty not to say a single word in vindication of that distinguished Admiral, who was now maintaining the honour of his country; and he (Captain Duncombe) could not, on the present occasion, refrain from bearing his testimony to the zeal, ability, and discretion that had, in his opinion, distinguished the conduct of that gallant Admiral.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Sir, I regret that the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken could suppose that we

409
have shown the slightest indifference to the charges made against Admiral Dundas. The opinion of the Government upon the conduct of the gallant Admiral may be fairly drawn from the Resolution that has been proposed by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council. That Resolution contains an expression of thanks to Admiral Dundas for his efficient services in the war. I do not think it at all necessary, in the face of such a Resolution, for any Member of the Government, least of all myself, to state in his place here, and upon his own responsibility, that he is of opinion the thanks of Parliament are due to that officer. I am very sorry that any difference of opinion should have arisen between two hon. Members in respect to the peculiar merits of that officer. I can only say that if the hon. Member for Aylesbury should think it his duty to bring on the charge he has made against Admiral Dundas, I shall take care to be in my place in this House to vindicate the character of that gallant officer. I think the present moment a most unseemly one for interrupting the harmony of our proceedings by any such discussion.
SIR F. BARING: Having been at one time at the head of the Admiralty, and after the observations made by the gallant officer, I beg to express a hope that the hon. Member for Aylesbury will, on better consideration, not consider it necessary to proceed further in this matter; but should he do so, I am satisfied that any investigation into the conduct of the gallant Admiral will prove most honourable to him. I cannot omit this opportunity to point out to the House the painful position in which a man in command is placed at the present time. The hon. Member for Aylesbury has stated, and I have no doubt correctly, that his letter was published without his sanction or by accident. I have seen other letters, also, which should never have been published, and which, he feared, had come through officers who ought to have known better. But when one finds that an officer in command, serving his country at a distance, is liable every moment to have the tittle-tattle that is running about—the small stories current in a fleet, sent home and published, and taken by the good people of England as the opinion of the whole service—when the officer charged is at a great distance, and utterly unable to defend himself, and who, if present, would be by his duty prevented from doing so,
410
I think it is becoming on this House at least to show that the party aggrieved must not suppose that he is at all prejudiced by those stories. Sir, I think that published comments upon the conduct of our leading men at the seat of war have been carried to a great extent upon late occasions—and, indeed, I am afraid to a most mischievous extent. I am far from wishing to have any check placed upon these publications; but, if they are to be admitted, I must appeal to the justice of the House on behalf of our gallant officers, and remind them that the greatest caution should be observed in commenting upon the actions of those who are serving their country abroad.
MR. LAYARD: After what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Board of Admiralty, I must express my regret at what has taken place. But, with reference to what he had said of Admiral Dundas, he would read a passage from a despatch of the Duke of Newcastle to Lord Raglan, and see what is the language used by the Government themselves. This is a question involving the reputation of Admiral Dundas, but the question lies between him and the Government. Now, what is the sentence in the despatch?
"Your Lordships' cordial acknowledgment of the invaluable services rendered by Sir E. Lyons and the officers and seamen of the Royal Navy."
So that in acknowledging, after a great battle, the services of the British Navy, the Government omit the name of the man in the chief command, and mention the name of the second in command. In the face of such evidence, what right have you to say that I should never have made the charge? The question is one that rests between the Admiral and the Government. As I have already said, I am ready to support the charges I have made. I am, indeed, compelled to do so; for I have no other way of removing any charge that may be made against my honour than by substantiating the allegations I have made. If the right hon. Gentleman will press it, I will attend in my place to make good the charge.
SIR. J. GRAHAM: Though it is not very regular, I think it necessary to offer an explanation, which I hope will be satisfactory to the House, though it may not be to the hon. Member for Aylesbury. The hon. Member has alluded to a dispatch of the Duke of Newcastle, in which special thanks are given to Sir E. Lyons and the

411
officers of the navy. Now, those thanks have reference only to the landing of the troops at Eupatoria. There are many traits in the character of Admiral Dundas which arc honourable and praiseworthy; but if I should be called upon to mention a single trait for which he is peculiarly remarkable, I should say it is the generosity with which Admiral Dundas, while commanding the fleet, has delegated the largest powers to Sir E. Lyons, the second in command, and has joined in the fullest approbation of his distinguished conduct. With reference to the present question, Sir Edmund Lyons was selected by Admiral Dundas to superintend the landing in the Crimea, who conceded to him the largest powers, and it was to the trust so frankly confided that the success of the operation was mainly owing. Lord Raglan especially bestowed his commendation upon the operations of the fleet in connection with the landing, and mentioned particularly the name of Sir E. Lyons. And therefore it was that the special mention of Sir Edmund Lyons was made in the dispatch. Without adopting the language of Lord Raglan, I can only say I think it is somewhat hard for Admiral Dundas to be thus treated. Having entrusted to an officer the performance of this important duty, I say I think it is somewhat hard that the thanks earned by Sir Edmund Lyons, under such circumstances, should be turned against Admiral Dundas. An officer having been selected to whom the gallant Admiral trusted the performance of a certain duty, the Government in speaking of that operation would not have been justified in mentioning the chief in command.
ADMIRAL WALCOT: Sir, I trust I may be pardoned if I offer a few observations at the present moment. I am a naval officer, and I must say I never felt more wounded in my life than at hearing charges made against a gallant Admiral at a time when this House is assembled to record their thanks to the army and navy in the East, being the highest honour that could be conferred upon the United Service for the heroic actions they had performed. Sir, this honour is considered so great that it is handed down as a triumphant heir-loom to the 'families of those concerned. Good God! I am wounded to the quick at having lived to hear such a charge against a gallant member of my profession—a profession that has ever been my glory. It would ill become me to stand up in defence
412
of Admiral Dundas without the power of refuting the charges made against him; but I rejoice that the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty has had the manliness and proper spirit to avow his readiness, when suitably preferred in this House, to meet them, and vindicate the character of the gallant Admiral. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard), upon the letters written by the Admiralty in commendation of the services of Admiral Sir Edmund Lyons, and of the officers and men under his orders, I will not allow that their Lordships meant for an instant to detract from the merits of Admiral Dundas, but that they had in view at the time they wrote it, the particular matter with reference to which they felt themselves called upon to pronounce that commendation. As an act of justice to my dear relation, Sir Edmund Lyons, it is right I should state that I received a letter from him about six weeks ago, in which, after addressing me merely in terms of affecttionate love, he adds these words, "I am indebted to my Commander in Chief for the perfect responsibility he has vested in my hands, and I cannot but ever feel, in the performance of my duties, that I carry with me that encouragement and support." For Sir Edmund Lyons, furthermore, I can say that he would scorn to encircle his 1 brow with a laurel at the cost of a brother officer. I again assure the House that I am really distressed and wounded at having lived to see the hour that I should hear an Admiral of the British Navy stigmatised as a coward, and I hope the House will pardon the warmth of the few words I have addressed to it.
CAPTAIN SCOBELL: Perhaps the House will allow me to state that I received a letter from my gallant friend Admiral Dundas, just before the publication of the "Letters from the maintop of the Agamemnon." Even at that time my gallant friend was perfectly sensible of the unfair comments that were made upon him, and in so expressing himself stated that it was impossible for him to notice them. He felt them deeply, however; and I have no doubt whatever that they were undeserved; and I do say that it is cruel in the extreme at the present stage of our proceedings—when we are about to vote our Thanks to the Army and Navy—to pull in such a subject as this for the purpose of traducing the character of a gallant man—as

413
I believe him to be—who is still absent on service. If such comments as all our Admirals have been subjected to during the recent naval campaign continue to be indulged in, it is my firm opinion that the service of the navy will be greatly impaired and sustain irreparable injury. I have no doubt they will be able to vindicate themselves in the most satisfactory way, when the opportunity occurs, against all these comments. But with respect to the instance cited by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, that Sir Edmund Lyons and the officers and men under him only were mentioned in the despatch from the Admiralty, why nothing can be more obvious than that Admiral Dundas could not have been properly alluded to on the occasion. No commander in chief ever takes upon himself a subordinate duty. It was not Admiral Dundas's duty, therefore, to go and land troops. He would have been totally out of his place had he done so; and you might as well ask Lord Raglan to take a detachment of his troops for the purpose of executing some special service which it is the duty of some other gallant officer under his orders to perform. It is always the custom of the service—and right and proper it is that it should be so—that the commander in chief should take some officer who is under his command, send him on special service, which, though important, is small as compared with the superintendence of the whole fleet. Why was Lord Nelson detached from Lord St. Vincent's fleet when he gained the battle of the Nile? Because he was one of the acting admirals under Lord St. Vincent, and was, therefore, sent on that particular service. I can mention many other instances in which officers, detached on a given duty, have succeeded in reaping a rich harvest of reputation, in which, however, the commander in chief could not participate by reason of the very position he occupied; and this 1 believe to be the case with my gallant friend the Commander in Chief of the Black Sea fleet.
MR. OTWAY: I deeply regret this interruption to the unanimity of the Vote we have now before us, and it is only just to recall to the recollection of the House the circumstances under which it occurred. Admiral Dundas's name was not mentioned until the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Drummond) rose in his place, and brought an accusation of a most serious nature against my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, to which my hon. Friend sub-
414
sequently replied. It was not the hon. Member for Aylesbury, therefore, who first introduced the name of Admiral Dundas into this discussion.
Resolutions agreed to, Nemine contradicente.
House Adjourned at half after Seven o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Bishop of Kilmore, Elphin, and Ardagh.

VOTE OF THANKS TO THE ARMY AND NAVY IN THE CRIMEA.
THE DUEE OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of performing a duty which, though difficult, is, nevertheless, of a most grateful character—to move that your Lordships should agree to Resolutions which can by no possibility excite discordant feelings, but which, on the contrary, must, I am certain, assuage for the time every feeling of party, and must combine in entire unanimity all noble Peers on either side of the House. Fortunately for me in the performance of this task, no eloquence is needed to induce your Lordships to agree to these Resolutions. They must, I am sure, under existing circumstances, appeal directly to the hearts and feelings of all Englishmen—to those without as to those within these walls. My Lords, I feel that any elaborate praises, however adorned with oratorical power and chastened by the purest taste, would be less calculated to influence your Lordships' minds on an occasion like the present than the simplest record of the deeds done and the services rendered which we now seek to reward. On former occasions, when it has been the duty of Ministers of the Crown to move the Thanks of Parliament for the services of the Army and Navy of England, similar to those which I am about to lay before your Lordships, it has been customary to give some lengthened detail of the operations which had taken place, and to lay before the House a statement of the services which had entitled the army or the navy to this favour at your Lordships' hands. On the present occasion, I feel that I should only be uselessly trespassing on your Lordships' time if I were to attempt to enter into any such detail. The circumstances on this occasion are very different from those which existed on former occasions. In the first place, the deeds to which I am about to refer were performed at a time when Parliament was not sitting. Moreover, at the present time, those deeds have been recorded in a manner unknown to us in former days, and in terms so striking and so graphic, through the medium of gentlemen who have been eyewitnesses of them, that it would be the merest affectation in
314
me were I to attempt to say anything new, or to pretend to give your Lordships information upon actions and events which are known in every circle, and are discussed in every cottage throughout the country. My Lords, I have said that on this occasion I believe every feeling of party will for a period be assuaged. Let me only further say, that if noble Lords are still pleased to impute any blame to the Government, for not having assisted Lord Raglan and his army with sufficient means, then, if such be the case, so much more must you accord your praise to that army. I will not say more upon that subject, but your Lordships must feel that to any extent to which you can blame the Government to so much the greater extent must you praise the army. It has always been considered that a Vote of Thanks to our gallant soldiers and sailors is the highest reward which it is in the power of Parliament to bestow. It has always been looked upon as the greatest incentive to the exertions of the officers and the valour of the men. It has always been looked upon by the army as not only a proof of the gratitude of Parliament for the actions performed, but as an expression of the opinion of Parliament that they had the power of rendering still further services—that it had as much a view to the future as it was a record of gratitude for the past.
My Lords, it is not for me, at this moment, to discuss an aphorism which has become so trite and prevalent as to be generally accepted, that England is not a military nation; but in this I am sure your Lordships will agree with me, that the glory acquired by our armies has ever been most dear to the people of England, and has always elicited the warmest expressions of gratitude from the Parliament of the country—from your Lordships as well as from the representatives of the people. But, so far as your Lordships' House is concerned, I feel you must entertain still greater pride and pleasure on this occasion when he who is in command of these armies—he who has won this great renown—is a Member of this House, one whom we have been in the habit of seeing among us, and one whom I am certain your Lordships will all agree with me in heartily wishing that we may again see among us on a future day, safe, in health, and enjoying that increased renown which he has so justly won. My Lords, I consider that Lord Raglan deserves the thanks

