The Press. — London, England, 1854-02-25 00:00:00

THE PRESS. 172 V tat6ill#s in V artiamtnt. RUSSIA AND TURKEY. The adjourned debate on the Eastern question was reopened on Monday night by Mr. COBDEN. The house, he argued, was assuming the responsibility of interference, and was engaging in war to support Turkey. He accordingly wished to show them what Turkey was, and proceeded to argue at great length that the Governmont of that country was effete, her policy barbarous, her vitality expiring, and her treat ment of her Christian subjects bigoted and cruel. The Christians formed a majority in her Europe an provinces, and looked with hope and expectation to the prospects of change held forth, doubtless for sinister purposes, by the Russian Emperor. That English ministers and ambassadors bad believed in the necessity of similar changes, and bad spoken and acted on the conviction that the Ottoman em pire could not long survive if the treatment of its Christian inhabitants were not ameliorated, otherwise they saw no possible check or stay to the develop ment of what Lord Clarendon called, in a despatch to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe within the last year, the " elements of internal dissolution " ever present in its constitution. The wrongs of the Christians in Turkey were indeed extreme. If unredressed they threatened inevitable revolution ; and certainly ren dered it our duty to insist on guarantees that the Christian was to be better treated before we inter fared to secure the predominance of the Mahome tans. The Sultan had already appealed to Mahome tan fanaticism, and Mr. Cobden trusted that English soldiers would not be arrayed on the same side, or employed to coerce one section of his subjects in the interests of the other. Comparing the value of the respective countries, commercially speaking, he com puted that the imports from Russia averaged twelve millions, while those from Turkey were barely three. Russia, in fact, stood second among the foreign counts es with whom we transacted business. But England, it was said, was arming to protect Western Europe from the Czar. Why, Western Europe— Belgians, Danes, Prussians, Austrians, Swedes, and Norwegians—comprised eighty millions of popula tion, of whom 700,000 were under arms, and yet never attempted to defend themselves. They were also avowedly or practically neutral; and yet they stood nearest to the danger. But, by an irrational de velopment of what was called John Bullism, England was to send her troops to a distant seat of war to fight the battles of other nations, who would only repay her sacrifices by suspecting that she was prompted by selfish motives. The policy as now ex hibited was indeed a " mad" policy. He saw no thing to object against the terms of the Vienna note, and thought they might be still made the basis of negotiation. Lord J. MANNERS corroborated Mr. Cobden's argu ment that Turkey did not deserve protection.. He urged, in reply to Lord John Russell on the previous Friday, that the symptoms of Russian aggression had assumed an aspect demanding active treatment long before the time when the British Ministry seemed aware of the necessity for action. From first to last Lord Clarendon had believed the professions of Russia, and disbelieved the facts which showed incessantly how futile those professions were. Con cluding a minute dissection of the various proceed ings and pretexts on all sides during the controversy, the noble lord urged : " The main question really in hand now was, what were the objects which the Government contemplated in enter ing upon this tremendous struggle. The First Lord of the Admiralty, indeed, had propounded that members should either place full and implicit reliance on the Government and its conduct of the matter, or bring the question to a test by a direct motion of no confidence; and the noble member for the city of London had in like manner re quired from the house unhesitating and complete confi dence. There was no doubt that, were the right hon. gen tleman and the noble lord on the Opposition benches, they would not hesitate to try a motion of no confidence ; but those who actually occupied the Opposition benches deemed it their duty to the country in this momentous crisis to take no step that might embarrass the proceedings of the Government, but rather to support them in any mea sures which they should, on their ministerial responsibi lity, declare to be requisite for the vigorous prosecution of the war, with a view to its just, safe, and honourable con clusion. (Hear, hear.) Unlimited confidence in the clearsightedness, straightforwardness, firmness, or courage of Lord Aberdeen and Lord Clarendon there was, pro bably, not one man in a hundred in that house prepared to concede ; but the house, he believed, without exception, was prepared to give them men and to vote them money, and to furnish them with all aid for bringing this struggle to the issue which the country and Parliament contem plated. (Hear, hear.) It was generally announced on the other side of the house that the honour and independence of Turkey were to be maintained; but it was essential that there should be some understanding of a far more specific nature as to what was meant by this announcement. (Hear, hear.) What store Lord Clarendon set by the in dependence of Turkey the house had the me xna of appre ciating in the blue book. Let the Ministry be assured that the people and Parliament of England would never permit any policy ' be pursued towards Turkey which should, by the creation of a protectorate, ostensibly of a friendly character, merely cloak that interference with the internal affairs of Turkey which this warwas sanctioned by the people of England to prevent on the part of Russia; by which the chains that had eaten almost to the heart's