The Sun. — London, England, 1855-07-07 00:00:00

3usinosS mg dAr. Pm 141/ • f 474 tr SUN OFFICE, Six o'Clock. TELEGRAPHIC DESPATCH FROM THE CRIMEA. Lord Panraure presents his compliments to the editor of The Sun, and has great pleasure in transmitting the enclosed intelligence which has t hia day reached him from General Simpson. WAR DEPARTMENT, JULY 7. " CRIMEA, JULY 6, 6 P.M. " Cholera is decidedly on the decline. "T he siege operations progress favourably." SPAIN. 1-43) RID, July 5.---.Tbe Queen sets out on Satur day for the Escurial. The Cortes have taken into rusideration a proposition relative to a voluntary 'a n , l l of 23 0,000,000 reals. th - uhe Glamor Public() has the following details of the tt°PPago of a glis .r-fdiligence, near Burgos, in which oh Ambassador, Lord Howden, was tra velling wh i i ` The diligence was stopped near Buitrago, n place at 3 2 ,ea horse s are changed, by a band of factious persons, all '4llDi:ober, under the orders of the brothers Hierros, th e of whom were well mounted and in uniform. They coed told the driver to stop ; he, being greatly fright 4e! did so at once. They then ordered the English h : l l , ll4 ag, actor to alight, and having recognised who he was him if he were travelling with any Spaniard of pii -a ` Opinions. He replied in the negative. They then i t a h ey a ut o oi nt irde e li o g t i h o e l :questions to him which he answered, and !u id him that their cause was the defense of the King and that they were incapable of wanting ez a r , e !Peet to any one. They proceeded,. however, to e e '" n i t rie the Ambassador's trunks, and having found in re m nthern a cross of the Order of San Fernando, they v,7 l l :ged that he must have won it in thu preceding civil that Combating Don Carlos. Lord Itowden replied Md . e JerY man was at liberty to defend hie opinions, ivat when he did so courageously and honestly he eh ~ li 'erthy of respect. They, at length, told his lord the that he might continue his journey, but detained Itv . other passengers six ht.ours, without, however, be too„.111g rudely to them. When they went away they the' the horses, which had beou prepared to change at Pet-house, and left mules in their stead." IVOOLLEN TRADE. i1,.....--...---- (Prom, the Leeds Mercury of this day.) 7E I , July 6.—There has been a fair steady trade ‘ t l , ll the warehouses during the current week. of the largest London and Scotch buyers, as be en . 1 6 others from other parts of the eountry, have so le 47, the town, and there has consequently been Ivhw e ae tivity and a good business done by those houses who! onexions are among the London and other ( 10iet:7 6 buyers. The country trade houses are rather twee f ", B the present time is the transition period be any f or Seasons. The expos t trade continues without )311 4Lerial change. nia r k A 4l3 , !Wu), Thursday.—We have had a rather slacker of w to - day in all branches. There is a large quantity sad 0 1: 3 ' in supply, and spinners purchase with reluctance Penny"ektation, owing to tho. farmers asking fully one stat e. more than the market can afford in its present re n : ; * In Yarns there is no change to report. They (1 0 1„ .11 firtn. In Pieces there is not quite so much - g• For spring goods ord. ix's are nearly completed. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF LORDS---I,YESTERDAY.) THIRD REA. DINGS. The following bills were sevc wally read a third time ~4 4 (1 passed :—Hedon and Hall. &c., Roads ; Sligo Gas ; 'st. John's College, Oxford, Estate ; West Bromwich b l lnProvement ; Bridge Estate; Bolton and Nightingale ead (Amendment) ; Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway Amendment) ; Gun Barrel Proof House (Birmingham tni London) ; Wolverhampto a New Water (Amend -1%111) ' • West Somerset Mineral. Railway (Amendment). The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition fr om , the Lo n d on City Mi ss ion. against the alterations made in the Religious Worship Bill. On the motion the noble lord, the petition, was lead at length by he clerk at the table. f ord BROUGHAM called the attention of their ( "ships to a misstatement that had appeared in ;tert:pluoitllat house e daily papers, w Lich purported to be that the proceedings that took place in Upon the hearhai; of a particular case, the noble lord. That repo:rt stated that he (Lord t r :! tl _g h an 3 ) had, by an expression of opinion, turned the til -113r itY of the house in favour of a particular party to all e d suit. The fact was that - for three weeks before ea ,, a fortni g ht f o ll o wing the hearing of the b utt he was not in the house al; all. He did not attri, e qt 4 cY blame to the paper in question, nor to the 1 ., 11 0 1 Z eot that had been made in - the cause , which, if truly ruL tt ed, were both just and pr( q my, but he attributed the gr4Presentation to some disaffected party that was ag by the accusation. The a few words from Lori CADIPBELL, tq e ,r LORD CHANCELL() R confirmed the state oni;" f his noble and learned friend. The fact was the 1.4%, 4 ,,, l aw lords present at the time were Lord St. th e cards and himself. He (the .'Lord Chancellor) thought t o 4 i tic ippent of the court bel.o w should be maintained. clordi Leonards was of a nontrary opinion, and. ac es belo w he rule in sucd. ca, 3es the judgment of the . was h T he subject then dropped. Th RELIGIOUS IVOR SHIP BILL. of 0 ;', 6 Earl of DERBY ma' ',Ted the second reading 41 "is bill. He regretted the alteration made by the of ;, et committee, which did nod meet with the approval 1341" noble earl who had orig inally the charge of the I) .ti b t er ' a sharp conversation between the Earl of L o i'r, the Earl of SHAFTEE3RIIRY, and the Bishops of ft h % and OXFORD, the biii. was withdrawn. d' e Assizes and Sessions I ;ill was read a third time 11- Passed FRIENDLY SOC [STIES BILL. pmfi-eedr'rieudly Sccieties Bill was read a third time and , Ivh• td CAMPBELL expre ;.sing the satisfaction with In the course of its p assage through the house, s ge a u seen i n t ro d u c e d into it. a clause tending to guard so e - 1 „ 11 ,. 8 , t an abuse of the princitple of assurance by burial ho h . 1 1,`", which might have doe effect of leading to those — ule crimes which excited. so much attention a few t T a tgo. COURT OF EXCITEQUER (IRELAND) TThis bill was read a second time. he Stock i n T ra d e Bill writ!. read a second time. o' " c l o cit• lordships then adjourried at a quarter past eight ' °I7 SE OF COMMON;— (YESTERDAY.) 14; TETE CONDUCT OF THE POLICE. SHELLEY asked the Home Secretary of State 1 4 stse'oer it was his intention, ratter the allegations made in petition presented to the, house yesterday respect te; t he condu c t o f the police on Sunday in Hyde-park, q ietitut e a searching investi4 ration into their conduct sir G Jet t G EORGE GREY saki he had not been able ° investigate the charges made in those petitions, Wit repeated the statements made by him yesterday iki;l:eference to the conduct .0 the police. He had re eo:°, a number of representsbt ions from persons, some Pr c . - P l aiting of the conduct of the police, and others ap it. DUNCOMBE, to be in order, moved the ad ;m'llent of the house. (Laughter.) The inquiry to bhi e k arching and to satisfy the public must be one to 1;:olbeg the public should ha ve access. A mere report kl o ; the Chief Superintendent of Police or the es.t'X' c ffico he thought would not be considered I)4,,i"ct s , ory by the people. Let a commission be ap th t 7u for the purpose of inquiring into the allegations to 4 ; h ad been made against the police, with full power " l ataine witnesses, and hear persons by themselves Nv o tiosel, when he bad no doubt the charges ti i ;"' 4 , l be fully substantiated. The inquiry men - ht'_ the Secretary of State would be a to 2,lete farce in the eyes of the public. With regard tar t' Bat he had read of the soldiers and the Home Secre th43::lB. rePly that the commanding o ffi cer or commandant vi k4 - `ed th e police for what they had done, the of fi cer F3i, , °lll 3' a sergeant. • GREY—I am not aware that that was the case. Was - '"UNCOMBE said what he wanted to know sham' W hat had b een done to those men? If by crying reo l ; i e eh the police in the park for their conduct to powers they had committed an offence against the civil ho' tileY ought to be punished as well as men he r w ore fu s t ian jackets. The honour able mem r:ferred t o a letter written by the senior cu ra t e T r . 4d ?t• Botolpb, with reference to the Sunday ra at 31 . , whicha true, showed the me tro p olis to b e h gr t) e ' a ngel . . It was from a minister of the Gos p el e aos this description came, and who stated that e tl t e . ple of the district of Houndsditch were the mo freV,d. ruffians that could be found in the metropo lis . 4. li d a el „, le v i !ci the people would have been peaceable last "t th' and the police left them alone. Some . d ry 1, 1 '4 People who assembled there on that re s , l Probably never been there before, from the ex ad 01 1 they used, because they were heard to say they eotk,llerer seen so nice a place. Victoria Park was a ßa i n tr . ig t o be compared to it, and they should visit it °tit of again , lle warned th em aga i ns t k ee pi ng th e p e ople visit °f the Park for should they again Doli ce ". and m ee t w i t h o b s t ruc ti on f rom the their they would proceed, no doubt, to enforce (Hear, hear.) If it was too late at this iot, che f the session to appoints commission to examine stri nve matter, he hoped that an inquiry the most sitSiror,talvtieopuolicleneext session be instituted into the can or f or GREY said he had never proposed any specific I‘‘r!i.' su oal m n o d d . s e °I, inquiry into the proceedings in Hyde rine, and 0 .: . :•Y,!.0ut, as he had promised, a full, corn `"'crungKinquiry should be made with regard to the conduct of the police on that occasion. (Hear, I hear.) The honourable member (Mr. Duncombe) pre sumer' that the inquiry was to b conducted under the auspices of the Home-oface, or under the sur veillance of the police • but such was certainly not his (Sir G. Grey's) view when he first nropcsed the inquiry; and further, the hon. member bad acted very unjustly in leaving it to be inferred that the inquiry would be one of a partial and unsatisfactory nature. He (Sir G. Grey) pledged himself that the inquiry should be con ducted in a manner which would be perfectly satisfac tory to the public. In justice to the police, be felt bound to say that if the public went to the Park for the purpose of conducting themselves properly and peaceably the police would protect them ; but if they went there for a contrary purpose, the police, they might depend, would be ever ready to do their duty without fear either of intimidation or misrepresentation. After a few words from Mr. DuiceomßE in reply, CoL LINDSAY, in defence of the soldiers alluded to, said that soldiers would never be found opposing the police in the execution of their duty. (Hear, hear.) Mr. J. W. FOX said there was no blame whatever attached to the soldiers ; but when the promised inquiry took place he should be prepared to furnish the names of several respectable men, who were witnesses to the police striking old inoffensive men, walking quietly along, and also striking women and 'children. One gentleman, a clergyman, was walking accidentally along, and he told him (Mr. Fox) that he saw the police strike people with great and unprovoked fury, and when he (the clergyman) began to address the