The Press. — London, England, 1854-02-04 00:00:00

k NW.. A._ - FEBRUARY 4, 1854, we are cherishing hopes of peace, and labouring to restore it when interrupted ; but, at the same time, her Majesty's Government are sending a civil message to one of the belligerent parties that if their vessels leave the port iu which it is presumed they are lying we shall consider it an act of hostility, and insist on confining them to their quar ters. On the other hand, are we applying the same condi tion to the other belligerent'? are we confining the Turkish fleet under a compulsory armistice ? Or are we confining the Russian fleet in its own harbour, whilst we are convoy ing the Turkish fleet, laden with ammunition anti with troops, to enable Turkey m re effretnally to carry on war? I sin not saying th.tt, it we are doing all this, we are acting in a manner discreditable to the country,by giving a moral and physical assistance to Turkey, but I say that by giving the convoy of our fleet for the transport of ammunition and of troops, whatever you may call it, we are virtually engaged in war, but at the same time with all the dangers and the risks, unaccompanied by the dignity or moral effect, of an open declaration of war. (Hear, hear.)" Of the policy of Russia the noble earl gave a pithy recapitulation " The whole policy of Russia for the last 150 years has been a policy of gradual aggression—not a policy of con, quest, but of aggression. It has never proceeded by storm but by sap and mine. The first process has been inva riably that of fomenting discontent and dissatisfaction amongst the subjects of subordinate states—then proffering mediation —then offering assistance to the weaker party — then declaring the independence of that party—then placing that independence under the protection of Russia; and finally, from protection, proceeding to the incorporation, one by one, of those states into the gigantic body of the Russian empire. (Hear, hear.) I say nothing of Poland, or of Livonia, but 1 speak of Mingrelia, Imiritia, and the countries of the Caspian, even as far as the boundary of the Kraus ; and, again, the Crimea itself. But this has been the one course which Russia has invariably pursued ; although she has pursued this steady course for 150 years, she has from time to time desisted from her schemes where she has found that they met with opposition, and has never carried any one of those schemes into effect where she has been certain to meet the opposition of this country. (Hear, hear.)" Lord Derby proceeded to urge that the Emperor of Russia had indeed great cause to complain of the manner in which he had been treated by her Ma jesty's Ministers, for he had been led to believe that under no provocation would measures of vigorous warfare be adopted, and that there VMS no cordial union with France as against Russia. After referring to the Reform Bill, and coinciding in the advice of Lord Grey for its postponement, the noble earl made some inquiries touching the recent changes and re placements at the Home-office, asking for some expla nation of the cause of the resignation of Lord Palmerston, and why, after the expiration of twelve days, the noble viscount had taken office again. The Earl of ABERDEEN repudiated the charge of being the instrument and tool of Russia, declaring that his policy throughout his life had been eminently anti-Russian. Replying to those who maintained that a more vigorous course would have averted the probabilities of war, he observed that nothing was th be gained in diplomacy by the game of " brag," that menaces might be useful towards small states, but if such had been employed against Russia they would have provoked an immediate march upon Constantinople. After explaining with regard to the Palmerston resignation that the Home Secretary had believed the details of a certain measure settled, and therefore resigned, but., finding that it was still susceptible of modification, subsequently resumed his functions, Lord Aberdeen denied the right of the Opposition to demand any explanation on the subject. The performance of the public duties of the office had never been interrupted. They had, therefore, no right to ask for the causes of the differ ence, or the means of reconciliation. Had Lord Palmerston left office, he would have been bound to give a parliamentary explanation ; but where a mere misunderstanding took place, whether in the Cabinet or elsewhere, which was reconcilable, he contended that no explanation was necessary. The Premier afterwards diverged into the subject of the charges brought against I'rince Albert, with which the remainder of the debate was occupied. The address was finally agreed to b y the p eers without a division. The debate on the same subject in the Commons was more languid and diffuse. The mover of the address, Lord CASTLEROSSE, touched very slightly upon the multiplicity of topics suggested to his view by the Speech, and judiciously compressed his re marks into a period of less than a quarter of an hour Mr. T. HANKEY, who seconded the motion, selected the most important topic, the Turkish question, and treated it under its most important aspect, as challenging us to weigh our resources and calculate our strength against the coming struggle. Towards this calculation he contributed a number of facts and figures, showing ho-.v enormously the country had grown in vigour and wealth, and bad freed itself from taxation, from