The Press. — London, England, 1854-03-25 00:00:00

a M.kncn 5, 1854. strongly—that can extricate him from the position in which he has been placed." Meeting the objection so often urged by Ministers, that no criticisms should be offered upon Ministerial conduct unless the critic were ready to follow it up by immediately proposing a vote of want of confi dence, Mr. Disraeli remarked that it was apparent the Government had no confidence in the house or evert in themselves, anti contrasted the expressions of different Ministers on different occasions and subjects to show how loose and conflicting had been their opinions all round " I Litow there is a retort to which I am open. I have heard it already during the session, and, fur aught I know, the right hun. gentleman may jump up and use it again. He may say, ' Well, if that is your opinion, why do you not come forward boldly and propose a vote of want of con fidence in her Majesty's Ministers?' (Loud cries of ' Hear, hear.') I believe the retort has already been made six times during the present session, and probably not less than six hundred times in this and other Parliaments. But, sir, these are good reasons why we should offer criticism on the conduct of the Ministry, or a branch of the Ministry, and why we do not come forward to propose a vote of no confidence. There is no necessity fur proposing a vote of no confidence in the present Administration. I think it is a useless ceremony. (Cheers and laughter.) It is quite unnecessary, in my mind, to waste the time of the. House of Commons by such a vote, for this simple reason, that it is apparent, notorious, and proved to all, that they have no confidence in each other. (Cheers and laughter.) Let us look a little at the conduct of our Ministers. I shall treat the subject, whatever answer 1 may receive, with fairness. I will not have recourse to any little test. I will try them by a great test. In deciding the question whether the present Government have confidence in them selves, I will take the greatest subject which we have at the present moment—l will take the vast question of peace or war. What confidence, what possible confidence, can we have in this Cabinet, who have involved us in that extraordinary position in which the country now finds it. self? (Hear, hoar.) Is there a man among them who can tell us what we are going to war about? Is there a man among them who can tell us what is the object at this moment of their councils? I will not quote a single person except themselves. Why, there is the noble lord who is not here, but who generally sits opposite to me—a Secre tary of State—he has declared his opinion upon this great subject of foreign politics. He told us at the end of the last session of Parliament, in almost the only speech of ability and spirit which we have heard upon the subject, that we were going to war, and what we were going to war for. He said, `We are going to war because we believe the independence and integrity of Turkey are assailed, and because we believe the interests of England to be involved in maintaining the independence and integrity of Turkey. We look upon the independence and integrity of Turkey, said the noble lord, ' as facts, and our opinion is, that there is as much vitality and life in Turkey as in ether countries, our allies, our competitors. or our rivals.' The noble lord said more than that ; he said, ' Not only do I believe that Turkey is as active as she was, but I be lieve she is absolutely progressive. (live her a fair trial: her maintenance is easy, and is most profitable to the interests of England, to the cause of freedom, and to the civilisation of the world. A.ll the highest impnlses that should influence men ought to induce them to support at this moment the independence and integrity of Turkey.' Loud cheers followed the speech of the noble lord. Well, what happened a short time after that? Why, there was the statesman whose conduct T have bad occasion to criticise this evening; he went about the country and paid a visit to the great commercial city of Manchester, at a time when there was great depression in the country with respect to the affairs of Turkey, and when men with resolute minds began to think that that was occurring which would prove most fatal to the supremacy of this country, and to the cause of justice, of truth, and of free. dom. What did the right honourable gentleman say upon that occasion? Did be agree with the Secretary of State? Not at all. He said, ' Things look very bad; but what can von expect? You must prepare yourselves for the worst. the independence and integrity of Turkey, which people talk about, are not facts—they are fantasies and phantoms. You must not consider the independence and integrity of Turkey as anything like European questions.' The right honourable gentleman quibbled away the independence and integrity of Turkey—( Hear, hear, hear) — and seemed to have in view that plan of partition which has but recently come to our knowledge. (Cheers.) And this is the Minister of Finance who to-night is going to double the income tax in order to maintain the independence and integrity of Turkey. (Cheers. ) Then a noble Secretary of State in the other House of Parliament told us the other night what we were going to tight for, and I was grateful for a moment to a member of her Majesty's Government. ( A laugh.) He said, 'We are going to fight for the rights of the Christian subjects of the Porte. That is our cause. We are resolved, and we shall stipulate that there shall be equality of rights and , privileges between the Christian subjects and all other subjects of the Porte.' I believe loud cheers followed that speech also. What happened the next day? The noble lord the Secretary of State in this house, who is supposed to have some knowledge of our foreign policy, said in the most distinct way, and in tones that he knew would re-echo through all Europe, that he did not imagine for a moment that any man would entertain the idea of our obtaining privileges for the Christian subjects of the Sultan—that