315
and approbation of the country, not merely for the military actions he has performed in the Crimea, but for the course of conduct which he has pursued from the first moment of his leaving England. I consider that the proper and judicious arrangements which he made at Constantinople and at Varna—that the preparations he made subsequently for the invasion of the Crimea—are as deserving of approbation as even his great military successes. I believe that a man of weaker mind than Lord Raglan, of less heroic courage, might well, under the circumstances of the moment, have hesitated to undertake that great expedition. I believe that a man of less power of mind, of less moral courage than Lord Raglan, might well have been deterred by the circumstances of the time, by the disease which prevailed in the army, by various events, which might almost have justified him in exercising that discretion which, of course, no Government could avoid placing in a Commander in Chief, and have declined or hesitated to enter upon that great and important expedition. My Lords, I said on a former occasion, that I considered it would be almost an insult to Lord Raglan to speak of his personal courage; but I say now, that if there is any point upon which we should be justified in blaming Lord Raglan, it is the great indifference which on two occasions he has shown for his own personal safety—carried, perhaps, to an improper length. The way in which he on both these occasions exposed himself in the midst of a storm of bullets and under the hottest fire, is undoubtedly a proof of his calm and resolute character, which was certainly most admirable, but which might possibly have deprived us of his valuable services. My Lords, one of the secrets of Lord Raglan's success I believe to be the generous reliance which on all occasions he has placed in his officers, his colleagues, and his soldiers; and, let me add, without disrespect to him, in himself. My Lords, I have been informed—though assuredly not by Lord Raglan himself, for, if there is one characteristic of that eminent man more remarkable than another, it is his singular modesty and avoidance of every topic which might attract fame or reputation to himself—I have heard from others that an event occurred at the battle of the Alma, which, I will not say turned the fate of the day, but had it not been for Lord Raglan's prescience and skill, the result of the battle might have been differ-
316
ent. Upon examining the position of the Russian right, he despatched an officer to bring up two guns, which were placed in position to scatter the reserves of the Russians, and this prevented an attack on the left, which might have been attended, had a less skilful general been in command, with disastrous consequences. I say that the modesty which Lord Raglan has evinced in those despatches which have been published, and which have been read by your Lordships, shows him a worthy disciple of that great man whose simplicity and modesty are part of the records of our history. It is not merely the greatness of his military successes which entitles him to the thanks of Parliament, but in no less degree the generous and noble spirit—the moral courage which he has evinced on all occasions, whether on the field or in the camp. Moreover, the parental tenderness manifested towards the officers and men under his command is the invariable characteristic of a great and distinguished man. My Lords, if I say nothing further in reference to Lord Raglan, you will attribute it to the reason I have assigned—that eulogy is as needless from my lips as it is to your ears.
Following the precedents of former occasions, I shall ask your Lordships to vote Thanks to the Generals and Officers under Lord Raglan's command—naming, as is usual, all generals, not merely veterans like Sir John Burgoyne and Sir George Brown, two men whom we all know to have advanced to that period of life which, as the Scripture tells us, is the term of most of us—one of whom has passed that period, and is entitled to that repose from labour which his years in most men would absolutely require. To them I shall ask your Lordships to give your Thanks for their distinguished services. In the next place, to the illustrious Prince, also a Member of this House, who has on this occasion endeared, if it were possible, still more to the people of this country the family to which he belongs, and who has proved that the ancient valour of his race has not degenerated in the present day. I am confident your Lordships will rejoice—as I know Her Majesty does—that a Member of Her House has been entitled to share in the toils, the difficulties, the privations, as well as in the hard-won glory of the British army. My Lords, I will ask you further to vote Thanks to General Sir De Lacy Evans; and here I must allude to what I

317
shall ever feel to be one of the noblest acts of gallantry which ever distinguished a veteran general. My Lords, this officer had been compelled by illness to retire from his command, and was on board ship in the harbour of Balaklava. Your Lordships know how rapidly and suddenly the battle of Inkerman commenced. At the first sound of artillery, he hastened on shore, weak, and scarcely able to sit on his horse. He arrived on the scene of action, where he found his division engaged under the command of his brigadier, and most nobly and gallantly he stayed to assist him, acting, I may say, as his aide-de-camp, remaining at his side, assisting him by his advice rather than that, by assuming his own position at the head of his division, he should prevent General Pennefather from reaping the rewards and the honours of the day. I think your Lordships will agree with me that this is one of the most honourable traits which ever distinguished a British General. I shall further ask you to vote Thanks to all the Generals and Officers, from the highest to the lowest, from the General at the head of a division down to those noble youths, who, not yet arrived at years of maturity, stepped forth one after another to seize the colours riddled with shot from the hands of their fallen brother ensigns, and carried them triumphantly to the heights of Alma.
My Lords, we shall not stop here. We shall, I am sure, with equal unanimity, vote our Thanks to the Non-commissioned Officers and Soldiers of that gallant army. I alluded the other evening to the encouragement which it is proposed to give, by way of promotion, to that portion of the army, and your Lordships appeared to signify your approval of that course. We know how difficult it is, on many occasions, to reward individual private soldiers, but they deserve our warm and hearty thanks. Perhaps in no battles recorded in the history of this country did the private soldiers more justly entitle themselves to the Thanks of Parliament than at those which have recently occurred. Inkerman, especially, may be called, as I have heard it designated, "the soldiers' battle." That was an action in which no great military strategy could be displayed; it was one of those fierce hand-to-hand encounters which remind us of the battles of which we read in classic times; it was a contest in which the individual bravery, perseverance, and fortitude of each single soldier were
318
brought most severely to the test, and right well did they discharge their duty. Whether you look to the individual bravery displayed by our men upon that occasion—whether you look to their collective discipline—whether you look to the power of mind over matter, if I may use the expression, which enabled every man on that day to overcome, by a paramount sense of public duty, almost every human feeling, every regard for self, and even that dread of death which is natural to every human being—in whatever aspect you view the conduct of our troops, it is impossible not to admire and to honour every man who fought at Inkerman. My Lords, whether you contemplate the storming of the heights of Alma, or the defence of Inkerman—two battles which present as remarkable a contrast, perhaps, as any that are recorded in history—you must recollect that the British troops by whom they were fought were men fresh from this country, the greater part of whom, as was said by a noble Earl the other night, had never before heard a shot fired in anger; but I venture to say that, either upon the One occasion or the other, you must admit that no veteran troops, however practised in arms, however enured to contest, ever fought better, ever more distinguished themselves, or maintained the honour of their country. And let me here observe that it was no despicable enemy against whom they had to contend, for undoubtedly, from whatever cause, whether from the excitement of fanaticism, or from some other influence, no men ever fought with greater desperation than did the Russians at Inkerman. I believe, my Lords, that British troops never had to contend against more fearful odds than those which on that day they encountered and overcame.
My Lords, I know that in bringing forward a Motion like the present I am bound to avoid anything like controversy; but I may be pardoned if I express some regret that a noble Earl (the Earl of Ellen-borough) should last night have rather demurred to the opinion I expressed as to the alteration and improvement which had taken place in the conduct of the British troops. I will not enter further into that question upon the present occasion than to say, that I must repeat, in the strongest and most emphatic terms, the praise which I believe to be most justly due to our troops for their moral conduct as well as their distinguished bravery. There is a test of a soldier's moral conduct, not merely in a

319
town which has been captured, but also in encampment in a country not his own; and the conduct of our men in Bulgaria, among a native population, alien to them in religion and in habits, was as creditable to them as their bravery in the field of battle. At one period of my life, I suppose like every one of your Lordships, I took an interest in reading the records of the great battles in which the troops of this country had been engaged, but I cannot bring to mind any one that, in my own judgment, surpassed those which we are now considering. I have the pleasure of stating to your Lordships that these are the sentiments of the Sovereign, as I am confident they are those of your Lordships, and Her Majesty has been pleased to signify Her approval of the conduct of the army by conferring medals upon the whole of the soldiers and officers who were engaged on those eventful days. The medal is to be inscribed with the word "Crimea," and, following what I think your Lordships will agree with me are good precedents in such cases, clasps are also to be bestowed for the two great battles of Alma and Inkerman. Her Majesty has further been pleased to order that the names of those battles shall in future be inscribed upon the colours, which are already crowded with similar records of previous victories, of our regiments which were engaged on those glorious days.
My Lords, it is further my duty to ask you to pass a Vote of Thanks to the naval officers and men, who, as I stated two nights ago, have evinced upon all occasions the greatest devotion, and the frankest and most honourable determination to assist the sister service—the army—to the utmost extent of their ability. I know that none feel more than Lord Raglan and the soldiers under his command, how deeply the army, and, of course, this country, is indebted to the services of the navy during the recent operations. Having touched upon these services on a previous occasion, I will not dwell further upon them, but shall merely say, I propose that to the Officers and Seamen of the Navy, and to the Officers and Men of the Marines, your Lordships shall confer the expression of your Thanks.
My Lords, there are two other services which I believe it has never been usual to include in Votes of Thanks on these occasions; I do not propose to ask your Lordships to depart from precedents, but I cannot forbear from a passing remark
320
upon the exertions of a large body of seamen who, though not engaged in Her Majesty's service, have most zealously performed their duties in this great undertaking—I allude to the officers and men of the large transport service now at the disposal of the army. I can assure your Lordships that their exertions have been indefatigable and of the most valuable description, and they deserve the warmest acknowledgments of Parliament and of the country. The other body of men to whom I allude are the medical officers of the army. I speak not now, of course, of the medical organisation, upon which so much was said the other night; but I must state, in justice to an honourable profession, that never were greater exertions made by any body of men—never was more humanity evinced—never more complete devotedness to their duties, than by the medical officers of the British army in the Crimea. To one of these men I must allude. I will ask your Lordships to consider for one moment the services performed by such a man as Dr. Thomson. He was left, under circumstances of the most painful nature, upon the field of battle of the Alma, with not another person to assist him, not to attend to the wounded of his own army, all of whom had been removed, but to a large number of Russian wounded, many of whom—persuaded that an Englishman was little less than a devil—were prepared to murder any individual who might seek to render them succour and assistance. Among such men was Dr. Thomson left alone; he bound the wounds of some hundreds of these poor Russian soldiers at the great danger of his life, but nevertheless he escaped. He returned to his duties in his own army; but it pleased Providence to remove him from his sphere of usefulness two or three days subsequently. His death was occasioned by the immense exertions he had made and a disease which he had brought on by his extraordinary sacrifices and toils. I must say, my Lords, that if it has not been usual for Parliament to thank such men as these, at least it is not wrong for a Minister of the Crown to stand up in this House and express his admiration at such conduct.
I am about, nevertheless, upon this occasion, to ask your Lordships to depart somewhat from precedent. We are called upon to vote our thanks to the men who have served their country; but I regret to say that a large body of those who left

321
this country, high in expectation and confident of success, are not now within the reach of our mortal thanks. Their names, therefore, are not in the list which I am about to submit to your Lordships, but I am confident that they are not forgotten. With all our triumphs sorrow is inevitably mingled; and when I look round upon your Lordships at this moment, I see that there are some who bear the outward semblance of that grief which preys upon their inmost hearts fur the losses they have sustained. I think, then, your Lordships will not deem it unbecoming if, upon this occasion, departing from the dry rule of precedent, we should express our regret at the loss of those noble men, and our condolence with their relatives. I propose merely to ask your Lordships so to do. I shall not in that Resolution include any names; but it is impossible not to recollect the name of one whom, perhaps, above all others, the country most deeply mourns. My Lords, I had the happiness to become acquainted with that gallant and noble man, Sir George Cathcart, by official communications before I ever saw him personally; and from the official correspondence which I held with him for a year and a half, while he was Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, I must say that I never was more struck with the ability, the honour, and the devotedness of any man. In common with the rest of those who were acquainted with him, I confidently looked forward to the time when he would take a position in the British army of the highest value to the country, and to that Sovereign who, as much as any one of us, regrets his death. He and his companions sleep on the bleak hills of a foreign coast, but I am confident their names will live for ever, not unhonoured, in the sad and grateful remembrance of the people as well as in the military records of this country.
I rejoice, my Lords, that upon this occasion we are enabled to extend our Votes of Thanks beyond their usual bounds. We have had during this contest an ally such as it has rarely been our good fortune to possess in any former war, and I propose to your Lordships that we should vote Thanks to that gallant army which has shared with ours its labours and its triumphs. I need scarcely remind your Lordships of that eminent man who undertook the command at the commencement
322
of the operations—though, under the circumstances of the case, of course, I cannot name him in the Vote—or of the distinguished General who so worthily succeeded him in command of the French army. Marshal St. Arnaud, as is well known, left his country to assume the command of the French army with the conviction that he had a mortal malady upon him, and that, in all probability, it was impossible for him to return alive to his own country. He showed the greatest devotion to the service of the army, and I have it repeatedly in private letters from Lord Raglan, that up to the moment of his death the greatest possible harmony and confidence existed between his Lordship and that gallant officer. In fact, Marshal St. Arnaud and Lord Raglan might have been brought up in the same service, and have been serving in the same army, so far as their communications were concerned. Marshal St. Arnaud left Varna with the French and English forces on the 7th of September. In the course of the short voyage to the opposite coast he became so seriously ill, that the officer who had been sent by Lord Raglan to communicate with him, reported that he believed it to be impossible that the Marshal could ever land on the shores of the Crimea. He, nevertheless, rallied for a time; he landed, be mounted his horse, and, though I believe that repeatedly during the battle of the Alma he was obliged from intense suffering to dismount, he gallantly remained at his post, and, as you know, died almost in the hour of victory. He was succeeded in command by General Canrobert, whose frank and noble conduct has as greatly endeared him to the British army as to Lord Raglan and the British officers. They all respect his military abilities—they admire him as a soldier—they regard him as a man. Let me also add, though it may be uncommon to mention in a Vote of Thanks an officer second in command, that to General Bosquet, second in command of the French army, a tribute of admiration is due. General Bosquet has been brought into more especial contact with our troops; he has served with the English forces upon the right, and I can state—from information derived from the most authentic sources—that our troops look upon him almost as if he were a general in their own army, and I believe they would be as ready to follow him to victory as they would be to follow any general