police, remonstrating with them, there was such a threatening attitude assumed by the police towards him that he thought it more prudent to make a rapid retreat. He would take that oppor tunity of saying that he had received a communication from Houndsditch relative to the statements made in that house by the hon. member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Ker Seymer), as to the sales that take place there on the Sunday, and stating that those sales afforded a cheap and ready mode of purchase by persons who could not attend such places on other days. (Hear, and a laugh.) Mr. KER SEYMER said the statement he had made with reference to Houndsditch fair had not been contra dieted, but rather corroborated. As to the existence of Houndsditch fair, without any reference to the Sunday Trading Bill, it was a disgrace to the metro polis. Mr. BOWYER bore his testimony, from personal observation, to the extreme brutality of the police on Sunday last in Hyde•park. OFFICERS' INCOME TAX. Mr. H. BAILLIE asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he was disposed to take into consi deration the question that officers upon foreign service should be exempted (as was now the case in India) from payment of income tax. Mr. S. KNOX, before the question was answered, asked whether the additional pay of ls. per day was to be given to the soldiers who had served, and were serving in the Crimea ? Mr. BENTINCK deprecated the course adopted of asking questions similar to this, and that of the hon. member for Finsbury, in which latter case the feelings of the people were more likely to be inflamed than sub dued. With regard to the probable disturbance on Sunday next; in Hyde-park, if such took place, he thought it would be attributable more to the ill-advised remarks of the hon. member for Finsbury than the con duct of the Home Secretary. Mr. DUNDAS bore his testimony to the forbearance of the police on Sunday last, in driving the canaille back from the carriage way. The police could do no other than they had in driving those rascally boys who assem bled there, yelling at every person who passed in a car riage. The majority of persons assembled were youths, under 20 years of age. He advised the Government, cp the next occasion, to avail themselves of a 6-pounder. Mr. WILLIAMS hoped the inquiry would be a strin gent one, when it would be found the conduct of the police was disgraceful. Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to Mr. Baillie's ques tion, said the reason why the Indian officers did not pay the income tax was on account of their being paid out of the revenue of the India company. Officers on active service have a field allow ance besides their pay more than the amount of the in come tax, to meet the additional expenses of the cam paign, and that field allowance was proposed to be ex tended to the men at the amount of 6d. per day, which would allow them to have some extra comforts, and make provision for their families. Mr. ROEBUCK—I rise, sir, to speak upon a very serious matter. Words have been used by those who should not have uttered them—words have been spoken in this house which should not be used by any English gentleman. The hon. member for Linlithgowshira has recommended to the right hon. gentleman the use of six pounders against the people—(hear, hear) — Mr. G. DUNDAS (interrupting)—l did not intend more than that I thought military force should be used. Mr. ROEBUCK—The hon. member has apologised for his words. The SPEAKER—The established rule of the house is that if exception is taken to words used by any hon. member in the course of debate, a motion should be made to have the words taken down immediately. Mr. ROEBUCK—I rose, sir, to make that motion. (Order.) The SPEAKER—Whatever words may have been spoken, they should not be taken exception to after that time. Mr. ROEBUCK—I rose immediately with the :n -tention of moving that the hon. member's words be taken down, but I yielded to the hon. member for Lambeth, who proceeded to address the house. Ithink that no man who feels as an Englishman—that no gentleman in this house—should make use of any such expression as that made by the hon. member for Linlithgowehire. (Loud cheers,) First, the hon. member called the people '• canaille ;" .then he took exception to their free enjoy - , ment of th parks of this metropolis ; and then he Called on the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State to make use of six-pounders against them. (Great cheering.) The people of this metropolis believed themselves un• justly treated. Ido not think that the noble lord the member for Middlesex acted unwisely in withdrawing his noxious bill as he did, though I am not a friend to any course that would be yielding to clamour. (Hear.) But that was a different thing from the course which is re commended by the hon. member—that of using six pounders against the inhabitants of this metropolis. It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to say that he did not mean what he said, but surely he has arrived at years of discretion. (A. laugh.) As the Speaker has decided that the words cannot now be taken down, I will not make the motion which I had intended. STEAM POST AT AUS 4 COMMUNICATION WITH TRALIA. Sir J. PAKINGTON asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had received copies of a circular of the Governors of the Australian colonies, containing the description of a plan for the establishment of regular steam postal communications with these colonies? Lord J. RUSSELL replied that the Treasury had under their control and management the mails for Australia, and that his hon. friend the Secretary for the Treasury would state what arrangements were in operation or in contem plation. Mr. WILSON said that the arrangement of mails by the Cape of Good Hope had been abandoned, but with respect to communications every two months by India they were not abandoned, but only suspended in consequence of the Peninsular and Oriental Company not having ships to per form the service. A proposal bad been made by the Trea sury to the Peninsular and Oriental Company for wails every month to the Australian colonies, but no answer had as yet been received. The subject would not be lost sight of, and he could assure the right hon. gentleman that the Go vernment felt a lively interest in the establishment of a satisfactory arrangement, and a desire for a monthly com munication with our Australian colonies. (Hear. ) COMPENSATION FOR PRICE OF COMMISSIONS. Mr. RICH brought under the notice of the house the heavy charge and serious consequence s t hat may ensue from grants to the widows of officers killed in action, as compen sation for the price of the commissions which their husbands may have purchased. He complained that when, on the occasion of his making a motion relative to the sale and pur chase of commissions in the army, on Tuesday last, he had been counted out, the bell had not been rung, as was the rule. However, he promised that he would next year bring forward the question of these purchases and sales, and show that the system was worn out, and injurious to the service, and that it could be abolished without adding to the public expense. He understood that the Government proposed to grant a sum of money equivalent to the price of the commission ; but he could not gather from the explanation given by the noble lord whether that equivalent should be given to officers only who had purchased their commissions, or whether it was to be given to officers generally. The house was bound to consider the question as involving a new principle and involving a great expense. He did not see how the noble lord could confine these grants to officers killed in action, or how he could exclude officers who died of their wounds, or officers who hadbeen seriously wounded and came home, or those who died of exposure, who were frozen, or struck by the sun. (Hear.) He did not see how these officers could be excepted from the benefit of this arrangement. Then it would be dangerous to draw such a line of demarcation between officers who purchased their commissions and those who did not. He begged the noble lord at the _head of the Government to give some explanation on this question. Mr. HE A.DLAM said that this was a proposal which originated from a motion of his, and though he did not think the Government proposal was as fair to officers as it should be, he was glad they had done something. He had received more than one application from the friends of deceased officers, and it was due to them that the deci sion of the Government should be at once made known. Lord PALMERSTON said that the arrangements which his noble friend the Secretary of War contemplated were being put into shape, and there was found great diffi culty in carrying them into operation equitably. He could assure hon. members that no unnecessary delay would be permitted in forming the general orders on this subject. (Hear.) Lord W. GRAHAM asked the Under-Secretary of War whether the regulation for the compensation to offi cers for the loss of their horses had been amended ? He found that some officers of the highest rank received SW. eath for the loss of their chargers, that a colonel received 351 , a major 27i., and a lieutenant 231. He should have thought that a uniform sum for the loss of chargers would be the fairest plan. Then he found that General Penne father received 14 guineas for the loss of a hack, whilst Lieutenant Hopkins only received IL 10s. for the loss of In answer to Colonel KNOX, • Lord PALMERSTON said it was intended to increase the soldier's pay while he was in the field by the rate of 6d. a day, with facilities afforded to him, as in the navy, to send the money to his friends. THE WOUNDED BEFORE SEBASTOPOL. Mr. STAFFORD called the attention of the Government to a letter from an army surgeon, which appeared in the columns of a contemporary, detailing instances of great ne glect in the preparations made in the field hospitals for the reception of the wounded in the attack on the 18th. He asked whether the Government meant to take any steps in consequence of this letter ? Mr. PEEL read a letter from Dr. Hall, detailing the preparations that were made for the care of the wounded on the morning of the 18th, and how well they worked. This was a contradiction to the allegations contained in the THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 7, 1855 . letter. He had, however, sent a copy of the letter to Dr. Hall and called for his answer to it. Mr. DUNDA.S wished to say a few words in the way of explanation. A Mort while ago, in the heat of debate, ho was betrayed into an expression to which a different meaning had been attached than that which he wished to convey. He therefore regretted having made use of the expression. (Hear, hear.) Whet he had meant to say was simply this, that he hoped the right hon. baronet at the head of the Home Thpartmetitwould not spare any effort to maintain peace and order on Sunday next. Mr. F. PEEL, replying to Lord W. Graham, said the principle upon which the compensation was granted was simply this,. the War-office first ascertained if the horse had been lost in the public service, and that being proved to the satisfaction of the ➢Minister, steps were taken to dis cover what was the value of the animal. (Hear, hear.) With regard to what had fallen from the hon. member (Mr. Stafford), there could be no doubt that if the letter of the army surgeon was to he believed