The Press. — London, England, 1854-07-29 00:00:00

piprg, • I ■ ■ I t 702 persuasion that some members of the Cabinet were anxious only to prosecute the war in a "gentlemanly way." When such suspicions were rife, he contended, the presence of Parliament was essentially necessary —it true, to watch the Ministry ; if false, to shield them from public prejudice. Respecting the con duct of the war, the noble lord gave due credit to the departments for the energy shown in sending out fleets and armies, but mentioned many instances of ill-judgment or neglect, and dwelt especially upon the want of gun-boats both in the Black Sea and the Baltic squadrons. He concluded by declaring that be should have moved an amendment with the view of securing an early meeting of' Parliament, but found that such a course was not consonant to the forms of the house, when in committee of supply. Mr. DISRAEI.I, having originated the suggestion of an autumn session, contended that the proposal was neither unrea.snnable nor inexpedient. But though little progress had been effected towards obtaining that object, the present debate was highly important, having been pregnant with important revelations on the part of the Ministers. Passing by all the faults which he still believed bad led to the war, and abstaining from any criticism on the conduct of commanders, or the details of our preparations, lie proceeded to de clare that the Ministerial revelations now made had filled him with alarm : " I must say I have listened to-night with some degree —I will not say merely of surprise—but of consternation, to the announcement of the complete and absolute resolu tion at which the Cabinet has arrived as to the objects of the war, and the only terms upon which peace is to be made. (Hear, hec.r.) Do not let me misrepresent the noble lord. I understood that he was going without re serve to allow us to be the partners of the secrets of the Cabinet--(Hear, hear)—and that the house should under stand clearly what the objects were which the Government proposed to themselves in the conduct of this war, and without accomplishing which they would not be satisfied —that the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, in the *rat place, are nut to be permitted again to go under the protectorate of Russia. ( Cheers.) That is the first thing to be done. The second point is that the strong fortress of Sebastopol is to be destroyed, and the Crimea to be con quered and occupied. Indeed, that was the necessary con sequence of destroying Sebastopol. " Lord J. Russett interposed : I may as well state that what I said was, that I thought Russia could not be al lowed to maintain the menacing attitude she has done by keeping so large a fleet at Sebastopol. (Cheers.) " Mr. DISRAELI : I have done some good by the course I have taken, for I appeal to every gentleman—(sheers ) I appeal to every hon. member, whether he sits on this side of the house or whatever may be his opinions—whether he has not been for six hours in a fool's paradise '? —(laughter) —whether any speech that has been made has not been guided by an idea totally different from that which the noble tont has given to us now in his statement ? ((.'heeta.)" Mr. Disraeli then referred to expressions used by Mr. Cobden, Lord D. Stuart, and other previous speakers in the course of the debate, to show that they also laboured under the same misapprehension of Lord J. Russell's meaning, and had argued the question from that erroneous view .of the Ministerial policy. Dwelling upon the point, he declared that the mys tification of that evening formed an appropriate climax to those which had prevailed since the coin mencement of the session : " But there is no end to the mystification in which the • house finds itself with reference to the speech which the Lord President never made. We are now at the end of the session. We have had a year and a half of doubt and perplexity ; we have never in preceding years hail such a continued period of perplexity as that in which the public mind has been in as to the policy the Government has been pursuing with reference to Turkey end Russia, and as to the causes and objects of this war. We have now arrived • at the end of the session, and I understand that it was announced .hat we were to-night to receive full compen sation for this obscurity, this want of information, this perplexing hesitation and uncertainty ; but it appears to sae that there never was a period in which we were involved in perplexity, in which the policy of the Government was ' more obscure, or in which our prospects were more vision ary and fluctuating than at present." There was, however, one satisfactory result from the new explanations just given, since they brought into unity the opinions hitherto apparently irreconcilable of Lord Aberdeen and Lord John Russell. They were, however, unanimous only in conducting the war for insignificant objects, and towards a contemptible end : " Really, after what we have heard, there seems great unfairness in the painful distinction which is made at times between the policy of Lord Aberdeen and the policy of some of his colleagues (Hear, hear.) I am no admirer or supporter of Lord Aberdeen, but I am no admirer either of the parliamentary policy which would exonerate individual members of a Cabinet at the expense of their colleagues. It does not at ell appear to me, after the state