The Sun. — London, England, 1855-05-25 00:00:00

ceived in; the spirit •of that of the right hon. • member for Manchester ; and the great object I have to-night is to obtain if possible, from the first minister a declaration to that effect. (Loud cheers.) But the right hon. mem ber, acting in a perfectly Parliamentary manner, and quite consistently with his Leigh character and eminent talents, have that notice, and I must say that I heard of his doing so with perfect satisfaction, because I felt that the ques tion would fairly be brought before the house, and that we should have the opportunity of entering at length into the discussion of a subject which I believe to be of the utmost importance to the honour and interests of the country. (Hear.) And, although 1 would not have supported the right hon. member for Manchester in his motion, I should have been grateful to that gentleman for giving to me and my friends an opportunity of expressing my views subject, and of taking a course which would have n elicited an opinion the expression of which is, I believe, absolutely necessary for this country. I never for a moment supposed that the discussion would not take place. Is there a gentlemeaen. on this side of the house who for a moment supposed o th d e that it would not? (Loud opposition chee rs.) t slightest hesitation was made on the part of the Government When the notice was given. True it is that the right hon. member for Manchester had not the power of commanding a day in order to bring his question before the house, but . who could doubt, considering the magnitude and import ance• fl of the country, of the subject, the feeling of tieo peoples e s till infl uences a the sense of propriety which supp os e a British minister ui the House of Commons, but that pri vilege would be waived , and that no obstacle would h ave intervened to prevent the discussion being fully and fairls carried on? And so it turned out. The noble lord, with an impulse that was not wholly unexpected, took an op portunity of facilitating that discussion, by giving up a day for that purpose, a nd at last we had an addre s s t o th e C rown placed on theles.per by a privy councillor, which would have brought forward the whole question of the war. A day was fixed, Parliament assembled in an unusually full house, and the whole attention of the nation was fixed on the House of Commons, because it was believed that after the dreary interval of suspense the house was at last going to give some symptoms of a return to political and Parliamentary life. (Hear.) But to our great surprise, and the surprise, I take it, of any one not in the secret—and the secret was well kept—(cheers and laughter) —the expectations of Par liament, and I maysay ofEurope, were completely baulked, and there appeared no possible chance, pending the most momentous transactions for this country since the peace of 'l5, of raising a question which, strange to say, not only deeply interests th e f ee li ngs, b ut absorbs the passions of the people of England. (Hear.) I need not recal what occurred in this house on Monday night, when the right hon. gentleman's resolution was to have come on for dis cussion. The scene was too vivid and dramatic to be easily forgotten. A. right hon. gentleman, recently this colleague and I suppose still the friend of the noble lord at the head of the Government, suddenly rises, whether actuated merely by political motives, or by more social in fluences, as some suppose—(a laugh) —and that right hon. gentleman, turning to some papers which had long been lying on the table of the house, and which we all had read, turns over a well-thumbed passage, and asks the first Mi nister whether it is a fact that there is still some possibi lity of renewed negotiations on the great subject of peace or war. To do the noble lord justice, I must say that he showed the' most uncompromising courage on that occa sion, for he did not inform the right hon. gentleman that there was the slightest ground for thinking anything of the kind. But nothing would satisfy the appetite for suppres sion that characterised the conspirators on that occasion. Although the noble lord did not give the slightest ground for believing that a discussion would interfere with any negotiations whatever, another noble lord, influenced also by those social feelings to which I before alluded —(a laugh)—with a naivete and simplicity which cannot be sufficiently admired, gave the house the very necessary information that he had engaged to second the motion of the right hon. member for Manchester, but that really after the question of the right hon. member for the University of Oxford, although it remained unanswered by the Prime Minister, it would be totally impossible for him to fulfil his promise. (Laughter.) Well, in a very short time it was found out that there was to be no debate on the great question of peace or war before the Whitsun tide holidays which were then impending, and I, still in fluenced by the convictions *which I have on the subject, believing that the conduct of her Majesty's Ministers in respect to this question is open to suspicion and distrust, and that if not vigilantly watched and carefully controlled, it may lead to consequences most perilous to the honour and interests of this country, I felt it my duty to give that notice, which now, sir, I shall have the honour of placing in your hands. (Hear.) These are the simple reasons for giving that notice. It is a notice limited to the issue at tempted to be expressed in the resolution, and if it be one involving a question of confidence or censure on the Go vernment, let it not be said that it has been hastily given, or that honourable members have not had sufficient no tice. The motion has, on my part, arisen from the cir cumstances of the hour ; the Government offices have had the same notice as my friends, becausel should be ashamed if I had attempted to take her Majesty's Ministers by sur prise. Not having confidence in the Government on any subject, the nearness of the Whitsuntide holidays would alone have impelled me to give a notice of a comprehen sive character, and of this notice, which has arisen from the circumstances of the hour, I shall now briefly attempt to explain the purport. I think that the conduct of the Government, with respect to the question of peace or war, has been uncertain, while their language has been ambiguous; and I think that that uncertainty and doubthaa been occa sioned by a peculiar combination of circumstances, which I shall endeavour to point out to the house to-night ; and if the house be of my opinion, I hope it will join me in ar resting a coarse of policy which, if it continue, must fall most injuriously on this country. But I ask them to do something else. I ask them, when uncertainty of conduct so prevails, when ambiguities of phrase are so rife, that it shall, in a manner which may not be mistaken, declare to the country that with regard to this war their opinions have not changed, nor is their spirit daunted. (Loud cheers.) I trust that, while they disapprove of the language and con duct of. Government—while they are resolved if possible to destroy what is the cause of this ambiguous language and this uncertain conduct, they aro at the same time ready to carry on this war until its great object has been secured and an honourable peace attained, and with the view that such feelings may be expressed I shall attempt to-night to obtain a clear expression of the opinion of the House of Commons, and also if possible—although with less hope— one from her Majesty's Ministers. (A laugh.) Having made these observations on the cause and objects of my proposition, let me, before I enter into severer research, re• vert to the observations made by the noble lord on a former evening. when I gave this notice. The noble lord made a good-humoured tee quoque—and a tee quoque should always he good-humoured because it has nothing else to recommend it (alaugh)—on the faree which was performing, intimating to the house that there was some concert between me and the hon. member for Aylesbury, because he relinquished to me the place for which he had a prior claim. Now, I beg to say that I had no communication whatever on the subject with the hon. gentleman. I cannot say that, if I had casually met him in the lobby, I should have refrained from communicating with him, as hon. members have often given up their notices in cases of this kind, but it so happened that I did not meet him. I say this because Ido not want it to be thought that there was anything extraordinary in my having communication with the hon. member or any one else in the house, for so long as I am a member of this house, I hope to maintain that frank com munication with any member of Parliament which, what ever may have been my errors, has always distinguished my conduct. (Hear, hear.) So far as the hon. member for Aylesbury is concerned, I have known him from child hood, and always. have had the greatest confidence in his abilities and character. His abilities have since be come European, and his fame has justified my opinion, and I have no doubt that whatever may be the unfortunate circumstances that have prejudiced many against him in this house, which I deplore, and of which I disapprove, the time will come when, with his talents and disposition, lie will have outlived those pre judices, although I will say frankly to him that I believe they have a fair fountlaion. Neither the hon. member nor the house will misunderstand my observations. I should not have made them but that I have heard he is about to vote against my motion. I hope, however, that no genleman will vote against my motion until he has heard the debate which is about to ensue. (Laughter.) I think that the sub ject is a little too grave and important for the leaders of • party on either side to count noses with accuracy. We are about to-night to discuss no common subject. We are going to scrutinies and examine the conduct of high per sonages, who are entrusted with most solemn duties, and on whose performance of those duties depends the great ness of this country, and. the happiness and prosperity of its people. (Cheers.) He would not be a bold, he would be a shameless man, who could say before this discussion closes that his vote was registered for any man or for any party. (Opposition cheers.) I shall now recal to the recollec tion of the house circumstances which will require no great exertion of the memory. lam not going to ask them to go back hi to the p assage o f the Pruth or t h e d ec l ara ti on o f ar My criticisms to-night on public transactions will refer to recent dates, although I admit that without know ledge of the circumstances that preceded them it would be impossible to form a correct or solemn judgment. But, although my canv as i s ao small, I shall commence at the installation of the chief minister opposite in office—that glorious epoch for the c oun t ry , (A laugh.) One cannot but remember the triumphant cheer of the nation, and the crown of Parliamentary laur e l w hi c h encircled' that reverend brow. There was the Minister at last who could vindicate the honour of the country; there was at last, the Minister who could carry on war lik e Chet ham, and maintain his principles in this house like Pitt ; there was the man who, backed by an enthusiastic people, was to redeem the falling State. (Opposition cheers.) I remember on that occasion, when the first fer vour had a little subsided—when men began to cease as it were to feel, and to commence to think—that a member of this house rose in his place, and asked a significant inter rogatory. lam sure the house could_ not for a moment anticipate who would be the first—whose would be the sagacious mi n d that would anticipate the fast dissipating enthusiasm—who would be the first man in this house who would begin to occupy that future position in which he was to save the country, or disturb the Minister. The right honourable member for Carlisle rose to ask a question. (Loud laughte r .) Th e r i g ht h on . gentleman in a moment of tho ug htl essness —(l au ghter)--had the forgotten to lea ve Cabinet w h en L or d Ab er d een re ti re d, but it was one of those moments of amiable weakness to which all are sub ject, and which persons in opposition will most readily Pardon. But the right h onoura bl e gentleman, w hen he ook Lis place in the gangway, when he surveyed the see y ei r s t ot hrough his sagacious e y e , a ft er th o se thirty-seven „mai va riable fortune, which he appealed to the other a very ng & ta tarally remembered that a few years back—but who were Zearav back—assisted by his eminent lieutenants Minister of tsiiesiting near hi m , he had impeached the First foreign affairs . The on acco un t o f hi s con d uc t i n o u r at. least a firebraa noble lord was then, if not a traitor, morable Parkiamenta and we can all perfectly recal the me ofre.contest which ended in the triumph the noble lord — a tre e s eol twined so much by. the nu b . I am bound to say, not at er..of his friends as by his own distinguished prowees. ,remembering the right hon. gentleman rose, and remembering all thisir that foreige p o lity was the weak point of the noble remembering, too, that he had failed in turning the nobl d, for theel out of the nobletrod Opp.