The Press. — London, England, 1855-06-09 00:00:00

Jtta 9, 1855. rotttbings xn arliamcnt. THE WAR. The adjourned debate on the amendments of Sir F. Baring and Mr. Lowe to the original motion of Mr. Disraeli was resumed on Monday by Mr. MINER GIBSON, who began by expressing his want of confi dence as to the definite views of either patty, and his objections to the wording of both the amend ments. He protested against the doctrine that if the House of Commons expressed an opinion on pending negotiations it would thereby interfere with the prerogatives of the Crown—such a doctrine, he thought, would deprive the house of its most impor tant privileges. He then argued against the assump tion that we were bound at all hazards to defend the integrity of the Ottoman empire, an assumption which would compel us to defend the Sultan whether right or wrong, and alienate from us the sympathies of the whole Christian population of Turkey. He defended the peace party from the charge of having encouraged the Russian aggression, which was rather due, he said, to the systematic attacks of the public press on France and its rulers, and the opinion countenanced by Lord Palmerston himself that Eng land would never undertake a war for the defence of Turkey. He ridiculed the notion that Russia was to override the west of Europe, and asked why Lord Palmerston had formerly characterised the policy of the Czar as " wise, disinterested, and beneficial to Eutope." He then adverted to the danger to the in dependence of Turkey from the presence of the al lied armies, and said that, now the immediate peril from Russia was passed, the Turks themselves had changed their opinions, and that every impulse was now swallowed up in the desire to get rid of the Western armies. As to the various proposals !for peace, he believed that the Russian proposal for opening the Black Sea to vessels of all nations would offer the best security to Turkey. He could not un derstand how France and England could order Russia to disarm without disarming themselves. Why not assimilate the Black Sea to the Baltic? He con tended against all assertions to the contrary that free access to the Black Sea would effectually limit the preponderance of Russia. Looking back to former relations of the West with Turkey, he could not believe her altogether safe from attacks from that quarter, and he instanced the support given by France to Mehemet Ali, when England willingly availed herself of the interference of Russia. After pointing out the practical difficulties of a treaty founded on the limitation basis, he once more de manded a clear and definite statement from the head of the Government as to its intentions—con tending that Turkey was now safe, that we had enough of glory, and that the prolongation of the war could only bring disaster on the country, Sir W. MoLeswoarn recapitulated the alleged ob jects of the war, and the defence of the allied Governments. Arriving at the third point, he said that. there were two proposals—one for a perpetual state of petce in the Black Sea, the other for a per• petual state of war—the propositions of France and England involved the first, that of Russia involved the second. The four allied powers had unanimously rejected the Russian proposals. By the first proposal Russia would be able to send a fleet of any amount into the Mediterranean, the allies must keep up an equal fleet to watch it, and a collision would inevit ably ensue sooner or later. The tendency of such an arrangement would be, not to limit Russian in- . fluence in the Euxine, but to increase it in the Me-, diterranean. As to the second Russian proposal, it was simply to revert to the status quo ante bellunt. The acceptance of such terms would impose upon us all the burdens of continued war. The expedition to Sebastopol was undertaken with the sole object of destroying Russian preponderance in the Black Sea, and whatever advantages we might have gained else where the Russian fleet at Sebastopol would still have remained as the standing menace to Turkey. Nothing but fear would have any effect upon Russia —it was fear only which had extorted from her the concessions she bad made; and we must continue the war till we had secured its objects, unless we would forfeit our position in the world, which rested on our moral influence and the general opinion of our in vincible determination. Mr. JOHN MACOREOOR thought that any proposal for limiting the number of Russian ships would be illusory ; that it was sheer folly to expect any aggressive action from Austria; and that we must under all circumstances destroy Sebastopol. Look ing to the perfidious conduct of Russia, he thought that we had a right to demand a full indemnification for the expenses of the war, which would be an effectual means of lowering the power of Russia. Mi. H. VERNON, concurring in the justice of the war at the outset, felt that for that very reason we should be especially cautious how we made a single false step. The propositions of Russia had they been made by this country would have been received in a very different spirit. We must beware lest at the close of the contest we should find that we bad WU Maui n.