323
who holds the Commission of the Queen. Such has already become the feeling of affection and of concord which subsists between the armies of the two countries. I would also add, that I propose to your Lordships to vote Thanks to the French navy, as I propose to do to our own navy, for the distinguished services they have rendered, and for the assistance they have afforded in all the operations of the war. The French army and the French navy, allied in the same efforts with ourselves, have, I rejoice to know, participated in the same triumphs; and I am confident your Lordships will feel your own emotions of enthusiasm are mingled with theirs, and will as heartily afford your thanks to these allied troops as to your own.
I feel, my Lords, how inadequately I have submitted these Resolutions to your Lordships; but I trust that lengthened remarks upon my part are not necessary upon a subject at once so grateful and so much in accordance with your Lordships' feelings and sympathies. Were it not that I am certain he is prepared to undertake the duty, I should invite the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) to second the Motion which I have had the honour to submit to your Lordships. It has been my fate, during the few years for which I have occupied a seat in this House, to be frequently in collision—impar congressus—with the noble Earl; but I feel certain that upon this occasion, we shall be as completely agreed as any two Peers on this side of the House. I invite—with confidence that it will be afforded—his fervid eloquence to strengthen my feeble voice in appealing to your Lordships to give this vote the sanction of your unanimous approval, and I am equally confident that you will, by a generous response, record your approbation and gratitude for the brilliant services rendered by the united armies, which have added fresh lustre to the military fame of England and France. The noble Duke concluded by moving the following Resolutions—
Resolved, Nemine Dissentiente—
"That the Thanks of this House be given to Field Marshal The Right Honourable Lord Raglan, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, for the Energy and distinguished Ability with which he has conducted the Operations of Her Majesty's Forces in the Crimea, for the brilliant and decisive Victory obtained over the Enemy's Army on the Alma, and the signal Defeat of a Force of vastly superior Numbers on the Heights of Inkerman."
Resolved, Nemine Dissentiente—
"That the Thanks of this House be given to—
"Lieutenant-General Sir John Fox Burgoyne, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath;
"Lieutenant - General Sir George Brown, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath;
"Lieutenant-General His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter;
"Lieutenant - General Sir De Lacy Evans, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath;
"Lieutenant-General Sir Richard England, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath;
"Lieutenant-General The Earl of Lucan;
"Major-General The Earl of Cardigan;
"Brigadier-General, now Major-General, the Honourable James Yorke Scarlett;
"Major-General Henry John William Bentinck;
"Major-General Sir Colin Campbell, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath;
"Major-General John Lysaght Pennefather, Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath;
"Major-General William John Codrington;
"Brigadier-General, now Major-General, Henry William Adams, Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath;
"Brigadier-General, now Major-General, Sir John Campbell, Baronet;
"Brigadier -General, now Major-General, George Buller, Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath;
"Brigadier-General, now Major-General, William Eyre, Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath;
"Brigadier-General, now Major-General, Arthur Wellesley Torrens;
"*Brigadier-General, now Major - General, Richard Airey, Quarter-Master- General;
*Brigades General, now Major - General, James Bucknall Bucknall Estcourt, Adjutant-General;
"And to the several other Officers, for their Zeal, Intrepidity, and distinguished Exertions in the several Actions in which Her Majesty's Forces have been engaged with the Enemy."
Resolved, Nemine Dissentiente—
"That this House doth highly acknowledge the distinguished Discipline, Valour, and Exertions displayed by the Non-commissioned Officers and Soldiers of the Army under the Command of Field Marshal Lord Raglan in all the Operations in the Crimea; and that the same be signified to them by the Commanders of the several Corps, who are desired to thank them for their distinguished and gallant Behaviour."
Ordered—
"That the Lord Chancellor do communicate the said Resolutions to Field Marshal The Right Honourable Lord Raglan; and that he be re-

325
quested by the Lord Chancellor to signify the same to—
"Lieutenant-General Sir John Fox Burgoyne,
"Lieutenant-General Sir George Brown,
"Lieutenant General His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge,
"Lieutenant-General Sir De Lacy Evans,
"Lieutenant-General Sir Richard England,
"Lieutenant-General The Earl of Lucan.
"Major-General The Earl of Cardigan,
"Brigadier-General, now Major-General, The Honourable James Yorke Scarlett,
"Major-General Henry John William Bentinck,
"Major-General Sir Colin Campbell,
"Major-General John Lysaght Pennefather,
"Major-General William John Codrington,
"Brigadier-General, now Major-General, Henry William Adams,
"Brigadier-General, now Major-General, Sir John Campbell, Baronet,
"Brigadier - General, now Major - General, George Buller,
"Brigadier-General, now Major-General, William Eyre,
"Brigadier-General, now Major-General, Arthur Wellesley Torrens,
"*Brigadier-General, now Major-General, Richard Airey,
"*Brigadier -General, now Major -General, James Bucknall Bucknall Estcourt,
"And to the several Officers who served in the Army under his Command."
Resolved, Nemine Dissentiente—
"That the Thanks of this House be given to Vice-Admiral James Whitley Deans Dundas, Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, to Rear-Admiral Sir Edmund Lyons, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, and to the several Captains and Officers in the Fleet under the Command of the said Vice-Admiral, and also to the Officers of the Navy and Marines employed on Shore in the Siege of Sebastopol, for their indefatigable Activity and Exertions in conveying Her Majesty's Land Forces to the Crimea, in effecting their Disembarkation, and in co-operating with them during the Siege of Sebastopol."
Resolved, Nemine Dissentiente—
"That this House doth highly approve of and acknowledge the Services of *Rear-Admiral the Honourable Montague Stopford, Captain of the Fleet, of the Seamen and Marines on board the Ships under the Command of Vice-Admiral Dundas, and also of the Seamen and Marines employed on Shore in the Siege of Sebastopol, in their indefatigable Activity and Exertions in conveying Her Majesty's Land Forces to the Crimea, in effecting their Disembarkation, and in co-operating with them during the Siege of Sebastopol and that the Captains of the several Ships do signify the same to their respective Crews, and do thank them for their praiseworthy and gallant Conduct."
Ordered—
"That The Lord Chancellor do communicate the said Resolutions to Vice-Admiral Dundas; and that he be requested by the Lord Chancellor to signify the same to Rear-Admiral Sir Edmund Lyons, to *Rear-Admiral the Honourable Montague Stopford, and to the several Captains and other Officers referred to therein."
Resolved, Nemine Dissentiente—
"That this House acknowledges with Admiration the distinguished Valour and Conduct of those who have perished during the present Struggle in the Service of their Country, and feels deep Sympathy with their Relatives and Friends."
Resolved, Nemine Dissentiente—
"That the Thanks of this House be given to General Canrobert and the French Army for their gallant and successful Co-operation with Her Majesty's Land Forces in the Attack on the Enemy's Position at Alma, for their energetic and timely Assistance in repelling the Enemy at Inkerman, and for their distinguished Exertions in concert with Her Majesty's Troops in the Siege of Sebastopol; and that Field Marshal Lord Raglan be desired to convey to them the present Resolution."
Resolved, Nemine Dissentiente—
"That the Thanks of this House be given to Admiral Hamelin and the French Navy for their cordial co-operation with Her Majesty's Fleet in conveying the Allied Forces to the Crimea, in effecting their Disembarkation, and in the Siege of Sebastopol; and that Vice-Admiral Dundas be desired to convey to them the present Resolution,"
[* These names were ordered to be inserted in the Resolutions by Resolutions of the 18th December.]
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, having upon former occasions taken an opportunity of expressing, feebly and inadequately indeed, but most sincerely and cordially, my deep sense of the debt of gratitude which this country owes to those gallant and distinguished men, of every rank, to whose efforts we have owed the great and brilliant success which has been achieved by our arms, I should not have thought it incumbent upon me to say a single word, nor should I have risen on this occasion, had it not been to give to the noble Duke and to your Lordships the most convincing proof of the entire unanimity of the House, by desiring—politically opposed as I am to Her Majesty's Government—to express on my own part, and for those noble Lords with whom I have the honour of being connected, our entire acquiescence in the Motion which the noble Duke has proposed. The noble Duke, in his appeal to me, has done injustice to the manner in which he has brought this subject under your Lordships' notice, for, in no lengthened address, he has most clearly, most simply, and with the truest eloquence—because it was the eloquence of his heart—enumerated with official authority those services for which he calls

327
upon your Lordships to give, as I am sure you will give, the willing tribute of your Thanks. I feel, therefore, my Lords, that any appeal to me to add to the description and the statements of the noble Duke is one to which I could not respond without exposing myself to the charge of egregious presumption. I cordially concur, and I am sure your Lordships will concur, in the Thanks moved by the noble Duke to the distinguished officers whom he has mentioned, and to those whose names (from the impossibility of enumerating all who have done their best) he has of necessity omitted. I certainly shall not accept the invitation of the noble Duke to contrast the success which has been achieved by the army with the deficiencies that some may think existed in the means and appliances at their command. Their deeds require no such contrast; their achievements require no such adventitious colouring; and this is not an occasion on which, whatever may be my opinions, I should wish to recall the memory of such things. Let us be content on this occasion to do honour to the brilliancy of their achievements, and to record our tribute of sincere admiration and gratitude to those men who, under whatever difficulties, have so nobly maintained the honour of the British flag, and are still sustaining most gallantly the arduous struggle in which they are engaged. It fell naturally to the part of the noble Duke, in the situation which he occupies, to enumerate by name some of the most distinguished commanders and leaders of our army. I can speak with no such authority, and, indeed, it would be an act of invidious presumption on my part were I to refer to the performance of duties in the field, when all, from the highest to the lowest—from that gallant and distinguished officer who had long the honour and advantage of enjoying the intimacy and confidence of that great man the Duke of Wellington, and who has proved himself worthy of the school in which he learned his military duties—from that distinguished Prince of the Blood who has added a fresh title to his Royal birth in the self-sacrifices he has made in the service of his country, who has shared the soldiers' labours, privations, toils, and dangers—the latter even to a degree which may almost be considered imprudent—when all, from men occupying these distinguished stations, these high positions in the army and in social rank, connected even with the Royal family of this country, down to the very humblest
328
individual who serves in the ranks, have been actuated by an equal desire to perform that which is the first object in the mind of every Englishman—to perform, unostentatiously indeed, but perseveringly, unhesitatingly, unflinchingly, their duty; all these, I doubt not, have been sustained and cheered in the hour of their greatest peril and privation, by the idea that those perils and privations would not be lost upon a grateful country, and that the admiration, at all events, if not the Thanks of their Sovereign, of Parliament, and of the country, would be freely accorded to men who had made such sacrifices and endured such privations. The navy, it is true, on this occasion have not had an opportunity of distinguishing themselves upon their own element by such active service as the army; but whatever it has been in their power to accomplish has been accomplished with a zeal, an activity, and an energy which will bear comparison with any former achievements of that gallant service. And when I speak of the achievements of the navy on their own element, I must not forget to mention, and to mention with satisfaction and with respect, the voluntary exertions of those gallant seamen and marines, not upon the sea, but in assisting their fellow-labourers and fellow-heroes of the army, by sustaining the toils and dangers of the land service. I believe the army will not be slow to acknowledge the debt of gratitude they owe to the marine artillery, and to our gallant seamen and marines, for the efficient aid which they have rendered. My Lords, the noble Duke has said that he thought he was about to take a somewhat unusual course in expressing the condolence and sympathy this House must feel with the surviving friends and relatives of those who have fallen gallantly in the service of their country. My Lords, in looking back upon the lamentable losses we have sustained, and the many melancholy gaps which have been made in our list of officers—many coming within our own observation—your Lordships cannot but feel that if it be an irregular course in such a case to mingle with our thanks and honours to the living our regret, our admiration, and our respect for the dead—surely, if that be a deviation from common practice, there is not a Member of your Lordships' House who will blame Her Majesty's Government for having given, in a matter in which our hearts are deeply engaged—perhaps more deeply even than in rendering ho-

329
nours to those who are still living to enjoy them—the expression of our sympathy to the relations of those who have fallen. My Lords, I am sure it will not be doubted that I concur most cordially with the noble Duke in the expression he has given to the feelings with which Her Majesty's Government have viewed and appreciated the honourable and noble support which has been given to the arms of this country by the troops. both military and naval, of our faithful Ally. I believe, my Lords, that we have had full reason, as we have had full reason before, and under very different circumstances, to appreciate the valour of the French troops and French seamen. We have never had an opportunity in which we were made more conscious of that valour, and more sensible of the importance and advantages of their services, than when, side by side, these two great nations have been carrying forward the operations of their arms in the prosecution of a just and honourable war to, I trust, an ultimate and glorious success. I rejoice that the noble Duke has taken this opportunity of doing justice not only to the memory of the late Commander in Chief of the French army—not only to that distinguished man who has succeeded to the command of the army, but to that General of the French army who has been brought into more immediate co-operation with the English troops, and whose gallant conduct and invaluable assistance, both at the Alma and Inkerman, have been so well and worthily appreciated by the British Army. In dealing with a Vote of Thanks to the French army and navy, and participating most cordially in honouring the services rendered by those forces, I cannot help expressing a doubt—I do it not as a matter of reproach, and, least of all, would I move or even suggest an Amendment—but I should be glad to hear from Her Majesty's Government if they have themselves considered bother there was any precedent in the history of this country for returning thanks to the troops of a foreign Prince. [The Duke of NEWCASTLE was understood to intimate that there was such a precedent.] It had occurred to me that the most becoming course would have been, in proposing the Vote of Thanks to the British Army, that we should recognise, on the part of Parliament and on the part of the country, the obligations we are under to our foreign allies; yet I felt that it might, perhaps, have the appearance of
330
taking upon ourselves a position which did not properly belong to us, and of passing over the Sovereign, to whom those troops, both naval and military, owe their allegiance—the Vote of Parliament conveying Thanks to troops which owe allegiance to another Sovereign might appear to be an interference with the internal duty and allegiance of these troops to their own Sovereign, which, I am sure, would be the last thing Her Majesty's Government would wish. But I rejoice to find, whatever may have been my doubts, that there is any precedent for a course which I must nevertheless, say appears to me somewhat anomalous and somewhat inconsistent in the relations between the two Powers—I rejoice to find that there have been precedents for such a course; and, that being the case, even the slight hesitation I might have felt, not as to the substance, but as to the form of the Motion, is removed, and I can cordially join in the Vote proposed to be given. I trust your Lordships and Her Majesty's Government will not think that my having noticed this point of form exhibits any desire to be captious. I should have felt most unwilling to introduce anything on which there might be a difference of opinion in a question in which it is most important that all should be united. My Lords, to all—to the British Generals and to the British soldiers, to the British Admirals, to the British navy, and to the army and navy of France as well, this country owes for this campaign a debt of gratitude which it is not easy to discharge. It is easy, my Lords, for you to vote the Thanks of Parliament, although I think that those Thanks ought to be reserved for great and signal occasions, because, if made too frequent, they may lose some portion of their value—it is easy, my Lords, for you to return those Thanks, but depend upon it, in the services of this country, and if one may judge from one's own reasoning, in the services of other countries also, these Thanks, this expression of the obligation you owe, will be doubly appreciated by all those gallant men whom we are united in honouring. They will consider it a glorious and honourable compensation for all they have undergone, for all they have suffered, and for all they have achieved; they will consider it—and I trust that the Vote of Parliament embodying the thanks and gratitude of the country always will be so considered by those who bear in a foreign land the flag of the British nation—they will consider it not