- Cebinet (which was a duty reserved ed the site, his colleague, who iu an adjourned debate, uagtttehe - n object which the right lion. gentlem an di d not succeed in accomplishing), the righ t hon. gentleman,ruelinh oa very em . berl past, rose in his place , a nd in a not very f tine house, ce having just left that seat in the Cabinet willich is now so worthily filled by his right hon. enecelsor (81r C. Wood), anti which was still warm with the ample esence of the right hon. baronet—(alaugh) - -reldressed an -inquiry to the noble lord, whether in the new Government, 6 f which he had himself been so recently a member, f. there "ma to be any change in the principle of their do o t r e e d ig b npti r cy d --whether the policy recommended and a eki_ . le Cabinet was to be followed out, sa a" whether there was to be any change and,p in theatermsbyove aall upon et,edi tions which th e new pl e nipotentiary was to insist ill lee et* enti eenita, g i , la,ting for peace at Vienna ? The right hon. but that s at "` clear noble lord '' l°l3. w " in a moment dispelled when the had so me suspicion upon th;subject, re " 844 laid that he identified himself and his Trig SUN, Government entirely with the policy of Lord Aberdeen— that no difference wha , ,ever would be for a moment thought of in the conditions upon which peace would be sought in the approaching conferences at Vienna; and the right hon. gentleman, to mark bow completely satisfactory he consi dered the noble lord's assurance, declared that he received the noble lord's statement with the most perfect satl-tac tion, and that, under the circumstances, be should con scientiously abstain from all factious opposition. (" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) Well I remember that; but strange t o say, the plenipotentiary, after a certain time, returns frustrated—(hear)—the plenipotentiary who represented the policy of Lord Aberdeen returns bootless from the con ferences of Vienna, and the protocols in due time are laid upon the table. But, as I have said, the noble lord does not fulfil his duty as the Minister of the Crown in moving an address to the Sovereign, but allows another member of this house to set him the example, and a motion is placed upon the table which means, if it means anything, disappro bation of the conduct of our plenipotentiary at Vienna — that the conditions of peace insisted upon were unreason able, and that the conditions offered ought to be accepted. (Hear, hear.) It would be an insult to the right hon. gen tleman, the member for Manchester, to suppose that he meant anything else. (Hear.) What then do we find? Wo find that the right hon. baronet himself (Sir J. Gra ham), and his two right hon. friends (Messrs. Gladstone and S. Herbert) were to be the principal supporters of the right hon. member for Manchester's motion. They rose, it is true, at the last moment, to throw their shield over the coming conflict; but unless I am much misinformed, in vindication of the motion of the right hon. member for Manchester, in support of the declarations therein declared, that galaxy of eloquence and intellect which had seceded from the Cabinet of the noble lord was to exercise its highest faculties and its choicest and fiercest rhetoric in the attempt to influence the opinion of Parliament. What, then, are we to suppose? That there was some change in the conditions upon which peace was to be solicited ; that there was some uncertainty of conduct (for it is not to be supposed that the noble lord was not faithful to the pledge he had given to the right hon. bart.), and that the noble plenipotentiary who, according to the noble lord, has so ably carried his instructions into effect, has been guilty of some act which justifies the right hon. baronet and his' right hon. friends in giving their support to a motion that directly challenged the propriety of that noble lord's conduct, and declare in this house that the con ditions of peace upon which the Government insisted ought not to have been urged. It was on the 24th of February, 1855, that the inquiry to which I have alluded was made by the right hon. baronet, of the noble lord, and this leads me for a moment to go back from the return of the plenipotentiary to the critical period when that noble individual was appointed to the office—for on that appointment and upon the conduct of the noble lord while at Vienna much depends—much occurred which gives cause in my opinion, for the suspicion, the distrust, and the dissatisfaction which undoubtedly prevail in the country —and much was indicated which ought to induce the house to take such a step such as I at the last moment before we adjourn for the holidays am attempting to induce them to adopt. The appointment of the plenipotentiary does not at the first blush appear to have been a very happy one. The noble lord is so distinguished that I find it of course tlifficult to fix upon any subject or any part of his lifein which he has not in some way or other rendered himself remark able ; but speaking only of a recent period, I know nothing by which the noble lord has been more distinguished than by his denunciation of the power and ambition of the Em peror of Russia. It is to the noble lord I think that we may mainly trace the deep and enthusiastic feeling which has been avowed in favour of a decisive struggle with the colossal empire of Russia. For nearly two years—while we were either at war or " drifting " towards war, the noble lord occupying then an eminent post in the Government (more eminent, I am sorry to say, than he occupies now) — the leader of the House of Commons addressed from the Treasury bench, addressed to the people of England, not only fervent but inflammatory harangues, the object of which was to show that war with Russia was the para mount duty of the country—that that war ought to be carried on in no hesitating spirit—but that it was a war in which we should not engage but with a firm determination of realising the most considerable results. The noble lord then said— "The British Ministry and nation would be the most silly of mortals if they were to sign an iusecure peace, which would leave it to their present enemy to bide his time— (o'aEers)—until, by the dissensions of the other Powers— until, by the weakness of some of those Powers—he should fin-I a better opportunity of accomplishing his design." (Cheers.) If you cheer that, you will cheer still more at what I am about to read, The noble lord said, a little later : "The power and ambition of Russia are dangerous to Europe's independence, and incomp a tibl e with Europe's future security; therefore no insufficient, no insecure peace is to be made, and England cannot lay down its arms until material guarantees are obtained—(loud cheers)—which, re ducing Russia's power to proportions-innocuous to Europe's liberties, will afford perfect security for the future." (Gheers.) That is a brave spirit. When the noble lord goes to war, he knows what he is going to war about ; he wants to reduce the proportions of the Russian empire; he wants material guarantees for peace. These are designs which some may think rash, but which all must at East respect as great. I am obliged to refer to these circumstances in order to show the character and the antecedents of the noble lord who was appointed our plenipotentiary to obtain peace. It was a happy choice. I am also obliged to refer to them to show that there was some insincerity in the con duct of the noble lord in this matter. There was a tremen dous plunge towards the end of 1854, and the noble lord, having frightened the country—l should not say the coun try, for it was then ready for anything—but having fright ened the diplomacy of Europe with those announcements that her Majesty's Ministers were going to reduce the pro portions of the Russian empire, and were going to com mence a war which was not to terminate until we obtained material guarantees for peace, naturally called up in the other House of Parliament another noble lord, whom, al though living, I think I may venture to call illustrious. Thus it was that Lord Lyndhurst, no advocate of a craven policy—Lord Lyndhurst, who in a green old age has shown a manly vigour in vindicating the high character of this country—Lord Lyndhurst, who, although au orator and a patriot, is still a lawyer and a statesman—asked this ques tion. He demanded an explanation as to the consistency of such statements as reducing the proportions of the Rus sian empire and taking material guarantees. Lord Lynd hurs.; asked whether such expressions were not incon sistent with the protocol of the sth of December, 1853, to which France and England were signatories, which stated— " The present war cannot in any case lead to territorial diminutions or modifications of the Russian empire." What happened then? I would not refer to Lord Claren don if he were not still Secretary of State, for I shall en deavour, as much as I can, not to touch upon the policy of the illustrious corpses belonging to the Aberdeen Adminis tration. (A laugh.) I will reer only to existing and re sponsible Ministers, although it is not to be suppcsod that any man who is a Secretary of State now would ado anything so mean and pitiful as to say that he was no.; responsible for the deeds of the defunct Govern ment. (Hear, hear.) Well, what did Lord Clarendon say ? Lord Clarendon last year was indignant at this inquiry. He said that the language quoted by the noble and learned lord might be the will of Austria and of Prussia, but it was not the will of England and of France. (Cheers.) Therefore, towards the end of the session, notwithstanding even the protocol signed by France and England, which declared that, whatever the result of the war might be, the territory of Russia should not be diminished in extent, the English Government by the head of its diplomacy stated in the highest House of Parliament that they would not be influenced or con trolled by the protocol that they had signed. (Hear.) I have shown that the noble lord who was selected for a plenipotentiary to obtain peace was unquestionably an ad vocate of war, and of war on a great scale. (Hear.) It is of infinite importance, when we have to investigate the conduct of the noble lord at this important emergency, that we should clearly understand what were the antece dents of the noble lord and his qualifications for the office that I think he rashly undertook. The house will remem ber that it was only forty-eight sours ago that the First Minister of the Crown said that, although these negotia tions had been unsuccessful, they had been conducted with consummate ability. The noble lord (Palmerston) nods his head. (Cheers.) I accept that ceremony as if the noble lord threw down his glovo—(a laugh)—and I call upon the House of Commons, without respect to party, to give an impartial verdict upon the conduct of the noble lord in diplomacy. Do not let it be said that I am making com ments upon the cond u ct o f th e no bl e l or d be ca us e I am a member of a different political party. (Nlinisterial cries of " Oh, oh !") Well, is there any person who would suffer such insane observations to affect his public opinion? If I show that the noble lord was totally incompetent for the office that, in my opinion, he fatally accepted—if I show that his conduct at that. conference led to conse quences prejudicial to the public weal, it will be my duty to bring these things forward, because the public interests, totally irrespective of political organisation, require that we should consider the consequences of the acts of public men. (Cheers.) It was not enough that the noble lord made this speech to which I have referred, and which I have read thaltl might not mistake, but he, the plenipotentiary of peace, distinguished himself in this house by the very high tone he assumed with regard to Russia and the rulers of Russia, and, although then the first Minister of the State in this house, he did not hesitate to denounce the con- I duct of the Emperor and hi s Mi n i s t er as f a l s e an d fraudulent. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord did more. As the session advanced—as the noble lord's blood grew more warm in a moment of excitement (it was in the month of July)—the noble lord revealed the secret policy of the pro found Cabinet of which he was a member to the House of Commons, and we then learnt the authoritative informa tion that war was to be carried on and peace obtained by the conquest of provinces and the destruction of that stronghold that threw its frowning shadows over the waters of the Black Sea. The noble ford made an explanation afterwards of the words he used, but, as Voltaire has well said, " Apologies only account for that which they do not alter—the words remain, but the explanations are forgot ten." When the noble lord told us of the invasion of the Crimea and the destruction of Sebastopol, I said for my self that I had listened to that statement with dismay. These were the qualifications of the plenipotentiary of peace whose selection did so much credit to the admirable judgment of the First Minister of the Crown, who, called to power by the enthusiasm of the people, and determined to put the right man in the right place, sends a Minister to negotiate peace who had proclaimed an internecine war. (Cheers.) But these were not all the qualifications of the noble lord. It was not enough that he had distinguished Ihimself by addressing inflammatoryharangues to the House of Commons. It was not enough that he had denounced the conduct of the Emperor and his Ministers as false and fraudulent. It was not enough that, in a moment of out rageous and fatal indiscretion, he revealed, as one might say, the disasters of his native country. The noble lord signalised himself by another exploit before he went to make peace for his country. The noble lord destroyed a Cabinet. (Cheers and laughter.) He tripped up his Prime Minister because he was not earnest enough in prosecuting the war. (Continued laughter.) These were the antece dents, and these were the qualifications of the Minister Plenipotentiary to whom was consigne d the fulfilment of the most important duties that have ever been dele g ated to a subject of the Crown since the great Congress of Vienna. This was the dove sent out to the troubled waters. (A .augh.) The house will find that the main cause of the dangerous and difficult position in which I hope I shall succeed in showing you this country has been placed has az isen from the diplomatic proceedings and the proceedings in this house in which the noble lord has been the chief actor. It has been said of the noble lord—l think very un j u.tly —by a high, al though anonymous, authority, that the position' and, !',' n ob .le lord was not calculated for the post of plenipotentiary, ma t t i Le t h . riit place, because he was not an eminent diplo matist of the secondly, because he did not take that leading . orne at the moment in this country which might have l'aa for the want of diplomatic experience in the though not awßtisian Court. That was, I think, unjust, Se was once because I shall that the noble lord has had a great, in that capacity at lengthen e d ,the h ead experience of diplomatic affairs. perf ad of the diplomatic body, and racter, which greatly molimed feats of no mean cha are at this moment influencing the fortunes of this 15 quite t rue that when the noble lord was called upon by his Sovereign to form a Go vernment he could only find one gentleman to serve under him—and, strange to say, that gentleman is the present First Minister—(a laugh)—and although that noble lord, with his great position, and with all his genius, which I admire, finds himself in the disagreeable predicament of twice filling a subordinate position under Prime Ministers who are not Whigs (laughter), still that noble lord is the leader of the great Whig party, and small collection of great families who still rule this country in defiance of a free aristocratic element, and govern by the principles of an oligarchy masked by the language of a democracy ; and therefore the noble lord, whatever office he may fill, will always be a very considerable man. But now let me call the attention of the house to a most important event in the career of the noble lord, and I do it only because it is the key-note of the transactions which occurred when the noble lord was chief of the diplomacy of the country. The noble lord was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs during a brief period in the year 1853—two or three months ; but, though the period was brief, the most im portant communications which have ever been made to this country, at any period of its history, were made when the noble lord was Secretary of State. It fell on the noble lord to meet that great difficulty, to cut that Gor dian knot. Upon the noble lord fell the responsibility, at that moment, of deciding the course of England, when vast events were near us, when a dark destiny was impending , over Europe, and when the conduct of the English Mini stry might have averted that fate and changed the conse quences of a great conflict. (Hear.) A whisper, a rumour was heard that secret communications of a very different character from those which were laid on the table of this house had taken place between the Court of St. Petersburg and the English Government. They were denied, not by the Government, but by those who seemed to have autho rity to deny them. I extorted myself from the noble lord the Secretary of State in this house the admission that those documents existed. Such was the feel ing of the country—though I admit I cannot justify the conduct of any Government in producing those papers— they were produced; they are on the table; they are among the most precious records of the most important events in the history of the age ; and there we learnt, from the lips, as it were, of the late Emperor of Russia himself, his resolution to accomplish the partition of Turkey ; and that partition was to be accomplished mainly by assuming the right of protectorate over the Christian subjects of the Porte, which, in the last despatch of the Russian Minister, we hear, as a protectorate, never existed. What was the conduct of the noble lord the chief of the diplomacy of England under those circumstances ? Observe this im portant phase of these transactions, and you will find, as I will show you, the key-hole of disaster in recent ne gotiations, and the probable cause of the greatest difficulties and dangers to this country. The noble. lord, after ample time, wrote a secret and confidential despatch to Sir George Hamilton Seymour, upon the propositions of the Emperor of Russia, and upon the ge neral tenour of the confidential communications which were then taking place. I must invite the attention of the First Minister, who admires the ability of his colleague so much to these remarks. (Ironical cheers.) The noble lord (Lord J. Russell) wrote a despatch which was much ad mired when it first appeared. The despatch was partly historical and partly diplomatic, and I beg the house to do me the honour of bearing in mind that distinction, be cause it is important for subsequent consideration. The noble lord does not agree that the Sultan was in the same state as the Spanish King in the time of Louis XIV., or the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Certainly those Sovereigns had no children, and the Sultan had as many wives as the wisest monarch, and so many children that he is obliged to marry them to his Ministers. (Laughter.) Therefore, the noble lord, I think, was not very happy in comparing the Padishah to the barren and fruitless bed of Medici. With all that display which, while it is unaccompanied by any thing injurious, reflects great honour upon the country producing such statesmen, the noble lord proceeded : " To these cautions her Majesty's Government wish to add, that in their view it is essential that the Sultan should be advised to treat his Christian subjects in confor mity with the principles of equity and religious freedom which prevail generally among the enlightened nations of Europe. The more the Turkish Government adopts the rules of impartial law and equal administration, the less will the Emperor of Russia find it necessary to apply that exceptional protection which his Imperial Majesty has found so burdensome and inconvenient, though, no doubt, prescribed by duty and sanctioned by treaty." Not to taunt the noble lord with an error (though probably the most gross error ever made by a Secretary of State) not to twit the noble lord with a fatal admission (for every one gets into a scrape sometimes, and we, who are a popular assembly, know that duties press so upon public men which they can only half fulfil, and that all sometimes make mistakes, though a Secretary of State who in a secret and confidential despatch makes a mistake is less en titled to the charity of men than mere individuals)—l will remind the house that I called attention, when that despatch was so much admired, to this !fatal admission. (Cheers.) The noble lord never made the slightest answer. He could not make any answer, and I should never have brought it forward again but for the remarkable cause I am about to place before the house, and which the house will in a moment see is exercising a most fatal influence on this country. The mistake of the noble lord was to acknowledge the protectorate of Russia over the Christian subjects of the Porte, which Count Nesselrode has just said to us does not exist—(hear)—and not only to acknowledge but to tell us " its exercise is prescribed by duty and sanc tioned by treaty." (Cheers.) When the noble lord told the house some time ago that every body knew what the four points were I took an opportunity of saying I, for one, did not know what the four p o i n t s we re . Up to the moment the protocols were placed on the table we never had a formal and authentic statement of what the four points wero; but at last the papers ware laid on the table, and the four points are now in the hands of the Parliament of England, of those hon. gentlemen who will sanction or oppose the reso lution which lam about to submit. (Cheers.) Here we have, at last, the four points, and I beg you to turn to the fourth point, bearing in mind the noble lord's famous his torical despatch, and in the interpretation which he put upon the treaties of Kainardji and others, acknowledging a protectorate, and declarin g its exercise to be not only legal but obligatory. What do we see in the fourth article dthe Congress of Vienna? Remember, this has been pro duced by the prolonged thought, by the deep meditations, by the unrivalled learning of the greatest statesmen of Europa. Here is the summary of what they believe to be the cause of the most important transaction of the present day : "Russia, in renouncing the pretension to take under an official protectorate the Caristian subjects of the Sultan of the OriLntal ritual, equally renounces, as a natural cones quen,!o, the revival of any of the articles of hsr former treaties, and especially of the Treaty of Koutchouk-Kai nardji, the erroneous interpretation of which has been the principal cause of the present war." By whom was that erroneous interpretation made? (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Was it by the noble lord, or by the Emperor of Russia? If by the Emperor of Russia, it was assented to by the Minister of England. (Opposition cheers.) What right have we to interfere in this quarrel, when the united wisdom of all these states men has found out that "the erroneous interpretation of the treaty of Kainardji has been the principle cause of the war ?" and the erroneous interpreter is sitting before me— (loud Opposition cheers)—and the very statesman who lashed on the passions of this country to war, when we have a springtide of national feeling in favour which may have been directed to great ends, is sent by that giftedman the First Minister, as plenipotentiary of peace to the Co nference of Vienna. (Cheers.) We are only at the com mencement of the extraordinary blunders the fatal admis sions, the disgraceful behaviour, a nd, as I believe, to this country, thecalamitous