the hospitals in the Crimea must be in a most discreditable state ; but at the same time it was impossible for him to give any answer to the allegations until he had had an opportunity of refer ring them to Dr. Hall and the other heads of the me dical department in the East. From the communications, however, which had been received from the Crimea, Go vernment were led to suppose that the hospitals were well supplied with everything that was necessary, while asfor the attack of the 18th, a report had been received from Dr. Hall which represented that every precaution was taken in an ticipation. of that event. He therefore could hardly bring himself to believe that the statement cf this regimental surgeon could be borne out ; but, as he had already men tioned,•Government had sent out a cony of the letter to Dr. Hall, and called upon him to furnish some explanation about it. As to what had fallen frcm the hon. member for Edinburgh, ho could add nothing to what he stated on the same subject last week, but he might state that since then further arrangements had been made forremoving the mi litia from the villages. DIPLOMATIC SERVICE. On the motion for going into committee of supply, Mr. EWART called attention to the propriety of esta blishing some test in the examination for candidates who wished to obtain employment in the diplomatic or consular service. Lord PALMERSTON said the subject had been under consideration, but as yet no definite plan had been fixed on. ACCIDENTS BY MACHINERY. A conversation took place on the motion of Col. Dunne for the production of papers connected with the death of a workman in a mill at Oldham from unfenced machinery. The Government had no objection to give the papers, and Mr. Heywood, Mr. Fox, Mr. Cheetham, and others de fended the conduct of the masters and blamed the med- dling interference of Parliament with the management of factories. In the end, the papers were granted. THE NEGOTIATIONS AT VIENNA. Mr. GIBSON rose to ask for explanations from the GO vernment relative totho opposition of her Majesty's Minis ters to the views of their colleague, the late British plenie potentiary at the Vienna conferences, in reference to the plan proposed by Austria to be submitted to Russia for the purpose of putting " an and to Russian preponderance in the Black Sea," as stated in the circular addressed by Count Buol to thodiplomatic agents of Austria, dated Vi enna, May 25. The right hon. gentleman said he had made some inquiries on Monday last relative to the policyof her Majesty's Government in the Ea st, and to a certain statement made in a diplomatic circular which had been published in various continental newspapers. He was afraid the course he then took did not harmonise with the feelings of the house, although it might be technically within ther rules, consi dering the subject which had just been brought undertheir notice. But if he had committed any breach of their rules of decorum he now begged to apologise for having done so. and tcestate that he had no' intention in any way to dis parage the character of the late commander•in-chief, or to manifest indifference to the motion under consideration at the time. (Hear.) The Prime Minister then said that he would not bo led into a discussion which would rouse the venom of the peace party. [Lord PALMERSTON- "No, I said hostility."'] Ho had never mentioned the peace party in his inquiries, which would, perhaps, have more appropriately proceeded from a member of the war party, as they related to the proceedings of the Government dur ing the recent occurrences at Vienna, and to matters upon which every member of Parliament, whether he be longed to the war or to the peace party, had a right to explanation. The noble lord the member for London ac cused him of having misrepresented facts, and if that were so it was quite fitting that he should be set right ; but he should be the last man in the house to make any intentional misrepresentation, and he should bo happy to retract any statements be had made which were proved to be incorrect. His statements were founded on public documents which had appeared in the newspapers—authorities, no doubt, not so good as actual access to the papers in the Foreign-office, but still the only ones within his reach. He complained that during the late debates, when the house was invited to come to a most important decision as to the future prosecution of the war, they had not been treated with the consideration and openness they had a right to expect, and that they had not been put in possession of all the occurrences which had transpired at Vienna, or with the real opinions of her 11ajesty's Government, which they were entitled to hear, in order that they might be guided to a wise conclusion. They came to a unanimous vote, but was it clear that they would have come to that vote if important facts that had now peeped out indirectly through public documents from other countries had been put into their possession—if they had been told, for instance, that the British plenipotentiary at Vienna differed from the Prime Minister, that the British plenipotentiary thought that proposals had been made which promised an honourable and safe solution of the dis pute between England and Russia? If they had been told at the same time that this proposition had not been sub mitted to Russia, in consequence of the refusal of the noble lord's colleagues to take tliet course, would not many mem bers have hesital ed before coming to the conclusion at which they arrived, those facts not being before them ? At any rate, if that were the case—and he had a right to presume that it was—they wore now entitled to a frank and candid avowal of the opinions of the members of the Administration of the policy they were pursuing in the East, and of the objects they were seeking to accomplish. lie had observed that since the commencement of the war almost every prediction to which the Government had lent their sanction had been falsified. Whether he looked to their alliances, to their military operations, or to their avowed objects in the prosecution of the war, in almost every case the 'events had been the very reverse of the predictions and announcements of the Administration. Why, Sebastopol was to fall last year; soon after Sir C. Napier arrived in the Baltic the First Lord of the Admiralty stated, in reply to a question of whether Cronstadt had been taken, that he had not yet received official information of that fact. (Laugh ter.) Then with regard to their alliances, with what coun tries were they now associated ? Yet, they had been told , that Austria was to be their active ally, that Prussia was to act with them, that Sweden was eager to lend her forces for their assistance. Then, with regard to the avowed ob jects of the war, after they had been told by the Duke of Newcastle, in a despatch, that no safe and honourable peace could be concluded without the fall of Sebastopol, did not a member of the Government of which the duke was a member. and also of the Government now in rower, go to Vienna fur the very purpose of making peace, with out a word about the fall of Sebastopol, or making that condition a sine quei non? What, then, was the object of the war? Sometimes it was the fall of Sebastopol, sometimes it was merely the obtainment from the Go vernment of Russia of a stipulation, written on a piece of paper, which every member of the house thought would not be worth a straw as a security, but could only be intended to humiliate and insult the enemy with whom they were contending. Not one of the extravagant expectations that the Government had sanctioned had been realised. They had sanctioned the folly which hail been talked about a war for liberty, for the restoration of Poland, and the independence of Hungary, but the House was still in doubt as to what was the object of the war, and the nature of the policy the Government wero pursuing and he felt, seeing the blood they were lavishly expending and the treasure they were wasting, that he was but dis charging one of his first duties as a member of Parliament when he incessantly asked them what were the advantages they proposed to confer on the people of this country in consideration of the enormous sacrifices which they called upon the people to make. The Vines newspaper said that the object of the war was so clear that a labouring man could define it. But, although he had been always anxious to obtain information on the subject, he had been unable to get at the object of the war. If a labouring man were to ask him what was the object of the war, and for what purpose he had been called upon to snake the sacrifices he was now making —to deny his children education, to curtail the comforts of his humble home—the only answer he could make would be that the British Government were endeavouring to at tach the Ottoman empire more completely to the equili brium of Europe, and to put an end to the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea, and that it was worth while for labouring men to make what sacrifices they could to assist in accomplishing those objects. He believed that the Go vernment had never told the country what their real ob ject was in the prosecution of this war. They were drifted into it, and they kept drifting on. If ever they had a di vided Government in connection with the carrying on of this war, it was his conscientious belief that they had a divided Government now; and if success depended on having a clear and united opinion in the Government in such a matter as that of carrying on a great war, he saw sufficient division of opinion in the present Government to make success extremely problematical. To prove that there was such a division in the Government, he need only refer to the despatch addressed by Count Buol to' the diffe rent German Powers after the twelfth conference at, Vienna—not the conference which finally concluded the negotiations, but that at which the negotiations were broken off. Count Buol stated, without any opposing re mark from either of the plenipotentiaries present, that al though the propositions made by Russia, might not be the most desirable mode of settling the question in dispute, an d might not satisfy the third basis of the negotiations, still he thought the proposition contained the elements of solution, and that, in his opinion, it was especially the duty of Austria to endeavour to find out a plan of ap proachingproposal which should satisfy the third enablethird peace to be re-established between the t'n b e lligerents aditthuss i a's on the basis of the four points. Count Buol said— " If, since the outbreak of hostilities, there was any one moment when more than at another the restoration of peace might be considered probable, it was the moment when Lord John Russell and M. Drouyn de Lhuys left our capital. The conferences, it is true, had only led to the rejection of the propositions made by the belligerent Powers, but upon both sides it appeared to be admitted that these propositions offered the elements of peace ; and we were not only able to declare without opposition that we believed ourselves especi ally called to occupy ourselves:in seeking out the means of an approximation, but we also put forward a draught of an ulti matum, which was to be sent to St. Petersburg, and which we considered not inadmissible by Russia, since an immediate limitation of Russia's sovereign rights in the Black Sea was avoided, but which at the same time seemed So