+w.w....r.0...0 was.. -- THE PRESS. exhausted the energies of Turkey, and should be greeted with the curses of a beggared and decimated people. Lord Dusu,tuvoN congratulated the country ou the termination of the conferences at Vienna, and was glad that Russia had refused to accept a limitation which would have turned out void and useless. Mr. BAXTE►t, SS the representative of a constituency depending on Russia for the staple of their manufac tures, agreed, nevertheless, that the ambitious designs of Russia must be destroyed, for the future security of Europe, of our Indian dominions, and of international concord. Mr. H. BAILLIE renewed the criticisms on the con duct of the (war, and said that, even if out present army was well equipped and provisioned, it was no great matter to maintain 40,000 men, a feat which a third-rate German power could have dune more Mr. M. Miums contended that the ambitious designs of Russia had been encouraged by all the Governments of Europe, while that house had ap plauded the most flagrant violations of the public law. To expect the German Courts to join us against Russia was like expecting the House of Lords to take the lead in a reform movement. He urged the exclusion of all vessels of war from the Black Sea, and thought that we might have been nearer success, with far less waste of blood and treasure, if we had confined ourselves to operations on our own element. _ _ Sir E. DEMING urged the occupation of the various strongholds of Russia on the shores of the Black Sea. He was pleased at the failure of the negotia tions, which would only have insulted Russia without weakening her. Lord ELcuo maintained that the objects of the war were not yet attained. The events of the con test had proved that the power of Russia was no bugbear—she was found armed at all points. The breach at Sebastopol was the proper door at which to open negotiations. He professed his confidence that the Ministry would maintain the honour of England and the prestige of her name. Lord C. HAMILTON renewed his defence of Russia, throwing the blame of the contest on the mis management and internal disorganisation of Turkey. Sir E. B. LYTTON said that the material interests of England rested on its character, and that if its honour were affected the consequences would be fatal to its commerce and its power. How could we accept a peace which did not take from Russia a single fortress or ship? He impugned the speech of Mr. Glad stone, who had been a party to the Crimean expedi tion and then shrunk from its logical consequences, and who recommended a peace which would have exposed us to a charge of desertion both from Turkey and from France. He exposed the danger which would attend the acceptation of either of the Russian pro positions. He gave the peace party credit for good intentions, but implored them to consider the conse quence of speeches which might be read by Russian generals at the head of their troops, and translated by Russian Ministers for the benefit of their nation. As to the resolutions, that of Mr. Disraeli was intelli gable as a censure on the Government—the rest were unmeaning platitudes. He iugued at some length on our relations with Austria, observing that while it was our interest to maintain friendship with that power, he doubted the wisdom of so earnestly soliciting her alliance. It was asked what was to be the future shape of the war. After a vehement denunciation of a war of nationalities, or any attempt to create liberty except by the spontaneous movement of the nation itself, he said that matters of strategy must be settled by allied Cabinets and in councils of war. We could not crush Russia, but we could prevent her from becoming more than Russia. If the war were confined to its proper limits it could not last long. War was now a question of money, and the pecuniary resources of Russia were already becoming ex hausted, while her recruiting system drained the country of its population, inflicting grievous loss on the proprietors of the soil, and causing misery and discontent amongst the people. The Loan ADVOCATE congratulated the last speaker on the tone and temper of his speech. lie denied that this country had been driven into war : it never entered into war with greater deliberation. Those who charged the war on the encouragement of the press to Russia, corceded that the Russian emperor had been all along waiting his opportunity. Arguing with previous speakers on the necessity of defending Turkey—the impolicy of accepting the Russian pro positions—and the tight of any country to raise its terms of peace after military successes—he said neither Russia nor any other power would doubt that England atter the language of her Parliament would persevere in the combat she had undertaken till she had attained her end. The debate, adjourned at this point, was on TUES DAY resumed by Mr. COBDEN, who founded a long peace oration on the practical impossibility of arrest ing the progress of Russia. After quizzing Sir W. Molesworth on the score of his former peace orations, and reiterating the arguments as to the easy evasion 537 of the limitation principle, he asked if we were pre pared to maintain large standing armies to compete with those of