331
only an honourable compensation for the past, but an honourable incentive to endeavour for the future even to eclipse their former deeds by deeds of greater valour and greater daring.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, I am happy to find by the proposed Vote of Thanks that the naval service is included, and by the remarks that have been made both by the noble Duke and the noble Earl, that all objections on the ground of the inefficient conduct of the Commander in Chief, and of the service in the Black Sea, are at once and for ever put an end to. It is now, I presume, shown that the services of Admiral Dundas have been successful in blockading the Straits of Kertch, that he has thoroughly prevented all communication between Odessa and the Crimea by sea, and that those services are appreciated, and that every word which has been stated in the public prints, and talked in the clubs, and in various parts of the country, is pronounced in the most undoubted language as false; and that not only had the blockade been most effectually supported and maintained, but that the whole service in the Black Sea had been conducted in the most exemplary manner. Under the peculiar circumstances of the war, our naval forces have been completely divided in the public service in the Baltic and in the Black Sea; and although you have, by what appears to me the necessity of the case, found it your duty to confine your Thanks for the naval service in the Black Sea, still I feel that your Lordships will all join in the sentiment that in the Baltic the services have been of the most arduous description, and that the officers of the navy in that sea have fulfilled the duty which they had to perform with admirable ability, and that in voting Thanks to the fleet in the Black Sea we are not unmindful of the services which have been equally as arduous in the Baltic. When we consider the character of the climate, the nature of the navigation, the absence of lights, the withdrawal of landmarks, the difficulty of navigating ships of such enormous size as have been sent to the Baltic—every ship of which will be brought back to your island in safety—we should see that the service presented vast difficulties, and the manner in which they have been overcome reflects as great credit upon the seamen in the Baltic as any conduct of our navy in any part of the world. But in addition to this, there are also a great number of
332
officers in the Baltic who have had opportunities of distinguishing themselves in action, who have been before the enemy and have then distinguished themselves by their coolness, their steadiness, and in the conduct of their ships. Indeed, mention was made the other night by my noble Friend opposite of the taking of Bomarsund as being an important act in the operations of the war. This was accomplished certainly with the assistance of a large French force; but, as we know from the despatches of Sir Charles Napier, the naval branch of the service, whenever it has been called on to act, has conducted itself with the greatest possible efficiency. I have been induced to take part in this discussion simply for the sake of doing justice to the services of the Baltic fleet; and I am sure Her Majesty's Government will join with me when I state that, though the naval service has been separated into two distinct branches, and your Lordships have now thought fit to return their Thanks to one, you were not unmindful of the valuable services performed by the other.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, I had no wish to take part in the discussion of this Vote, which has already been so ably proposed and seconded, but I feel that I should be doing great injustice to my own feelings if I were to omit upon this occasion to express the great sense I entertain—indeed, I may say, the unbounded admiration and gratitude I feel—towards my noble Friend (Lord Raglan) and the army which he has the honour to command, and which he has proved himself so worthy to lead to victory. My noble Friend, when he undertook the command of this expedition, cheerfully obeyed the instructions of Her Majesty's Ministers. Men of less energy and determination might have hesitated before they undertook an enterprise of such magnitude and difficulty; but my noble Friend did no such thing, but at once undertook to do Her Majesty's bidding, and entered fully and completely into the views of Her Majesty's Government. In the outset of the expedition he carried through most successfully that most difficult of all military operations, the landing of a numerous army from a fleet on an enemy's shore. Before the men embarked my noble Friend displayed the greatest possible ability in the instructions he issued, both for the embarkation and the landing of the troops; and whenever the operation of landing an army from a fleet shall be required, these

333
instructions will remain a perfect and complete code of instructions on the subject. My noble Friend knew it was a task full of difficulty, but he never flinched from undertaking it, because, as he said, with troops like those under his command, and with officers such as those who were at the head of the divisions, he could accomplish anything which he took in hand. I know, my Lords, that, upon this occasion, Lord Raglan will experience all the happiness and pride which a great commander can and ought to expect; but I feel that one thing is wanting to confer complete happiness upon Lord Raglan in connection with this Vote of your Lordships, and that is that we have not present on this occasion that great master under whom he studied the art of war to express his approval of his gallant conduct. I should have been happy to express to your Lordships sentiments of admiration towards the army similar to those which have been used by my noble Friend behind me; but the noble Duke has discharged that duty so well that I feel I should be unnecessarily occupying the time of your Lordships were I to do so. Of every officer in command I should be happy to express the same sentiments as those of the noble Duke who proposed the Resolution, but as it would only occupy your time in vain, I shall not attempt to enter upon a description of the merits of various individuals. I may, perhaps, be permitted to state that the discipline of the army, and its indomitable courage, both in defence and attack, have never been surpassed. At the Alma, everything was achieved by the bravery and courage of our troops, marching boldly up to the attack, and showing what their valour could accomplish. On the second occasion, at Inkerman, the army showed by its power of defence what the British troops are capable of accomplishing. I feel I can do no more, after the very able speeches of the mover and seconder of the Resolution, than to express my extreme satisfaction that a young army, of which two-thirds at least may be said to have been recruits. should have distinguished themselves so well and so nobly as they have done. It also gives me great satisfaction to know that there does exist in the minds of the troops in the Crimea the greatest possible courage and determination to make the best of all the difficulties to which they may be exposed.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that on a former occasion, when he rose
334
to address their Lordships, he gave way to a noble Earl who rose with him, and whom they were at all times pleased to hear. He rose on that occasion because he felt he could not remain silent with regard to the merits of our gallant army; but being disappointed, he resolved upon a future occasion to trespass again on the indulgence of the House. That day was one of those of which they ought to be proud. It was a day that long would be remembered in their Lordships' House. It was one of those days that made Englishmen proud of the land they lived in, proud of their countrymen, and proud of seeing those deeds of daring performed again which they had read of in history, but which the present generation had not had the happiness to behold. When their Lordships recollected that many of these gallant men who had distinguished themselves were their personal friends, that degree of pleasure and pride must be greatly augmented. Rejoicing as they must in the honours which our Sovereign had bestowed on Lord Raglan, they were the less surprised when they remembered that the conqueror of Alma and of Inkerman was a pupil of the Great Duke, and that Fitzroy Somerset was his favourite soldier. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) could give proofs of the estimation in which the noble and gallant Commander was held by the French troops, and of the affection he had inspired amongst the troops of his own army. With respect to the illustrious Prince whose name had been so worthily referred to that evening, he had exhibited all the hereditary valour of his illustrious race, and added a new claim to the affection and respect of all ranks and classes of his countrymen by the humanity and consideration he had shown towards his troops. He felt certain that if their Lordships rejoiced in the achievements of their army in general, they must rejoice particularly in the deeds performed by Members of that House. Their Lordships would therefore excuse him if he referred to one noble Earl, a personal friend of his, and well known to many of their Lordships, whose name had not yet been mentioned in the discussion, he alluded to the Earl of Cardigan. He begged to remind their Lordships of the extraordinary deed of arms performed at Balaklava in that memorable charge, which—whatever its results, and whatever the opinion of its wisdom or expediency, made no difference as to the nature of the exploit

335
itself—and will for ever redound to the bravery of those who shared in its disasters and glory. Their Lordships all knew the military ardour with which their gallant Friend burned; but his highest aspiration never could have led him to expect to be placed in so distinguished a position, and where he so worthily evinced the chivalry of his nature. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) was not about to go into details of the deeds of those gallant officers who had been wounded or who had fallen. It was a melancholy list, no less than 308 commissioned officers having fallen, wounded or killed. Many, very many of those gallant officers belonged to the class called, rightly or wrongly, the aristocracy of the country—men who had often been accused of monopolising to themselves the commissions of Her Majesty's service, as though they enjoyed a sinecure which was all pleasure and pay. Such were the assertions; but after the noble manner in which they had acquitted themselves, he hoped the country would hear no more of such imputations. It could not be said in future that these men were only fit to be sent on parade. They had shown themselves worthy of the important trust reposed in them, and in discharge of that trust they nobly performed their duty—even to the death—and illustrated the French proverb, "Noblesse oblige." One word about our gallant sailors. It would be useless to discriminate or particularise on the present occasion. In peace or war gallantry had ever been the leading characteristic of our soldiers and sailors; and the present war had not only elicited that quality, but also more favourable characteristics. It was impossible to admire too highly the gentle affection towards their mothers and wives, and the patriotic and religious sentiments manifested by our soldiers in letters written by many of them red-handed from the field of battle, and after the display of unsurpassed bravery in face of the enemy. Before he resumed his seat, he felt it his duty to allude to another and less agreeable subject. He wished to direct the attention of the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) more especially to a letter which had been published in all the newspapers, but which he (the Earl of Malmesbury) had not brought to the House with him, lest he might be tempted to read any portion of it to their Lordships. It was a letter written by the assistant chaplain to the Second Division of Her Majesty's army in
336
the East. He did not wish to drag that gentleman as a culprit before their Lordships, but he felt that a man who disregarded the feelings of others could not complain if he himself was summoned to the bar of public opinion. It appeared that Mr. Lawless had not thought it inconsistent with his sacred office, after he had attended the death-beds of several of our mortally-wounded officers on the field of Inkerman, to communicate in a letter to a friend details of what had passed, with the names of these dying men, which ought never to have passed the most secret recesses of his mind, and that that friend had been guilty of the still greater indiscretion of publishing the letter. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) could state that the publication of that letter had occasioned a great aggravation of the sorrow of their relations in this country; and he believed that nothing could justify the conduct of its author. He had felt that no private reprimand could sufficiently mark the universal sense entertained of such an act on the part of the Rev. George Lawless—for that was the name of the rev. gentleman to whom he alluded; and he felt persuaded, too, that their Lordships would unanimously concur in that view of the matter. He had but one more observation to make. He and the party with whom he co-operated were prepared, as his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Derby) had already stated, to afford Her Majesty's Government their best aid towards the vigorous prosecution of the war; and he had no doubt but that, with such an army as that of the Allies, our efforts must ultimately be brought to a triumphant conclusion. But he would address an earnest entreaty to the Members of Her Majesty's Government: if any one of those Members should feel that he was deficient in experience, let him not be ashamed to ask for advice; and if any one of them should be ignorant of any facts of importance, let him not hesitate to look for knowledge even beyond the precincts of his office. Let them avoid a rash reliance on their own personal resources, and let them not destroy, from a vain desire to maintain the supposed dignity of their position, the chance of success in that momentous contest.
VISCOUNT GOUGH: I rise, my Lords, with a considerable degree of diffidence, to claim the indulgence of your Lordships; but I quite conceive that I should not be justified in preserving silence upon the Motion now before your Lordships. I am

337
proud, my Lords, to say that the position I now hold is attributable, and solely attributable, to the deeds of the army of England; and I cannot therefore pass by without remark, a Vote of Thanks to that army, now serving in the Crimea, many of whom assisted—nobly assisted—me in another part of the globe. It is for this reason that I join—most cordially join—in the Vote of Thanks to the noble individual who now happily holds the command of that army, as well as to the officers and soldiers of whom it is composed. My Lords, with the sister service it has been my good fortune at various times to have been associated, and therefore I most cordially join in the Vote of Thanks to the officers and sailors of Her Majesty's Navy. Having, too, lately returned from the Continent, where I have passed some time, associating much with the officers of the French army, and being thus enabled to form an opinion as to the officers now commanding in the Crimea, I most cordially join in a Vote of Thanks to the gallant and distinguished individuals at the head of the French army, and to that noble army itself, which is so well led, and which has so cordially and so gallantly supported the army of Her Majesty. My Lords, I thank you sincerely for having attended to the observations which on the present occasion I have thought myself called upon to make in the discharge of my duty as a soldier.
LORD COLCHESTER,while joining cordially in thanking the survivors of that gallant army which had fought at Alma and Inkerman, hoped the public gratitude would not stop here. The survivors would receive honours and decorations, but he trusted that those who had fallen would not be allowed to sleep in unhonoured graves. He thought that public monuments should he voted by Parliament to the successful commanders who had died in the public service. Some public monument, in whatever form it might be thought best to have it—some public mark of the nation's gratitude—would not, he thought, be too much to give to those who had sacrificed their lives in the service of the country.
Resolutions agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente.

THE TREATY BETWEEN AUSTRIA AND THE ALLIES—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose, pursuant to notice, to ask,
"When it is likely that the Treaty lately con-
338
cluded between the Allied Powers and Austria may be produced, and whether Her Majesty's Government will object to lay before Parliament Copies or Extracts of the Correspondence of our Diplomatic or Consular Agents in Turkey, descriptive of or relating to the military and political Occurrences which have taken place in the Danubian Principalities since the Occupation of those Provinces by the Austrian Force?"
With regard to the first part of the question of which I have given notice—I mean the production of the treaty between Austria and the Allies—I can anticipate to some extent the answer which will be given to it. Undoubtedly that treaty cannot be produced until after the ratifications have been exchanged; but I hope my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will go a step beyond that answer, and will let us know, if he can, how soon the ratification is likely to be accomplished and when we are likely to see this treaty. I say this because, whatever may be our anticipations of the contents of that treaty, we must all be anxious to examine the details of a treaty which we have been encouraged, by the reference to it in the Speech from the Throne, to expect is fraught with advantages, and important advantages, to the Allied Powers. My Lords, it is true that something like a modification of these expectations has been given to the public by a leading Minister of the Crown. I apprehend, however, that in all probability the treaty will be found to be of this character;—That while Austria repeats her assurances of concurrence in our opinion, her sympathy, and perhaps to a certain degree her good wishes for the cause of the Allies, it will be found that she will not have engaged to take any one step for the prosecution of the war, and, in point of fact, that we shall still be left only with that moral support which we were told we possessed long ago. If this turns out to be the purport of the treaty, as I think it will, in point of fact we are, in respect to the German Powers, just where we were at the opening of the last Session of Parliament. At time same time, I am ready to admit that the mere signature by Austria of any treaty with the Powers at this moment engaged in hostilities with Russia may be looked upon, if not as a step in advance, at least as riveting and nailing Austria to the point to which she has advanced; and it would certainly make it more difficult (not to say impossible) that that Power should take any retrograde step—any step, I would almost say, derogatory to the personal