core of Turkey, and which the suicidal policy of Russia herself had removed, should be rivetted round the neck of Turkey once more by the hands of pretended friendship. (Hear, hear.) Early in the struggle, before the victory of Olte nitza, it had been said by the veteran diplomatist, Lord Ponsonby, that ' what he feared for Turkey was, not the arms of Russia, but the diplomacy of England.' Let the Government be perfectly assured that any diplomacy on their part which should in the least degree tend to fulfil this fear would be indignantly repudiated by the entire British nation." Mr. HORSMAN also commented upon Mr. Cobden's speech, arguing that the question concerned us chiefly on the side of Russia, whose aggression we had to resist. He denounced the stealthy ambition, the long-meditated crimes, the ferocity, inhumanity, and hypocrisy of the Russian Emperor, and con trasted the condition of that country with the present state of the Ottoman empire. Passing on to the home Government and the blue books, he admitted (what, he remarked, even Lord J. Russell had not denied) that the British Ministry had been deceived, but declared that he did not, nevertheless, intend to withdraw from them his confidence, and argued that they had shown a wise discretion under very perplexing circumstances. Mr. H. DRUMMOND had learned that the Ministry were going to war, but could not imagine from what side or class they anticipated support. The manu facturers were equally ready to prepare arms for the enemy as for our own troops • the taxpayers would speedily discover that every additionall burden must ultimately fall upon industry ; and the Opposition, though ready to pass votes which were sure to bring the Government into a mess, would infallibly turn every event to account for the purpose of dislodging a Ministry whose members would then in their turn begin playing the same game against their successors. Upon England, he argued, the result of the contest could be only disastrous. There was nothing for us but hard blows to get and heavy bills to pay. Mr. Drummond then referred to the primary cause of the dispute, the question of the " Holy Places" • and contended that the war, instead of being waged, as was pretended, on behalf of the balance of power, was, in reality, a religious war, whose origin he traced to the Pope. He thought it would have been better for us to stand aloof from such a contest. If we must strike our enemy, our blow should he at the heart; and the hon. memberindicated Poland as the vital point in the case of Russia. Mr. I. BUTT denied that the war could be termed religious; but complained that the Ministry bad neither declared their intentions nor seemed inclined to support Turkey without reserve. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT remarked that the Govern ment were placed between two fires, being assailed from many quarters and upon many pleas, but noticed that no party of opponents dared to challenge a direct vote from the house. The negotiations into which they had entered were intricate and the despatches voluminous, and much special pleading was expended in drawing charges against the Ministry from them. He, however, boldly declared that the event as it now stood was more favourable to England than any that could have resulted from the adoption of any of the numerous alternatives suggested on different hands. The Secretary-at-War then remarked upon the importance of the interests at stake in the controversy, and eulogised the spirit displayed by the nation in entering into it. Mr. DISRAELI reminded the house that pre vious wars had been much prolonged and rendered far more critical by the mastery maintained as to their causes and objects. Tie perils of the last great war were much enhanced by the state of ignorance in which the people were kept by the Ministry of the time, and their passions dangerously inflamed by the appeals to that popular ignorance made for the sake of obtaining support towardscarrying on the contest. Some time later, about twenty-five years ago, there was a war between Russia and Turkey, in which France and England took port against Turkey, the public in both countries being allowed to know little or nothing about the quarrel which resulted in weak ening the Ottoman empire ty the heavy loss s tained at Navarino, and was indirectly the cause of the existing perplexities. Mr. Disraeli, therefore, laid down the principle that whenever war seemed immi nent the Government were especially bcund to main tain no reserve which could prudentl3 be dispensed with. He dissented from the doctrine of Sir James Graham that they should not potter over blue books, that the past was beyond caitrol, and all their in terest should be centered in the future. The past and future were bound together by links which could not be dissevered ; and, as from the blue books only could the past conduct of the Government be learnt, they were entitled to scrutinise those records for the purpose of discovering the cause of the pending hostilities as leading up to ti'o further and serious whether the worth the SATURDAY, , risk; secondly, whether the preparations making for the encounter were adequate to the occasion : " First of all, I want the house and the country to understand the cause of this war, for after the speech of the noble lord the member for London on Friday last it would be affectation any longer to suppose that we are not virttially at war. (Cheers.) And since then we have had an authoritative statement that the last effort at negotia tion has failed. (H,ar, hear.) I shall endeavour,then, to ascertain what has been the cause of this war. It will then be for the house to decide whether the object of the war is an adequate one, and, if it be, whether the means which the Government propose are capable of accomplish