The Press. — London, England, 1856-05-10 00:00:00

4 t believed the country would accept the peace ;with joy and satisfaction. Mr. H. HERBERT seconded the Address. Lord J. MANNERS said he rose, not to oppose the reception of the Address, but to say that he had strong objections to some of its terms. lie objected to the assertion that the conditions of the peace " fully accomplished the great objects for which the war was undertaken." Those objects were—first, the present integrity of the Turkish empire; and, secondly, the security of its independence and integ rity in future. The first object he believed to have been most fully attained; but the second and all important object had not been secured. That object might be divided into two—the independenm3 tuid integrity of Turkey in Europe, and in Asia ; and the latter—the most important of the two—he contended, had not been carried out in the treaty, there being no security taken against the aggression of Russia upon the Turkish Asiatic provinces, except the poor and pitiful attempt of Lord Clarendon to prevent the re-erection of the Russian forts on the Black Sea. And for what purpose would those forts be re-erected but for coercing, conquering, and possibly extermi nating that gallant people, the Circassians ? These brave mountaineers were the men, who, as his hon. and learned friend near him (Mr. Whiteside) had shown, did for us in 1834 what we failed, disgracefully failed, to do for ourselves in N. 55. These were the men who, fighting under their gallant leaders. had for a quarter of a century or more maintained a glorious and successful contest against Russia, who raised the siege of Kars in ISM, whom we had spared no means to excite to renewed hostility against Russia, and whom (having succeeded in our objects) the Government now basely abandoned to their exasp Tided foe in the hour of our alleged triumph. When the war broke out we sent Colonel Lloyd and Mr. Longworth, accredited diplomatic agents, to enter into relations with these people, to arrange the plan of a campaign, and to promise them protection at the close of the war. Even arms, money, and ammu nition were sent to the independent chiefs. And now, when peace was concluded, the independence of Cir cassia was ignored by Lord Clarendon : Did the noble lord regard Circassia as independent of Russia, or did he not ? The first fruits of our successful war was that Russia now obtained the sanction of England to territories which she had hitherto regarded as indepen dent. Did the noble lord take the other ground, and still say he did not now regard those territories as of right be longing to Russia? If he did, then all the observations which he (Lord J. Manners) had ventured to make as to the dishonour accruing to the Crown of England by our treatment of those gallant people came to nought ; but the dishonour was perfectly insignificant in comparison with the baseness of our behaviour in that contingency. We excited the insurgent subjects of the power with which we were at war—we supplied them with arms, money, and ammunition—we invited a deputation from them to meet our ambassador at Constantinople—arranged with them a plan of campaign—we spared no pains to excite them against our common foe—and then, having successfully araused them to activity, even those whom the compara tively moderate and mild rule of Prince Woronzoff had reconciled to the Russian rule, when they had saved a fort ress which we ourselves were subsequently unable to pre serve, we then throw them away like a sucked orange, and permit the released forces of Russia to proceed to their final conquest and subjugation. (Hear.) The noble lord then quoted passages from Mr. Danby Seymour's work, proving that the opinion of that gentleman at least was that, if the " barbarous Rus sian blockade" of the Circassian coast were removed, as it was during the war, and the inhabitants per mitted to carry on a liberal commerce with Europe, they would soon yield to civilising influences, develop the resources of the country, and their energies be quickly turned from war to peace. His lordship, after showing how important it was to the security of Asiatic Turkey to preserve the independence of Cir cassia, took note of what had been done on this sub ject at the conferences : lie referred at once to the sole paragraph in which allusion was made to this question in the protocols : Count Walewski states that, as the second separate condition, the allied powers require that the state of the territories si tuated to the east of the Black tiea should be specially inquired into. Baron Brunow explains the diplomatic transactions which have placed Russia in possession of those territories, and their present situation. They could not know what was the explanation given of these diplomatic transactions, but it would be curious to know whether the representative of her Majesty assented to the whole of the explanation given by Baron Brunow. He found no answer whatever from Lord Clarendon, but after a little amicable discussion as to the rearrangement of the boundary between Turkey and Russia in Asia, Count Walewski again brought before the conference the point upon which England of all the powers was most deeply affected by every sentiment of honour and good faith. (Hear, hear.) Count Walewski observes that BURRIS had erected forts on the eastern coast of the Black Sea, which she had herself in part blown up, and that it will ho necessary to come to an under- standing in this respect. Then came the solitary observation of the Earl of Claren• don, the only proof throughout the whole of the protocols that Asia was ever present to his mind, or that the gallant people whom his Government had incited to wsr against their powerftil and implacable neighbour were not alto gether overlooked