339
character of the governing classes of that country, and which would prevent Austria from advancing and actively engaging in hostilities on the side of those allies with whom she is signing at present these in themselves comparatively insignificant treaties. What I wish to say upon this matter, however, has reference more to the second part of the question which I am about to ask, because, if the treaty be unfortunately of the character which I have stated I expect it is, I have no doubt the country and the Parliament of this country will go into a very close examination of all we have borne and all we have forborne for the sake of this alliance, such as it is; and if, when Parliament shall reassemble after Christmas, it is seen that Austria has taken no positive step in the way of hostilities with Russia—if we find that then, as now, her friendly and diplomatic relations with the Court of St. Petersburg continue, I say I have not the slightest doubt that there will be demanded a very rigorous examination into the negotiations going on, and into all the transactions in which Austria has been engaged, with our concurrence, during the last few months. In respect of these transactions—I mean the transactions which have been going on in the Danubian Principalities—I look upon them as the most important that have taken place in Europe, save the actual battles that have been fought, and they are closely connected with these battles, and, indeed, with the whole plan and arrangements of our expedition to the Crimea. I say that the entire position of that expedition has depended upon the transactions in the Danubian Principalities, because I defy the Government, or any man, to show me that our army would have been exposed to the hardships, the perils, and privations to which it has been exposed, if it had not been for the transactions that occurred subsequently to, if not in consequence of, the Austrian occupation of the Principalities. The dates distinctly show that to these transactions is attributable much of that flow of British blood which has taken place in the Crimea. If we doubted it before, we have it now, with the exact dates delivered to us—on official authority. We have been told that it was upon the raising of the siege of Silistria that it was finally determined to send an army to the Crimea. If I recollect rightly, it was early in June—on the 14th of June—that the Convention was signed between
340
Austria and Turkey—and on the 23rd of June the siege of Silistria was raised. Early in July the Russians began their retreat from the Principalities, and on the 25th of that month they evacuated Bucharest. Austrian authority soon afterwards was asserted in that country, and I think it was on the 20th of August that Austrian troops marched into the Principalities, while our expedition landed in the Crimea on the 14th of September. Is it not clear that before we ventured on such an expedition at all we expected the Russians would be fully occupied in Bessarabia? Would any man in his senses have gone to attack the whole force of the enemy in the south of Russia—for that is what has happened—with such a small army as we landed in the Crimea, unless we had looked for a diversion of the enemy in some other part of the country? It is perfectly clear that the Government of this country, and the country itself, depended upon active occupation being found for the army of Prince Gortschakoff in or near Bessarabia. I say, then, that we have an account with Austria, which, if Austria still holds back, must be settled one way or another before long. I am sure that this Parliament, and this country, looking at the great military force at the command of the Austrian Government, will be most happy to see any concerted action between us and that Government, provided it act with good faith towards us. But it is not good faith to debar us from means which are in our power, to hold out to us and lure us with hopes and expectations that she will take steps which, somehow or other, she never appears ready to take. To such a course of proceeding there must come a termination; and, as the Parliament and the country must, at an early date, demand an account of this matter from Her Majesty's Government, I have taken the liberty now, not to make any substantive Motion, or to give notice of such a one, but to ask the Government if they are prepared to lay upon the table of the House the documents which will put us in possession of all the transactions, military and political, which have taken place in the Principalities.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, my noble Friend says he can anticipate the answer I should give with respect to the first part of this question; but I am happy in being able to give to that portion of the question a more satisfactory answer than he has anticipated, because I have

341
this afternoon received news from Vienna that the treaty which has been entered into with Austria has been ratified, and I hold that treaty in my hand, and I beg to lay it at once on your Lordships' table. Having done so, I feel that it will be unnecessary for me to enter into any discussion at present upon that treaty, as a more fitting opportunity will be found when your Lordships have made yourselves acquainted with its contents. With regard to the papers referred to by the noble Marquess, I am sorry to say that since he gave notice of his Motion last night, I have not had time to look through those papers, and to see which of them can be laid before your Lordships without detriment to the public service. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are perfectly ready to give every information as to all that has taken place with reference to the occupation of the Principalities; but your Lordships will feel, and I have no doubt admit, that at the present moment there would be some inconvenience in producing the whole of the papers which bear reference to that occupation. During the recess those papers shall be looked through, and such selected and laid upon the table as I trust will give every information on the subject. My Lords, I am not about to enter into any defence of the conduct of the Austrian Government throughout the period to which the noble Marquess has alluded; but it will, perhaps, be in the recollection of the House that, during the last few days of the last Session of Parliament, in addressing your Lordships, I stated that the course which the honour, and dignity, and interests of Austria pointed out was clear, and that I saw no reason to doubt that that course would be adopted. Large voluntary contributions had been poured into the Austrian exchequer, and there was no reason to expect that the means at the disposal of that nation would not be used, or that the opportunity which existed would be lost. That such, however, has been the case to a certain extent, I am not prepared to deny; but no blame can on that account be attached to Her Majesty's Government. Your Lordships are well aware that it is out of the power of the Government to dictate to an independent State like Austria, or to compel her at any moment to declare war against a powerful enemy, who had been assembling a large force on her undefended frontier. With respect to what fell from the noble Marquess in reference to the assistance to be expected from Austria
342
at the time of the expedition to the Crimea, I must beg to observe that the Austrian Government had proposed to Lord Raglan and Marshal St. Arnaud to undertake and concert together operations in the Principalities, and that Lord Raglan and Marshal St. Arnaud in reply, informed the Austrian Government that they already had it in contemplation to send an expedition to the Crimea, and that they must therefore decline the proposal. The Austrian Government, of course, readily admitting the right of this country to undertake any expedition it pleased, at the same time declared that by that determination they were placed in a different position, and that, as under such circumstances, they could no longer reckon on the support of the English and French armies they could not undertake to fight Russia single-handed, and that more particularly at a time when the neutrality of Prussia and the rest of Germany could not be perfectly relied on. The Austrian Government then resolved to augment their forces, and a corps d'armée occupied a position in Transylvania, and the Russians were obliged to evacuate the Principalities. I will not now go into the question of the Austrian occupation of the Principalities, because papers connected with that subject will be laid on the table, but I wish to say a few words on a topic to which the noble Marquess has alluded, as I think it right that I should state what has really been the course pursued by the Government. Before the Austrian troops entered the Principalities, it was proposed that when the convention entered into with the Porte should be signed, the Principalities should be occupied by Austrian troops. At that time the siege of Silistria was being conducted with great vigour, the issue was very doubtful, and it appeared as if there was no probability of the Turks being able to cross the Danube. The treaty was signed on the 14th June, and the siege was raised on the 24th, and then the circumstances were changed. The Turks crossed the Danube and occupied Bucharest, and Her Majesty's Government then considered that Austria had no right whatever to require the Turkish troops to evacuate Wallachia, and they consequently recommended the Turkish Government, if such a demand should be made, not to accede to it. Despatches were also sent to Lord Westmoreland and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, stating that Her Majesty's Government did not wish to see any portion of the Turkish territory occupied by

343
any foreign force, except by the free will and consent of the Sultan, and that, in their opinion, it should be left to the Sultan to decide whether or not it was advisable that an Austrian force should occupy the Principalities, and that all arrangements, whether of a civil or military nature, should be made by him. The Government received the fullest assurances from the Austrian Government that no exclusive occupation was intended, nor was it intended to throw any hindrance in the way of the Allies or of the Turkish forces, or in any way to prevent them pursuing the Russian troops. Notwithstanding this, it is true that hindrances have been thrown in the way of Omar Pacha. Upon that fact coming to the ears of the Government, the strongest and most energetic remonstrances were made both by the English and French Governments and by the Porte, and I am bound to admit that those remonstrances were received by the Austrian Government in a most proper spirit; and it appears that these hindrances complained of were not known to the Austrian Government until they received information of them from us. In reply to those remonstrances, we were informed that the Austrian generals in the Principalities were not acting in accordance with their instructions, but that they were acting either contrary to them or in excess of them, and fresh orders were immediately sent to them by telegraph. I believe, my Lords, that in the course of these affairs there have been faults on both sides. I believe that the Austrian generals were occupying certain districts and villages in a territory where accommodation was scarce, and where they had some difficulty in procuring provisions for their own troops. On the other hand, it seems that Omar Pacha bad no fixed plan of operations, and the Commissioners do not appear to have been men well adapted to smooth and settle a difficulty. When complaints were made upon the subject, Count Buol, to give a proof of the sincerity of the Austrian Government, proposed a mixed Commission at Vienna, to consist of himself, the Turkish Ambassador, and the English and French Ministers, which should receive reports from Omar Pacha, the English and French Consuls and the generals, and decide upon anything that might thus be brought to their notice. Her Majesty's Government agreed to the formation of such a Commission, and, indeed, they considered it so necessary that such a body
344
should exist, to exercise a control with reference to what should occur in the Principalities during their occupation, that the maintenance of that Commission is one of the articles of the treaty which I have this evening laid on your Lordships' table. I have only to add, that one or two questions have already been referred to that Commission, and have been most properly and satisfactorily decided.

ENLISTMENT OF FOREIGNERS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that he would not trouble their Lordships with any lengthened statement with reference to the Bill; but he had been greatly surprised to ascertain, from various quarters, in the course of the day, that there existed an impression out of doors that what the noble Earl who commenced the opposition to this Bill on the previous evening (the Earl of Ellenborough) said might be, really was the intention of the Government, namely, that the Government intended that the militia and the British forces generally should be removed from this country for foreign service; and that their object in asking for power to enlist foreign troops was to use such troops in place of English ones for garrison duty in this country. He was quite certain that no noble Lord, whatever might be his opinion as to what might be done under the Bill, would for a moment imagine that it was the intention of the Government so to use the power to be intrusted to them. He would readily and at once admit that if there was a possibility of such an event, it was the bounden duty of Parliament to take precautions against it. He was also ready to admit that, looking to the Bill as drawn, it might by possibility be converted to such a purpose; and as, though he did not think it possible that it could be so used by any Government that could hold the reins of power in this country, he thought it desirable that the Bill should be so altered as that the intention of the Government and of Parliament should be clearly manifested, and he was, therefore, prepared to strike out of the first clause the words which seemed to bear this construction, and to insert in the second words which should specially prohibit any such use of the measure. So far from there being any desire on the part of the Government to quarter foreign troops on this country because we were parting with our

345
own, he could only say that he believed the state of the country was such that we might, if necessary, part with every armed man in these realms without substituting for them any other force. Still less would it be likely that, under such circumstances, the Government, instead of raising an additional militia or other English force, would seek foreign troops to protect our shores and to keep the peace here. Had he supposed that such an impression could for a moment have existed in the minds of any class of the community, he would not only have removed it in the speech which he made on the previous day, but would have taken care that the prohibition which he now proposed should be inserted in the Bill. That prohibition he proposed to insert in order to show that the sole object of obtaining power to bring foreign troops into this country was, that, as we could not, of course, have a depôt in a foreign country, men enlisted abroad should be brought here and formed into battalions, and, as soon as they were ready for service, should be conveyed to the Crimea, or to whatever country might then be the theatre of war, to fight against our foreign enemies. The number of men who were to be in this country at one time had been limited at 15,000, because that was about the limit fixed by the similar statute passed in the year 1806—in which the limit was 16,000—and because it was thought that the impossibility of transporting men to the seat of the war immediately upon the conclusion of their training, owing either to its being an unfavourable time of the year or to a scarcity of the means of conveyance, might at times render it necessary to keep that body of foreign troops in this country. If, however, any noble Lord preferred the lower limit of 10,000 men, he should not object to such an alteration being made in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUG: My Lords, my noble Friends who took objection to this Bill on a previous occasion were, it now appears from the statement of the noble Duke, perfectly justified in taking the course which they adopted. I objected on constitutional grounds to a Bill which gave a power to the Crown which the noble Duke is now willing to abandon, and which I considered not merely dangerous, but wholly unnecessary. It is, my Lords, another and a strong proof of the careless manner in which the Government
346
consider great measures affecting the military strength or the country, that it is now stated by the noble Duke to be a matter of indifference to the Government whether the number of the men to be at one time in this country be 15,000 or 10,000—a difference which, taking the usual proportion of men actually serving, and those undergoing training, would be an actual difference in the military force of the country of 20,000 men. if the number to be at one time under drill are to bear to those employed on active service the same proportion which the companies of Her Majesty's regiments left in England bear to those employed elsewhere—namely, one-fourth—this Bill, as originally framed, is a Bill for ultimately embodying 60,000 foreigners. I think the best course to pursue would be to withdraw the present Bill altogether, and at once to lay on the table an amended Bill, which might be taken into consideration on Monday next. To do so would be a more Parliamentary method of proceeding, and only one day would be lost. But if the noble Duke does not acquiesce in that suggestion, I must proceed as I originally intended. My Lords, since last I addressed you on this subject, it has been my duty to reconsider in the interval the reasons for which I then objected to the Bill, and also to consider the arguments which were adduced in its favour; and I must say that that further consideration has only tended to confirm me in the opinion that this is a Bill, the principle of which ought not to receive the sanction of your Lordships. Of its overwhelming and commanding necessity, no proof whatever has been advanced; and, in the absence of such proof, I think it most proper to adhere to constitutional principle. I was rejoiced, my Lords, the other night, to hear a noble Earl, who sits upon the cross-benches (Earl Grey), notice an expression which fell from the noble Duke in reference to the conduct of those on this side of the House who objected to this Bill—I mean that it indicated almost—indeed, I am not sure that the word "almost" was used—a want of patriotism on our part that we should thus impede a measure intended to meet the necessities of the country. I have read, and indeed, unfortunately, I can recollect, that at the commencement of the present century, measures for the defence of the country, brought forward by successive Governments, were the constant theme upon