class disabilities, from shackles upon trade and other inconveniences, and from legislative corrup• Lion and popular discontent since the end of the last war. Thence he proceeded to eulogise peace, and THE PRESS. the Government for having done their utmost to preserve it. Mr. H. Remus blamed ministers, not for seeking to maintain peace, but for risking war and pledging the blood and treasure of England to support a traditionary policy and maintain the Turkish empire iu all its integrity and all its deformity. At best we could but postpone the dissolution of that empire, and meanwhile were engaged in a dangerous war, by whose result we might suffer severely, though we could not control its events. Mr. BLACKETT censured the foreign policy of the Government on account of its secrecy, and remarked that the expressions on the subject in the royal speech were meagre and colourless. Sr R. PEEL denounced the subtle hypocrisy of Russia, placed great trust in the French alliance, and drew a glowing picture of our general prosperity, which he attributed, in great measure, to the policy of ministers. He afterwards expatiated on the ha portance of popular education. Mr. HUME hoped that, before more money wAs asked for army or navy, those services would be rescued from their present state of extravagance and mismanagement. A miscellaneous discussion, turning suceessively upon the different points suggested by the royal speech, but of which Turkey formed always the centrepiece, was continued by Mr. Liddell, Sergeant Shee, Sir J. Young, Mr. Denby Seymour, and other members. Mr. DISRAELI followed with a speech whose topics ran almost parallel and whose conclusions were identical with those of Lord Derby in the Upper House. Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied on some points, and alleged reasons for reserving his reply on others. He afterwards entered into explanations touching the charge against the Prince Consort, a subject which brought the debate in the Lower as in the Upper House to a conclusion. PRINCE ALBERT. The first night of the session was seized upon by the Ministerial leaders in both houses to vindicate the Prince Consort from certain charges, or sus picions, which had been widely disseminated among the public. These charges Lords ABERDEEN and RUSSELL both characterised as " odious calumnies," but, for the sake of much " honest delusion " that had arisen on the subject, they deemed it necessary to enter into full explanations, and to meet the allegations with a formal denial. We select the vindication pronounced by the Premier before the Peers " I will for a moment advett to this odious charge, as having assumed a sort of character of consistency which calls on me to treat it more seriously than anything so despicable ought to be treated. (Hear, hear.) I will just recal to your lordships—what you have seen in the course of the last few weeks—the persevering manner in which these scandalous and groundless imputations have been cast on the illustrious Prince to whom I refer. (Hear, hear.) The house must know what are the constitutional position and functions of this illustrious Prince ; that he is the adviser of the Queen, in Lite capacity of her husband and most intimate companion, is beyond all doubt. I will not describe the manner in which this relation has been maintained between these two illustrious persons, but I will say that to propound that the husband is to remain silent and see his wife in difficulty and embarrassment, and not be allowed to give her a syllable of advice, is to propound a very different state of that relation from what I understand by it. (Hear.) It has been studiously asserted that this is a novelty ; that it was Sir R. Peel who introduced it, and that Lord Melbourne did not permit his Royal Highness to exercise those functions which he exercises now so advantageously for the country, for I can only say it is always extreme matter of regret when his Royal Highness absents himself from the Council. I appeal to noble lords in this house, of whom there are several who have had the means of knowing, of hearing, of pmfitingby the wisdom, the prudence, the judgment of his Figal Highness. I ask them to say whether, in all they have seen or heard, a single syllable has ever emanated from the Prince which has not tended to the honour, the interest, and the welfare of this country ? (Loud cheers.) It is quite possible that a person of the ability and thought of the Prince may entertain opinions on particular matters from which min:sters may differ: but recollect that it is the minister only who is responsible ; and if her Majesty should choose to follow the opinion of his Royal Highness—which she has a perfect right to do—the minister has his remedy ; he has but one—which is re spectfully to resign his position. In order to finish this odious subject, there is one more topic on which 1 have to dwell. What has been studiously circulated, and, I think, more actively insinuated than any other part of these accusations, is the interference of his Royal Highness with the army and with the Horse Guards. Now, my lords, I have to say, that so far from a shadow of foundation be longing to this accusation, it does so happen that—in the year MO I think it was—it was a great desire of the Duke of Wellington to make such arrangements at the Horse Guards as would enable Prince Albert to succeed him as Commander-in• Chief. The duke proposed