The Press. — London, England, 1855-07-21 00:00:00

JULY 21 855. V roct6ings in arliannt. LORD JOHN RUSSELL. Sir E. B. Lytton having fixed his motion for a vote of censure on the Government for Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that such motion have prece dence over the orders of tbe day ; and, in so doing, he entered into an elaborate defence of his own con duct. He began by admittin g that b e f ore h e l e f t Vienna he had promised to use his influence to in duce the acceptance by his Cabinet of the Austrian propositions; and he did so, in conjunction, not only with the French Minister, but likewise with the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs. Immediately after his arrival in England a Cabinet Council was lAd to consider the propositions. Circumstances arose in the course of those discussions which made it appear impossible to his mind to urge their accept ance. Tho3e circumstances were quite independent of the merits of the propositions themselves, and did not alter his opinion of those merits. After once more adverting to the security which those proposi • tions offered to the balance of power in Europe, he eiplained that the Government had not thought it worth while to go into conference upon the last Vienna prop )sition—which was still less favorable to the allies—which might have been rejected by Rus sia—and which Austria would not support by going to war. Then came the motion of Mr. Disraeli, in the debate on which be had been accused of appearin& as the uncompromising advocate of war. What else7tie demanded, could he be at such a time? What other means except a vigorous prosecution of the war ex isted then for a practical solution of the third point? He had agreed, he urged, in the rejection of both the Russian propositions. He came then to the complaints of the non-communication of the whole truth to the Legislature. For this he said he was not responsible ; bnt it was highly important that Russia should remain ignorant, as long as possible, of the determination of Austria not to interfere by tbe knowledge of which would have set Rus sia free to despatch some of the best and finest of her troops to the shores of the Crimea. The prema ture declaration of such conclusions would have been a great dereliction of duty. The Ministers, is Was said, should themselves have proposed a motion on the subject ; but they were not allowed the oppor tunity. He then entered into a long disquisition on the abstract questions of peace and war, arguing that there were times for both, and the question of the one and of the other might always be intermingled, and considered in their matual relations. He denied emphatically that the Cabinet were divided upon the great questions of peace and war. He then summed up his conduct since the commencement of the ses sion—said that he had since his return from Vienna repeatedly offered to resign—that, with many errors, he had worked for his country to the best of his judgment—and that if he had been calumniated, so had Lord Althurp and Lord Raglan, two of the purest and best of men. In these last statements he expressed himself somewhat warmly on the conduct of those wbo had been his friends in prosperity, and deserted him when they perceived a blot in his fortunes. Sir E. B. LYTTON congratulated the general pa triotism of the house and the country on the victory which it had achieved. After adverting to the cir cumstances under which the noble lord had accepted office, he proceeded to analyse his warlike speech on Mr. Dislikeh's motion—a speech which, amongst other things, denounced the system of perpetually defending Turkey by a counterpoise of ships in the Black Sea, an argument directly against his own Austrian. proposition, and in which h displayed an extravagance of zeal which made them despair of seeing peace in the present generation ; but they pardoned the extravagance for the sake of the spirit. All at once appeared the Austrian Minister, who de clared that this very statesman was not only inclined to peace, but had promised to back certain terms of peace with all the influence in his power. What made his conduct yet more disingenuous was that on a subsequent occasion, when the expediency of peace through the intervention of Austria was again dis cussed, he left the country under an impression that our illustrious ally would have accepted terms which his own loftier spirit at once disdained. He then sarcastically pointed out the inconsistencies of the man who first would make peace with Russia because she was so powerful and then make war for the same reason, who lately suppressed his sentiments lest he should damage his Government, while a few mcnths ago he had overturned a Government rather than suppress his sentiments. The noble lord bad said that the executive was weakened by popular discon tent, that our counsels were unstable, that public men were distrusted—no wonder, when he himself represented the element of distrust, disunion, and unstability. After exposing the folly of warlike ar guments, which went up and down with every fluctua tion in the price of blood, he declaimed on that of retaining in office a statesman in whom Russia sees THE P S. an excuse, Austria a justification, France a dissentient from her policy, and England the condemnation of her war. Lord John had now retired, but he could not separate his conduct from that, of his colleagues. He then proceeded to expose the uncertain conduct of the Prime Minister, who had accepted office with a distinct declaration of his intention to continue the