completely to satisfy the object of the third stipulation, and put au end to Russian preponderance in the Black Sea, that the before named Ministers of France and England, in confidential in terviews, showed themselves decidedly inclined towards our proposal, and undertook to recommend the same to their Go vernments with all their influence. This plan of an ultima tum, the rejection of which b y R ussia we declared ourselves ready to make a cases UN, consisted of two distinct proposi tions, of which the Russian Government was to take its choice." He need not go through the details of the propositions. They were much of the same kind as had been laid before the house. The circular proceeded thus : " Lord John Russell, before leaving Vienna, was made acquainted by verbal communication with these proposals. The French Minister, M. Drouyn de l'Huys, who left Vienna some days later, received a written copy of our plan, and un dertook to submit it to the examination of his Sovereign and also to bring it before the British Government. It is unne cessary to speak here 0 roAret with which, very soon after, we received intelligence, not of the hoped for accept ance of England and France, but, instead, the opposition of the English Ministers to the views of their colleague, and of the resolution of the Emperor Napoleon to relinquish the ser vices of the Minister who had just won the admiration and the confidence of the Austrian Court." If this doeument contained a correct account of what occurred, it would seem that at the very moment when the Government were asking Parliament to agree to carry on the war with vigour, the noble lord the member for the city of London believed that the war was not a matter of necessity, but that the means of solution were in his hands, and that it was only for him to submit the proposal which had been made to his Government, and thereby enable the belligerents to settle the question in an honour able and satisfactory manner. Was not this a question, then, sufficiently grave to claim the attention of Parlia ment? Were they prepared to say that there was any man who wished war to be carried on one instant - longer than necessity required, however anxious he might have been in the first instance to take up arms ? It appeared to him that the noble lord the member for the city of Lon don went to Vienna with the bona fide intention of mak ing an honourable peace. He (Mr. Gibson) approved en tirely of the declaration made.by that noble lord ; it was a declaration of a statesman, and one which it was worthy of an English Minister to make, when he'eald that the only terms of peace which were desirable were those that were consistent at once with the honour of Russia and sufficient for the security of Europe. In that spirit it appeared to him the noble lord was prepared to act ; but his instructions, as he said, were exhausted. His col leagues appeared to entertain different views. They seemed to desire to avoid the chance of making peace at Vienna, and of preventing the noble lord from accomplishing what he (Mr. Gibson) believed the noble lord earnestly desired to accomplish—the putting an end to these unfortunate hostilities. It was known that M. Drouyn deLhuys thought it impossible for him any longer to hold the office he had hitherto held in the French Government after the opinions he had expressed at Vienna, and which opinions were pre cisely similar to those which had also been expressed by the noble lord the member for the city of London. Therefore was it that he (Mr. Gibson) asked how could that noble lord reconcile the retention of office in the present Government if he still retained the opinions he expressed at Vienna? If, indeed, the noble lord had changed those opinions, and if he no longer thought that the terms proposed by Austria ought to be submitted to the consideration of the British Government, let him frankly avow that change of opinion; and if the noble lord did so he (Mr. Gibson) would not have one word more to say on the subject. But he could not sit silent while he saw the noble lord attached to a Govern ment which was pledged to the carrying on of a war for the purpose of crippling Russia, being thoroughly con scious that that noble lord must believe that the war had been carried on beyond the necessity of the ease, and there fore at a wanton sacrifice of the blood and treasure of this country. They had been led to believe that some difficul ties had arisen in connection with this last proposal at Vienna with our ally. Was it so ? Was it, or not, the fact that the Emperor of the French, wishing to act in strict accordance with this country, announced to hisministerthat if the British Governmentwould agree to the proposition of Austria being submitted to Russia as an ultimatum, he was willing to acquiesce ? That had been asserted in the presence of the British Minister, and it had not been contradicted. It was stated by the honourable member for the West Riding, and also by the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle. The right hon. gentleman said, " The Emperor of the French was not unwilling to accept it ; he proposed to the English Government that it should be accepted; and that its rejection took place in consequence of the in fluence of the English Government being exerted against it, and that consequently M. Drouyn de Lhuys, who thought it acceptable, had retired from the Council of the Empe ror." If these assertions were incorrect, it was high time that the Government should put the country straight, for rumours of this kind must be pernicious if not founded on fact. With regard to the zeal of Austria in her alliance with this country, he confessed that he was no admirer of Austrian institutions ; but he believed that the feeling en tertained with respect to Austria having been treacherous, and of having failed to fulfil her engagements with this country, had chiefly arisen from our having entertained ex travagant expectations of what Austria was prepared to undertake—expectations which the Government of England ought to have known were not sufficiently well founded. He had referred to all the documents and to all the treaties to which Austria had been in any way a party, and he did not find in any of them a single paragraph to sustain such expectations. There was not a word throughout the proto cols or the treaties which pledged Austria to do anything which she had failed to do. He attributed, therefore, this expression of disappointment to that habit which England seemed to have of supposing that other countries were equally ready to draw the sword in questions in which they were not concerned as she herself was, and that Austria and Prussia, and those various countries with which they were allied, must of necessity see this war in the same point of view as it was seen by Great Britain. The Austrian , Government, by the treaty of December, 1851, pledged it self to endeavour to make peace by reasonable negotiations. He contended that Austria had fulfilled that engagement. What were the terms of the treaty between Austria, Eng land, and Franco ? They were those : " Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, his Majesty tLe Emperor of Austria, and his Majesty the Emperor of the French, being animated with the desire of terminating the present war at the earliest possible moment, by the re-establishment of a general peace on solid bases, affording to the whole of Europe every gua rantee against the return of the complications which have so unhappily disturbed its repose. . . • . The high con tracting parties refer to the declarations contained in the protocols of the 9th of April and the 23d of May of the present year, and in the notes exchanged on the Bth of August last." The allusion to these papers was merely a reference to the four points as bases of negotiation; and it appeared to him that the only engagement Austria entered into was to endeavour to assist England. and France in negotiating a peace and submitting proposals which, in its opinion, would be considered reasonable by the Emperor of Russia, with the view of settling the dispute ; and, in case of the failure of these negotiations, all that Austria bound herself to do was to ".deliberate without delay upon effectual means for obtaining the object of their alliance." He thought the most effectual means of obtaining the object of that alliance was to submit to Russia the propositions which Austria had drawn up, and which were approved by the plenipotentiaries sent to Vienna by the various Powers. What possible fault, then, could be found with Austria? She submitted a plan which was approved by the plenipotentiaries ; but the plenipotentiaries were thrown over by their respective Governments, who turned round upon Austria because she did not draw the sword, and complained that she had broken her engagement. He was afraid that, before this wars terminated, there would be charges of treachery in other quarters. He did not be lieve they were going to uphold the integrity and inde pendence of the Ottoman empire, and he cautioned the Prime Minister that a day of retribution would come. If the expedition to the Crimea should end in signal disaster, the Government might endeavour —as Governments had done on former occasions—to throw the blame upon their generals and admirals, but in the end the r esponsibility would be fixed upon the executive Government, who were alone responsible for that expedition. They sent out our troops, contrary to the advice of their best generals and ad mirals ' • they had sacrificed th e fl ower o f the British army —(hear)—they had sacrificed millions of the public trea sure ; they had concealed from Parliament material facts wbjch transpired at the conferences of Vienna, and which it was necessary Parliament should know for the guidance of their opinion ; and he must say the course they were pursuing seemed to him calculated to inspire want of con fidence in the Administration, and led him to tho conclu sion that they were destined to bring great disasters upon the country, and his belief was that the country would visit those disasters upon their heads. Lord J. RITSSELL T -I am very glad the right hon. gon- tleman has now made his imputations upon the conduct of the Government at a time when those imputations can be answered. I certainly was surprised when, the other day, upon an occasion which I should have thought would have induced the right hon. gentleman to refrain from bringing before the house any question that could occasion contro versy, he introduced a topic of this nature and made serious charges against the Government. Were it not for the remark of Mr. Grattan, that persons are very often tempted to make observations by the impropriety of the occasion —(a laugh)—l should hardly have thought the right hon. gentleman would have taken such an opportu nity of making his statement. As, however, the right hon. gentleman has brought forward the subject now upon go. ing into committee of supply, I cannot but own that he is fully entitled to explanation, and that the correspondence which has taken place with the Austrian Government on this great question fitly deserves to obtain the atten tion of the house. Before I enter into that question, I must refer to the right hon. gentleman's affirmation that we have been disappointed in all our predictions, and that the objects of the war are such as he has been pleased to describe. Now, so far from being dis appointed by the events of the