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

No. M.—Vor.. 111. LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 26 1855. PRICE SIXPENCE. (T.')!2c Vrtss. understand our determination, and that our vote may be placed on record to render ti midity traitorous and retrogression impossible. That is one course of action, and it is the course which a great nation should not hesitate to adopt. . _ . . . short of the limitation of the Russian fleet could be accepted by our Government, while there was not the slightest probability that those terms would be conceded by the Cabinet of St. Petersburg. The fact of Russia resist ing the limitation of her fleet was, in Lord Jons's opinion, a pregnant proof that she me ditated aggressive designs against Turkey. It was her interest and her object to possess Constantinople, and to rule there. Still, the door for negotiation must be kept open that the Aberdeen party, with the peace advocates, might not be offended. The Ministry, then, is compelled to play a double game to maintain its precarious exist ence. Ambiguity is a necessity of its position. Peace and war are the magnets which attract it on one side and the other, and keep it in a state of perpetual fluctuation. Does any one believe that such uncertainty is consistent with a really vigorous prosecution of hostilities, or is likely to produce an im pression of our earnestness abroad ? Despotic Governments may afford to negotiate for peace while they throw all their strength into the prosecution of war, as tho whole powers of the State are at their disposal But in free Governments the strength of the Executive must depend an the force and energy of the public sentiment, and that sentiment never can be intensified until a decided line of action be determined on. The weakness of the Government and its causes are now apparent. A majority of the House are pledged to support it in office, but to perplex it by opposite counsels, to drag it in different directions, to deny it their confi dence, to depreciate it by their speeches, to deprive it of all real power by their votes,—to keep it in existence, but to make that existence as degraded and as worthless as possible. On Tuesday night the question art com plete revision of our Consular Establishments came before the House. The motion was opposed by the Government, which on a division could muster only 57 votes to 112, though amongst the 67 were the names of five Cabinet Ministers—Viscount PALM E ASTON, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Sir G. C. LEWIS, Mr. VERNON SMITH, and Sir W. MOLESWORTH, with the two Secretaries of the Treasury, and a muster of Ministerial hacks. What elements of strength can such a Government really possess? Supported by influences which dare not be avowed, it is fuund in constant oppo sition to the great body of its nominal adherents. From the Ministerial benches there emanate three counter-propositions. The Peelites, or the remnant of the Aberdeen Ministry, have made common cause with that party which considers all war as sinful, and which demands that peace shall be obtained—if on satisfactory terms so much the better, but, at all events, that there shall be peace. As the peace party thus constituted find that they are much too insignificant to impose their views on the country, or to give them direct effect in any way, they content themselves with demanding that " the door of negotiation shall be left " open." In this sense two members spoke on Thursday night. Sir W. HEATHCOTE would have the House expressly vote that "it still cherishes the " desire that the communications which are " in progress may arrive at a successful issue," a vote which, not only in St. Petersburg, but in every Court of the Continent, would he received as an unequivocal declaration that England was no longer a Power to be feared or respected, but to he conquered, when her spirit had been a little further dashed by a continuance of hostilities, and of Liberal mis government and dissensions. Mr. GLADSTONE broadly took the ground that it would be impossible not only to con quer Russia, but by any scheme of policy, or by any success in arms, to make her consent to terms to which she had a strong objection. He entirely concurred in the proposed amend ment of Sir `V HEATHCOTE. He considered that we have gained the objects of the war, and that by continuing we were in danger of chang ing it, on our part, from a just to an unjust war. These opinions, honestly held, should have led to a cordial support of Mr MILNER Guises's motion. But the Government was not to he directly opposed, while it kept "the " door of negotiation open." Mr. LOWE, representing another section of the Ministerial side of the House, would consider the door of negotiation absolutely closed by the refusal of Russia to restrict the strength of her fleet in the Black Sea. Thus, between these two parties of Government sup porters there is direct opposition of opinion ; and in this division of sentiment is to be found the secret of that "uncertain and ambiguous " language" which compromises