347
which persons of all parties expressed their opinions with the utmost freedom in Parliament. All men were then united for the defence of the country against foreign invasion, as they are now for the prosecution of this war; yet Mr. Pitt, the late Lord Grey, Mr. Windham, Lord Grenville, and all the first men of that day—giants in comparison with many of those who hold office in these days—men of unsuspected patriotism, never hesitated to state, and to press with the utmost freedom of Parliamentary language, objections to the several measures successively brought forward. I humbly, and at a great distance, presume to follow in their steps. I am not prepared to compliment away any portion of those constitutional principles to which I have always adhered, and to which I shall continue to adhere for the rest of my life. I am aware of the imputations upon my patriotism and my motives to which I shall be subjected, but I shall not permit them to have the smallest influence upon my conduct, and shall strictly adhere to that course which, in my own opinion, is the most proper one. Noble Lords who have hitherto expressed their intention of supporting the war are considered to be inconsistent if they refuse absolute confidence to Her Majesty's Government with respect to the measures which they bring forward as the best adapted, in their opinion, to the furtherance of that object. My Lords, between supporting the war and supporting the Ministers, there is the greatest difference which can possibly exist between any two things of the most dissimilar kind. I am the oldest supporter of this war—I supported it long before my noble Friend at the head of the Government. I mentioned to one of Her Majesty's Ministers as far back as April, 1853, that I was confident this war was coming; that I was quite sure the Emperor of Russia never would depart from the position he had taken in sending Prince Menchikoff to Constantinople, or from the demands he had then made. During the Session of 1853, I earnestly entreated your Lordships not to delay proceeding with a Bill for altering the Government of India, on the special ground that we were threatened with danger in the East, and of the necessity of putting our house in order. There was a provision in that Bill, as introduced into the other House, enabling the Government of India to add three regiments to their force. I objected to that; but so urgent did I
348
think the necessity of strengthening Her Majesty's Government, that I laid upon your Lordships' table a Bill containing these clauses, entreating your Lordships to pass it, that we might thereby gain three months in adding to that force. But, my Lords, I went much further; I went to the utmost limit of Parliamentary privilege, and I asked you, towards the end of that Session, to delay a Bill for the repeal of a tax, thinking it the most impressive manner in which you could indicate to foreign Powers your determination to adhere to the course you had adopted, and to put a stop, if you could, to the ambition of Russia. That again was rejected; but it shows my support of the war. From the beginning of the last Session I fatigued your Lordships by my constant reference to it. I entreated you to make the country strong everywhere. I entreated you to add to the naval as well as to the military force, and I expressed my conviction that what had been done was utterly insufficient, and you now ask us to pass this Bill, interfering with constitutional principles, because you have adopted no such measures. Your own weakness, the consequence of your rejection of the advice which was offered to you, is made the ground upon which we are to supersede the constitutional principles of this country. My Lords, I went further; I said, "Be secret," for secrecy is one of the great foundations of success in war; and yet the object of the expedition to Bomarsund, and the expedition to the Crimea, are, weeks before those expeditions can sail, made public in the newspapers. Information is given to your enemies of the most valuable description, and given, through the newspapers, by Ministers, whom I entreated to consider the importance of secrecy. ["No, no!"—"The Times!"] I am not speaking of the Times, I am speaking of the Cabinet, and I say that the secrets of the Cabinet are sacred. The object of those expeditions never should have been named by any Member of the Government; but named it must have been by some one, because there it was, a Cabinet secret, and it became, somehow or other, public, and public to the great injury of the public service. Again, my Lords, I said, "Timely preparation in war is everything." With timely preparation you might accomplish almost any object; and without it you might fail in all; or succeeding, you might succeed only with a great sacrifice of treasure and

349
blood. That too was neglected. No timely preparation was made, and it is because no timely preparation was made that we are again asked to make a humiliating confession of our weakness by passing this Bill. This is the support which I throughout have given to this war. I admitted it to be from the first a just, a necessary, and a politic war, but I told you at the same time that it was a statesman's war. I said that it was a far-seeing war in its object, and that, though popular at first, I feared greatly that, unless you had a constant succession of successes calculated to captivate the public mind, the objects of the war were so thoroughly statesmanlike that it would be extremely difficult to maintain throughout the steady and constant support of the public. You have that support now; but when I look to the losses which we have sustained, and to the extreme ignorance, as I think, of Her Majesty's Ministers, and when I consider that their rejection of the advice which has been offered to them has led to those losses, I confess that I do not look forward with confidence to the long continuance of the popularity of the war, which the measure now proposed is more than anything else calculated to destroy. Well, my Lords, now as to confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers. I never professed any confidence in them as a war Government, and I stated my reasons for entertaining a contrary opinion. I admitted their great civil abilities and their great knowledge of political economy; I admitted that it was probable that on most subjects connected with civil administration I might see reason to acquiesce in their views; but I did think that the very character of their minds had a bias—by leading them constantly to look only to the progress of national questions, to the improvement of the country, and matters al- together of a civil character—was to a certain degree calculated to prevent them from being very energetic prosecutors of a war which must necessarily tend very much to depreciate and undermine these advantages; and, without any disrespect to my noble Friend at the head of the Government, I did venture to say that I did not think it extremely probable that he would succeed in doing well a thing which he so thoroughly hated as carrying on a war. I confess that Her Majesty's Ministers are extremely clever gentlemen, and that they all possess abilities far above mediocrity, but very few of them possess the great abilities which we have seen
350
in the former times to which I have referred. With one exception, they possess, too, the most extraordinary character for making good speeches, of an extraordinary length, which was ever at any time possessed by any Cabinet. The only person who apparently is not possessed of that extraordinary faculty is my noble Friend at the head of the Government; or, if he does possess that faculty, in mercy to us he spares us; and I must say that in that respect, if not in any other, he is the best Minister who ever sat upon those benches. What is the great public mischief, however, is the very equality of ability which pervades Her Majesty's Cabinet. It is the absence of any great and commanding ability—the presence of ability I admit far above mediocrity—but the presence of so many very nearly equal persons, and in great numbers in the same Cabinet, which I am convinced impedes, instead of facilitating, the transaction of public business. I believe that among them what is called the Ballot is an open question. I strongly recommend them to introduce it for their own internal improvement; for there is no measure which would so much tend to strengthen them—against whom personally I have no animosity—and to strengthen them especially for the transaction of public business, as the expulsion by ballot of one-third of their number. It is a matter of perfect indifference who go. I do not think that it signifies one rush to the public, so equal are they; but I am quite sure that the remaining two thirds would conduct the business of the country a very great deal better than it is conducted at present. Now, give me leave to say that, in those distant times, when we had great statesmen in the possession of great offices, they condescended to assign reasons for great public measures; and when they produced measures for the national defence, they went, as I can recollect, into most elaborate details, showing what was the strength of the Army, the strength of each corps, the manner in which recruiting had been successful, the extent to which, in successive years, recruits had been added, and from what sources they had been derived. Every fact which was known to themselves was made known to Parliament, and upon those data Parliament was asked to proceed in framing measures for the purpose of improving the national defences. But the noble Duke has given us no information whatever. If we are to look to the news-

351
papers for information, as we do now with more confidence than in former times, we are told, day after day, of the extraordinary success of the recruiting—in this week so many hundreds, in that more than 1,000 recruits have been obtained. If that be true, so far from its being a reason for this Bill, it is the very reason why we should not think of it, because if, by the ordinary process, we can thus add to our forces, why adopt a measure which is in contravention of constitutional principles? But, my Lords, I say, and always have said—and I speak from the experience of past times—that by far the most efficient mode of strengthening your army by recruits is to maintain at all times a militia full up to its complement, and popular with the country. Get a man, no matter how, into the militia; your chance of obtaining him afterwards as a soldier in the regular army is vastly increased, and you at the same time obtain a soldier perfectly qualified for service, and infinitely better for your purpose than one who has never been instructed at all. I say, therefore, strengthen the militia; do everything you can by every means to increase it to its full complement; make it the foundation of your military system, and, doing that, depend upon it you will be able to maintain national interests by the national arms, and will not be compelled to go begging in the antechambers of every petty Prince on the Continent for recruits to Her Majesty's forces. Who are those foreigners whom the noble Duke proposes to Her Majesty to bring to this country? We are told that it would be indecorous to mention the names of those German Princes or others until the Bill has passed, as no regular communications can be made with them until that time. But, I ask, is there any understanding with any of those Princes, or is there not? Can we not be told what understanding there is, and what reasonable anticipations Ministers have? Are they going to take this leap in the dark? The noble Duke may take a leap in the dark; but it is rather a serious thing to leap in the dark when you drag an army behind you; and it will not do to ask the country to violate a constitutional principle for a great object, and then, when you have done it, to find that you have not attained that object. Her Majesty's Ministers ought to have made the fullest inquiry, and to be thoroughly satisfied that the measure will be successful, before they proposed it. I
352
can imagine a state of things under which neither I nor any one could object to the temporary passage through this country of a limited German force. I can imagine that there may remain those feelings of friendship on the part of the King of Hanover to the Queen and people of this country which actuated that Sovereign in former times. I can imagine that the King of Hanover may entertain those feelings, but that he may be unable to give us assistance with his forces, owing to pecuniary difficulties. In that event, I should have no hesitation to accept of his assistance, by placing under Lord Raglan 5,000 or 6,000 of his magnificent troops, who rendered such good service in the last war. Under those circumstances, to admit for a short time the disciplined forces of a foreign Power, I should not object; but we are not told to expect that. We are told to expect formed men, but not formed battalions. Well, what sort of men will they be? They must either be, in those countries in which there is a conscription, men who have been discharged from duty by the lapse of time, and with respect to whose enlistment it is impossible that Her Majesty's Government can have any assurance, because they must be scattered through the whole of Germany or the Continent; or they must be persons now in the service of different German Princes. Will any one of those German Princes dare to join with the Allies, and declare against Russia? No; they dare do no such thing; and if they will not join you openly, they must have recourse to the petty disgraceful course of conniving at the desertion of their own troops. I can see no other mode in which the assistance of foreign soldiers can be obtained. But, suppose those soldiers to be brought here, give me leave to ask the noble Duke where he means to put them? We were told last night that there was this objection to embodying at once the militia of the country—that there were not sufficient barracks. Are these foreigners to occupy the barracks which might otherwise be given to the militia; and on that account are the militia not to be embodied, or are the militia to occupy barracks, and are the foreigners to be billeted upon our families? Why, the noble Duke knows that it is impossible—that it would not be borne; and that if we get men it will be impossible to keep them in this country, unless you put them under canvas. There

353
is another question which I wish to ask. I beg to inquire, if these men are to be engaged in Her Majesty's service and are to be formed into battalions, why they are to come here? This is not the straight way to the Crimea; and why send every Swiss rifleman who may wish to discharge his gun at the Russians in the Crimea round by London and the Bay of Biscay? Is that the way that any of those aspirants to military glory and British pay should go from the banks of the Maine and the Weser to the Crimea? The noble Duke is following precedent, no doubt; but in the last war, when Austria wanted all her subjects, when half Germany was against us, and no rivers were open to us but the Elbe and Weser, it was absolutely necessary that those men should come through this country and be formed into battalions; but that is not the case now. All the railways are open; their shortest way is by Trieste, and not by Hamburg. The best place for the formation of their depôt is the Ionian Islands. There they can look after "those worthy Greeks," "that noble people"—refresh their recollections of antiquity, and alter the opinion, perhaps, which they originally entertained of that "great people." However that may be, that is the place to form the depôt. The depôt becomes a reserve. It is near the Crimea; the road is shorter, and you avoid all the difficulties of this Bill. Take your foreigners, if you please, to the Crimea, but don't take them through England—don't offend us with their presence—don't give them our barracks or our billets. Why come down to Parliament for this measure to enable them to shoulder the militia out of England into the Mediterranean, and out of their barracks into the street? Send them by railway to Trieste, and from Trieste to the Ionian Islands. There you will have them ready for service, and no one will greatly object to it. I say this with the greatest confidence—the more facilities Parliament gives the Government for the formation of foreign regiments, the less trouble the Government will take to raise English regiments. The whole is a question of standard and bounty. Raise your bounty and lower your standard, and you have your men. Keep your standard as it is and lower your bounty, follow the principles of political economy, go to the cheapest market, get the worst article, come and tell us that you have so many Germans now fighting our battles—do that, and add that you have
354
expelled the Englishman from your army and have substituted the foreigner for him. My Lords, I must say that it appears to me, that of all the measures which I recollect, under any circumstances, produced at any time, by any Government, this is the most ungracious towards a generous and a confiding people.
Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this day Six Months."
LORD BERNERSsaid, that the House had not been favoured with any arguments from the Government in support of this measure, and, notwithstanding any imputation of want of patriotism to which he might subject himself, he should oppose it. He believed the proposal of the Government to be highly objectionable, and calculated to repress, and not to encourage, that spirit of noble enthusiasm which had hitherto animated the population of this country; and he was confident it would prove to be not only unconstitutional, but unpopular, for it amounted to a confession that our constitutional means were exhausted. He must protest against the assumption that any Peer on that side the House, who might be venturesome enough to oppose any proposition of the Government, was either factious or unpatriotic. He was himself engaged to no man, and there were many other Members of their Lordships' House whose conduct was influenced by an entire devotion to the honour and glory of the country, and by an anxious desire to carry out in the most effective manner all measures that might be necessary to bring the Present war to a favourable termination.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he apprehended that the argument used by his noble Friend (the Duke of Newcastle) was, not that the measure proposed by Her Majesty's Government should not be discussed—for that was the clear duty of Pariiament—but that noble Lords opposite should take into consideration the great difficulties which must be met by Government in carrying on a great war, and should approach the discussion of their measures with a desire to consider them calmly, with the view of ascertaining whether they were required by the necessities of the times, and not for the purpose of making them a handle to appeal to the passions of the people, the result of which must only be to embarrass Government. It appeared to him that there had been, both in that House and out of doors, a most singular misapprehension of the in-