war, I will say that, although the siege of Sebastopol has not hitherto been at- I tended with the success we, anticipated, yet that the re pulse of Russia at the siege of Silistria, the evacuation of the Danubian provinces, and the consent of Russia to aban don entirely and for ever all those special treaties which gave her the pretence for interfering with Turkey, were successes far beyond those which we had hoped to accom plish in so short a time. But then the right hon. gentle man says we believed that Cronstadt would fall immedi ately, and ho founds this assertion upon the declaration of the First Lord of the Admiralty that he had no official in telligence of the fact. How the right hon. gentleman could have formed upon such a statement the conclusion that we expected to hear of the immediate fall of Cronstadt, is cer tainly beyond my comprehension. The right hon. gentle man went on to say that we proposed the restoration of Poland and the independence of Hungary as two of the objects of the war. We have never promised or held out hopes of the restoration of Poland, for we have always considered, in conformity with the declaration of the First Lord of the Treasury, that, if that restoration be accomplished at all, it will be accomplished by Austria. Being on terms of intimacy with many Poles, when they have spoken to me on this subject I have always told them, "If Austria will take your part, and should consider the restoration of Poland attainable, you may then enter tain some hopes of accomplising such a result but do not imagine that England and F ra nce will alone undertake to accomplish it." I stated recently to a Polish nobleman, of whose friendship any one may be proud, that I had no con ception that England and France would attempt the re storation of Poland, and that, if they did not attempt it, I thought it would be the greatest crime to encourage expec tations which must be disappointed. Then with regard to the independence of Hungary, I must say that it would when negotiating with A h a u v e e t e a e a n o m d e s t seekingp res themu p a t l u l a u n s e if o , of Austria, we had sought to obtain the' independence of Hungary. It has been objects of no such object has ever been ef i s a ta d t e e p d en th d a e t he o e n e of o a f theegoarbyj the war was to effect the put forward by her Majesty s Government. (Hear, hear.) The right honourable gentleman says he should find great difficuly in explaining to a labouring man the objects of the war, but it fortunately happens —for I have no doubt the hon. gentleman is right in his statement—that the la bouring men, the artisans, the country have throughout had a very clear conception of what the objects of the war are. (Hear.) They know that the war was entered into to prevent the further aggrandisement of Russia, to pro tect the territory and to maintain the independence of t Turkey. hem people have never deceived object of the war—(hear) — and, as to the accomplishment of that object, I must con fess that, before we entered into war, and up to the pre ev e a T w h thmass regardes o t f o ? h o e pre sent time, I have always thought it an object of very great difficulty, and only to be attained by great efforts. I have thought so, because, as every one may conceive, Russia is enormously powerful, her population is ani mated and strengthened by repeated successes, and for centuries past she has, by treaties, been continually adding something to her power. Turkey, on the con trary, is a Power which has of late years been crippled and weakened—so much so indeed that when the war began the armed force of Turkey was not one-tenth of that which Russia possesses. Added to this was an additional source of difficulty—namely, that some 10.000,000 of the subject of Turkey were of the religious faith of the Emperor (. Russia, and had been taught assiduously to look to th, En;peror of Russia for protection. It has always appeare,. to me that the task upon which we entered was a most dif ficult one. I do not think it will take long to show in what respect it was difficult, and I think I can mention some . _ difficulties which heti; in war and in peace must attend the attainment of the object which we have in view. Soma persons of high military authority thought at the beginning of the war that it would bo quite sufficient, and that it would be the most effective means of defence for Turkey, if lines were drawn from the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmora somewhat resembling the famous lines of Torres Vedras But the circumstances were totally different. The Duke of Wellington was enabled to defend the lines of Torre. Vedras because the population were generally op posed the invasion, and the longer the invaders stayed in the country the weaker their army became, and the less able to obtain supplies. But if Russia had crossed the Balkan and bad arrived within 20 miles of Constantinople, she would. have had the moans of raising an insurrection throughout the Christian population of the Turkish pro vinces, and she would have been strengthened every day and every week in her attempt to destroy the independence of Turkey. (Hear.) And now let us see what were the difficulties that would have occurred in a time of peace. We have had some discussions on former occasions with respect to the Principalities. Those Principalities are in habited by Christians, and it has been said, naturally enough, "Make a Christian State there, and thereby esta blish a barrier against Russia." But the Russian interest is strong in these provinces, and there are so many persons who are bound to Russia by the strongest ties that to make an independent State there would only have been to strengthen Russia, and to enable her to pursue her projects with greater security. (Hear, hear.) If, on the other hand, you give to Turkey all she used to have, and admitted the Turkish army into the principalities, you might secure their independence. Con sidering these things and many other questions of a similar nature, it has always appeared to me that the end of this war must be not merely a treaty between the belligerents on one side—namely, France, Great Britain, and Turkey— and Russia on the other, but that there must be a general treaty in which the Powers of Europe could take part, and in which each should give a fair security for the mainte nance of the integrity and independence of Turkey. Having taken that view, it is obvious that I must consider the co operation of Austria as being of the highest value. That the co-operation of Austria would be of great value during war no one will deny. If at the present moment the Austrian army were advancing into Bessarabia, 40,000 or 50,000 Russian troops would be unable to march into the Crimea; if it were operating on the side of Galicia, that again would prevent the Russian force from being sent from Poland to the seat of war. And, Sir, in the !arrangements to be made with regard to peace, I believe that the alliance and co operation of Austria woald be at the least as effective and at the least as necessary. The pathway by which Russia could send her land armies to the attack of Turkey is across the Danube, by the side of the Austrian provinces, and through the Balkan. That is the way in which, on more than ,one occasion, she has attempted to invade Tur key, and it is the road by which, on the last occasion, hav ing crossed the Balkan, the Russian army reached Adrian. ople. But if Austria undertook, ist alliance with France and Great Britain, to prevent any such aggression, and to oppose it by the force of arms, and if France and Great Britain on their side had sufficient means of opposing a naval aggression, we should then, to use the language of Mr; Fox, which was quoted the other night by the hon. gentleman the member for West Riding, " make it the interest of Russia to maintain peace." I quite agree with the opinion expressed in the extract read by the hon. gen tleman from Mr. Pox, thitt the best security against ag gression is the interest of a Power to maintain peace. [Mr. Cobden.—" The only security."] Tho honourable gentleman says, " the only security," but that is a phrase liable to some qualification. I have al ways considered that, whatever arrangements may be made for the security of Turkey in order to have a durable peace, we ought to have Austria and Prussia and the States of Germany parties to a gene ral alliance, by which Turkey would be secured from aggres sion. (Hear.) I now come to the mission with which I was charged to Vienna. It appeared to me—and I remem ber that I expressed that opinion very strongly to Lord 'Cowley, her Majesty's ambassador at Paris—that I should be able to ascertain what it was that Austria and Prussia were ready to agree to. At the same time I thought that, whatever might be the effect of the negotiations, it would not be possible to come to any decision at Vienna, but that it must be left to the Governments of France and Great Britain to decide ultimately whether there were any terms which they could assent to as terms on which to conclude a safe and honourable peace. Upon my arrival at Vienna there were, of course, two kinds of negotiations to he entered into. There was the negotiation which was to be conducted in conferences, and in conferences only, between the three belligerent Powers and Austria, who had signed the treaty of 2d of December, and Russia. That was one part of the business upon which we were to enter. But the other, and perhaps the more important part, was to ascertain by repeated interviews and discus sions the views of the Austrian Government, and endea vour either to procure her assistance in concluding peace, or to discover the terms upon which she would make an ultimatum, to Russia. I find that a very few days after my arrival at Vienna—so early as the 7th of March—l discussed with Count Buol as well as with the French Minister then resident there, Baron Bourquoney, and the . _ English envoy, the various stipulations which came under the denomination of the four points. Upon the mention of the third point the French and English plenipoten tiaries declared that it appeared to us that the best solution of that point was to obtain from Russia a limitation of her forces in the Black Sea. We stated that if that limitation were agreed to, the general rule of the treaty of 1841—namely, the closing of the Straits—might be maintained. We stated that it would then be possible to withdraw the armies and fleets from the "Flack Sea, because there would no longer exist the Mreponderance of Russia—there would no longer exist a standing menace to Turkey. Count Buol so far agreed that he said, " Undoubtedly that is the best solution of the third point. Undoubtedly the best security you can have is the limitation of the Russian fleet. But," he added, " there is another solution, and that would be, instead of weakening Russia, to strengthen Turkey. It is the opinion of the Austrian Government that the third point may be carded into effect either in one mode or the other. The proposal you make is undoubtedly the best; we should be very glad to See it assented to by Russia ; in the conference we shall give it every support, but we will not say that we do not reserve to ourselves the power of pro posing the other mode—namely, instead of a limitation of Russian force, to have a counterpoise on the part of the allies." So far, sir —and, indeed, I would say not only so far, but throughout— I have no complaint