by this great statesman. (Hear, hear.) THE PRESS. The Earl of Clarendon. relying, speglfically, on the principle of the neutralisation of the Black Sea, proceeds to show that these forts could not be rebuilt. - - The Russian Plenipotentiaries, setting up the distinction which, according to theui, exists between these forts and military-maritime arsenals, maintain the contrary opinion. Of course, they maintained the contrary opinion, and they maintained it with great skill, with great courtesy, and, as the event proved, with remarkable success. (Hear.) But what was the result ? That the consideration of the point was adjourned. Until when ? Until the Ides of March— until the Greek Wends! (Cheers.) And the noble lord, who could state that the terms of this treaty would not permit Russia to re•erect these forts, when his position was controverted, had not the heart to resume a discussion in which the honour and interests of England were pre eminently concerned. (Cheers.) Why did the noble lord shrink from the re•discussion of the question, and why did he consent to terms so dishonourable to the Crown of England? Mr. M. MILNES thought that there was nothing t) be ashamed of in the treaty. He believed the aggressive and encroaching spirit of Russia to have been materially curbed by the late war : As regarded the Circassian people, the noble lord had, in his opinion, enormously exaggerated the amount of independence which that people had asserted and enjoyed, ns well as the claim which they were supposed to have upon England. There was scarcely any incident in the war which had more disappointed the advocates of freedom than the small amount of interest and sympathy which the Cir cassian people had taken in the great contest in which we had been engaged. He believed the fact to be that very intimate relations existed between the Russian Government and the leaders of the principal Circassian tribes; and that all the noble lord's fi'ars of any vengeance being wreaked upon the Circassians in consequence of anything that they might have done during the late war were entirely visionary and groundless. He did not believe that all the objects of the war were attained by this peace ; but, considering the circumstances, he thought it "as good a peace as any reasonable man could hope to obtain." Mr. LAYMiD confessed that he could not think the great objects of the war were attained by the peace. With the greater part of the speech of Lord John Manners he certainly felt himself compelled to agree. He objected to the non-recognition of Cir cassia : The very name of "Circassia" did not once occur in the protocols. He wished to know whether the blockade es tablished on the Circassian coast was to continue. Eng land had hitherto been excluded from all commercial inter course with that coast. He believed that if British corn werce were allowed there it would greatly tend to civilise the people. He agreed with the noble lord (Lord J. Manners) that there was no declaration which had ema nated from any European power which recognised the right of Russia to Circassia. On the contrary, this country had always considered that Circassia was wrongly and un lawfully occupied by Russia. But there was in the treaty a passage which acknowledged that Russia was in pos session of Circassia, and the very fact of their entering into a discussion as to the power of Russia to rebuild the forte admitted the right of Russia to the coast. He ad mitted that a distinction had been made between a fort and an arsenal. it was true Russia ought to have the right of defending her coasts. But what he contended was that the coast of Circassia was not a Russian coast. Therefore, if they tolerated her building or rebuilding forts there, it would be admitting that she had a positive claim to that coast. He agreed, also, with the noble lord that the capture of Kars had its effect in the rectification of the Asian frontier, and he could not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the fall of Kars was of no im portance. Yet he thought, on the whole, that her Majesty's Government, and Lord Clarendon in par• ticular, deserved great credit for the treaty of peace which bad been made. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was persuaded chat the treaty fully accomplished the objects of the war. The restoration of the Circassian forts he considered a confirmation of the Russian power in the Black Sea:-- My hon. friend (Mr. Layard) and the noble lord oppo• site ( Lord J. Manners) have argued that Russia has no rights over the Crimea. I believe her rights are confined to what were formerly the rights of Turkey. That power had certain forts which she occupied by hvr garrisons ; she had no sovereignty over the mainland, her rights being confined to those forts. By the treaty of Adrianople those forts were surrendered to Russia, who succeeded to the rights of Turkey, but to no more, and not one inch of ground beyond the forts could she claim upon that account. Those forts, however, gave Russia the means of sending troops from Odessa and Sebastopol to the Asiatic coast. If I am told that no advantages could be obtained beyond those we have obtained, I confess, I would rather hear that Russia had stipulated not again to occupy those forts than to have stipulated about the Aland With respect to the Belgian press, while the French Emperor was entitled to regulate the press in his own dominions, he ought to respect similar rights in other countries, and not to call upon an English Minister to put down the freedom of the press. He strongly condemned the intervention of Au'tria in Italy, which bad now lasted for seven years, and which was the cover for the most horrible excesses. He believed that good government in Italy c,iuld only be restored by the sacrifice of priestly power, and by the cessation of the Austrian protectorates. U. SATURDAY, He trusted, therefore, that Lord Clarendon' s words, as used at the conference, would not be allowed to fall to the ground, otherwise Italy would be left worse than she was before. Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON addressed himself en tirely to the question of Circassia He thought the Government ought to have taken care that the gallant Circassians were not handed over entirely to the power of Russia, because the termi na ti on of the war placed them in a worse position than they were before, Russia had armies in the neighbourhood su ffi c i ent to . trample under foot the gallant defenders of Circassia. lie was aware an impression was abroad that the Circassian,' had no claim upon us, and that there had been great apathy and indifference on their part during the late war But they were not to be condemned so h as til y. It woe true that two Circassian chiefs had been consulted. but those gallant mountaineers thought they would bo called upon to co-operate with a force landed in Asia, and left Varna, thinking that they had received a promise to that effect. The' had spread this idea, and no doubt theis was a deep feeling of disappointment in Circassia when the allied generals gave up the notion of military opera. tions in Asia. He regretted that nothing had been dove to counteract this impression, for the Circassians said, " only send us one battalion as a nucleus round which we may rally." The exigencies of the Crimea had, however, prevented even this limited assistance being sent to them. The Circassians had, notwithstanding, maintained their ancient character for gallantry. There was no doubt they might have made terms with Russia if they had been so inclined. Even their neutrality would have been a help to Russia during the war, but they had continued in me mitigated hostility to Russia, and had hardly been treated by us as they deserved. He could not say that a peace so concluded was an honourable peace. The Black Sea was thrown open to the mercantile marine of every nation, but did this apply to the 250 miles of the Circassian coast f The treaty said that the navigation of the Black Sea should be free from any impediment, "subject only to the regulations now in force." Did the house know that for twenty-five years there had been a rigid blockade in force. He hoped that the Government would not upon this occasion follow the practice which had been pursued at the conferences and adjourn the answer to all inconvenient questions, because " adjournment" seemed to him to mean an unconditional surrender to Russia. It had been the case with regard to the arming of transports and to every question that had been adjourned. He wished for some explanation respecting the amnesty which, according to the treaty, each belligerent power was to grant to its own subjects who had participated in the war, and to the mode in which it would affect Circassia. The Circassians denied being the subjects of Russia; and he feared that as free and independent people they would have no rights under the amnesty and would be exposed to the vengeance of Russia. In conclusion he moved, in the second pan , - graph of the address, after the word " learned," to omit the words " joy and," and after the word " conditions " to omit the remainder of the sentence and to substitute for it " which have accomplished to a great extent the objects for which the war was undertaken." Sir CHARLES WOOD denied that the Circassians had any claims upon us. By permitting Russia to rebuild her forts on the Circassian coast we only put affairs in the status quo cute. Ile admitted that there was little or no enthusiasm about the peace, but he thought that would be only transient. The debate was then adjourned till Tuesday, when it was resumed by Mr. W. S. LINDSAY, who argued that the treaty afforded grounds of joy and satisfaction, and accom plished the objects we had in going to war. Mr. R. PHILLIMORE, in bringing forward the amendment of which he had given notice, expressing the regret of the house that the immemorial and un doubted belligerent right of the Crown to capture enemies' goods in neutral ships should have been re nounced without an opportunity having been afforded to Parliament of expressing its opinion upon so grave and extensive an alteration of public andin ternational law, said he considered the declaration signed by Lord Clarendon a direct sacrifice of the maritime rights of Great Britain ; and insisted that such a question, not generally understood, ought to have been debated in Parliament, because it was impossible to deny that the principle of the renunciation extended to the right of search and the capture of contraband goods. Reason, custom, and authority justified the retention of these man• time rights, which had been parted with without ilia house and the country being aware of the importance of the sacrifice. The Marquis of GRANBY thought that the treaty, as a whole, contained as much as we bad a right to ex pect, and that it was one which the people of this country would accept. Mr. S. HERBERT (lid not agree that we were bound by any engagements to the Circassians. They had not assisted us ; and, considering what we had got by the treaty, was the house prepared to carry on the war alone for this point? In conclusion, he con sidered the terms of peace more than commensurate with the success of our arms for what was lost by our mismanagement in the field. Mr. BENTINCK, adverting to the second and third articles of the declaration in the protocol of the Bth of April, on the subject of neutrals in time of war— that the neutral flag covers enemy's goods, except contraband of war, and that neutral goods, with the same exception, are not liable to capture under an ■