355
tentions of Government in bringing forward this Bill, and also with respect to the object and principles of the Bill itself. He imagined that Her Majesty's Government disapproved as much as noble Lords opposite the principle of generally employing foreign troops; and he was convinced that every Peer in that House, and every man throughout the country, would always prefer that its battles should be fought by Englishmen. It was not, however, because Englishmen were not ready or able to fight the battles of their country—it was because a policy, which might or might not have been right, had so reduced the military establishment of the country in time of peace that on the sudden outbreak of a war with a great military Power, and when it had become necessary to send out reinforcements commensurate with the interests at stake, it was necessary to have recourse to a measure of this kind for a temporary purpose. It must also be borne in mind that Government had no compulsory means of enlistment, and he believed that no Government would ever be able to employ compulsory measures with effect. It would be a warning to the country and to future Governments not to reduce their military establishments too low in time of peace, and also a warning to calmly consider, in time of peace, the best means of raising their military establishment in cases of sudden emergency. It might be disagreeable to have recourse to foreign troops, but the question was, whether it was not expedient under present circumstances. The objection which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) so enlarged upon in the conclusion of his speech was, he apprehended, at once disposed of by the Amendment suggested by the noble Duke the Secretary of War. There would, therefore, be no question on the point of constitutional doctrine, and he thought that any mention of the constitution had been most unfortunately introduced by the noble Earl opposite. He (Lord Wodehouse) understood the object of the Bill to be this—that whereas it required some months to make men trained soldiers, there were a number of the troops of other countries, who had been enlisted for a certain time, and were now on the point of being discharged, and who were both at liberty and willing to enter into the service of other countries, and in this case Government would be able to collect a number of soldiers already trained, and send them to the seat of the war as quickly as possible.
356
If the Government were unable to continue to reinforce Lord Raglan's army with a number of trained soldiers, this expedient was surely one which they ought to adopt. Under these circumstances, he trusted the House would take a dispassionate view of the case, and, looking on the measure as one of public necessity, would consent to the Bill as proposed by Government.
THE EARL OF HARDWIGKEsaid: A speech of a more depressing character to the feelings of the country than the one just delivered by the noble Lord I have never heard. He has stated that we are going to raise foreign troops from the necessity of the case. He has stated that we are obliged to have recourse to this expedient for the purpose of fighting the enemies of our country. Expressions more degrading, I think, were never uttered in the British House of Parliament, or more likely to urge the Emperor of Russia to prosecute the war, and to depress the spirit of this country. I could not believe it possible that any British Peer in this House, at this moment, could have uttered so cringing, so debasing, and so degrading an expression—
LORD WODEHOUSE: I must protest against the expressions of the noble Earl as far too strong—really what I have said does not deserve such epithets, and the noble Earl must be under entire misapprehension of what I did say. The noble Earl has used expressions so extremely strong that I trust the House will allow me to explain. When I say the necessities of the case oblige us to have recourse to foreign soldiers, because we have not a sufficient number of soldiers of our own, I state the main reason why we want foreign soldiers. If we have enough of our own, why employ foreign troops? Having reduced our Army too low in time of peace, we must for a time have recourse to trained foreign soldiers. That, I apprehend, is stating a fact as a good reason for this measure. I maintain that my words are such as any British Peer may use; that the argument I used with the best and fairest intention, in defence of the Government proposition, ought not to be characterised in terms not often applied to the language of any gentleman.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I assure your Lordships I strictly adhere to the expressions I used. I will not retract any of those expressions in the smallest degree. My opinion is, that the idea expressed by the words of the noble Lord conveys senti-

357
ments degrading to the people of this country, and will convey to the Emperor of Russia an idea that the military affairs of this country are in an exhausted condition. The noble Lord must know that, in using the expressions I did, I used them in their strict sense as a Member of Parliament, not stating that his idea is degrading to himself personally. The effect produced on the minds of every one is, that the idea is itself degrading—the people of England are reduced to the necessity of employing foreign legions to carry on a war which has been designated by the Ministers themselves as a war for freedom and for the protection of the free interests of the people of Europe.
LORD WODEHOUSE: I rise merely for the purpose of saying that, although the noble Earl has used expressions not usually used by one gentleman towards another, if I understand what he now says, I may be satisfied with his explanation. The noble Earl commenced by saying he would not retract the expressions, but he afterwards said he did not intend them to apply personally to me, but merely to an argument of the kind.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I shall make no use of any expressions of the kind. I am not called upon to make any apology to the noble Lord. The expressions I used were of that character and that open nature which I am entitled to use in Parliament as a Member of Parliament, not meaning them in any way or in any sense whatever but the sense in which a Member of Parliament is entitled to discuss a great question. The noble Lord has stated truly that the reason this country is reduced to this lamentable condition is because, during a long period of peace, so necessitous seemed to be the wants of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or so desirous were the people to cut down the expenditure for the national defences, that when suddenly, as he states, we are called upon to go to war, we have not the means of carrying it on. I should like to ask the noble Lord opposite, which party in this House has been most accustomed to call for great reductions of the national forces? I should like to know where the call for these great reductions spring from—if not from too great a concession to the feelings of the commercial interests, backed up by those hon. and noble Gentlemen who now carry on the Government? It cannot be fixed on any on this side of the House; the charge, if it be a charge at all, falls with
358
greater force on noble Lords opposite than on us. I conceive it to be one nf most important features in war that the taxes raised for carrying it on, taken out of the pockets of the rich, should be put into the pockets of our own poor; and if we are to raise taxes to pay troops, for God's sake pay troops of your own nation, and do not pay troops of foreigners; let the taxes be for the purpose of at least giving assistance and support to the families of your own soldiers. I can conceive nothing more thoroughly disagreeable to the feelings of this country, or more detrimental to its best interests, than the proposition now before us. I think the first effect of it will be to repress the national ardour, and the next effect to interfere with the recruiting of the militia. if it is believed that foreign troops are to be employed to carry on the war, there will be found a great disinclination on the part of the people to enlist, and those who have been anxiously and earnestly at work in raising English troops will not continue in the same disposition. I am confident there is no need for this mode of raising troops, and that this measure will be one of the greatest dampers on the hearts and minds of the people, who are now eager to enter the service of the Crown and meet the exigency of the time. I can understand how such a measure may be necessary at sonic future period. It might be found necessary to raise troops among what are called the "oppressed nationalities," to raise Poland and other nations connected with the Government of Russia against that Power; then I can perfectly well conceive the necessity for such a Bill as this; but at present trust neither the Government nor the people are ready to carry on war in this manner. The time may come when the necessities of the case may make it perfectly justifiable to raise the oppressed nations, and to call upon those people to join us in operations of a military character against the forces of Russia; but to make the proposition so early in the war is to me a subject of depressing character, and I could not have believed that any statesman would have called upon us to put our hands to such a work, at the present moment. I, for my part, repudiate the notion of enlisting those disaffected people against their own Sovereign, convinced as I am that the power of the country, the readiness of the people, and our great resources, if brought into play under good guidance, will be amply sufficient to meet the emergency, and that

359
this mode—so depressing and so degrading in itself—is perfectly unnecessary.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought the noble Earl would feel that the line he had taken was not the most judicious or advisable, when discussing a cause in which all classes were united. He thought that it was no very great spectacle, either for our Allies or our enemies, to see in that House one noble Lord bandying unworthy epithets with respect to the argument of another, and that, when all classes were so singularly unanimous, it was a dangerous mode of conducting argument to make an uncalled-for attack on the commercial part of the community. Nor did he think the observation upon "peace establishments" fell with a good grace from the noble Earl, when the Government to which he belonged only added 5,000 men to the Army and 2,000 men to the Navy, and then declared that everything had been done which could possibly be expected. Sometimes, in cases such as these, it was worth while to look back to what had been done on former occasions, and this morning he looked over the debates of 1804, and he found, with one exception, exactly the same arguments used against the Bill of that year as were used now. It was said to be unconstitutional. That point had been much dwelt upon, and he must say, judging from the degree of danger to the constitution from the presence of 16,000 foreign troops during the period of the last war, we need not very much fear their presence here now. He believed it was mere talk to apprehend any such danger, and that they might have double the number of foreigners in this country without risk of any harm to the constitution. The noble Earl seemed to think there would be really more danger in having foreign troops in this country than if they were sent to our Mediterranean colonies. He thought there might be some danger in filling our Mediterranean colonies with foreign troops, but he was perfectly sure there would be no danger in organising them here. The intention of the Government was now made clear by the alteration of the words adopted from the two preceding Acts, and he was perfectly sure that the misrepresentations which had been attempted would fail in creating any alarm in the minds of the people of England. The other argument was, that foreign troops were not so efficient as English troops; but any one who had read the history of the Peninsular war would know that the Duke of Welling-
360
ton entertained a very high opinion of the services of the Portuguese, and the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had the other evening borne the strongest testimony to the extreme efficiency of the German troops during that war. The only difference in the arguments was this: the noble Earl said, "It may be quite right to have foreign troops, but not in the beginning of the war;" and the opponents of the previous Bills said, "You have already 100,000 Englishmen in arms, what is the use of adding some few thousands of foreigners to them?" The noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) made a very proper distinction when he said, he supported the war, but he did not support the Ministry. That was perfectly intelligible; but if he thought the Ministers were not the persons to carry on the war, that ought to be brought to an issue, and the question decided whether the present Government was to carry on the war or not. According to the description of the noble Earl, a War Ministry should have at its head one giant, and the more idiotical the rest of his companions the better. As he had just observed, if it were thought the Ministers were not fitted for war, let it be decided whether they should continue in office or not; but he entreated them not to come back, after making patriotic and conciliatory speeches at the beginning of the Session, and upon every measure introduced with the disinterested and single-minded purpose of carrying on the war with vigour, endeavour to create unfounded prejudice against those measures. If they took that course he had no hesitation in saying for himself, and he was sure he might say for his colleagues also, that it would be utterly impossible to carry on the war with any real vigour or efficiency.
LORD VIVIANdid not see why we should rely upon foreign mercenaries when there was such a readiness on the part of the people of this country to come forward and enlist. His noble father commanded certain German troops, and he could, therefore, hear the best testimony to the gallantry of the Hanoverians, Brunswickers, and others who served with the British army during the late war. But circumstances now were widely different, because, during the late war, Germany and England were engaged together in a war upon a common enemy. All the Germans, except Saxony, were with us in that contest, and it was then well to enlist the Germans and Hanoverians under the rule of the So-

361
vereigns of the respective countries. If Germany were now fighting with us against the common enemy, he should support, the present Bill, but, under existing circumstances, he considered it so dangerous and unnecessary that he should be compelled to record his vote against it.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that he felt obliged to vote in favour of the Bill, to which, however, he saw great objections. Two reasons would guide his vote. The Government came forward and told the House that they were in want of men, and that this measure would enable them to obtain them. He was not, in such a case, inclined to take upon himself the responsibility of opposing them. He believed that, in the present state of their forces, there was an immediate want of men ready trained for action, and Government had said that this measure would give them men who would be immediately serviceable, and he could not, consequently, incur the responsibility of refusing. He agreed with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) that they had had a very meagre explanation, and that they had no means of ascertaining what had been done in the way of enlistment in this country, and what was the number of recruits which had lately been obtained. Although the Army at the time of the former war was much greater than it was now, with an increased population, and although he believed that the recruiting for the regular army had not at any time been greater than it had been during the present year, and the military spirit of the country might have been appealed to with still greater effect, still, if Government said that they wanted men ready trained for war, and could obtain them thus, he was willing to take the measure on their responsibility, For, if Parliament were to refuse the first measure so proposed and so offered to them at the early part of the Session, it would have a dangerous effect upon the country, and abroad. However loud they might be in the denunciations of Russia, and however zealous in their professions for the glory and interest of their own country, if, when called on in such a manner by Government, they were to hesitate, even on what lie agreed were sound principles, he thought that such hesitation would be most mischievous. With regard to the measure he should hold himself perfectly blameless, for the responsibility must rest with the Government; but, looking to the pressure upon
362
Government, and to the effect which an adverse vote that night would have upon foreign nations, he could not bring himself to vote for the rejection of the Bill. When, however, the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) expressed his surprise that it should be thought that it was part of his intention to employ these foreign troops at home, he fell into an error. One of his (the Marquess of Clanricarde's) earliest recollections was the remembrance of the German troops which were quartered in Ireland during the late war, and it was natural, when the precedent of those days was cited, and when it was proposed that foreign troops should again be introduced into this country, to suppose that they would be quartered in the country as formerly—it might be, for the purpose of again resisting foreign invasion or of quelling disturbances—but it was natural to suppose that they would be used in every case in which the native troops were used. On this ground he thought the Bill should not have been introduced without the most positive necessity. Whether such a necessity existed he did not know; but he took it on the authority of Government, who said that by this Bill they would get ready and serviceable troops which were urgently required at the moment, and he threw the responsibility on them.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I Concur, almost from the beginning to the end, in what has fallen from my noble Friend who has just sat down, but I cannot concur in his conclusion, because it appears to me to be contrary to the whole tenor and argument of his speech. He admits the force of the objections that have been raised to this Bill on constitutional grounds, and the inconvenience and danger of adopting the course proposed by the Government. He admits that the Government have shown a very meagre case with regard to the plea of necessity that they have put forward; but he says, as long as the Government asks for troops to carry on the war, so long is the House bound to grant the troops that the Government ask. Now, my Lords, so long as the Government, acting in the discharge of their Government duties, and more especially so long as they are prosecuting a war of this consequence and magnitude, I hold that very great latitude should be given to them, and that they should be supported so far as support can possibly be given to them consistently with

363
constitutional principle, even at some sacrifice of private feelings. But, in the discussion which has taken place to-night, the powerful speech of my noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough), delivered with more than his usual eloquence, ability, and power, has completely disposed of every part of this question, and that speech has never been attempted to be grappled with by one Member of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for the Foreign Department (Lord Wodehouse) has taken exception to the terms in which my noble and gallant Friend (the Earl of Hardwicke) has characterised the arguments he used. But, without intending anything disrespectful to the noble Lord opposite, I entirely concur with my noble Friend in thinking that the arguments on which he rested his case—the plea of necessity that he put forward in such piteous tones to the House of Lords for the purpose of inducing them to adopt a measure bad and unconstitutional in itself—is one degrading to the Government to bring forward, and humiliating to the country to accept, That plea of necessity—of so-called, but not proved necessity—is the only reason that induces my noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde), contrary to his own judgment, to give to the Government the support of his vote, while to us (the Opposition) he gives the benefit and support of his speech. I hope, after what has passed this evening—after the alterations the Government have at once consented to introduce, the moment that feeling had been excited out of doors by this Bill—but alterations which they ought not to have been ready to make if they had really had in view those momentous considerations involved in the measure—a measure not even brought forward on the sole plea of necessity, as an objectionable, but as a last and unavoidable remedy—I say, my Lords, if the measure had been brought forward in that character and under such circumstances, the Government ought to have been prepared to adhere to and vindicate every syllable of it; but because it is not a well-considered Bill, and because they did not themselves care to say whether the number of hired foreign troops in this country was to be 10,000 or 15,000—seeing that they had not considered the objects and calculated the effects the Bill would produce—for these reasons, in the first moment of a cry out of doors, to alter, even to modify, and, I admit, to improve
364
the measure—I hope that these alterations, so made under the circumstances, and that submission to opinion out of doors, will speak for themselves, and that they will furnish a complete answer to any charge made against noble Lords on this side of the House of unfairly harassing the Government. My Lords, so far as the great question is concerned, we have carried forbearance to the utmost. [The Duke of ARGYLL: Hear, hear.] The noble Duke cheers in a very ironical manner; but I ask him whether he does not consider it to be a matter of forbearance when, upon a question involving the deepest interests of the country and great constitutional principles, we are satisfied that Government should call Parliament together to discuss such a measure not ten days before the necessary breaking up of Parliament; and when, in consequence of the short space of time which we have left us for the discussion of the public business of the country, we not only permit them to introduce that measure and read it a second time without opposition and without discussion, without even having it printed on the morning on which the discussion should have taken place, but allow them to proceed to the next stage on the very following day? When was a Bill of so much consequence, on which there was a material difference of opinion in the House, and a difference of opinion (which the Government have been obliged to admit) out of doors—when was a Bill of that kind permitted to pass with so much haste and so little consideration? Now I hope I have sufficiently answered the taunting cheer on the part of the noble Duke opposite with reference to the forbearance manifested by this side of the House. My Lords, I say, if this Bill be justified on the plea of necessity, that is a necessity for which Her Majesty's Government ought to be responsible. The noble Earl the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Granville), in reply to some observations which had fallen from my noble and gallant Friend behind me (the Earl of Hardwicke) on the reduction of the military establishments in time of peace, thought it necessary to advert to the little progress which was made during the short time my noble Friend and myself held office, in raising those military establishments. During the ten months for which we held office, I will venture to say that, although we were by no means satisfied we had done everything which might have been required towards the in-