to make, as the right hon. gentleman supposes the Government to make, of treachery against Austria. (Hear.) Her conduct I find fault with—perhaps very great fault in some respects—but I think there has been no treachery and no bad faith in the matter. I think she was entitled to say, as a Power which had not gone to war, as a Power which was at peace with Russia, " We will endeiftsour to seek for the solution of those difficulties by the attainment of all the four points, which we consider necessary for peace, but we do not bind ourselves to one particular mode of obtaining one of those points. We think ourselves at liberty to propose another mode, and if that other shall be found sufficient, wo will not rely solely upon the one which you propound." I could not but say that I thought the Austrian Government were wrong in their supposition that the second mode of solu tion was as good as the first. I stated objections, and I stated them over and over again at repeated interviews with Count Buol—objections which are obvious enough— to the propositions he made. One objection is, that Great Britain and France might not always bo dis posed to go to the considerable expense which would be necessary in order to maintain a fleet in the Black Sea which could be at all reckoned as a - counterpoise to the Russian fleet. Another objection is, that it would obviously be placing Turkey, as it were, under the imme diate protection of those two Powers, and would thereby in some respects weaken her position. But a third objec tion—which I still think a very strong one— is, that three or four fleets—the fleets of Turkey, assisted by those of France, England, and Austria on the one side, and the fleet of Russia on tho other—would have all the appearance of a competition for preponderance, and would thereby weaken the general feeling in the solidity and duration of peace. Well, discussions went on, as the house has seen by the papers which have been laid before Parliament. The Aus trian Government, through Count Buol and Baron Pro kesch, its representatives at the conference, supported with great force of argument the propositions which were made for limitation, or else for making the Black Sea a commercial sea. I should say, however, with re spect to this last proposition, that it was not cordially adopted by the Austrian Government, but they did cor dially adopt the proposal and support the arguments in favour of limitation, which I was ordered by my instruc tions to put forward. The right hon. gentleman, having read several extracts from Count Buol's circular, strangely enough said he would not read the particular propositions which Austria made, but he left it to the house to believe or to infer that those propositions were the same which were made by Russia. Now, I think a very few minutes would suffice to show that, whether they were satisfactory or unsatisfactory, whether they were adequate or inade quate, they were totally different from those of Russia. The proposal of Russia at the time when I was at Vienna was, that the fleets of all the Powers, their armed vessels, should have liberty to go through the Straits. The propo sition they made after I left Vienna was that the closing of the Straits should be maintained as a principle, and that Turkey should have the power of calling on her allies when she pleased to send her fleets there. Now, the Austrian proposition dqes not at all resemble these two, upon which I was not arguing, for they have been discussed in the house upon former occasions, and the house, by a very great majority, were of opinion that they were inade quate. The Austrian proposal was friunded upon that which Count Buol had made to us when we first had an interview with him. He proposed, in the first place, that the rule of 1841 should be maintained, but that it should be maintained with exceptions in favour of the allies, and with no exceptions in favour of Russia. Thus, according to that principle—which I certainly very much doubt whether Russia was at that tim2 . prepared to adopt—there would have been the p ow er on MUM occasions of sending armed vessels—ships of the line - belonging to France, Great Britain, and Austria into the Black Sea, while there would have been no power on the part of Russia of sending her vessels eitherfrom the Black Sea into the Mediterranean or of sending vessels from the Baltic into the Mediterranean and from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea. The passage, in short, would have been entirely closed to Russia ; it would not be closed to powers which had not establishments in the Black Sea. The particular mode in which the proposal was to be carried into effect was this. (I do not conceive it is a proposition on the part of Austria to be considered by her allies, and of course the details were not finally settled.) What she proposed was that, supposing—which seems to have been ascertained by Admiral Lyons—that Russia had six sail of the line in the Black Sea, while she had that number and no more, England, France, and Austria should each maintain two frigates in the Black Sea, and have power to renew them from time to time. If Russia should increase her force—for instance, if she should augment her fleet from six to eight sail of the line--then half the num ber maintained by Russia might be maintained by the three allied Powers, so that, while Turkey would have eight sail of the line as an equivalent to the eight of Rus sia, England would have four and France four at the same time. It was proposed in the same way that if Russia should continue to augment her force—for instance, if she had 12 sail of the line—each of the maritime Powers should have six, while Austria would, of course, have her own naval force, and thus we , should maintain a counterpoise in regard to Russia. But, in addition to this, Count Buol was ready, as I was told verbally on the daybefore I left Vienna, to agree to the treaty which he mentions in this circular between Austria, Great Britain, and France, by which they should agree to give a guaran tee for the independence and integrity of Turkey . That was a point on which I had laboured during the time. 1 was at Vienna. When I first saw Count B uol, I told hum my general opinion with regard to the limitation of the fleet according to my instructions; but I said I thought that, before the whole of these transactions were closed, it would be very desirable to have security for the future by an alliance between the three Powers. Count Buol was of opinion that it would be better to have an article in the zeneral treaty making Russia a party to that guarantee. I was of a different opinion, but Count Buol maintained his opinion, as I maintained mine. The day before I left Vienne I was informed that Count Buol had come to the opinion thA he has suggested here in his circu lar, that it was desirable that the three Powers should enter into a united treaty of defence of Turkey, secur ing her independence and integrity. (Hear, hear.) It was, of course, understood that Prussia might be a party to that treaty, and that thereby greater security would be obtained for the observance of that treaty. It appeared to me that these two provisions did contain a security for Turkey for the future. It appeared to me, if we had made this arrangement with respect to the admission of ships of war in the Black Saa, that Russia, so far from increasing her fleet to its size before the commencement of the war, would abstain from maintaining more than six ships of the line, replacing them, if sbe thought proper, by larger and stronger vessels, but not attempting to have a large fleet in the Black Sees; for nothing could so tend to diminish the opinion of the power of Russia in the East as the observa tion that other fleets, especially those of France and Groat Britain, were present in the Black Sea as a check and a counterpoise to her fleet. On the other hand, the security on the land side against the advances of Russia by armies similar to those which advanced in 1828 and 1829 would have been obtained by the general treaty, and by the consciousness that Russia would have that, no sooner lid she attempt to do that which she has done within the last two years and occupy the provinces of Turkey, than such astep would be equivalent to a declaration of war against all the great powers of Europe. In this manner I certainly thought that the Austrian plan of counterpoise was inferior to the plan of limitation that we 'proposed, yet it might be a mode of concluding the war with honour to the Allied Powers, and that it would give—l will not say a certainty —but a very fair prospect of the duration of peace. (" Hear, hoar," from Mr. Gibson.) The right hon. gentleman asks me whether I have changed that opin ion. Sir, I have not changed that opinion. I think that those terms were calculated either, on the one side, to secure Austria to U 3 in the war, or, on the other, to ob tain a peace which, although it might be unpopular, would have been a peace that would have afforded . . rity for the future. In making these propositions, the Austrian Government declared that they were ready to Make them an ultimatum—that is to say, they were ready to send this alternative to St. Petersburg—either that Rus sia should consent to that plan of counterpoise that I have described, or that she should consent to limit her naval forces in the Black Sea to the number existing at the time that these propositions were accepted. It was supposed that Russia had no more than six sail of the line left, and that she would consent to a condition made with Turkey, but inserted in a treaty made with all the Powers that she would not increase her naval force beyond that number. I have already stated that the Russian Min ister would not consent to the limitation, and that this plan was at once refused. With respect to the other the assent of Russia was more doubtial, but it was thought that Russia might have agreed to that proposition. If Russia refused both propositions the Austrian Minister was to have orders to leave St. Petersburg in eight hours, the military convention with France was to be signed, and the Austrian army was to be concentrated and placed in such a position that it could commence the war at any moment. The Austrian Government did not promise that an immediate declaration of war should be made, but it declared that it would regard the rejection of its proposition as a casus belli. The Austrian Minister said that it would bring on the war, and I have no doubt that unless Russia had yielded at the last moment it would have led to a war between Austria and Russia. Well, sir, I have stated that there may be something in my own re collection of what took place which differs from that of Count Buol, but I have no doubt that the statement of Count Buol is in the main an accurate account of what I did at Vienna. I said that I had no instructions that would enable me to agree to such terms, and that the instructions I had would lead me to suppose that such terms would not be accepted ; but I said that my own opinion was that they ought to be and might be accepted ; and I said to Count Buol that I could assure him, and that he could convey that assurance to the Emperor of ? Austria, that I would lay the case before the Cabinet of this country, and that I would use my best endeavours to put these propositions in each a light that they might hope for their adoption. (Hear.) That promise I certainly performed. I stated to my Go vernment every detail of the propositions of which I was the bearer. I said that I had not the written propositions, but that, if they should be considered fit to form a basis for agreement, I had no doubt the Austrian Minister at this Court would furnish all the details of the articles to be en oposed. I must say that the proposition was delibe rately considered by tho Cabinet. Everything that I stated had, I must say, duo weight, and was fairly placed in op position to the disadvantages of such a peace. The Go vernment came to the conclusion that the peace proposed would not be a safe peace, and that they could not recom mend its adoption. