The Press. — London, England, 1855-05-26 00:00:00

V rott6ings in V arliaiucnt. THE WAR. Mr. DISILAELI, on Tuesday, gave notice that on the Thursday he should move the following reso lution : That this house cannot adjourn for the recess without expressing its dissatisfaction with the ambiguous language and uncertain conduct of her Majesty's (iovernment in reference to the great question of peace or war, and that, under these circumstances, the house feels it a duty to declare that it will continue to give every support to her Majesty in the prosecution of the war, until her Majesty shall, in conjunction with her allies, obtain for the country a safe and honourable peace. In giving this notice, the right hon. gentleman said that after the scenes of the previous evening, after the equivocal language of the Government, and their discouraging demeanour, he could not agree to the adjournment of the house without some means were taken of obtaining some explicit information on the great subject of peace or war. The silence of the house in 1853 bad lowered its character, and bad not assisted in the preservation of peace. Their pro longed forbearance might perhaps drift them into an ignominious peace, as their former forbearance had drifted them into a disastrous war. Mr. LAYARD here expressed his ;readiness to post pone his own resolution, which stood likewise for Thursday. Lord PALMERSTON denied that the language of the Government was equivocal or ambiguous, beyond the necessary reserve attending international communica tions. He asked if the Government should have neglected the advances of Austria, under whose auspices the lase conferences were held. They had not relaxed their military preparations in conse quence. As for the resolutions, he should be per fectly ready to meet them. M. DISRAELI'S RESOLUTIONS. On Thursday Mr. Disitazu accordingly brought forward his resolution. The conduct, he said, of the Government was so ambiguous, and its, language so uncertain, that the public mind was filled with dis trust and discontent. He had hoped that, in this sullen temper of the country, the Prime Minister would himself have put before Parliament his views on negotiations so ostentatiously conducted. Though nothing of the kind was done, he himself still shrunk from bringing forward the question, lest he should be ancused of unworthy motives. He felt, however, after the country had been baulked by the with drawal of a recent notice, that it was no longer con sistent with his duty to remain inactive. After a sarcastic review of the fortunes of the Ministry since its commencement, and the position and conduct of the seceders from it, who were to have been the principal supporters of Mr. Gibson's motion, he commented on the appointment of Lord J. Russell as plenipotentiary at Vienna, a post for which he was unfitted by his avowed hostility to Russia, his diplomatic inexperience, and his political imprudence. He referred to his conduct when the confidential communications of Russia made known her designs on Turkey—he had then committed himself to an acknowledgment of the protectorate of Russia over the Christians in Turkey—and proved, from the terms of the fourth article of the Vienna Conference, that the fatal interpretation of the treaty of Kirardje was admitted to be an " erroneous interpretation," though that interpretation had led to the present war. He went through the history of the Conference, commenting on the care taken by Lord John of the honour of Russia, as if the honour of Russia was intrusted to his keeping, and which he followed up by making the most insulting and degrading propo sitions ever made to an independent nation. This he accompanied with the admission that the preser vation of the honour of Russia was one of the essen tials of peace—an admission owing to which the conferences were broken off. The third pint, according to all the rules of diplomacy, should have been taken first; instead of which the conferences began with a display of courtesy which only served to embitter their termination. After having thus exposed the conduct of the representative of the Ministry during the conferences, he came to that of the Ministry itself after them. The protocols were laid upon the table—no address is moved to the sovereign—the motion of an independent member is suppressed. The excuses of the Ministry, in spite of their declarations to the contrary, were vague, un eertain, and ambiguous. He exposed the discre pancy of the statements of the various Ministers, when Lord Clarendon had expressly said that the sleeting again of the Conference without a specific object would give an erroneous impression that negotiations were carried on when they were not. This morbid state of negotiation damped the spirit Of the country, and hindered the due prosecution of the war. Conferences at Vienna cannot stop with invasion of Russian territories, and destruction of Russian forts. To declare the deceptiveness of the THE PRESS. Ministerial position, and to put an end to the