consequences of the appointment of that noble lord who displays we are told consummate ability, though unsuccessfully. Why did you not give us an op portunity of examining the conduct of your Plenipoten tiary? Why did you not move an address to the Crown congratulating her Majesty on the admirable manner in which the negotiations have been carried on, while at the same time expressing a determination to prosecute the war with vi g our? lam not at all su r p r i se d th a t y ou h a ve avoided discussion. This is only the key-note to what is coming —to a scene the most disgraceful, the most awful in its consequences to this country and to the character of public men, as competent to deal with public affairs, which the history of England has ever afforded. It is true that unsuccessful negotiations have before now been carried on, but it is equally true that Ministers have been overthrown and branded by the verdict of an indignant Parliament for having havingacted and for spoken in a manner si milar to tat which I hope I shall be able to show has been adopted by the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) I see that the right honourable gentleman the First Lord of the Ad miralty laughs; well, it is not the first time I have been met with a laugh by the right hon. gentleman. He is a merry soul, but if he can answer what I am saying let him do so. (Laughter.) Know come to fresh feats of history I and diplomacy—feats which lam almost ashamed to notice, but in which, unfortunately, I find the cause of the weak ness of the position in which we are now placed. The noble lord arrived at Vienna early in March, and the first conference, I think, was held on the 15th of March. At first everything wont on swimmingly, and in the first fe .v conferences subjects were discussed and settled about which in reality no difference of opinion existed, andthus an ad mirable opportunity was afforded to the Russian envoys of making most conciliatory sacrifices. (Hear, hear.) The conferences went on from the 15th of March to the 26th of that month, and then commenced the real business. Five or six meetings of the conference had taken place, at which, as I have said, nothing of the slightest import ance was settled—in fact, all that was settled might have been settled just as well by the post. There was no controversy about the first or second point, but, at last, on the 26th of March the real difficulty arose ; then was made apparent the real reason why the noble lord was sent to take part in the conferences. Then came the discussion of the third point, and then it was that the noble lord was expected, among others, to obtain the admission of the Turkish empire into the European confederation, and to decide upon the manner in which the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea should cease to exist. Then com menced the real business of the conference, but the noble lord before he touched upon the real point —remembering the mission of his life as much as his mission to Vienna — threw in a word with regard to the representation of the principalities, and, I believe, even hinted at a new reform act. Prince Gortschakoff smiled, and naturally replied that that was not exactly the point they had met to settle. The new reform bill for the Danubian principalities might be postponed, as a new reform bill for a mere important place had been postponed, an d i t might be as well to get on with the real business of the meeting. The noble lord then rose and made the following unprecedented declaration : " L ird J. Russell, recalling the declaration made at the opening of the negotiation by Prince Gortschakoff that he would consent to no condition incompatible with thehonour of Russia, maintained that, in the eyes of England and of her allies, the best and only admissible conditions of peace would bo those which, being the most in harmony with the honour of Russia, should, at the same time, be sufficient for the security of Europe, and for preventing a return of complications such as that the settlement of which is now in question." Let us see what that admission means. The noble lord states that, in the eyes of Europe and the allies, the only admissible conditions of peace were those most in harmony with the honour and dignity of Russia. What, I want to know, had the noble lord to do with the honour of Russia ? ( Hear.) I appr eheud that the noble lord was not sent to Vienna to take care of the honour of Russia. (Hear, hear.) No, Sir, the noble lord was sent to Vienna to take care of the honour of England. (Cheers.) What happened under these circumstances ? Thera did exist an understanding to which Russia was not , I believe, bour ! c, by any formal instrument, but still a u understandin g did exist that the Russian plenipotentiaries, Prince Gonic•itsocffhear koff and M. de Titoff, should take the initiativ s e, a plan as to conCdtions which might lead a nion inti ttoo be tisfactory solution of the q uestion how Turkey was mately connecter l with the European system, and how the preponderance o f the power of Russia in the Black Se a might be made to cease. Ido not think the noble lord will deny that, isithough the Russian Ministers were not bound by any for mal obligation, still a general understand ing did exiit that they should take ' the initiative, andapr9s: pose some plan as hich they believed would afford a s factory solution of the difficulty. No sooner, however, , LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 25. 1855 had the noble lord made the declaration that, in the eyes of Europe and of the allies, the best and indeed only ad missible terms of peace were those most in harmony with the honour and dignity of Russia, than " Prince Gortschakoff, while congratulating himself on the conciliatory disposition with which this question had been hitherto touched upon in the confpreuce, said that he was prepared to discuss the means of execution which should be proposed by the plenipotentiaries, but that he did not consider himself in a position in which he ought to take the initiative on the subject as Count Buol had sug gested. Appreciating at the same time the sentiments of courtesy and conciliation which, according to the unani mous language he had just heard, seemed to have inspired this proposition, he declaredhimself ready to take it ad re ferendum, reserving to himself to make known to the con ference the answer which he should receive from his Court." M. de Titoff spoke to a similar purport. Aarif Effendi, however, who appears to me to have been the only man of of sense present—(laughter)— " While declaring that he was not authorised to take the initiative in propositions relating to the third point, ex pressed a hope that his Government would accede to those which the plenipotentiaries of France and of Great Britain have reserved to themselves to make on this subject." Prince Gortschakoff immediately referred to his Court, using those bland expressions which, of course, induced the Minister of England to believe that he was only going to refer to his Court for fresh powers to make those proposals which it was expected he would make. Well, sir, delays went on, and it way not until the 17th of April—the ad mission of the noble lord having been made on the 26th of March that; in the eyes of the allies, the best and only ad missible conditions of peace were those most in harmony with the honour and dignity of Russia—that Prince Gorts chakoff received instructions from St. Petersburg. What were those instructions, or rather, what was the result of them ? On the 17th of April Prince Gortschakoff declined taking the initiative, and begged the allies to do so. He did so, no doubt, with a feeling of confidence that, as the allies had laid down the principle that the best and only admissible conditions of peace were those most in harmony with the honour and dignity of Russia, propositions brought forward by them would be conceived in a more agreeable spirit than the Russian plenipotentiaries themselves would display. To prove that such was the case, let sue for a moment refer to the circular note of Count Nesselrode, and let me see how that most experienced of living states men treats this subject. The statesman has produced a diplomatic paper of the greatest ability, in which he takes a survey of the transactions at the Vienna conferences,and examines with the most critical eyes in existence the con duct of European statesmenl and on whose conduct did he fix ? Upon that of the English Minister, and more espe • cially upon the fatal admission of the 26th of March. Count Nesselrode refers to what he terms " la definition fort reinarquable" of the noble lord, which was to serve as a solution of the problem, and in that circular note he says : " Lord John Russell, recalling the declaration made at the opening of the negotiation by Prince Gortschakoff,that he would consent to no condition incompatible with the honour of Russia, maintained that, in the eyes of Eng- land, and of her allies, the best and only admissible con ditions of peace would be those which, being the most in harmony with the honour of Russia, should at the same time be sufficient for the security of Europe, and for pre venting a return of complications such as that the settle ment of which is now in question. After this declaration, made formally in the conference of the 26th of March, Lord John Russell cannot be surprised that the proposi tions made on the 19th of April were not judged by the Imperial Cabinet as ' the best and only admissible ones,' to quote the words of the English plenipotentiary." And what were the propositions made by the noble lord ? I have already told the house of great feats of history and diplomacy in connection with that celebrated despatch to which I - have already referred, and here the noble lord fully sustains the character and position he had exhibited in con nection with that famous despatch. He made as fatal an admission as he had made in his despatch respecting the protectorate, and the noble lord supported his position by a historical illustration equally infelicitous, but much more insulting. (Hear, hear.) Here is the noble lord uselessly going out of his way to announce that the bust and only possible conditions of peace, in the opinion of England, were those most compatible withthe honour of Russia, and at the same time sufficient for the security of Europe. Having made that admission, the noble lord proceeds, on the 17th April, to do what? To propose the most humiliat ing condition that could be made to any Government, and that humiliating condition ho supported by a precedent which appears to me the most unhappy that could possibly have been brought, forward. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord appeals to the treaty of Utrecht and the destruction of the fortificatious of Dunkirk. Now, under what circumstances were the treaty of Utrecht and the negotiations for the destruction of the fortifications of Dunkirk made? After a series of the most splendid victories achieved by the arms of Marlborough and Eugene—after a series of the most humiliating reverses on the part of a once great King—at the end of a long reign, when her resources were exhausted, France—high•spirited France—submitted to the greatest humiliation that her history records. (Hear, hear.) And this is the precedent which is produced by the noble lord, who commences with an admission which makes the honour of Russia an essential qualification in any conditions of peace that may be made. (Hear, hear.) I ask again, who made the noble lord the judge of the honour of Russia? ( Hear.) What business had he to think of the honour of Russia? (Cheers.) The noble lord had to think of the honour and interests of his country; and surely Prince Gortschakoff and M. Titoff were capable enough to deal with the honour of Russia. (Laughter.) The admission made by the noble lord was the real cause of these confer ences being broken off. That I consider a very minor evil, according to my view of the nature and character of the conferences ; but that admission—as I will afterwards show, was such as, in my opinion, may embarrass this country, and involve it in a position from which it will re quire all the patriotism of this house and the high spirit of this country to extricate it. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord himself confessed that the admission he had made was the cause of the rupture of the negotiations. That is actually the admission of the noble lord at the time when he professes his regret at Russia not taking the initiative. On the 17th, after the extraordinary illustration to which I have referred had been repudiated by Prince Gortscha koff, he himself adds—" Since the Court of Russia has de clined to take the initiative on this subject, the chances of success attending the negotiations for peace appeared in his eyes much diminished." (Hear.) By his own admis sion, therefore, the chances of peace were much diminished. I say, therefore, that the noble lord has placed the possi bility of peace by negotiation almost out of the question by his conduct at the conferences at Vienna. (Cheers.) The noble lord allowed the conference for a considerable period to waste its energies in settling circumstances which required no arrangement ; and when Russia had the appearance of conciliating public opinion by apparently considerable concessions about nothing at all—when he had placed Russia in a position toobtain the favourable opinion of the Congress, the noble ;ord then came to the point, and so managed the conference that it appears that, because Russia would not consent to one single point, we had, in fact, been deprived of that peace which otherwise might have been obtained. (Hear, hear.) What a handle does the noble lord give to any Peace Society, or to any doubtful airy when he allows Russia to say, " Here are twenty points which we concede, and the only one point we insisted on is not conceded by England, so that the horrors of war are to continue?" (Hear, hear.) And what is that one point? The English Minister pro poses that Russia shall consent to a most humiliating act, and he illustrates it by a reference to the most himiliating occurrence in the history of Europe. Was the noble lord justified in visiting Russia with this humiliation after he had laid it down as a principle of negotiation that she was not to be humiliated? (Hear, hear.) I say, then, that the third point, according to all rules of diplomacy, inas much as it contained the real business of the question, ought to have been taken first. If the negotiators had met and said, " W e all know that the difficulty is on the third point ; let us solve that difficulty, and, if we solve it, all the rest is plain sailing," that would have been a wise and intelligible proceeding. (Hear.) But you car ried on your negotiations day after day with dissimulating courtesy, and because you put off to the last the real busi ness that dissimulating courtesy is followed by increased irritation. (Hear.) In these circumstances I cannot look on the conduct of the noble lord, as her Majesty's pleni potentiary at Vienna, with that satisfaction with which it has been spoken of by the noble lord the First Minister. I think I have shown to the house some reason to hesitate before they agree that the noble lord has shown great ability in these negotiations. 1 think the noble lord, instead of showing great ability in the conduct of these negotiations, has committed every blunder which a negotiator could pos. silely. accomplish. (Hear, and laughter.) I think he made fatal omissions at the commencement, and that he had re couse to dangerous illustrations to support his position. (Hear, hear.) I think he dealt with the wrong part of his material first, and that he has so managed the really important element that, so far as negotiation is concerned, it is my solemn o pinion diplomacy can no longer solve the knot. (Hear.) I most impress upon the house to recol lect that the noble lord has proceeded in these conferences in the same manner in which he proceeded, as Secretary of State, with reference to the confidential communica tions of Russia. He met them by a diplomatic and his torical move conjoined, and, guided by history, he has made a diplomatic mistake. (Hear, hear.) At last the protocols so anxiously looked for and so long sought were laid on the table. The noble lord the First Minister de clines to address the Queen. We read those protocols; and the language of the Ministry seemed to be as ambigu ous as his conduct was uncertain in the conduct of the ne gotiations, and exactly opposite conclusions were drawn re garding this by different parts of the house. The right hon. gentleman the member for Manchester says, the nego tiations authorize peace. That is also tho opinion of the member for Carlisle, and his friends. Another party thought they necessarily included war. We are, there fore,extremely anx i ous t o o btain the opinion of the Minis ter upon the question, so that the country, in a state of great perplexity and some discontent, may be guided in their opinion by the Government. What is it their repre sentatives inquire of the Government? We want to know what is the position of the country ? Is there to be peace, or is there to be war ? (Cheers.) Do you wish there should be peace, or that there should be war ? (Hear, hear.) In what condition do you wish the country to be placed? (Cheers.) Then, we ask , in what spirit are yo u go i ng t o carry on th e war ? (Cheers.) We do not ask the noble lord to let us know the precise and actual conditions on which peace ought to be obtained. The noble lord the other night, with his usual happy power of perversion, s eeme d t o represent that to the house as our wish ; but no man is so silly asto have any idea of that kind. We trust to the discretion of the Government in such mat ters, as any Government ought to be trusted, and especially as we have to deal with an ally whom we love and respect. (Hear.) But we want some general and explicit statement as to what our position is ; and it is my object to obtain it, while it is also my object to show you what is the cause of this perplexity. (Hear.) I am bound to show her Ma jesty's Ministers how ambiguous has been their language, and how much more ambiguous has been the language of their negotiations, in first stating the honour of Russia to be an element in the conditions of peace, and then to pro pose conditions of peace which the strongest advocates of war could not suppose Russia would accept. (Hear.) Is not that ambiguity of language and uncertainty of conduct ? (Hear, hear.) If the noble lord was sincere when he said that, above all, the lion air of Russia was to be one of the principal elements of peace, his language in my opinion is feeble and incautious. If the noble lord was not si ,cere, and did not mean what he said, then I think his language is liable to the charge impliedly made against it by Count Nesselrodo— namely, that of duplicity. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord must choose between two qualities. Well, the protocols being here, the First Minister of the Crown will not fulfil his duty by moving an address to the Sovereign in respect to them ; and a right hon. gentleman who at tempts to do that gives notice of a motion, which is sup pressed. We, the members of this house, endeavour to extract some opinion from the Government, and what is the answer we receive ? I am told that there has been no ambiguity of language and no uncertainty of conduct. Now, this is a grave question, and we must fully an d corn pletely enter into it. therefore, let me call attention to the words of the First Minister of the Crown, recently deli vered. He said : " With respect to the question whether negotiations are entirely broken off, my answer must be the same as I gave on a former evening —namely, that the elements of con ference permanently exist at Vienna, there being in that capital the representatives of the British, French, Turkish, Russian, and, of course, Austrian Governments. If, there• fore, at any time any proposition should be made by Rus sia, or by Austria on behalf of Rossi.), which might ap pear to offer a Lir prospect of prosecuting negotiations to a successful issue, there are means and elements in Vienna for resuming the negotiations." Is is not quite clear that there are, in every capital in Europe almost, the representatives of the British, French, Turkish, Russian, and Austrian Government? and there• fore, if at any time any propositions should be contem plated, they could be made in any European capital. But there is no proof whatever of any special negotiations going on, or of any reason why we should not investigate the con , duct of her Majesty's Government, and give our opinion upon these records of our unsuccessful plenipotentiary. (Hear, hear.) What was the language in another place by Lord Granville on May 22? That noble lord said " With regard to the state of negotiations at Vienna, it is not true, as has been supposed, that they have been finally closed. The Government are ready to receive any propcsitions that may lead to a safe and honourable peace, and they also leave themselves open to decline any terms which may lead to a contrary result. Certainly the con ferences are not closed ; and under the circumstances of the case it is for the noble lord himself to consider what course he ought to adopt." I gave my comment on the lariguage of the First Minister about a week ago, and I will now communicate to the house the comment of Lord Lyndhurst on the language of Lord Granville. Lord Lyndhurst said : " The noble earl says the negotiations are not closed ; but are they going on ? They may remain open for a twelvemonth. Have any propositions been made which are still under consideration, or have they been rejected ? Is there any probability of any further propositions being made, and if so, within what time ; or have the Govern ment made up their minds as to the period at which there is any probability of the conferences being concluded ? I never heard anything more vague." Are we, then, with these statements, made in this and the other House of Parliament, to be told that there is nothing vague, uncertain, or ambiguous in the language of Mini sters in reference to the great question of peace and war? (Hear.) Let me now call your attention to a statement made by the noble lord opposite, the unsuccessful negotia tor, -totally contrary to everything said by both his col leagues in the passages I have just quoted. On May 21, that noble lord said : "Certainly my opinion is that, whether the proposition lead to peace or not—because upon that question I feel myself incompetent to give an opinion—the Austrian Go vernment will, before the conferences are finally closed, make some proposition to the members of those confer ences. I imagine that proposition must have one of two results; either it will be rejected by one—perhaps by both—of the belligerent Powers, and then the conferences are broken off, and no do doubt it will be perfectly com petent for any member of Parliament to ask this house to declare its opinion of these negotiations : or, on the other hand, if that should not be the case, then, again, negotia tions will be resumed, and there will be a greater prospect than there has been of peace being established." That is a totally different statement from the statements . made by the First Minister and by Lord Granville. The latter tell you that there are the representatives of the four Powers in Vienna (though, as I told you. before, they may be found also in other capitals), and if any proposition is made it will be received ; but here the noble lord tells us most positively that the Austrian Government has some other proposition to make, and that it is expected by her Majesty's Government. The noble lord distinctly stated that one more attempt at negotiation was to be made; which is quite• a different account from that given by the First Minister and by Lord Granville. Well, is this the case, and is another attempt to be made ? The inconsis tencies are considerable. Here we have the statement of the First Minister that there is a permanent condition of congress, and then we have from the noble lord opposite a statement that there is going to be a final proposition, and then the conferences are to be closed. Which is the true statement? Is another proposition expected, has it been made, and what are the general expectations of the Go veinment as to its character? (Hear.) And what did Lord Clarendon say ? The noble lord opposite having re turned from his unsuccessful mission, Lord Clarendon said that he should lay before Parliament the official papers as soon as possible, and went on to say that for his part, he very much disapproved conferences or negotiations being carried on where the was no real business to, con clude ; that, he said,' vas the present state of things, though the Government would be prepared to answer any distinct