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman says that he has heard from my right hon. friend the mem ber for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) that the French Govern ment were disposed to accept these.terms ' but that they had been induced by the rejection of them by this Govern ment to refuse to accept them. M. Dronyn de l'Huys ren • dered a report to the Emperor of the French, stating the advantage of the terms to be such as I have described; but the Emperor would not accept his advice, and, before he know the decision of the English Government, he deter mined to change his Minister and to reject the proposal of Austria, as not affording a sufficient foundation for peace. He therefore refused to adopt the proposal. I am not going to enter into the case of Austria, and how far it was a good ease or not. I have stated the case as fairly as I can, and the house can judge for itself. The Austrian Government then declared that they were ready to -carry into effect the four points, but that they did not think the third point admitted of only one solution, and that the two Govern ments of France and Great Britain had sufficient security on this point—that they were ready to make a proposal to Russia, but that since that proposal had been rejected by the Allied Governments they no longer considered them selves bound to propose it, and that they were no longer bound by the treaty of the 2d of December to go to war with Russia. I believe in strictness those terms do admit the construction that they are bound to go to war with Russia. But the house will remember, when that treaty was first mentioned, I rath er o pp ose d the general view that Austria was bound at once to go to war with Russia upon that treaty, and I said she was bound only to take steps to carry into effect the four points. I think the two Governments may call upon Austria to perform her engage ments ; but I think that, even if it is not a good case, and even if it is not a sufficient case, for Austria, at least there is much to be said in favour of the propositions which the Austrian Ministers declared they were ready to make as an ultimatum. (Hear.) Now, sir, the right hon. gentleman asked a question, undoubtedly personal to myself, but which he is fairly entitled to ask, and which I consider I am bound to answer. The right honourable gentleman now asks how, having had those opinions, if I had not changed them—if I had not taken a totally altered view— how could I remain in office in the present Administra tion ? (Hear.) I think in the first place that if I had left office upon the decision of her Majesty's Government which I have mentioned, I should not have been acting consistently with that which I have repeatedly declared to be the main guide of my conduct. In the last resort, when it came to that great question of whether the proposal be fore us should be received or not, it eves for the two Go vernments, and not for a plenipotentiary, to. decide. And if not for a plenipotentiary, neither was it for me to decide, as having been employed in those negotiations, and as hav ing been a member of the Cabinet. But I must say that, if I had thought that, having held that opinion, and being overruled upon a question of such great importance, it was my duty to tender my resignation to her Majesty, I con sider the circumstances of the time would have forbidden my doing so. I must now refer to that which has taken place since the commencement of this session, and which I think must impress every man who takes part in public affairs with very grave reflections. There have been several changes since the commencement of this session. I myself resigned my office at tho commencement of this session, upon the ground that I could not resist the appointment of a committee of inquiry. A vote of this house induced Lord Aberdeen and his colleagues generally to resign their offices a few clays afterwards. Lord Derby was called to attend upon her Majesty, and he thought (I believe with very sound judgment) that, unless ho obtained the assist ance of some of Lord Aberdeen's colleagues especially my noble friend (Lord Palmerston) and the right hon. gentle man the member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Glad stone`—he could not obey her Majesty's commands and forma Government which promised stability. I found myself unable to form a Government when it was proposed to me. My noble friend (Lord Palmerston) formed a Govern ment, and he obtained the assistance of some of those col leagues of Lord Aberdeen to whom I have referred. But in a few days they resigned office upon the ground, the very op posite of that which I had taken, that the committee of in quiry, proposed by the hon. and learned member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) was about to be granted. It cannot be denied, sir, I think, that these circumstances have given an appearance of instability to our councils— an appearance of instability which ought above all things to be avoided ; but, more than that, it was impossible for me not to perceive, though at a distance, thetendency that there was to cry down all authority, to distrust all persons in whom the Administration might be placed. If there was ono man more than another whom the country thought ought to be intrusted wilh the supreme place in the coun cils of the Sovereign it was my noble friend who is now First Lord of the Treasury, and yet no sooner had that ap pointment taken place, and, as far as I can see, with no other reason than that held a place of authority in her Majesty's Councils, he became subject to the most violent attacks, and a very general endeavour was made to run down his Administration and to deprive him of power. (Hear, hear.) This was not the effect of the extreme vio lence of parties. Far from it. It would be wrong if I ac cused the great body of the Opposition of such conduct, but it did show the tendency of the public mind—a tendency much to be feared—to run down all authority, to distrust all persons who might be the depositories of power, and to give way to a restless desire for something different without exactly knowing what. Now, Sir, I did conceive that in that state of the public mind, whatever might be my sentiments as to a great question—and a very great question it was—it was my duty to give every support to my noble friend, and I am sure that if I had then left office, though I might have promised him every support, it would have increased that instability to which I have made allusion—it would have been considered as a symptom and precursor of other changes. I believe that, whether it regards our position abroad, or whether it regards our position at home, it is the duty of the members of the Cabinet of my noble friend to consider, as well asthey are able, the position are fit of affairs; to make the best decisions which they can; . lo_ reas minority to yield to the majority, if there is allliiineul:e'neto or a majority ; for an individual to defer „La's set or leave timents to those of the Cabinet in general ; 1 49 it to this house to decide whether or not they be trusted with the conduct of public a with . him eve that my noble friend and those who . w we qualified to make those changein" :cm administrative the con d uct of public business to make those reforms which lc of men whom her • business may require as setany that after • Majesty may call to her councils. !believe public mi n d. a time that persuasion will be fixed in thP if any I believe it would be a very great misfortune," total change, to were to take place, unless it were 's a nge, to the men who to her Majesty Government. If the house are opposed better d th e eposit o ' think they will be deposit o ries of power, they fidence and everyduty support given to them in the execution of as they . I will not sa that these affairs—important are, involving such great con sequences,bearingupon the • • position of England in the world, bearing her internal fate and the mainten ance of her in_s_t tutions—ha ve not cost us many pain f u l reflections-h(Hea) I h ave made the best decision which, with W Y ligts, I have been able to make. That decision , na y be contested. It be said may by many that I be trayed the interests of my country when I told Count gaol I was ready to agree to terms—not officially, but these but to recommend them to the Government. It may be said that, having so declared my concurrence I ought to have • l• peraisved to the end, a n d t o h ave resigned office WI- mediately those terms were not agreed to. Upon eithe of those grounds I am liable to be cast, and I have no reason to complain of the censure. All I can say is, I have made a fair statement to the house of my conduct and my motives, and I leave the house to pass judgment upon them. Mr. COBDEN said, I have heard many speeches in this house, but never yet heard one that struck me with so much astonishment and grief as that which has just been delivered by the noble lord. My right hon. friend has called upon the noble lord to explain the inconsistency between his conduct at Vienna and in this house. My right hon. friend pointed out that it has come to his know ledge, by the publication of official documents, that the wible lord whea at Vienna did confidently promise the Austrian Minister that, when he returned to England, he would do his best to induce the Government to assent to _ ---- the propositions for the establishment of peace which had emanated from the Austrian Government, and that the noble lord had also previously informed Count Buol that he approved of those terms. The noble lord does not deny that statement. But why was not the noble lord the first to come and inform the house that the terms submitted by the Austrian Government had his approval, and that he still approved them ? and why did he not make such a statement from those benches from which he had descend ed previous to going to Vienna? (Hear, hear.) Whb.t is the reason why the noble lord has surrendered hia judg ment, and so completely abnegated his own opinions to his colleagues in the Cabinet The noble lord assigns as a reason that there have been so many changes in the Govern. ment—that he had so lately abandoned his seat in a Cabinet to return again—and that there had been other secessions, and that there was a great tendency on the part of the public to call in question the character of all public men, and that he did not think he was justified in maintaining his own opinion upon this gravest of all questions, at the risk of another change in the Cabinet. Bat does not the noble lord see that the reasons why the public have lost faith in public men is just because public men have been suspected of doing that which the noble lord has himself avowed that he has done. Why should the house or the peo ple have any faith in public