vicious double system of war and diplomacy, were the ob jects of his notion, which he trusted would not be evaded by some miserable amendment. Sir F. Bin's° objected to Mr. Disraeli that be had not frankly and fairly brought his charges against the Government in a separate form. He thought that the principle of censuring a Minister became he did not regularly supply information on negotia tion yet in progress was unconstitutional. He urged against the motion that it was brought forward for party purposes, and founded on party principles. It shut the door upon peace, and, on our part, com munication with our allies. He proposed as an amendment a resolution which simply regretted the ill-success of the conferences, and promised the support of the house in the prosecution of the war. Sir W. HEATHCOTE objected to this amendment that it was ambiguous and uncertain, and proposed to add to it a sentence declaring that" the house still cherished a desire that the communications in pro gress might tend to a successful issue." He was fearful that the responsibility of blood might other wise rest on the head of that house. He considered the proposition of Russia respecting the balance of power in the Black Sea, and though he did not ap prove of it, he considered that it contained the fair elements of negotiation. He thought that the principle of limiting the Russian fleet would subject Russia to a galling irritation, and was, besides, a regulation which it would be very difficult to enforce. As to the war, he contended that we might well rest contented with our actual successes. . . Mr. KER SEYMER had no confidence in the Vienna negotiations, or in the conduct of Austria. He thought it of the utmost importance that the house should show itself in earnest, not only in the sight of foreign nations, but in regard to the opinion of the country itself. The real question was, whe ther we were to obtain peace by military success, or by conferences at Vienna. He supported the original resolution. Mr. WILLINsoir complained of the assertion that those who wished the war vigorously conducted were adverse to peace. He retorted on the peace party, that they themselves, by their encouragements to the Czar, were in part the authors of the war. The Marquis of GRANBY made a complaint directly opposed, that the peace party were unjustly charged with desiring war at any price. He defended the conduct of Russia, who at the commencement of the contest might have occupied Sebastopol if she had. chosen, and considered that we had no right to re main at war after the object of war had been ob tained. Mr. R. J. PHILLIMORE held similar language. He could not admit the honourable intention assigned to Russia, but he thought that we had already secured objects of the greatest importance, and that to con tinue the war would be to share the guilt of the aggressor. Mr. GLADSTONE, reviewing the several propositions before the house, had no hesitation in coinciding with that of Sir W. Heathcote. Two courses were open to them in the present struggle—one to take stipulationa and enforce acceptance, the other to dismember and destroy the opposing power. We were in danger of adopting a middle course, insulting Russia without weakening her, and after offering her indignity leaving her in all her strength to wait for opportunities of revenge. He then reviewed in detail the negotiations from the commencement. Russia bad, in various treaties, managed to obtain a ser►es of claims upon Turkey which might be at any time alleged to justify her in any aggression. It was on this ground that the war originated, and the first objects did not contemplate the complete eradi cation of the evil. For a long time the efforts of the powers were confined to narrowing it. He traced the progress of the various demands of Russia and counter-demands of Europe, until, iu August last, Lord Clarendon made the propositions which contained the germ of the four points. Those pro. positions were instantly and ignominiously rejected by Russia. Yet only four months subsequently, after thelexpedition to Sebastopol—and he mentioned this to show the influence of that expedition—the Czar declared his acceptance of the four points. Mr. Gladstone then reviewed the late negotiations on the four points ; we had obtained the two first, and we were certain of obtaining the fourth ; we had even obtained one half of the third, but the other half contained stipulations to which Russia could not consent consistently with her safety and honour, and she offered a counter-proposition which in itself contained more than the allies could have ventured to ask her, in leaving the absolute control of the Straits at the disposal of Turkey. He asked what were the objects of continuing the war? They could Rot he a dismemberment of Russia—that was impos• sible ; they could not be a question of nationalities — such a war we should have to wage alone. Were our objects, then, merely those of military success ? Against such a vrinciple he declaimed vehemently, as