proposition on the part of Russia. That was a very proper tone to take, but it was totally diffe rent from the ambiguous language held by other Minis ters, which had something in it like " leaving the door open," which I do not understand. I am against this' principle of " leaving the door. open ;" I say, shut the door, and let those who want to come in knock at the door, and then we shall secure a safe and honourable peace. Then arrived the night for the motion of the right hon. member for Manchester, to which I need not now advert, as I have before alluded to it ; and I refer to it only to no tice the strange position taken up by the First Minister of the Crown. That noble lord told us that he was not going to make an ignominious peace; and that the man who would do so was a degraded outcast. _I admired the tone of the noble lord. "The captain is a brava man," but we want something more than the assertion of. the noble lord as to whether he is going to make an ignominious peace or not. The noble lord can advise the Crown to make peace without first asking this house. Let us, therefore, be well acquainted with the real character of his policy before he makes peace, and let us, above all, have a clear and expli cit explanation of the real position of affairs. (Cheers.) There is a sarcastic note in one of Gibbon's volumes, in which he quotes an Arabic author named Abulpharagins. who stated that he was witness of a certain, fact. But who, asked Gibbon, will he witness for Abulpharagius. (Laughter.) The noblellord is witness forhimself, but who will be witness for the noble lord ? (Laughter.) It is in the power of the Minister to advise the Crown to make peace, without asking the opinion of Parliament. Far be it from me to interfere with the Prerogative of the Crown ; but what safeguard is there that, when Parliament has ad journed, you may not have an unwise exercise of that prerogative, unless by a full dislussion on the state of affairs Parliament may become well acquainted with the feelings and views of Ministers ? The noble lord the other night said he would not be forced by me into making the house acquainted with the confidential communications which were passing between her Majesty's Government and our allies; but no one asks' the noble lord for that ? It would be 'the height of imprudence for any man to ask the noble lord to tell us the precise terms on which he proposes to make peace. He must act upon his own responsibility, in conjunction, of course, with our cherished ally, but that is no reason why the noble lord should take a course which, in my opinion, must lead either to an ignominious peace or to a lingering and fruitless war. That is why I press the noble lord. We have a right, I maintain—without trench ing on the prerogative of the Crown, and without circum scribing the Government's liberty of action along with our ally—to interfere if we think that the noble lord and his colleagues are pursuing a course of policy which will either prevent any peace from being concluded, or lead to the conclusion of an unsatisfactory peace ; or else, which I think still more probable, will lead to a lingering, frulit . . . . less, and inglorious war. The noble lord told me the other night ti;tat, while I was objecting to the negotiations which were going on, I seemed to forget altogether the fact that the Government at the same time were carrying on war—effectively carrying it on ' • and he insisted on this point with great vigour, apparentlytly very much to his own satisfaction. Now, there I join issue altogether with the noble lord. (Hear.) I deny that you can carry on Ayer effectively simultaneously with this morbid state of ner tiation. (Hear.) Here, I think, lies the whole fallacy of the noble lard's policy. The cause of all the ill-success which has attended his efforts and of the discontent and dissatisfaction now so prevalent in the country may rbe found in this principle on which the noble lord, and 4he Government whidh preceded him, If which he was ame - her, have acted—that it is possible at the same time to make war and to negotiate for peace. (Cheers.) It is pr e ty apparent, I think, that the noble lord has a false and limited idea of the manner of making war. I deny that tell you have to]do to make war is to levy taxes and to fit out expeditions. There is something else equally, and perhips I might say more, important even than raising money and recruiting troops. If you want to carry on.war with vigour and efficiency you must keep up the spirit of the people. (Cheers.) Now, sir, I deny that you can keep up the spirit of the nation in a struggle such as that which we carried .on with Napoleon and which we may have to carry on with the Emperors of Russia, if you are perpetually impressing on the country that peace is impendi4g, and if you are perpetually showing the people that the point of difference between ourselves and our op ponents is, after all, comparatively speaking, of a very petty character. Men will endure great sacrifices if they think they are encountering au enemy of colossal powers and resources. (Hear.) A nation will not count the sacri fices which it makes if it supposes that it is engaged in a struggle for its fame, its existence, and its power ; but when you come to a doubled and tripled income-tax, when you come to draw men away from their homes for military service, when you darken the hearths of England with ensanguined calamities—when you do all this, men must not be told that this is merely a question whether the Emperor of Russia shall have four frigates or eight. (Cheers.) I say the principle upon which the Government of the noble lord and the Government which preceded him have acted, that of keeping up a state of war and a state of negotiation simultaneously in action—is a fatal principle, and that in it may be traced the real 'cause of our disappointment and partly of our disaster. What, effect has it had upon your militia? (Rear.) Why, I re member when the militia was embodied for war there was aroused, even in the humblest cottage, that military spirit which, I think, is natural to the British people. But what is the feeling now ? The people understand the question now ; they have read of the conferences 'of Vienna, they believe, th a t, a ft er a ll , the d i fference be tween the contending parties is no very great one— that it is not• a difference for which their blood should be lavished. Do you think you would ever have heard a murmur against increased taxation if, at the same timeyon were calling for that increase, you had not striven to im press on the public mind that you were not engaged in a struggle for an object worthy of the sacrifice ? Moreover, if you would carry on war it is necessary not merely to keep up the spirit of the nation, but also to keep up the spirit of foreign Powers, but you may rest assured that so long as you appeal to a foreign Power as a mediator that Power will never be your ally. (Hear, hear.) I do not say this with any want of respect for Austria. I think that the Court of Vienna has acted throughout these transactions with wisdom, with sagacity, and with prudence, and I am not surprised that its councils have been guide ::I with so great ability when I remember that the Minister of that country is a pupil of the greatest statesmen which this age has produced. The genius of Metternich still guides the 1 country which he has more than so nee saved, and if the policy of that great statesman be' pursued I am persuaded that in a strugg e with Russia he is not the man, nor are those who have sat at his feet the men, to counsel base hu miliation to that Power. Jf in 1828 the opinion of Prince Metternich had prevailed, if the policy which he reoom mended had been adopted by the English Cabinet, this House in all probability would not at this moment have been called on to discuss the all - important question of a war with Russia. Therefore it was with no disrespect to Austria that t made that remark. It is in human nature that the moment you ask a person to occupy the positipn of a mediator he will not necessarily fulfil the duties of an ally. (Hear, hear.) I say, then, sir, that so far as the general policy of the noble lord is concerned, I trace want of energy and its unfortunate consequence ; I trace the discontent and the dissatisfaction which are prevalent in all quarters to the continued alliance between diplomacy and war. As a general principle I think that alliance ob jectionable ; but in the present case I think it can show the house that there are peculiar objections to this double service. There are two modes in which you may make war on Russia. In one case you may - invade her provinces, despoil of her territories, push her back to the north, and reconstruct, in short, the map of Europe. If there were a young Minister full of genius and energy, backed by the enthusiasts of the people, unembarrassed by any public debt, and fortunate enough to possess as a colleague a general, young, energetic, and ahle as himself, I do not say that that is not a career which I should recommend to his attention. I do not presume to predict what the result of such a struggle would be, but I think few will deny that the hair of .the youngest member present w o uld grow grey before its termination arrived. There is an other mode of waging war with Russia—an essentially protective mode. In adopting that mode your object would be to protect your ally, to take care that her terri tory was not violated, that her fortresses were secure, and to check the preponderance of Russia by increasing the power of Turkey. That was the war in which, from your declarations at its commencement, I thought we had em barked But what have you done? Having embarked in a war to protect the Turkish empire, you suddenly re solved to invade the Russian dominions—(hear, hear) — and while you were !protecting Turkey you engaged in diplomatic transactions which were to carry out a protec tive policy. You have thus combined, therefore, an ag gressive war with a protective diplomacy; and to this incoherent, inconsistent union I trace and attribute the dangers which are surrounding us, and which, in my opi nion, unless you terminate that union, must, increase until they perhaps overwhelm you. A Conference at Vienna may cope with such questions as the government of the Dantibian Principalities, as to the course and free navigation of a river, or as the security of the rights of the Christian subjects of the Porte. But Conferen3es at Vienna cannot cope with such subjects as the invasion of Russian provinces, the destruction of Russian fortresses, or the fortunes of accumulated hosts on the sterile terri tory of a proud foe. (Hear, hear.) While, therefore, you are wasting your time at Vienna in this protective diplo macy, all that you can do is to devise schemes which will apply to the objects of the war. But the ern consequences upon the objects of aggressive war are easily traceable, be cause by these conferences and this morbid diplomacy you not only check and destroy the spirit of the nation, upon which, after all, you must rely, but by these very confer ences you are paralysing your allies, and preventing that energy and exertion on the part of the European Powers which may be necessary for you to carry on your aggres sive warfare, and to extricate you from the dangers which you must meet. (Hear, hear.) Sir, it mey have been a great error—as frankly confess I believe that it has been —to depart from the protection of the Turkish empire to undertake that invasion of Russia which you most rashly and, as I think, thoughtlessly decided upon; but, having once entered upon that course, you must now meet the consequences of the fatal policy you have pursued. You cannot, however, extricate yourselves from these conse quences by conferences at Vienna. (Hear.) ;You will only increase your difficulties and augment your dangers if you trust to diplomacy. Your position is one that is en tirely deceptive ; and you never can carry on war with success unless, on the one hand, you are supported by an enthusiastic people, and unless, on the other, you can count upon allies—if you have allies—who know that you are determined to support them. I have said, sir, that there was at least one object in my making this motion—not a solitary, but a main object—viz., that I want the House of Commons, by its vote to-night—l want those who are the most favourable to peace, provided, I suppose, that it is made upon honourable terms, and is likely to be