that would be acting as badly as the Emperor of Russia himself—and that, if we obtained au equality of privileges between the different subjects of the Sultan, we should put an end to the Turkish empire. And yet, when those gen tlemen have no confidence in their mutual opinions, I am • to be taunted and told it is my duty to propose that the House of Commons shall so stultify itself that we are Rh- THE PRESS. solutely to vote that we have no confidence in them. Rut is that all) The noble lord the leader of this lipase like wise described the war in which IN e are going to embark. He described the war as a holy war—as a just war—a war for justioe, tbr truth, and for public freedom—and in a manner which I admired, in a most solemn and fitting manner, he invoked the name of the Most High upon that war. What happened the next night in another place ? Why, the leader of that house told us, 1 believe, that he thought that war was not yet inevitable, and that in his opinion war was a curse. If it be a war for justice, fur truth, and for public iiberty—a war to arrest the progress of a colossal despotism, to maintain the interests of this country, and to secure and promote the progress of civi lisation—it is not a curse ; but, it it be not fur thoscobjects, then I say the noble lord is not justified in csamselling his Sovereign to embark in it. (Hear.) Such is your po. sition upon the Turkish question—upon a question which we are told confideutially alone keeps you together ILI a Ministry. (Cheers.) There are similar differences among these gentlemen upon other subjects ; but when a nation is at war its tiovennneut should not be disturbed! I would like to know how the war is to be carried on with efficiency and success by men who have not settled what the object of the war is. The war has been brought about by two op posite opinions in the Cabinet. (Cheers.) That has led to all the vacillation, all the perplexity, all the fitfulness, all the timidity, and all the occasional violence that have oc curred. (Cheers.) If the noble lord the leader of this house-I speuk my solemn conviction—had remained Minister of this country—if the noble lord the Secretary of State, who is not here, had been Minister of this country -if Lord Derby bad continued Minister of this country — nay, if Lord Aberdeen-1 wish to state the case fairly—had been hlinister of this country, witlia sympathissing Cabinet, there would have been no war. (hear, hear.) It is a coalition war. (Cheers.) Rival opinions, contrary politics, and discordant systems have produced that vacillation and perplexity that at last you are going to war with an oppo nent who does not want to fight, and you are unwilling to encounter him. (Cheers.). What a mess for a great oountry ! (Cheers.) And this brought about by the splendid administrative talents of the gentlemen opposite. What is your interest on Exchequer Bills compared to that I The financial _faux pas of the Chancellor of the Exchequer may soon be forgotten, and even forgiven. What is the, value of his conversion scheme compared to this duplica tion of the income tax, and to this terrible prospect of war, brought about by the combination of geniuses opposite me * and brought about absolutely by the amount of their taleuti and the discordancy of their opinions? (Cheers and laughter. ) But then they say, if we criticise their policy we are bound immediately to come forward and propose a vote of no confidence in them. I tell them again I will not propose a vote of no confidence in men who prove to me every hour that they have no confidence in each other. Sir, 1 have tried them upon the greatest of all questions—the question of peace or war ; but there are others almost equally great, upon which they may be tested. Why don't you proceed with your Reform Bill ? (Cheers.) That seems at the first sight the only question which you could put in the same cate gory with the questions of foreign policy. Peace or wiu—the disposition and distribution of political power—these are the great and august matters with which it becomes states men to deal. These are the policies upon the recommen dation of which men gain the confidence of nations. It is the sympathy of nations with statesmen who have opinions upon those subjects which entitles them to hold their posi tion. When you have enunciated a policy to a great community—when you have told them that you can prose cute a war with vigour in the vindication of great principles —when you can tell them that you can secure peace at home by arrangements which will last—then the nation will rally round you. When a great statesman declares that he seer' and has deeply considered the signs of the times, and has studied with the patient and fanciful ante lysis that becomes a profound and disciplined mind the condition of the oonnnunity—when he declares that the existing disposition of power is injurious to the permanent interests of the country, and that he is of opinion that • change should take place, and that classes who are not now enfranchised shall be called into a participation of political power—the man who says these things has a right to rally round him great crowds of his fellow-men; but he must not say such things idly—he must not trifle with the public conviction and the public feeling upon such subjects (IVar, hear.) When I know that this Cabinet is an incoherent council upon these subjects—when I know that upon such questions as peace or war and the disposition and distribution of political power there are not two men among them who have the same opinion, that there are not two men among them who have confi dence in each other—l receive the cold taunt and frigid counsel that it becomes me, as the humble leader of a too indulgent party—(a laugh)—to propose a vote of no con fidence in her Majesty's Ministers with the indifference which it deserves. (Cheers.)" Referring to other topics and their home policy, Mr. Disraeli pronounced that the opinions of the Minis ters were equally discordant, and cited many inci dents and passages in late debates regarding reform, education, the university system, and the Protestant cause, to justify his conclusions. Finally, he declared himself unable to support the amendment proposed by Sir H. Willoughby. He foresaw that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would speedily find himself seriously embarrassed for money, and could not consent to do anything to add to the die culties of the country at such a moment. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed upon the discursive nature of the topics which had been touched upon in the course of the prolonged debate, among which the amendment actually before them had occupied bat a small place. Replying to Mr. Disraeli, be observed that the omission to pro. _.~..,~ ~~~ 169 . pose a vote of want of confidence was defended upon the very grounds that should have prompted it; and characterised the conclusion in which that right honourable member had landed his argument as illogical and "recreant." Mr. Gladstoue then proceeded-to vindicate his policy with regard to the reduction of interest on Exchequer Bills, the conver sion of stock, and the partial employment of the Treasury balances in buying up the public debt. He denied, in reference to the reworks of Mr. Hanley, that Government had sought accommodation from the Bank of England, except upon the ordinary terms of the discount market, or were in any way bound under special obligatiune to *at establish ment. He denied, also, that they bad issued any in jurious or unprecedented excess of deficiency bills. Deviating from the example set by previous speakers, he addressed a few remarks to the amendment placed before the house:— " He thoughtit was impossible to accede to that motion. The object of the Government in voting the supplies for a limited time was, that as Parliament would yet sit four or five mouths there would be ample time for a reconsideration of the demand. They might have asked for au extravagant sum, or dune as Mr. Pitt did in the breaking out of the first French war. In making up his budget lie took for his extraordinary expenses 1,240,0001., and I'I4'4S:IIOUL heard nu more of the matter until next year, wheu Mr. Pitt had to inform the house, that besides a loan of six millions, or cash, there had been extraordinary expenses unprovided for to the amount of five millions. He thought that such a mode of proceeding would hardly be satisfactory to the llouse of Commons at the present day. Wear.) These were the reasons which had induced the tiovennuent to ask the house for only six months' taxation. Much had been said to disparage the principle of raising the supplies within the year, but he trusted both on moral and practical grounds that the house would adhere to that principle, and he thought he might promise on the part of the Govern ment that, so long as the house did so, the (lovernment would bear their part in maintaining so just and politic system. (Cheers. )" sa: Colonel Suiruoer, after expressing his lack of confidence in the Ministry, and his anxiety to secure a memorable punishment for the Emperor Nicholas, inquired whether, should war not take place, the surplus income tax would be remitted? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER feared that expenses were already incurred more than sufficient to swallow the amount. The amendment was then negatived without a division ; the original resolution was agreed to, and a bill founded upon it was ordered to be intro• duced. The bill founded on the resolution which then passed the committee was brought in at Wetinesday's morning sitting, and read a first time. On Thursday it passed the second reading, after a few words from Sir F. KELLY and Mr. SPOONER, reserving the right of objecting hereafter to the principles on which the pleasure was based. DISFRANCHISEMENT OF CORRUPT ELECTORS.' Leave to introduce five bills for the purification of as many boroughs—namely, Canterbury, Cambridge, Barnstaple, Kingston-upon-Hull, and Maldon—was asked on Monday by the Attorney-General. He ob served that the rep, its of commissioners had fur nished abundant testimony to the existence and the flagrancy of bribery and corruption in all the above-mentioned places, many instances of which were cited by the hon. and learned member. He then proceeded Ito explain the machinery by which he hoped to prevent the like practices in future. The offences, he urged, had * special character in the boroughs in question, and demanded a special remedy. Corruption was too deeply engrafted to be eradicated by a general statute ; but the ipfectionhad spread oely among a part of the constituencies. Wishing, there fore, at once to suppress the guilt and yetpunath only the guilty, he proposed to disfranchise throughout the whole five boroughs all the electors whose cor ruptibility bad been proved before the commissioners who bad investigated the circumstances and incidents attending recent elections in the localities named. Ipl Mr. CAIRNS urged that the guilt of the electors whom the bills would disfranchise could be shown i o only by their own evidence, and that this evidence had been given under a parliamentary guarantee of impunity to the witnesses. Sir J. HAsuen also thought it an unjust proceed ing to induce men to confess their faults by &promise of condonation, and then to punish them after all. The question whether the terms of the Indemnity Act for witnesses examined before election commis sions of inquiries did or not contain a promise which the bills now before the house would violate was discussed at some length. Mr. Phinn, Mr. Ken nedy, Mr. Massey, and the Solicitor-General con tended for the negative view of the case. Mr. Napier, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Walpole, and other members sustained the affirmative, arguing that, however anxious the house might be to put. down corruption, it was a duty still more paramount to keep faith with individuals. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied, and alluded in the course of his remarks to the silence of the member for East Suffolk during the debate. MIIMNIMMI