The Press. — London, England, 1855-06-02 00:00:00

V NI .y - Zbt ° e ttls No. 109.—VoL. 111. LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 2, 1855. PRICE SIXPENCE. C!t rtss. LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 2, 1855. MR. DISRAELI'S motion has had the wholesome effect of a storm, which freshens the air when polluted by heavy vapours. It has cleared and purified the political atmosphere. Already we feel the bracing influence of exhilirating truths spoken with an authority which compelled the Government to abandon its _cowardly or de signing reserve, and to make ti show at least of vigour in its language. The debate did more than reveal the position of parties : it raised the character of the House, and proved that there was a spirit in that assembly which would render it perilous for any Minister to tamper with the national honour, or presume too far on the forbearance of Parliament. Never was a motion more successful, if we consider only the object it hail in view. That object was not to overthrow the Government. In an assembly like the House of Commons combinations for such a purpose are always practicable to leaders who will stoop to effect them. Had the motion been merely directed to secure a majority it would have been framed to catch votes. But so far was this from being the case, that considerable offers of assistance, we have every reason to believe, were made upon terms, and were not en couraged. The real object of the motion was to discon cert a scheme, which had all the features of a great conspiracy, to make England the victim of a German intrigue, and dethrone her from her eminence by an ignominious peace. The debate on the evening fixed for Mr. MILNER GIBSON'S motion indicated the threatened danger. It showed that the prin ciples of the Coalition were still in full force— that there was a secret understanding between the last Government and the present, or rather between the Ministers who retired and the Ministers who remained—and that the influence of Aberdeen councils were still paramount in the Cabinet. The declarations of Lord CLARENDON in one House, and of Lord PALYIERSTON in the other, that the Government were ready to give will ing ear to any propositions received from Vienna were not spoken at random. The last Vienna proposals had, in fact, been favorably received by the Cabinet. They had been com municated to their late colleagues. A new Coalition was contemplated, which would have been even more fatally opposed than the previous one to the real interests of the country, and would have secured a majority in Parliament for sanctioning any terms which Austria might have thought it convenient to propose and Russia to accept. This is the true explanation of that disgraceful scene in the Commons when the Aberdeenites came to the support of the Ministry, and Mr. MILNER GIBSON was comforted by the assurance that negotiations for peace would still bo carried on. If Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Lord PAL MEMOS were really of opinion on that evening that peace was only to be won by victory, and that for success in negotiation we must look to arms, why did they listen, and apparently with favour, to the Vienna pro posals ?—why did they seek to blind the country by postponing discussion on the ground that negotiations were still in pro gress? At that time there is no doubt that a majority of the Cabinet were favorable to the Austrian proposals, and hence we can under stand Count BuoL's complaint, that our Government, by the publication of the pro tocols of the Vienna Conferences, " made " public the negotiations for peace at a " moment when they cannot be regarded as " terminated." A crisis, not only in the war, but in our national existence, had arrived. At that moment it really rested with the Con servative party to determine the policy which should be pursued. Indecision on their part would have been construed into weakness or indifference. The Government were prepared to go any lengths in submission which they deemed consistent with their safety, and were only withheld by fear of the Opposition from adopting the views of Mr. GLADSTONE and his friends, and agreeing to terms which would have shaken our empire to its foundations, and for ever have degraded our name. It was to avert this grave, imminent, and by the country unsuspected danger, that Mr. DISRAELI'S motion was brought forward. The result justified his sagacity. Conspiracy is harmless from the moment that it is exposed. The Ministers took fright. Their tone sud denly changed—the projected Coalition was broken off, and the House of Commons, which would have been made an instrument to sanc tion the most profligate compact in our annals, rose at once to the dignity of its natural posi tion as the representative of the mind and guardian of the honour of the British people. Parties are more powerful through principle than through numbers. Had the minority been less than it was, the Opposition, by the brilliant reconnaissance of their leader, would still have disconcerted the sinister intrigue set afoot, and have saved the country from the shame of what, under the circumstances, could have been but an ignominious truce. The amendments proposed to the motion were a tribute to its importance and its truth. Those members on the Ministe rial side who fancy that they have a charac ter for independence to maintain were sud denly stricken with a sense of the duties they had neglected. Had they been sinew e in disapproving the language of Govern ment, or in distrusting its intentions (and the amendment of Mr. LOWE implies both), their plain course would have been to vote for the resolution of Mr. DISRAELI. They must not hope to uphold their credit with the country by a double-faced motion brought forward to bolster up the Ministry while professing to con demn it. Of the three amendments still to be brought before the House, that of Sir W. lizmicorn is only of the slightest importance, as showing the real sentiment of the party which rallied round the Government a fortnight ago to save it from an inconvenient discussion. Mr. LowE's amendment is one of those shams which can deceive no one. It is uncon stitutional from its interference with the pre rogative of the Crown, and it is impolitic because it pledges the House of Commons not to sanction peace until there is a reduction of the Russian fleet—a ccndition which will not bear scrutiny, as it would be ineffective as a guarantee, and impracticable in practice. Motions of this kind can never test the sincerity of a party, or the policy of an Ad ministration. The amendment of Sir Fasscts Mama remains. It is impossible that the House can sanction it without totally forfeiting the confi dence of the country. It commences by regretting that the negotiations did not suc ceed. Is the Legislature to give an earnest of its determination to prosecute the war with vigour by such puling expressions as this ? What is there, in fact, to regret in the failure of negotiations which, on the terms proposed, would only have led to a temporary cessation of hostilities, embittered by continual bicker ings, and incessantly occupied with prepara tions for a renewal of the struggle? The time for such resolutions has past. We suffered too much from the Aberdeen policy to permit its continuance. The nation, at last thoroughly aroused, will no longer allow its strength to be wasted, and its heroic defenders to be sacrificed to ignoble councils. In insists on a definite policy and an ener getic action. It desires peace not less than I,efore ; but its mind is made up that peace to be obtained must be conquered. The Government had the fairest oppor tunity for soliciting the Legislature to afford it that support for the prosecution of the war which Sir F. BARING would beg for it by a paltry side-wind. It neglected the oppor tunity. It preferred still to hang on Aus trian professions, and feign belief in the sin cerity of a Court which from the very com mencement of the dispute has never by a single act afforded the allies a pledge of its good faith. The system of the last Cabinet has been faithfully acted on by the present. There has been the same degrading and fruitless nego tiation—the same want of decided views and of official capacity to which we can distinctly trace all the disasters of the last year, and the insufficiency of our military force at the present time. It is not by a few high-sounding words wrung from Ministers by the pressure of necessity at the very last moment that they can be suffered to escape the penalty of their past mismanagement and the odium of their still-existing alliance with tho Aberdeen party. Henceforth Responsibility must be more than a vague word—a definite signification must be attached to it. The Conservative party has but begun its work. It has exposed a treacherous in trigue, and probably saved the country from such an ignominious peace as would have given entire satisfaction to Mr. GLADSTONE and his adherents. But this is the beginning, not the end of the parliamentary campaign. It is vain to expect that peace can be conquered until the whole vicious system of policy and conduct which has prevailed since the com mencement of the war, and which still exists, has been exposed and swept away. This is the appointed work for the Opposition. They must not shrink from it. The people, weary of mock Liberalism masking real corruption, will give them cordial support ; and if they are valiant and vigorous, they will be nobly rewarded by their success in the exaltation of the greatness and glory of their country.