permanent —for I trust that no hon. member would advocate any other kind of peace—l want this house, by its decision, to put an end to that vicious double ‘ system by which we have so long carried on an aggressive war and a protective diplo macy. I want the House of Commons to-night to say in distinct language that the time for negotiation has passed. No man, I think, will be inclined to deny that proposition who has read Count Nesselrode's circular. If I thought that there was even a chance of obtaining an honourable peace and of extricating this country from the difficulties by means of negotiations, I might still have the weakness to cling to it ; but I am convinced that further negotia tions, instead of securing a peace, will only aggravate the dangers and distresses of the war. lam confident that, if negotiations are continued, the Government may be pre vented, indeed, from making a disgraceful peace by the still latent spirit of England, but the Government, if it persists in its present policy, will only substitute for such a peace c. lingering, fruitless, and inglorious war. I ask the House, therefore, to support this motion, because one of its main objects is to put an end to this fatal union be tween diplomacy and aggressive war. Sir, it has been said that the motion which I um about to make expresses a distrust of her Majesty's Government. Be it so. Is there any man out of this house who does not feel a distrust of her Majesty's Government ? (Hear.) I beg the noble lord to understand that Ido not say this by way of taunt. I know full well—and it is a most sorrowful thing—that this distrust is not limited to her Majesty's Government ; and that it has been occasioned by the policy of this country for the last two years. That distrust reaches our generals, although they are victorious—it reaches our officers, although during this war they have achieved deeds of un precedented valour, and maintained among their troops unexampled discipline—(hear)—it reaches our aristocracy, although they have poured out their bloodl ike water iu the conflict. (Hear.) Amid the dark suspicions that have, alas, been rife, that distrust has even reached the prac tical working of our administrative system ; and will you, then, hesitate to support me to-night in this the first effort to breathe some feeling of life into this House, in the dangerous circumstances in which, be lieve me, the House of Commons is placed? (Hear, hear.) Further forbearance on our part cannot be submitted to by our constituents. I speak frankly ; I say that silence is by them considered to be an abnegation of our functions. (Hear.) You must say "Ay" or "No" to this motion. I cannot believe that you will allow any miserable amend ments to evade the issue which I am going to place before the House of Commons. (Cheers.) That issue is this : " Will you put an end to this diplomatic subterfuge, and this Ministerial trifling ?" and it will be so looked upon, I believe, here and elsewhere. I find, sir, that a right hon. gentleman has done me the honour of adopting five lines of my composition. (A. laugh.) I must congratulate the present Ministry upon its good fortune in always having a Privy Councillor to rush to its aid ; and certainly it ought to be a wise Government that has so many amateur and veteran colleagues. (Laughter.) I read that Sir F. Baring is to move an amendment to my motion in these terms :—" That this house, having seen with regret that the conferences of Vienna have not led to a termination of hostilities, feels it to be a duty to declare that it will con tinue to give every support to her Majesty in the prosecu tion of the war, until her Majesty shall, in conjunction with her allies, obtain for this country a safe and honour , able peace." The latter portion of this amendment is taken from the words of my motion. Is this the amend ment of the Ministry ? If it is their amendment, it is an act on the part of the Ministry which vindicates to a cer tain degree the course I have taken, and in every sense condemns themselves. (Hear, hear.) If the noble lord and his colleagues think that this house ought, in the present stat of affairs, in consequence of the failure of these nego tiations, to express their determination to support her Majesty in the manner I have eescribed, how can the no ble lord reconcile it to himself that he did not himself, like a loyal Minister of the Crown—(hear, bear)—cothe forward and propose an address thankiug her Majesty for the papers which she has so graciously placed on our table? I can hardly recall the passage, but I remember reading of an example in the history of this countrywhich the noble lord the First Minister might well study in re gard to communications of this nature proceeding from the Sovereign. It is to be found in " Cox's Life of Sir Robert , Walpole," where it is stated that the Duke of Newcastle, then Secretary of State, brought down papers relating to the threatened invasion of England, and laid them on the table of the House of Lords, by Royal com mand. In consequence of some papers on the same subject having been previously laid on the table, and the Crown having been addressed in regard to them, the Duke of Newcastle said it was not necessary a second time to ad dress the Sovereign. I can remember the spirit if I can not repeat the words of Sir Robert Walpole on that occa sion, when he Made the only speech he ever delivered as Earl of Orford :—" My lords," I think he said, " isthe English language so barren that we cannot find words to express our gratitude to his'Majesty for every act of grace and condescension to this assembly ? ' And, continuing in this strain, he so shamed the Ministry that, although the Government party had a great majority in the House of Peers, that august assembly rose almost in a body and decided that it should address the Monarch ; while the Prince of Wales, who was then in Opposition, although he had not Veen for some time on speaking terms with Lord Orford, warmly embraced. that nobleman, and, addressing him, exclaimed, " From this moment we ' are friends. I feel that you have vindicated the honour of the Crown and represented the feeling of the country." (Hear.) Well, then, here is this amendment of the right hon. gentleman (Sir F. Baring). Is it the amendment of the Government? Will they have courage to support this amendment? If they have, it is possible they may yet take Sebastopol—(hear, and laughter from the Opposition)—for a more audacious act was never per petrated in this country. (A. laugh.) I wish to impress upon the house the difference between my motion and the shabby amendment—(laughter)—that has been cribbed from my thoughts and ,clothed in my stolen language. (Laughter.) What is the difference between them ? It is this—both the motion and the amendment contain the assurance which I am sure hon. gentlemen on all sides will feel it their duty to proffer to the Crown, of their determi nation to support her Majesty in the war in which we are engaged—(cheers)--but in the amendment there is an omis • sion of those words, which, if they be adopted, will ring through England to-morrow, and will gladden the heart of many a patriot who is now discontented, when he finds that the House of Commons have come to the issue I have just described, and have decided by their vote to-night that there shall be an end to diplomatic subterfuge and Ministerial trifling. (Loud cheers.) Mr. BARROW, in secondi ng th e mo ti on , expresse d hi s concurrence with the right hon. member for Buckingham shire in the opinion that the negotiations in progress at Vienna were inconsist en t w ith th e con ti nuance of the war, and his belief that a large majority of the people of this country were anxious that the suspense existing with respect to : those negotiations should be terminated. He was fully alive to the deplorabl e consequences of war—to the misery which it inflicted upon private families, and to its injurious effect upon the commerce and the general interests of the country ; but it was because he entertained this feeling so strongly that he was anxious to impress upon the house the necessity of a vigorous prosecution of the war as the only means of obtaining a secure and honourable peace. He was satisfied that such a war as was now waged between great and powerful nations w ou ld no t b e b roug ht to a satisfactory termination so lotig as any irresolution was exhibited on the part of her Majesty's Government. He remembered the hollow truce—the pe ace o f Amiens—which for a short period interrupted the war that was carried on at the corn mencemcntof the present century, and he had no desire to see such an experiment repeated. The question having been put by the SPEAKER, Sir F. BARING said that, notwithstanding the formid able language of the right hon. member for Buckingham shire, h e was no t a t a ll i n clined to shrink from proposing the amendment of which he had given notice. Indeed, the right hon. gentleman's speech had convinced him of the propriety of submitting such an amendment to the house, for that speech plainly disclosed the intention which he believed had lurked under the right hon. gentleman's motion. He (Sir F. Baring) would, in the first place, state the reasons which had induced him to steal the lan guage of the right hon. gentleman. (A. laugh.) He lied concurred in the views expressed in that house by the no ble lord at the head of the Government, that until the final and formal close of the conferences at Vienna, there was no necessity for the expression of any opinion on the part of the house with reference to the negotiatibns ; but the state of affairs was entirely altered when the right hon. gentleman's notice appeartcl upon the paper. The house was then compelled to pronounce an opinion of some kind or other, and the right hon. gentleman, with his usual dexterity, had combined an address to the Crown with an attack upon the Government. After the right hon. gentleman had laid upon the table a proposal to address her Majesty, stating in proper terms and language, that Parliament was prepared to support her Majesty until a just and honourable peace had been obtained, it was im possible to meet such a proposition with a direct nega tive, HQ, gentleman must remember that their discussions -- .. - were not merely for EngTl----enti, but; EU - roP e ' a te n l ' i l ire if es tbt,eo Proposal of the right hon. gentleman fo a°. , i t might ri ght the Crown had been met with a directorgatult7 in have been supposed out of doors, at all eve conuteies, that that house was not Majesty in carrying on the war. Wrel:t h e stele t eti e d that Ws . hon. gentleman's words, and be conamitte , 4 , 0r0 else because he was anxious it s hould whorth to r' tbetr ease there was no doubt or difficulty aever in ,,,t too. with respect to the proposal for an address, buto"easeie gentleman on both sides were ready to concur in 0 i the t the her Majestyin freely owne' tto 00 the same words. He fi s 0 language of the right hon. gentleman with re P , d o lept, 0 coin address seemed to him the most convenient b rig ht prepared to .septeeetitiligb3rt for it was free from any ambiguity ; but th rf. gentleman was mistaken if be supposed that ° t i w ee teal part of his motion directly and frankly. ° 1 e bi:tory 01 Baring) w a s not prepared to meet the rernalningearnobthee, gentleman had gone into a long narrative of til l° ; to fe llut( these transactions, into which it was impose! acne s od e a , him. • The right hon. gentleman had attacked se,._ w hica gotiations of the Government, with referencenirsuch st• papers had already been laid upon the t a ble, l ' a, .` d been ell: tacks would doubtless be met by those who , 's t o o d gaged in the transactions, and wh alonewere aloes, , f t he 0 lial + some of the right hon. gentleman's assertionese.s _ ,fot , s e , right bon. gentleman believed there was r e 7 t, he lo t grave charges against her 11.ojesty's Governrokly of surprised the right hen. gentleman bed °e t es tea d ,,, fairly brought those charges before the house , . _ sto el ve ", I mixing them up with what appeared to hierestees (.1. right hon. gentleman's own expression--!