the Continent in order to fight it battles. Russia had been denounced as utterly without faith, set we were prepared to join with her in guaranteeing the Governments of Wallachia and Moldavia, and the protocols reposing trust in Russia to this extent was signed by the very Cabinet Ministers who had so denounced her. He contrasted the polite con duct of Lord John Russell abroad with his violent speeches at home, and asked which of the four points was intended to prevent Russia from rebuilding Bomarsund or intriguing in Germany. The language and conduct of the Ministers was one continued see saw, who changed from time to time to suit the press and the feeling out of doors. He then dilated at length on the state of opinioa in Germany, proving its tendency towards Russia—its saviour in former days—and its suspicions towards France, which had overrun and desolated it. He believed that Germany would, if left to itself, have averted all the Russian danger by its own atition : at all events it was not out part to go to war because Russia was corrupting Germany. The Ministry had repeatedly asserted that if Russia did not agree to terms we should re ceive at once the active co-operation of Austria. What did such assertion now turn out to be worth ? He then came to the main point of his argument— the natural development of Russia in the Black Sea, which, he said, had been more rapid than even that of the United States of America. It was, he admitted, only a youthful barbarian develop ing itself into something better ; but while it con tinued with no other neighbour than the de caying and unimproving Turkish empire, all the powers on earth could not take from Russia her preponderance, which was inherent in the nature of things. He wished to know ghat were the senti ments of the French Government, which he suspected were overruled in their pacific tendencies by Eng land. He had asked the Premier respecting this point confidentially at the private meeting of his usual supporters, but failed to elicit an answer. He warned the country not to trust too much to the recent successes, which would cause less damage to Russia than was commonly supposed, and depicted the danger froth disease in the Crimean summer, against which scarcely any precaution would avail. After descanting on the inefficiency of blows aimed at the mere outposts of Russia, our folly in attempting land operations at all, and the hollowness of the magni ficent sentences of the Ministry as to the military re sources of England, lie pointed to a few signifi cant facts as indicative of the unquiet and discontented spirit of the country, which would seek for victims when it felt the consequences of its errors. The debate was continued for ROMS time without any remarkable feature. Lord HARRY VANE and Mr. VANSITTART condemned the war as carried on without any definite object, and after enough had been secured to warrant its abandonment; and Sir S. N ORTH COTE blamed the allies for their persistance in the third point as the sine qud non. On the other hand, Mr. Collier, Major Reed, Mr. F. Scully, and Mr. J. O. l'hillimore were for prosecuting it with increased vigour. Mr. CROSSLEY thought that Russia, looking at the antecedents of India, Algiers, Africa, and Rome, had as much cause to be jealous of the allied fleets in the Mediterranean as the allies had of those of Russia in the Black Sea. At last, Sir J. GRAHAM rose, and after expressing his con tinued approval of the war in its origin, and vehe tnently vindicating his own eagerness to do all in his power, when presiding over the Admiralty, towards providing the means for carrying it on with efficiency, proceeded to discuss the actual position of affairs. He wished to know in the first place what were the purport of the propositions of Austria which were re jected by France and England ; and, in the next, whether the four points were to be maintained, or fresh terms were to be proposed. He asked this from the alarming rapidity with which we seemed in clined to raise our demands on Russia. He went through the history of former wars to show how many, most popular at the outset, had either been prolonged to our own disgrace, or had ended in un productive successes. Reverting to the late negotia tions, lie contended that the Russian envoys had acted in the spirit of the declarations which they had made at their commencement. After defending the original proceedings of Russia in the contest about the Holy Places, he reminded the house in detail of the demands of Russia at the outbreak of the war, compared with those which she was willing to accept after a year of hard fighting. He took her preten sions, one after the other, to show how entirely she had abandoned them, and dilated on her ships de stroyed in the Black Sea and blockaded in the Baltic, her great fortress of Bomarsund razed, her control of the Danube given up. Talk, he exclaimed, after thislof prestige. Proceeding to the four points, and assuming the consent of Russia to the fourth, he found fault with our insisting on the third as an ul timatum, repeating the objections to it. He much wished that Lord John Russell had not been presen when Austria made her proposals on the 26th Apr