men, except it be because they believe that they have certain opinions, and are swayed by certain principles, and are accustomed to act up to their convictions ? The noble lord, by the conduct which he has pursued, has taken the very course which strikes at the very foundation of all confidence in public men, and to render it impossible that the representative system can be carried on with success. (Hear, hear, hear.) The noble lord has also struck at the confidence of the public in public men by the mode in which these facts have transpired. The noble lord comes home from Vienna, and instead of telling us frankly what his own opinions were in reference to this question, he made a speech denouncing Russia, appealing to all the old clap-traps as to the en croachments and despotism of Russia, while all the time he knew well that he came back from Vienna bringing pro posals of peace, which he told Count Buol he considered to be practicable and fair, and which he promised to advocate in the Government of his colleagues. Having done all this, the noble lord complains that the great want of the day is confidence in public men. (Hear, and laughter.) With re spect to the want of confidence to which the noble lord re fers as existing in the country with reference to the noble lord at the head of the Government, there is no man in the country who has done more to create doubt in that noble lord than the noble lord the member for the City of Lon don has done. (Laughter.) Did the noble lord honestly and in good faith promise to Count Buol that he would come back to London and advocate those views, and if so, has he not forfeited his high position as a public man by not having resigned his position in the Cabinet when he found he could not carry his views? The noble lord was bound toido that which M. Drouyn de Lhuys did when he re signed his proud position before all Europe, when he found that he could not induce his Sovereign to agree to the views which he had pledged himself to at Vienna. (Hear.) If the noble lord had resigned his office, and the country had seen but one more instance of a man who was capable for the sake of earnest conviction to abandon the honour and emoluments of office, far more good would have been done than by the noble lord continuing to remain in office. (Hoar.) I consider that the noble lord has touched upon a point of great danger, and that is the way in which the public men have forfeited their title to the confidence of the people of this country. I have frequently looked before me into the future, and contemplated several possible contin gencies which might happen in the autumn, and dangers to which we might be exposed, and have thought of the great danger which existed from having no one man in the country around whom the people could rally in such a case of great social difficulty and danger. We have brought ourselves to a position similar to that which was arrived • at in France after successive changes, and after having "used up" every leading political character in the land. I look upon the conduct of the noble lord, dangerous as I think it is to himself as a public man, with far more re gret for the very great danger which I think his conduct brings upon the representative Government and the in terests of this country. (Hear.) I think, too, that the continuance of this war upon the system upon ich it is now being carried on, bodes great difficulty and danger to the country. It is not merely . that the present Govern ment has plunged the country into a renewed war, but they appear to me to be utterly incompetent to understand the extent of the difficulty and danger into which they have plunged the country. (Hear.) Now that they have re newed the war, have they taken the necessary steps to bring the war to a conclusion ? What is the object for which the war is to be renewed ? It was not now to pre vent Russia from taking Silistria, or from holding posses sion of the Principalities. Russia had retired from the one and withdrawn from the other as soon as she found that Austria, Prussia, and Germany were determined to make it a casus belli if she advanced upon Constantinople. Every thing which had yet been done by Russia bad been done either from fear of, or by a desire to conciliate Austria, and Germany. The Government of this country had now renewed the war, and what were they going to do ? I know it has been said you are going to humble Russia, but to do this how are you going to carry on the war ? You are about to humble Russia with its sixty millions of subjects-its large agricultural population—and its im mense supply of raw material for troops, by invading her trrritory with thirty thousand men ! He knew that there was scarcely any limit to the power of England and France when these countries put forth all their strength, but how were they going to accomplish the object which they professed to have in view—that of the bumbling of Russia? I know it may bo said that you rely upon the French Government. But is there not danger by even going into alliance in operations upon land with a nation that has sent throe or four times as many troops as we have sent out? But is France in a position to humble Russia ? Let us tell the whole truth with respect toFrance. There is no doubt that this war with Russia is not popu lar in France, it never has been, and it is now odious; and if I wanted a proof of it I could find in the address which the Emperor of the French lately made to his Chamber. There was in that address one• ominous paragraph. He says, "My Government will propose to you to vote the annual recruitment bill. There will be no extraordinary levy, and the bill will take the usual course necessary for . . th;iegulation of the administration of the recruitment bill." Why was the Emperor of the French so careful to tell the people that he was not going to make an " extra ordinary. levy ?" Because he know that the only part of France where his main strength lay, among the peasantry of the provinces, if he attempted an extraordinary levy, he would depopularise himself with the people, among whom he relied for his troops. Did Napoleon I. say he wanted no extraordinary levies, when he went to invade Russia with 500,000 men, and a reserve of 300,000 more ? If you are to invade Russia, and fight her on her own soil, depend upon it you must have " extraordinary levies " both in France and in England. I contend that the coun try hag not been fairly dealt with in this respect. How were they, too, dealing with those brave men whom they sent to wage war against the Russians ? They were shed ding their best blood in attempts which every military au thority was telling you was certainly hopeless. The Go vernment were constantly told that, until they could in vest and surround Sebastopol, and besiege it according to the ordinary and invariable rules of war, they would never have the least chance of taking it. The Government knew all this, and yet they allowed the war to go on, and this, too, under the pretence that they were fighting the battle of the liberties of Europe.- As an advocate of peace he thought the war might have been avoided ; but he shared with the rest of theta in the ridicule which will be cast upon this country if we go on with this braggadocia without properly supporting it with adequate forces. We are like the Chinese in this matter; we show shields with tigers' heads upon them—we keep sounding " gongs," and we think all the world will ba frightened at the noise we make. (A. laugh.) The question was, whether we were really to leave the coun t r y i n th e hands of Ministers who were letting the country drift into a war without anybody knowing what were its real objects. (Hear.) For my part, I would infinitely rather see a Government from the other side of the- house brought to this side, than continue in this course with the present Government; it would at least give us an opportunity of re-constituting an honest party in this house. He warned the house against being frightened by the threat of change of Ministers; anything was better than this constantly lowering of the country in the eyes of the world, and allowing it to drift on into a war of which no one knew the objects or probable duration. (Hear.) Does the war? one profess to solve the mystery as to the object of . a war? Is it to take Sebastopol? Then you must in vest Is the army to winter in the Crimea? That I hear is now spoken of in the camp. You have had an opportunity. of making peace. You allowed the Government to reject rest tto fs Europe , ucceed 9 the terms. and are now separated from the you pro pose convictions c onfidence_ in public with no ally but France. How do I entreat the house to speak out its hoite see the danger before us of the loss o a f men, and I speak my own conviction when look upou the noble lord's conduct as striking the heaviest blow that has ever been aimed at that a ha t s c . on fidence. If Iwish well to our representative system, in 1 do, must exhort every hon. member in t his house,hie public eonduct, Isedulously to avoid such a_ line o f conduct as the noble lord the member for the city ofLon don has pursued. (Hear.) Lord PALMERSTON—I can very well understand that the hon. member for the,West Bddid g having views of his own, and wishing t o form a party that shall place itself in a position to administer the affairs of the country—l do there is n o reproach in what I say—l can no t blame h im, qu it e understand that those who have such views should do all that they possibly eau to realise the assertion—the truth of which I utterly deny—that other public men in this country have lost the confidence of the nation. It is very natural for the hon, member to say that there are no men in this country to whom the nation would look up, and ro und whom it would rally on such occasions as should require the reposing of great confidence in its leaders; but I deny that such is really the case. Setting aside all party feeling, I say that on both sides of this house there are men in whom the country would feel confidence, and round whom it would rally in moments such as those which the hon. member has described. (Cheers.) In one respect at least, however, I think his statement is true. Without any disrespect to him or to those among whom he sits, I believe that they are the last men in whom the country would be disposed, under any circumstance, to place confi dence. (Cheers.) But, sir, I think that the pursuit of the plan of endeavouring to decry every man in a public situa tion, of the system of representing every man in pub. lie life as animated by feelings and opinions that are not honourable to himself and are inconsistent with his duty, is rendering a bad service to the country. I think it does no honour to those by whom it " is pursued, and I have the confidence in the good sense of the people of this country that I am firmly persuaded that these political arts, instead of those who practice them, recoil upon the heads of those who use them, and instead of d a maging those against whom they are used, lower in the public opinion the character of those who resort to such unworthy means of furthering their political pur poses. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cobden) has lavished a great deal of this depreciation upon my noble friend (Lord John Russell)—most unworthily and most undeservedly. My noble friend has pursued a course which I think was eminently wrong in a person placed in the position which I i i