unjust, unchristian, and tempting the wrath of heaven. Further success would only increase our SATURDAY, difficulties, by exciting the enthusiasm cf Russia. We ought to be satisfied with the glory we had obtained, and might well shrink from adding other victims to the half-million which had already perished in the contest. Lord Joubi RUSSELL, after adverting to the party motive by which he supposed Mr. Disraeli to have been actuated in bringing forward his motion, placed the question upon practical grounds. Whatever might have been the terms which we would have accepted before the outbreak of hostilities, at present we could only accept such as would prevent its re. currence. He thought that security would be best obtained by making the Black Sea a commercial lake. He argued that the proposition of Russia to throw open the Black Sea to the war-ships of all nations would be only to permit her to appear whenever she chose at the gates of Constantinople ; that in practu3e, the ships of other nations would seldom visit the Black Sea, while those of Russia would be always in readiness ; that in such cases priority was everything; and to leave so great a danger behind us, and withdraw 200,000 men from the Russian territory, would he to acknowledge a defeat in the eyes of Europe and of Asia. He traced the general increase of the Russian power, and of her hold upon Turkey, arguing that we could not make peace without having established an effectual check upon both. We were far from attacking the honour of Russia; it was on account of her honour that she was invited to take the initiative in the pro position on the third point. He defended the con duct of Austria, alleging her del►cate position, ex posed to the open attacks of Russia, and the secret hostility of Prussia. He concluded with a general defence of the conduct of the Ministry. DIPLOMATIC ESTABLISHMENTS. Mr. WISE on Tuesday moved a resolution pledging the house to a revision of these establishments, in accordance with the report of the committee of 18150 on official salaries. lie advocated the reduction of our expenditure—the abolition of the smaller German missions, which cost much and loaded the Foreigu office with useless despatches—and the establishment of a mission at Frankfort in their place. He thought that the Italian missions might be reduced in the same way. The country knew too little of what was termed " secret diplomacy "—if it had known more we should have been in a better position at this mo ment. He complained that the whole service was full of jobbery and favoritism. Mr. EWART, who seconded the motion, urged the establishment of an educational test for our diplo matic agents. This last suggestion, Lord PALMERSTON said, was now about to be carried out. As for our diplomatic arrangements, the salaries were below rather than above the proper standard, and inferior to those paid by other countries. Our missions to the smaller German States were necessary to give the intimate knowledge of their politics which was required. He defended generally the principles upon which diplo matic appointments were made, and the conduct of our diplomatic officers, upon whom the motion was a censure. After some further discussion, in which Mr. OTWAT cited several instances of the undue promotion of members of the aristocracy, the resolution was car ried by 112 to 57. Mr. Wise had proposed its with drawal, which was only prevented by an objection from Mr. H. Baillie. NEGOTIATIONS FOR PEACE. - - The announcement of Mr. M. Gibson's motion had thronged the house on Monday with an assemblage of members such, as Mr. Disraeli afterwards ob served, as had not been collected there for many years. In the midst of the general expectation, Mr. S. HLRBERT rose and said that on a subject so momentous he wished, for the guidance of him self and those who acted with him, to put a question to the Prime Minister. Quoting a passage from a protocol of the Vienna Conference of the 21st of April, in which Count Iluol declared that be did not consider the different modes of solution exhausted, that it belonged especially to Austria to look for means of accommodation, and that he trusted the Conference would before long resume its sittings, he begged to ask if the Government considered the means of pacification exhausted, if it held all nego tiation at an end, if Austria was still charged with the task of accommodation, and if the Conference was still in a state to snake or receive new proposi tions? To all this Lord PALMERSTON replied that the Government did not consider the means of pacifica tion exhausted, that Austria was, in truth, charged with the task of accommodation, and that the Con ference, though suspended, was not closed. The Government would feel it their duty to give their earnest attention to any proposition that might arrive through Austria Mr. GLADSTONE then appealed to Mr. Gibson to withdraw his motion. A second Russian proposal had been, tendered on the 26th of April, to which the Reach and Austrian plenipotentiaries had