our honour, impairs our strength, gives confidence to our foe, and induces neutral States to believe that they have nothing to fear from our hos tility, and everything to hope from our vacil lation. It is impossible that this state of things can last without both bringing our whole system of government into contempt, and greatly weak ening the moral power of the country. The compact between the Ministry and a majority in the Legislatnre is flagrantly corrupt. It is founded on no agreement of principle or iden tity of sentiment, but on a secret community of selfish views. The public interests are sacrificed, and constitutional government brought into disrepute. that a knot of great Whig families may, in the forcible language of Mr. DisaAEct, " govern by the principles of " an oligarchy, masked by the language of " democracy." The debate will have the good effect of clearing up a world of misunderstanding as to the position of our leading public men. There are the Peelites with their convoluted tactics, sager for peace yet afraid to openly declare for it, and bent on keeping the door of negotiation open ; the war party, represented by Mr. The Government dare not offend one or other party of its supporters, and endeavours, therefore, to conciliate both by piomising that the door of negotiation shall be kept open while the war shall be prosecuted with vigour. A more humiliating confession of weakness was never made in the British Parliament. In this great emergency the Ministry retains office only by balancing the opposite demands of its supporters, and fears to proclaim that its policy is either for peace or war lest a great desertion from the Ministerial benches should ensue. Yet the speech of Lord JOHN Russeu Was directed to prove that further negotiation must of necessity be fruitless, as no terms r' • • s7l'%‘—fri ‘ j's • J I /710 ° 7 /AIX& t i e t 11) n a nty ion im- Ai° ace the I Of ree ire :he ver of its the but it afi- to -to nce 1111- ate vas l a 12, ire ON, Kr. ith a ate fly are po- nal can n of R k- 'he .ity t is en- ity ire !nt Nat of of of of to re 38, nn Ir. LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 26, 1855. WHILE we write, the debate in the Commons on Mr. DISRAELI'S motion is proceeding. The division must take place this morning, and the motion will probably be rejected by a con siderable majority. But we are not the less satisfied of the propriety of bringing it forward, or of the good service it will do by eliciting the opinions of those eminent members of the House who are presumed to represent our principal divisions of public opinion, and by enabling the country to distinctly understand the position in which it is placed. The Opposition, after a period of forbear ance, as we think, too long delayed, has now taken up its ground. War is so great a calamity that as long as there seemed a proba bility that it might be brought to a conclusion by a not dishonourable peace, there was fair ground for declining to challenge the conduct of Government, or to interfere in any way with its management of the negotiation at Vienna. But that negotiation is now, if not nominally, yet really broken off. We have insisted on terms which Russia positively refuses to con cede. We are committed by the acts of our Administration, and at this moment we can rationally or honourably lc ok for peace only through sow such great military successes SS will induce Russia to lower her tone, and to treat on terms which she now firmly rejects. The question then is, shall we maintain the farce of negotiation without the slightest expectation of any satisfactory result from it; shall we still court the mediation of Austria, and declare ourselves willing to listen to " any propositions" which Russia may make; or shall we say our part is taken, our terms are known ; we have confidence in the justice of our cause, and the might of our arms, and we dare the last dread issue in the irreconcileable differences of States too mighty for an umpire —the appeal to battle ? The Opposition has solemnly declared its conviction that the l a tt er i s th e t on e v:hich it is the duty of England to take at this decisive moment, when the war must assume mightier proportions and a fiercer and more desperate character than have yet distinguished it. At this moment, when emphatically the eyes of the world are on the British Legislature— when the courage and sentiments of the country are to be tested in a decisive manner —when our Constitution is on trial, and it has to be seen how far our representative system is able to combine high principle with ener getic action, and to act in harmony with the de sires of the people, and with the traditionary glories and present unquestioned greatness of our State —the Opposition protests against language being held by the head of the Ministry of an uncertain or ambiguous nature. It says :—Let our resolution on this great question of peace or war be solemnly taken in race of the people and before the world, that whatever turn events may take our course may be clear, that every State in Europe may F