various arrangements which would, he thought, tend to render sure his acceptance of that situation, and strongly recom mended it to the Queen, but his Royal Highness, with that sound judgment which distinguished him, felt that it . I would interfere with the duty he owed to his Sovereign and 101 wife in the situation he filled, and he therefore on that ground, and on that ground only, declined the situation which the duke was desirous of providing fer him. I need scarcely notice all the miserable calumnies that have been uttered with respect to the Prince's interfering with pro motions, or any interference with the business of the army, because you must recollect, my lords , that he is a field tuarslitil in the army, that he is a colonel of the Guards, that he holds a command in the army, that his son will be in command of the army, and that he arty be—God forbid it should ever happen !—Regent of this kingdom ; and to say that he is not interested in the army is monstrous, and cannot be imagined. But, beyond that general interest he takes in it in the position he occupies, I denLutterly that on any occasion, at any time, as far as I have - Fvery reason to believe and to know, either under the Duke of Welling ton or under my noble friend now at the head of the army, has there been any interference of any kind with the con duct of the business of the army. (Hear, hear.) I have thought it right to say this, and I felt it my duty to do so— though, my lords, it is one which I am ashamed of ful filling. ( Cheers. )" Letters were also read in both houses, one from .Lord Melbourne, expressing the "highest opinion of his Royal Highness's judgment, temper, and dis • cretion," and another from Lord Westmoreland, con tradicting the statement that the Prince had ever corresponded with him upon political affairs. The Earl of Derby, Viscount Hardinge, and Mr. Walpole, in their respective places ' and from their in • dividual experience, corroborated the assertion that Prince Albert had never unduly interfered with public business, and that the Queen had always placed the most perfect and entire confidence in all her successive ministers. Lord Campbell, the Earls of Hardwicke, Harrowby, and Malmesbury, and other peers, joined in expressing their admiration for the Consort of the Sovereign ; and the members generally of Lords and Commons testified by frequent cheering their conviction that the defence of the Prince's conduct had been complete. EARLY HOURS. Resolutions intended to limit, if not prevent, the after-midnight sittings of the House of Commons, have been moved by Mr. BROTHERTON, who appro priately availed himself for that purpose of the first morning sitting on Wednesday last. The hon. mem ber expatiated on the advantages of early hours, re commended the limitation of speech-making, and complained that the habits of the house were grow ing worse and worse in respect of the time of break ing up. In the session of '5l they sat after midnight only 51 hours in the aggregate, but last year no less than 133 hours. Sir J. PAKINOTON wished to see the session closed in July, and thought a change in that direction would be preferable to any reform in the midnight work of the house. He proposed to revive the committee which sat some few years ago to consider the forms and proceedings of tho house. Lord J. Itt•ssou. apprehended inconvenience to public business from Mr. Brotherton's proposal, but approved of' the suggestion for a committee. Mr. Hume, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Denison, and other members continued the debate, which closed with a division, when the resolution was rejected by a majo rity of 54 to 84-30. PUBLIC ACCOUNT-KEEPING. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved, on Thursday, the preliminary resolution requisite for a bill designed to simplify and reform the system of keeping the public accounts. He showed some of the errors of the existing system, by which many payments, such as certain pen sions and judicial salaries, were included in the annual votes which ought to be transferred to the Consolidated Fund ; while other charges, including nearly the whole expemes of collect ing the •revenue, were deducted from the gross receipts before these were accounted for to the Trea sury, and consequently never came within the cogni sance of Parliament. His bill was intended to rec • tify these absurdities, and introduce a clear, compre • hensive, and accurate system of public account keeping. Mr. DISRAELI rejoiced to find that Mr. Gladstone was about to carry out a reform which he had him self been the first to promise when Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Hustx and Mr. WILLIAMS also eulogised the proposal, and the resolution was adopted unani mously. ELECTORAL CORRUPTION. This subject hie given occasion for various notices, motions for returns, &c. Among these— Sir F. KELLY has given notice for the Nth of a bill to regulate the practice of electing members to serve in Parliament, and to prevent bribery, corrup tion, and intimidation. Sir J. V. SHELLEY has obtained an order for a return of the expenses of the various commissions issued last session for inquiring into bribery and cor rupt practices at the last election. Lord J RUSSELL moved a resolution, which the house adopted, that no warrants for new writs for Barnstaple, Cambridge, Hull, Maldon, and Tyne mouth should issue before the 9th of March. The ~.V.