365
crease of the naval and military establishments, yet that a greater increase was made in the number, amount, and efficiency, both of the naval and military departments than had been made for the space of ten or twelve years previously. It was not only that we added 5,000 men to the army and 2,000 to the navy; I should like to know what Her Majesty's Government would have done at the present moment if, in 1852, we had not raised and organised, in spite of much opposition, the militia of the kingdom? it is very convenient for noble Lords now to laud the militia as an invaluable corps and a supplementary army; but did we not meet with opposition in attempting to institute that corps?—what predictions of failure and of inability to carry out our plans—what predictions of a want of public spirit in the nation, of the necessity of having recourse to the ballot, and of all the other elements that could tend to defeat our object? Yet we triumphed over all that opposition in the House; we found no opposition out of the House. At the end of that time, when we had raised the militia to an amount beyond which you have not attempted to carry it since, we are told now, forsooth, that we did nothing in 1852 towards remedying the deficiency of a peace establishment! Is that all? I ask the noble Earl opposite to consult the noble Lord the Commander in Chief of the Forces if he is of that opinion. I ask the noble Earl to inquire of him what was the state of the artillery, of the guns and gun carriages, and what were the means of carrying on a war, if it had come upon us within a twelvemonth of 1852. I ask the noble Earl to inquire of the noble Commander in Chief where Her Majesty's Government would have been at this moment but for the provision of guns and carriages made in 1852. I might go further. I will ask the noble Earl to go to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, and to inquire of him what he thinks of the introduction, in the course of these ten months, of no less than nine screw line-of-battle ships, which never would have been afloat at this moment but for the exertions—to which justice has never been done—of my noble Friend (the Puke of Northumberland). From no feeling of pride on my own part, but from a feeling of the justice that is due to my colleagues in that Administration, I will say that in those ten months more was done for strengthening the army and navy in time of peace and secur-
366
ing efficiency in case of war, for the administration of the military and naval services and the increase of our naval force, than had been done in many years previous, or than, I believe, has been done since, until the immediate pressure of the moment began to be felt. But now we are told that this is a case of necessity, and that the war has come upon us all of a sudden. But the war has not come all of a sudden upon any single person, except upon Her Majesty's Ministers. The whole of the rest of the world anticipated the war for the last two years—or for the last eighteen months at all events. And for the last eighteen months you ought to have been levying forces and increasing by every means both the regular army and the militia, so as to relieve you from this degrading necessity, as I will continue to call it, to come to Parliament before the first year of the war is well over, and to say that you have not the means of carrying it on without the aid of foreign troops. I will not go through all the arguments that have been used with regard to the means you have of raising these German troops; from what quarters you are likely to derive them, and whether with or against the consent, or with the contrivance, of their respective. Sovereigns—I will not ask whether, under those circumstances, you are likely to obtain the best and most valuable troops; but this I will say, that the preamble of the Bill of 1804, to which the noble Duke has made reference—the preamble of that Bill thought it necessary to recite that, "whereas there was a large number of foreigners ready and anxious to take arms in our cause, and to join with us in combating the common enemy, but cannot be admitted into the Royal service without the consent of Parliament," therefore it had been thought fit to make an application to Parliament for leave to take them into our pay.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: The recital is the same as ours.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Have you recited that there are a large number or foreigners partaking of your sentiments, involved in the same interests, having the same objects in view with yourselves? Can you recite that?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: No; but the other recites what we do.
THE EARL OF DERBY: if the other recites only what Her Majesty's Government do, it recites very little indeed. The other recited that there was a very large

367
body of men anxious and willing to enter our service. The Government knew from whence they were to come, on what kinds of service they could be employed, and for what reasons and to what extent they could be relied upon; for those reasons the Government demanded the permission of Parliament to incorporate them in our army. But you, where are you going to get your large body of men? You will not say. I do not believe you know. I think it is extremely doubtful whether you are likely to get them at all, either with or without the consent of the petty Sovereigns of Europe whose subjects they would most likely be. But you say you must have them. How many do you require? What is the amount of your necessities? What number will you seek of those indispensable German troops without whom you cannot carry on the war.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: the Emperor of Russia would be extremely obliged to me if I would tell him.
TEE EARL OF DERBY: You have already told the Emperor of Russia that without German troops you are unable to maintain the honour of your country. The noble Duke thinks he has said something exceedingly smart; but when he comes to ask the House of Commons for leave to incorporate them, and for a sum of money to pay them, he will be obliged to state the real number, whether five or fifty thousand, for whom he makes the demand. Therefore, really, do not tell me that the amount of your requisition upon Germany is kept a secret from the Emperor of Russia. But I think it is as great a secret to Her Majesty's Government, both the number wanted and the number you are likely to obtain. But let the amount be what it may, you have declared it a matter of paramount and overwhelming necessity that you should have those German troops. I think it was stated on the other side of the House that, so far as Parliament is concerned, the Government might engage those troops on their own authority, but that they could not introduce them into the country. I cannot subscribe to any such proposition. My noble Friend has shown quite conclusively what would be the shortest way to pass these troops into the Crimea. You yourselves say you do not want to keep them in this country, and in that you only speak the opinion of the country, who do not want ever to see them, or have anything to do with them at all. But if it
368
is absolutely necessary that you should have those troops, and if you have the power of employing them without the sanction of Parliament, you have not the power of bringing them into England. Yet if you choose to take upon yourselves the responsibility of intrusting to such hands the honour and the safety of the country—for nothing short of a question of the safety of the country can justify your course—then I say, take that responsibility upon yourselves alone, ask the House of Commons, if you will, to pay them, but do not ask Parliament to sanction that course, nor to put their fiat, which I am sure I for one never can do, to the assertion that the necessities and the honour of the country demand the employment of a mercenary band. It has been from the earliest times—from the period of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire down to the period at which Alfieri penned those memorable words,
"Del non suo ferro cinta,
Pugnar con braccia di streniere genti"—
from all times, and in all countries, the hiring of mercenaries has been the surest mark of the weakness of a nation, and the certain sign of approaching decay. I do not believe that England is in that state. I do not believe that, if proper measures were taken to raise a proper amount of troops, you would have any difficulty in finding as many soldiers as you desired. I am told that at the present moment, although you have somewhat lowered the standard, yet you might with safety lower it considerably further. I believe that lowering the standard, and increasing the bounty, would soon bring a considerable addition of men to your ranks. But I am also told that even at present you refuse a man who has reached the age of thirty years. Now, you want this particular increase at this particular moment. You want it for an immediate occasion, and for a period of some three or four years. Now, I want the Government to tell me, upon that question, whether the men of thirty years of age, in the full power of manhood, and in the greatest activity both of body and mind, are not for four or five years' service infinitely preferable to the lads of seventeen or eighteen whom you are sending out to the Crimea, to a pestilential climate, and to all the toils, hardships, and difficulties in which our troops are now engaged? Lower your standard, increase, if need be, the

369
bounty, increase the age at which you will admit soldiers into the army, and depend upon it you will have no difficulty. If you will tell the country what number you want, a sufficient number will be found to maintain the honour of the country; but I tell you this—if you tell the country that her means are exhausted, and that we must have recourse to foreign troops, because British troops cannot be found or will not come forward, or are too raw and undisciplined to be trusted, then you extinguish the feeling of the country and damp the whole national spirit, which is now entirely and altogether with you. Encourage that spirit, for God's sake, for it is the safeguard of the country; it is the bulwark to which you have to trust; it is, under Providence, your main prospect of carrying this war to a successful and honourable issue. But if you wish to damp that spirit and run counter to the feelings—perhaps I might call them the prejudices—of the country, you check that national ardour which is at this moment of critical importance to the nation's fate—if you intend that to be the result of your legislation, then and not unless, you will press this Bill.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: The noble Earl who had just sat down referred, in a tone of considerable harshness, to a word—which escaped from me in comment upon one of his observations. I do not wish for a single moment to continue any tone of asperity in this debate. I will tell the noble Earl opposite exactly what I meant. I cannot doubt for a single moment that the noble Earl and his Friends are anxious to support any measure which they believe to be absolutely essential for the interests of this country; but I do protest against the noble Earl assuming to himself the merit of extraordinary magnanimity. I do not believe that the noble Earl would oppose the Government in any measure he thought absolutely essential for the safety of the country, but the noble Earl takes every opportunity, whether a real or supposed one, of detracting from the merits of the Government, and importing party spirit into the debate. But what I most complain of in the noble Earl is, that, after the only valid objection which could possibly be alleged to this Bill, founded on ambiguous wording, has been removed, he has continued to speak of this Bill as an unconstitutional measure. I freely admit it would be an unconstitutional measure, if the Government had ever dreamed of
370
bringing in foreign troops to supply the place of the militia of this country, and to use them for the purposes of internal regulation. No such intention ever existed for a single moment in the mind of the Government. They followed the words of the Act of 1804; but as soon as it was pointed out by the noble Earl, in this discussion, that it was capable of bearing such an interpretation, my noble Friend the Minister of War came forward voluntarily, and said that, if the words could possibly bear such a meaning, he was willing other words should be used expressly to exclude such signification. There is another point on which I complain, not of intentional, but of unintentional unfairness on the part of the noble Earl opposite. He goes on to talk—and all the arguments of the noble Earl, which almost pass the fair limits of debate, are founded on this—he goes on to talk of the damping character of this measure, as a confession of weakness—a declaration that we are reduced to it as a last necessity. He asks us, what is the "absolute necessity" of the Bill. Really, my Lords, there are degrees of necessity and of expediency. We do not say Britain will absolutely sink if we do not get foreign soldiers. All we say is, that going into this war, after many years of peace, after a peaceful policy tending much to reduce the standing army of this country, we now find ourselves engaged in a great operation, for which we require an immediate addition to our forces, and that, although we have perfect and absolute reliance fully as great as that which noble Lords can place on the spirit and energies of this country—although my noble Friend behind me has himself told me that the volunteering for the militia and the recruiting for the line are going on at an increasing ratio (God grant they may long continue to do so!)—nevertheless, upon an immediate emergency, we thought it our duty to be prepared for all possible contingencies; and, although we do not say that it is an absolute and indispensable necessity, such as the noble Earl describes it to be, we do say that it may probably be most important to have the aid of some foreign troops. I say we do not come to Parliament in a cringing spirit. We do not represent before the Emperor of Russia this country as having exhausted its resources. We say we are but beginning to draw upon our resources—we are confident they will be sufficient; but we say we are engaged in a great and important operation; and I will

371
ask the noble Lords how they will reconcile with their consciences all their appeals to passion—which I will say partake more of the character of claptrap than anything I have ever heard in this House. Talk about the hire of mercenaries, when the noble Earl knows himself that the noblest victories won under the Duke of Wellington were won partly by the assistance of those whom the noble Earl degrades as hirelings! Ay, and the noble Duke, a colleague of the noble Earl, who is intentionally absent on this occasion because he cannot agree in the noble Earl's objections to the Bill—that noble Duke came forward the other night and told you that a nobler part was never played than that of those whom you are now stigmatising as mercenaries. But it is pretended that there are distinctions between the cases. Not only was there no distinction in respect to their being mercenaries; they were many of them not subjects of the same Sovereign. But the noble Earl goes on and points out another distinction. He argues as if there were no common interest. We believe that there are bodies of men who will be willing to assist the troops of England in this war, because it is a European war. We believe the analogy is precise. We believe the German Legion took part in the victories of Wellington, because they believed that there was being fought on the plains of Spain a contest not national, but European, and that every fortress taken and every victory gained was a fortress surrendered by tyranny, and a battle won in the cause of freedom. We believe this legion will go with precisely the same feeling. Do not misrepresent our language; do not tell us we say that the resources of England are exhausted. We deny it—we say they are not only not exhausted, but that we are only beginning to draw upon them; but we say that Lord Raglan and his gallant army are engaged in a great and possibly a perilous undertaking. How will you reconcile it with your consciences if by your rejection of this measure you prevent the Government placing at Lord Raglan's disposal, for immediate operations, seine 10,000 or 15,000 gallant, possibly German troops, interested as you are in repulsing the power of Russia, and in reducing his great stronghold in the Euxine? Although I do not believe that noble Lords opposite are guided by unpatriotic motives, I believe they have allowed themselves to be led away by the claptrap language I have just
372
spoken of, which ought to have no weight at all in deciding your Lordships' opinions.
THE EARL OF DERBYhoped, although the noble Duke had unfortunately revealed the secret whence these troops were to be raised, that the Emperor of Russia would not bear of it. But the noble Duke had fallen into a mistake with regard to his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond), who, in making a few observations upon presenting a petition yesterday, stated that he made them then because he should he unable to be present at this debate, as he was going down to-day to take the command of his regiment.
On Question that "now" stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided:—Content 55; Not Content 43: Majority 12.
Resolved in the Affirmative. House in Committee accordingly.
Amendments made: the Report thereof to be received To-morrow.
House adjourned till To-morrow.