ing it. It is the duty of the Commons to consider the papers which are upon the table ; and as we are about to embark in a struggle which must beyond all doubt cripple the industry of the country—which must burden the peo • plc—which must retard that progress that we so frequently hear vaunted iu this house, it is desirable that as clear a perception as possible should prevail, not only in this house but throughout the land, of the reason why we ate going to war, and of vihat we purpose to accomplish. (Rear, hear.)" The avowed object of our hostilities against Russia was to preserve the independence of Turkey. How was this assailed? Russia it was allowed had no in tention of forcibly conquering Turkey, but it was evident that by policy and indirect means, and by exercising an influence over the Greek population of the Ottoman empire, numbering twelve millions, she would obtain all the authority that would result from her possession of Constantinople itself. This de sign was almost avowed in a despatch of Count Nes selrode in January, 1853. The policy of Russia had been clear and transparent; there was to be a diplo matic movement to increase her influence over the Greek population in Turkey, peaceably, by the friendly exertions of the English Ministers at Pare and Constantinople. Her mode of action was throughout consistent and reiterated. It con sisted in stretching the terms of some existing treaty so as to make them cover a wider meaning than they were originally intended to convey, and then by di plomatic manoeuvrings obtain the assent of Turkey and the other powers of Europe to the new interpre tation. This bad been done with regard to the treaty of Kainardji, and in the early stages of the present dispute the same design had been manifested to a degree which, if it did not deserve the name of fraudu lent, should at all events have kept prudent men upon their guard. This was the question—how have the Ministry, past and present, dealt with the diffi culty ? "I want to know, with that object expressed, with those means detailed. and with that diplomacy to deal with, how her Majesty's Ministers encountered such a combination ? It is unnecessary for me to touch on the question of the Holy Places. That was, in_fact, virtually, soon settled at Constantinople. Even Count Nesselrode, at a very early period of these negotiations, expresses his surprise and satisfaction, and states his acknowledgment of the conci liatory spirit of France. Nor should I have dwelt upon it for a moment had not the noble lord said that the Govern ment of Lord Derby was responsible for this question. Now, whatever may have been the faults of Lord Derby's Government, they need not look back with regret or shame to their share in the negotiations upon this Eastern ques • tion. (Hear, hear.) The question was not, indeed, settled formally when we left office, but it was the stre nuous and effectual exertions of Lord Malmesbury that brought the French Government to a right tone in viewing that question ; and I believe that had it not been for the preliminary steps we took the avowal by France of her wise, and I may say magnanimous, course at Constanti nople would never have taken place. ( Hear, hear.) But the question of the Holy Places Count Nesselrode admits was satisfactorily settled, and he even expresses surprise at the conciliatory tone and spirit of France. Yet all this time the forces of Russia are accumulating on the frontiers, and all this time Count Nesselrode is telling you that his Government will ask an equivalent for the privileges which the Greek Church has lost at Jerusalem, but the settlement of which his Government had resolved not to disturb. Even the mission of Prince Menachikoff at this time is mentioned, though vaguely, by Sir H. Seymour, who tells, however, that its object is ' to obtain an equiva lent for any privileges lost by the Greeks.' After this it appears that the Emperor would insist that the promise made to him in favour of the Greek Church should be fill- Sled.' The noble lord feels very deeply on this question as to the conduct of Russia. It is not that he is over by the responsibility of a minister who has advised his Sovereign to go to war, but he feels so acutely the con• duct of Russia that on more than one occasion in these discussions he has indulged in the language of invective, both towards the Russian Minister and towards his master. (Hear, hear.) We were told the other night that the con duct of Count Nesselrode was fraudulent. Now, that is a very strong expression. (Hear, hear.) It is easy to cheer, but Count Nesselrode for nearly fifty years has sustained a great reputation, and is supposed to be one who has ad ministered affairs with great moderation, with great wis dom, and, under circumstances of great difficulty, no doubt with great success. (Hear, hear.) But his conduct is described as fraudulent, and the conduct of the Emperor, we were told, was the conduct of a butcher, or, at least, that he had given orders for a work of butchery. (Hear, hear.) Let the house mark that. But at present we have to deal with Count Nesselrode, whose conduct has been described as fraudulent. The noble lord told us nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the course pursued by Count Nesselrode, who kept saying that his imperial - Church • a l i e sco i v n e g nn u g p tne cause of tne d p n e e n ri a n in u g s th cia a t t in t t e m p tn p e le blue d bo p o ar k i. Let ent tb nf ed n i g n l i n tri w b n e ula assured neeer tosti o li s ti e es m as by Co un t be t more w et u r n n s d a e tis ‘ ltto jr,yertthesnayitnhge that,oti coarse rm " p a e u ri e al d permit any policy to be pursued towards Turkey which questions—first, whether the object was worth the master would ask an equivalent to the Greek Church ; ~:,