foreign policy of Lord Aberdeen, while he rajected proposals which that policy would certainly have ac cepted, and who vindicated himself by showing that his envoy at Vienna was pledged to back opinions which his own Minister for Foreign Affairs had already declared to be totally inadmissible. He (Sir E. B. Lytton) passed a warm etilogium on the conduct of Lord Clarendon, who represented himself in the Ca binet, and was not, like the noble viscount. answer able for the proceedings of his plenipotentiary. He then explained his own views of the Austrian alliance. He would he indulgent to her weakness, he would be contented with her friendly neutrality, and would not court her active co operation unless tendered by a due sense of her own interests. He asked if the Cabinet were really united—what said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the First Lord of the Admi ralty ? There was an object to be attained more glorious than the triumphs of war—the high standard of public integrity. In asking leave to withdraw his motion, he again congratulated them on the assertion of that recognition of public virtue which demanded that actions should not give the lie to convictions. Mr. Botrveark explained the circumstances under which he had, most unwillingly, conveyed the infor !nation to Lord John Russell of the impression felt by many of his colleagues that they could not con tend against the motion of the hon. baronet while he remained in office. He stated this with warm eulo giums of Lord John Russell, and declarations of his warm friendship and esteem, delivered in a manner which convulsed the house with merriment. Lord PALMERSTON objected to the speech of Sir B. Lytton that it ignored the change of opinion by Lord John Russell consequent. upon the discussion in the Cabinet after his return from Vienna. He charged him with either deliberate insincerity or gross ignoraoce when attempting to separate Lord Claren don from his colleagues, and accusing him as repre senting only his own opinions. His own convictions and that of the entire Cabinet tallied with the despatches of Clarendon. It had been said that the Government averted the storm by sacrificing a victim. Now, he had constantly urged Lord John Russell to retain his office, and even on Thursday last he had told him that under the peculiar circumstances he could not advise him, but that if he resolved to retain his seat he was prepared to face the motion with the Government as it then stood. He commented on the absurdity of expecting the Government to give its opinion on every detail of military operation on which a question might be asked it, and ironically complimented the hon. baronet on his discretion in shrinking from the contest which he had provoked. Mr. DISRAELI thought it would have been respect ful to the eminent member of the Cabinet who had just quitted it if the noble lord had treated the occa sion with more regard to the gravity of its character. But for that gravity he would have offered no com ment on such reckless rhodomontade. Coming to the conduct of Lord John Russell, he reminded the house that a former speech of his denouncing the Emperor and Minister of Russia as men guilty of false and fraudulent proceedings had been followed by the publication in a foreign newspaper of papers containing the most singular revelations, and now he makes another speech exciting the passions of the country, which is immediately followed by the appearance of the Austrian circular, referring to cir cumstances concealed from the house, and opposed to the prosecution of the war. It was impossible to pass unnoticed the revelations of that circular. After saying that the notice given on the subject did not seek to visit the opinion of the house upon an indi vidual, and that he himself, holding the Cabinet re sponsible for the acts of their colleagues, would not make an attack upon an individual member, he said that it was necessary for more than two or three members of the Government to rise and express their opinions on the great question of foreign affairs now before them : I (he continued) have reason to believe that the views which the noble lord brought from Vienna were favorably received, not merely by a majority, but by the whule of his colleagues, and that nothing hut circumstances which they did not anticipate, and difficulties which suddenly arose, prevented the plan of the noble lord being cordially and unanimously adopted. I do not make that statement without due authority. I make it with the same convic tion that I spoke six weeks ago of the ambiguous lan guage and uncertain conduct of the Government, the truth of which subsequent events have already justified. I make it with the conviction that, even before this session of Parliament tern inates, evidence of that statement will be in the possession of the house. I told the noble lord some weeks ago we were only in the antechamber of dis cussion. The noble lord then tried to stop the progress of debate. What has since occurred.? Every day and every hour has brought fresh information and fresh in stances which require discussion ; from that moment to the present we have been 4iscussin4 these affairs, and, so - - long as the conduct of the Government ill veiled in thee thick cloud of ambiguity and doubt which now emetics the political atmosphere, we must have discussions until that atmosphere becomes clear and fresh. lie then sarcastically described the events in the Ministry which led to Lord John Russell's resigna tion, and the assurance of Lord Palmerston that he would stand or