ment which the noble lord opposite has made of what it was he says he said, that his policy as to linssia substan tially differs from that which Lord Aberdeen has enun ciated : and this, after all, is some satisfaction to the people of lieglund. We have not, then, a die ided Cabinet. (Hear, hear.) The session at last closes upon Ministers in unison on this subject , and, so far as cond' eting the war with small proposes goes, so far as having from great objects of policy mean and insignificant results, the Go vernment, the Coalition Government, appears to be una nimous. (Laughter. and cries of Hear. hear r)" lILMOUB. k /-Nitytoser. THE PRESS. Lord PALMERSTON rejoiced to perceive that the house were unanimous in advocating a vigorous pro secution of the war; and in supporting the Govern ment in their efforts for that purpose. Eve n the leader of the Opposition, he remarked, had raised no objection upon principle, but had contented himself with making an amusing speech founded on a play upon words. Lord J. Russell, he added, had spoken the sentiments of his colleagues, who were united as to the mode of carrying on the war , and, with France and England cordially unified as they were, he did not care who joined them, or who stood aloof. After eulogising the magnificent armaments we had sent out, Lord Palmerston said that if the house had sufficient confidence to grant the vote that was asked it was bound to believe that there would be no want of energy or of judgment in carrying on the war. Lord J. Russell had not overstated the resolution of the Government to prove itself worthy of the confi dence of the house; and when the house met again, be it sooner or later, there would be no reason to think that such confidence had been misapplied. Grateful for pat support, the Government could feel nothing but gratification upon meeting Parlia ment at any time. In the present debate, however, he hoped that the Legislature would show itself unanimous in declaring that the war should be pro secuted until the aggressor could be deprived of the means of again disturbing the peace of the world. Lord D. STUART contended that, as Lord J. Russell had made a retractation of what he had said, and as Lord Aberdeen was repotted to have made a speech nearly diametrically opposite, the house ought to have time to obtain further information. He moved that progress be reported. Lord J. RUSSELL denied that he had retracted anything, and, after some explanation, professed his inability to see why the vote should not be de cided on. Mr. LAYARD supported the motion for adjourning the debate. Mr. GROGAN urged that before the session termi nated the Government should clearly explain and define tha intended policy with regard to the war generally. ' Sir J. SHELLEY had understood from Lord J. Rus sell's speech that the destruction of Sebastopol was to be a sine qud non, and regretted to find that he had been mistaken. A miscellaneous conversation followed, in the course of which many hon. members described their impressions of Lord 3. Russell's meaning originally. At length the vote was allowed to pass, upon the understanding that any further debate should be taken when the report was brought up. To facili tate this object, it was agreed that the motion should come on as the first business on Tuesday evening, several private members who had notices on the paper consenting to waive their right of priority. On Tuesday accordingly the subject was renewed when the vote was being "reported." Lord DUDLEY STUART moved as an amendment the addition of a long paragraph praying the Queen not to prorogue Parliament until better information could be given touching the war and the negotiations, and assigning reasons for that prayer. Referring to the debate of the previous evening, the noble lord contended that Lord John Russell had contradicted himself, and in a later explanation had destroyed the force and point of his original statements. From this and other circumstances he inferred that unity did not prevail among the councillors of the nation ; anti; after observing upon the resultless character of dll our military operations hitherto, conterded that the rublic had cause to fear that, if Parliament were once prorogued over the winter, en attempt would be made to securo peace at all hazards, even by the ac ceptance of dishonourable terms. The motion was seconded by Sir J. SHELLEY. The SECRETARY AT WAR admitted that the amend ment now proposed was not without precedents, but with the distinction that they had always emanated from the opponents of the Government, and were intended to convey a direct censure upon the Minis try. Assuming, however, that there was some idea of impugning the practical operations which Govern ment had set on foot for the purposes of the war, Mr. S. Herbert embarked upon an exculpation and defence of those proceeding*, and entered upon detailed examination and refutation of certain por tions of Mr. Layard's speech of the preceding night, respecting the ordnance and commissariat of the British army in Turkey, dwelling upon the important fact of the health of our troops, and deprecating in vidious comparisons with the French army, whose comforts were, however, not more attended to. He then noticed the remark that the war had as yet pro duced no favourable results. Was it lambing, he asked, to have established a complete and irresistitle blockade of