°, ,e,,oe4getisa " shabby" resolution. A great part of the rienttrie our tleman's sneech consisted of an attack uPe° as as! adopted by the noble lord (Lord J'. Russell) 1 1 88 t for P_, conferences. That was undoubtedly a fa ir s teentletnl je cussion ; but why did not the right bon. noble I°° i•, stead of contenting himself with attacking lot ( sir 1)8 conduct in his speech, in what appeared t° briog.ot / Baring) ambiguous and unsatisfactory. terelllce,roceettite..; question fairly before the house by a sPecluareee t at ! . ' s ' g (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman bed cu e ° w ith I'o t t e h that bewas re a ct p e o d i . nt Ttohissvhinicvoli itvbeedaatievnert tutional question, and one which was of llrPioteetic , to reference to the transaction of the great dit ite tia e` D a. ness of the country. As he read the cons '-__ the tthe ct if count t ry i 0 n , e i t for wa p s peace e t the were executiveentruegr eanCdreww;reete;:lt; admitting the entire right of Parliansenti_eb w hile 5 1,0 0 Ministry, when the transactions had &Oen .tseeetssa tin g the entire right of the house to withdrawolieg on _ a to from a Ministry while negotiations were t o giei', tr ' s 0 while admitting it was also the duty of the to 0 4 le give to the house such information Wm t : r fice, 9' t or yicincgstiCiera• ble • c°l*,".tb could be given without injury to the publ ic °Any dire Cot, thought that the house should not, either 11 1 4 did ' s e indirect resolution, state that the ginistrl ths'.ol/00-Iftee from day to day, inform them of what We s o i st Of 13i 5 using ambiguous language, or that their cr u d so vet ° v ett satisfactory. (Hear.) What bad been the e , 011 0 noble and right hon. friends ? Had there4thewbea l ijoi ell concealment or any ambiguous language • , d bat t fete' understood that the conference was suspeoe t;' . a ° G e l b ut suspended was not closed, and that the e ll ' ee e l stls - se tio; meat did not conssder that every effort was i i a of 0 se ns e was of opinion that means might still he 0 ° , 14 o nsP ° B ol o ' prverasotpeg respecting t s fi s eni the difficulty which had caused the teullOtlllat the t ie i° of the sittings, his noble friend told thero tor e ' s p Ot rence was suspended, but that negotistione . 5, it nog g a t o n t d chao t r h sre a y t tn o he f eam c o o t i u oan r s t iw e o , ni tvigh.hai any l e iry lans hyper r it o s; ;33 " 0::: : : e r il ijof 551 :: ,i : r possible for that house to ask and to be t°l.,noibl°,o pri. while negotiations were going foriv:lrd 00F sc ce t e s 'a ei i r s they r w n h e n a : could was were t adversaries and all the world were made 4 0 Opetli:, terms f i e h loco s t aawksikilnitignogbpteleatcomelikteh(lies etarre'sht;o3.er.)vichecloot:r:e'e:e? it bwForhreawiyncconstitution forward. you u mWhen heard hon. gentlemen say, let us know the t be ti itt e think it was in accordance either with the P o o 000 bey should ask for information on everlt bi ,eo lite" - sc ° ' it au b w hy oi e rl an l r t c rt h ha o e n ne yg s g e : o n n am o t d eo t ic ri te o o s n r , avdbeauoriteci:s:Pf: aea ton 3:: ads ; i b ii e t : f is h: o l' l a c t : i , t P :, 1 1 1 1 , : s , e t: 1 i : , il : were not negotiating alone, but with A ro • 0 oio de coi ° i not, without Erie such a communication with tee ,etiO.e th which they were on roost : es ow .. o r fighting the same battles, and actin,' 0 3 , 1 ev er,otri, ciples, was it fair and 'st to their Allies tha t t ei4c y s ee o ' for to that it would comae-the Governsuee corntabsel should expose the wishes and confidential 00 t 0 el (Sir F. Baring)) boy lie which must be made to it ? (Hear, be the ,ia, conceived that his ,noble friend had g' y perlf c ." es hiltsl the country all the information which he 0 0 0) 0 that till g y I Il ° ' o o 6 reference to these Pe • • e e 'g j negotiations vier e o toi , est e , 00 France and Austria, with the vie fait " p elt o 0 , the difficulty which had arisen. the c° f peloB and when they had either come to a seti s ,, bor e , ~( 0, 4 9 al) r hended conito ~i 13% J or, on the other hand, had abandoned t t ,','"pra to '„", l 'er ','"it then it would be the duty of the Mi,°'es,,"'te Pr'elii7, table fall information, and then oul ° e m- conr ue e srl i ,,ei for the house to interfere, and declare te ° be t tit a " et' 0 9 as ew t e hi ; s he co w n e st e a g n e t in m g would e pursue-(hear, bear) -but until ' o e of tilortoOgo h believed that, both as regarded tho ~ 1 0 s o 1 1 ,e 0 to for and the interest of peace, nothing coul , 0 00, t ee e te eluded , by moving ' That this house impatience of the - The fight -11 country. ,e s t 1',, - 0 S l ' as ,etadhendaslysaiiynnantegfeensradentivehdneenv!iely:slo:: _0,...8'00011,..5; tvpbtioisroti,scroo:hot:tie:itil, ferencees of Vienna have not led to * t°ll-it filjoatillef to give every lities, feels it to be a duty to declare that r ei ti e ic itli/ n no e T iee b ! ri h. n e g w fo e rla forward state the war, support to her Majesty i n ie octi ° bld e j pe t until her Majesty shall, in c`fe'eocere 001;00 Allies, obtain for thiscountry - be a d g' to Sir W. HEATHCOEsaidathat, altholgh he ei hie l os e the amen( me hi d, in , t o ji g submit 1t to the house. , There were tsy ° e et. ,e, h; hi which he was required . we a ss estelf ee hon gentleman the member for Btl°,l°l pa l eo', ado hog. cio: ter • . ms of his resolution to a great eoc' e° i e (Sir ~ 0 7 , 0 4 his speech, had made it i p wale that s s e ft ' i rr 0 - 00 cote) should vote with himi ° (hearY-,ctrion:/.11" Or! IP, the reasons s°vfo w r b e 7 sol j e l;:s t : ' its siring to shut the door to future negotnt; ,e'hilies/ri;111 . 0 anxious a to see the thread taken uP e e ls; o lsere ( e l' ti le t el be , then have been somewhat abruptly u °bide° ed fro 40 0 had to consider whether the 111 "tber to sZ s te) hon. baronet expressed his opinion. interse''Jed gebv,,fOre right hon. baronet's speech- that he ,- 1 NV; "tee h l ill,' very much the same mea ning as be (S tr a d l ie ns t's 3 o"' wished to see embodied in the resolntion, objectoro4 j helped the right hon baronet would 1 1 °, re s c eers t beS troduction of his amendment;• but es the 'ii °I ri , e to ft e e s it seemed to him to be somewhat ope , g et t ba t tb ambiguity and uncertainty. In orde r ", ° e tte: „ o ur hon he should pro •os to Wee r " ( I,', eti a teig "tilit'ies," " and still paieerisbing tb ° „., o rris' 0 se,gr, communications which are in progress n'.',e,eltieeti l,ee cessful issue," &c. He should have no dt'iotle,wBtvi, 1,1 g h e d oo against the resolution of the right he e h ' t boas i s e e ' e 0 Disraeli), or in favour of that of the lig ee etitl i oe,!!, O f (Sir F. Basing), if the latter right hon; 0 4 te h ' e olr amend it to the extent he recomniende;' orsio-tiia;',ool no doubt unanimous in pledging itself to 00 ° eSP with Vigour until a safe and honourable _P tit k es , ,p 1 tamed, and he rejoiced that this sentisne • ssee.lo, in both the resolutions. (Flear, hear.) f t hal,et P e g Mr. K. SEYMER confessed to be one ° f t ea.; ' O O O O 4 regretted the withdrawal of the r ootil e ° o as e 4 / g et ' f i e) s member for Manchester -(hear)---O°V, t wit ds i,; Pe%o en from danger, but because he thoughs_e bi de We 11,50 have been more than counterbalance'. ° jig oc ibi this Russia.ig were on theilitioul bi ee t oet the side of (An irona l )bad c hees. beep, ia e eo to say that hon. gentlemen opposite islt s t If i e, Russian gold, but he trusted to he abler a L P , for (e degree they had been playing ale g° °3- eietny" g be, j a il , (Hear.) When his right hon. friend the oe l a tie e co 'o l° , eoe' inghamshire first gave notice of bio noel he Ali Seymer) had felt some doubt as to vrb e r i pg t tl llo lt A ll° e e r afe . in them. Perhaps in a party point 0 1 , e t fe 0 .a blif: gentleman had not chosen a good 1 0 ° Due t the Peole-00°A duction. He was inclined to think erthe ae f li eoge ts bil yet ripe, but the proceedings of last Mon The re b iee t grit ably hastened its maturity. (11e3i,"this 611 1,. ° I A.; siderations, however, connected wit-,. 1 co ult o did ' O l , l far outweighed party motives. N ° I,, i tio° 0 0' 11 ° l r as that a large portion of the popuiviiele te fee l; ds, well-grounded complaint against the,•`cseLle 00 0 4 eo r i s thought what hai taken -place he ° & Ala wie ' 8 0° 0 dissatisfaction out of doors, Notkia a - elle u ho eo el o't gerous than that the people of Englaeet e t t jor e,..,p, much in earnest, and the Parlialne; 061'005 bar appear tranquil,-(hear, hear)--and 11711013' reosllooo independent member, thanked the rig o f 00 t r oo l oi Bucks for affording him' an opportunitl Th e yes 04 opinion on the resolution before but 001.44,00,d e sib ow d e , 0 was no. an address to the Chown' hu',,er "r e sbeese eor of the House of Commons-(hearseiooe P" 0 0 .. et Se tiator having been withdrawn from v 1 4,0 Th!A sere j s time ripe for discussion. (Hear, 13,ee'tsittechTestStitiells thb First Minister of the Crown be" • ' efl er A etriPeonl et portance to the co-operation of ze tl ior• we' tigl iti te e t ' 0- . very difficult game to play; but h E d e n(' o pt :( think the policy of France and • s bes c' el osel, t4 lit i 1.10 moment to be tied down to the 1 1l co t e' off ford , Austrian co-operation at this 1:1014,0 Prvtterbetvot consist in oppressing the De uu eid be te r s° o' (hear, hear)-and he thought it n ) ,„ j ot 00 if it e sl' is allies if Austria took no share ill, f o e t lu a tiee l e e . :t, (Hear, hear.) Tbe difference bets' e er eble - 6 t to °ll ef s it on his side of the house and he° ° " - bad i e " t oe' e ro c fr site was, 'that the former felt W° o f o ttr ,t er e f „ r f ) i e and honourable peace by the brnyegought b t l ; c oe' o st,oo hear.) Hon. gentlemen oppelsitei,e erieneopcse,, elood chances of peace arising out of ' l '' , o et Preou'"be 4 d to The friends with whom he acted diu_ n a i t ,eO-itel,ooo Vert should always remain at Sebastopol _ ell iit icif l ote i e ee be kept in view that Sebastopol rf;tood., toy thetorte different from that fortress as it s?„wreseendolosts, stand, the bugle of triumph wet ll "ef it 0° 3 , 4 01 1 ,,,,1 t o e! confines of India. (Hear, hear) ' co la 1 ' it o ? if there which `ya p, e 0 0 11 . was nothing_on paper . 0 4 ir Jree oe o r , keep a treaty. The war was a 3 ,,,,beh 13 ,' r eieg f $ 4 l / 1 4 10 / undertaken in defence of a Pow er - a 3 ' 00 ° ' ell" ' it s attacked ; and it was neeessarl, ;ggreStr. j3Ol O l i ts means of resisting the danger°°s ' , es ter ( .1 ' a cceiett lg eer (Hear.) The hon. member for Ilona 1)0%f the s e„,, year contended that Turkey eh°_u„droitY. in 1 Vienna note (that note which the e7etirelltico th e t o l ito negotiator said would place Turkel Qu id 0 , ss ia Ito err h o use If t 1. 0 f of Russia), or (and here the ho en t hat ~. , 00 ,ot r 000,../ OP. OP ,r f rosity of the hon. member ' s p at tbe l a j a „ 40 0, 8 key should fight it out, and if we 91)0640 je nc bt' Turkey had the worst of it, then r. (fie' , °, O f4o 3 e maintenance of the balance of rosette.° vio! 8 , viol., to, the hon. member admitted that°, _ ove r w e ar, oec t oi 1 11,i! power, and then that the balanciee I F of t hi'i otb illg le 4 t ' ell ing for. Throughout the who, sa ilors , Il e reoPeelil l e, behaviour of our soldiers anu_tide o f t , , be en 1 0400 more meritorious than the sail _ la bad e0,00,,,i/ , i s e, brave` e , Clos s io I r , P.,1 country. (Hear, bear., , e , e , ieetores a t v beo efe , except within the walls of IS 1 except (000,0000,, thi no boasting had been hazar sesters• . , oell,bo elciitoi gatherin el of her Mejesty's _ l _,'" u f a c tur.7ll , e ro e it t ", laughter.)' Amongst the In's. su feere , t til e be I,,ers' i oD e classes, who bad undoubted war sh nit'bon beitepeeottf: only desire evinced was that te nd her e 11° a io t he coe, te , ' with vigour -hear, hear)--t did D ot ii l d 4 4 t 40 of eo: . to say that 011 this subject oo _ ll ‘. era i feci;eforil: t ed Vis for Manchester expressed the P et tbot t war, :1,40)04 (Hear, hear.) It had been sa c , -; of the .ereer,ouar, re e ; country desired tbe continuanere _6004 oer.lo „.4 ; iii fited by it. Lie denied that eon _1_,L,,0040_7,,, r., , farmers did not desire a cSS "fereese(liee polooteio'oolo knew that a state of war led t°,'"whieh ',!. ' 5, t• b ° 090 . 0 Olt thence to increased burdensi,,olbeeoed till re a o f 01 )0 19 thrown upon the land. Bt !_,o,ate, de:,tiees e' hti the 0 ~i trusted, from motives of lilleS _ a t he ns ws t sale ovoft, the strife. 'While he respect() s ;1 he t ° s , 101 l o° o os. rse a , 0 01 ,, t o 1) objected to our going to Wa„, e horse, _ 4 ., e s 0 e go they put the cart before l'i_T ne e s o loNt to Vijor - principles of our nature rem. Otlo., 090. d the weak i 0 0 " oppress the weak, an fee l ings 0 While he respected the :' z r 1 Y . 0 0 I