fall by his friend. After alluding to the eminent part which Lord John had taken in the affeirsof the East over a quart er o f a century, which made it impossible to pass by his actions without due notice, he aided, speaking of that noble lord : His motives are questioned—his conduct, at least, is questioned. He had an opportunity of expounding his motives to the house. His colleagues, acknowledging the gravity of the occasion, stake the existence of the Cabinet on the triumphant vindication of that conduct by the ver dict of the House of Commons. It is hardly forty-eight hours since the First Minister himself, almost unable to repress the exultation be felt at the coming fight, was going to stand or fall by the question and the verdict whiok the house should come to upon the conduct of the noble lord the member for London ; and then, suddenly, and before the House of Commons can speak—before the mo tion eau be brought forward—before any member of the house, whatever his politics may be, can express his opinion on the conduct of that individual, he is myste riously withdrawn from office ; he, so responsible for the present position of the country—be so niuch looked up to by the house, even in the present diaastrous state of par ties iu this country, that, after having broken up a Cabinet, he has been called upon by his Sovereign to form another Government, and even when (ailing in that task be watt selected by the noble lord to conduct the uegotiations at a great congress, and while conducting those negotiations has been deemed so indispensable firom his name, his talents, his reputation, and his following, that he is made a Secretary of State is commendam—a person of this de scription, with such accumulated responsibility, has his conduct challenged by the house; and the First Minister, his colleague, having pledged himself to a full discussion, and to stand or fall by the verdict of the house, that suck a man should withdraw from the public service, evade aJ discussion, and then for the First Minister to get up and tell us again it is " much ado about nothing "—it really more intolerable than trifling. It is not a manner in which questions of this kind should be met -it is not a tone which should be adopted—this patrician bullying of the Treasury bench. He proceeded to defend the speech of Sir B. Lytton from the charge of ignorance and insincerity because he had said that Lord Clarendon had in his des patches expressed his individual opinions, meaning that they were opinions in which he fully sympathised. Reverting to the conduct of the Ministry, the reasona of the change of opinion by Lord John Russell were notorious—they referred to the opinions and proceed ings of France; and he charged the Ministry with in sincerity when they denounced the terms offered them in language so vehement, and continued in office as a War Ministry while they continued the war simply in deference to the opinions of our ally. Lord PALMERSTON here observed that he bad not admitted his own change of mind, or that of his Cabinet apart from Lord J. Russell, on the subject of the propositions. Mr. DISRAELI said that the case remained the same while any members remained in the Cabinet who had been favorably disposed towards the Austrian propo sitions. The inference to be drawn was, that without the French intsrfereece these terms would have been accepted, and an attempt made to carry them through Parliament. What was then to be thought of the Minister who held his position because he was the right man to promote the war with vigour? Wbat was to be thought of his conduct towards Sir J. Graham and his friends? He asked if the French Minister while at Vienna had not received a favorable reply to the propositions, and if there was not a part. or entire day in which those terms were cordially accepted by the Government in London, and made the subject of an understanding, however brief, with that in Paris ? Though Lord Palmerston said " No, no," Mr. Disraeli reminded the house that he had had to say " No, no," before to statements which turned out to be true ; and he believed it would be the same with the present statement. After adverting to the disappoint melee which bad followed the acquiescence of the house in the Ministerial proceedings during three successive sessions, he concluded by saying that at the end of the third session One single agitated—they this house ask of your stet, such questions With the has reformed and often h civil and he has giants of and even Lion which no less • the debat . e. of the Crown, accents and and utterly has shown of his single foreign document appears—the people are I—they think—they talk—their representatives in use ask questions. What happens? The foremost r statesmen dare nut meet the controversy which uestions bring forward. He mysteriously disappears. be reputation of a quarter of • century, a man who ormed Parliament, who, as he has told us to-night, en before, is the accepted and facile champion of :d religious liberty, in the cause and name of which accomplished great triumphs—be who has met the of debate—he who has tried his rapier with Canning, en for a term shared the great respect and reputt hich this country accords to its foremost men with a person than Sir Robert Peel—he dare not meat bate. But who dares meet it? The First Minister Crown, who has addressed this house tonight is a and in htnguage utterly unworthy of his position, terly unworthy of the occasion—(cheers)—and whp own to me to-night, by his language and by the tons mind, that if the holour a inter sis of the