the enemy's ports ? How many pounds had been expended by Russia in erecting that chain of forts by which Circassia was bound, all of which but one had fallen? Even the successes of the Turks had not been unassisted by the arms of their SATURDAY, allies. Remarking upon the impalience which had been exhibited for some brilliant triumph, be pointed to the career of Nelson and Wellington, whose most glorious victories were obtained at long intervals, and were the fruits of protracted operations and patient waiting for opportunities. There were military cri tics, he observed, who seemed not to be content if the enemy ran away, but justified the expressii attributed to the Duke of Wellington, that the peop!e of England were always dissatisfied unless they got a good butcher's bill. Vindicating the professional skill and energy of various officers and heads of de partments, and eulogising the gallantry of the ltta Major Butler and of Captain Nasmyth, in defence Ef Silistria, Mr. S. Herbert again declared his readi ness, on behalf of the Government, to take up the gauntlet now thrown down, and challenge the opinion of the house on the question of confidence. The debate which ensued travelled over ground already exhausted, with the addition, however, of many comments upon the want of accordance dis played by Lord J. Russell sometimes with the Prime Minister and at others with himself. Mr. LAYABD sustained his criticisms upon the military proceec ings against the arguments of Mr. Herbert, and re• inforced his previous conclusions, that Austria sought only to restore the status quo ante bellurn, and would co-operate with us no further than obtain ing tne evacuation of the principalities. With regard to the question before the house he felt some dill:- culty, not wishing to embarrass the Government with a hostile vote ; but, feeling no confidence in Lord Aberdeen, he was compelled either to support the motion proposed by Lord Dudley Stuart, or ab stain from voting altogether. Mr. WILKINSON and Colonel DUNNE having spoken, Admiral BERKELEY offered a defence of the naval proceedings, especially those undertaken by the Baltic fleet. IN hile contending that Sir C. Napier bad displayed consummate judgment in his conduct of the war, he declared Emphatically that the Minis try had given that gallant admiral an absolute carte blanche, and afforded him every assistance and en couragement in whatever enterprises he thought proper to attempt:— " It was very easy," he added," to talk of knocking down Cronstadt. But he would lead some extracts from Sir C. Napier himself, and from Admiral shads, who was known to be one of the most scientific officers in the service. Here was what Admiral Napier said : It has not been in my power to do anything with this powerful fleet, bet attacking either Cronstadt or Sweaburg would have been certain destruction.' (Hear, hear.) Admiral Chads say s: ' After two days' inspecti.ms from the lighthouse, and full views of the forts and ships, the former are too substanti , l for the file of ships to make any impression. They are large masses of granite. With respect to an attack on the ships where they are, it is not to be entertained.' (Hear.)" Mr. F. Scums remarked upon the injustice of attacking a single member of the Ministry on account of a policy for which all were equally responsible. The motion now proposed invaded the prerogative cf the Crown, and none but trivial grounds had been shown for pressing it upon the house. Sir J. SHELLEY confessed that the proposition before them involved an inconvenient issue. IA rd J. Russell had somewhat diluted the import of his speech by subsequent explanations, but his outline of policy eifiribited Brobdignagian dimensions as com pared with the Lilliputian proportions delineated by Lord Aberdeen. Viewed as a vote of censure upon the Administration generally, he could not assent to the motion, though ready to declare his want of con fidence in the Prime Minister. Sir J. WALSH distrustEd the policy and doubted both the consistency and the firmness of the present Government. Mr. M. MILNES, adverting to the war, declared that he saw no way out of the difficulty, nor could imagine any means for effectually obviating the danger of Russian aggression in time to come. Nevertheless, he was willing to afford every pro vision for the active prosecution of hostilities. The Ministerial war policy had been assailed only upon trifling points of detail. Their diplomacy was more open to censure, and he blamed the Govern ment for dallying so long with Austria, and involving the policy of Eng:and in the tangled web of German interests. Mr. HILRYARD protested against the statement of Admiral Berkeley, that Cronstadt and Sweaborg could not be safely attacked by the fleets, and characterised it as the most indiscreet announcement ever made by a public functionary. It was utterly inexcusable , unless, indeed, it was intended to beguile the Russians into a false security. Admiral BERKELEY explained. His statement was based on private letters from the fleet, written before the junction of the French squadron; and the conclu sion respecting the impregnability of the Baltic fortresses amounted only to this, that they could not be taken by a naval force alone. Colonel Buie supported the motion of Lord D. Stuart, not as a vote of want of confidence in the Go• vernment, but for an autumn sitting of Parliament.