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

No. M.—Vor.. 111.

LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 26

1855.

PRICE SIXPENCE.

(T.')!2c Vrtss.

understand our determination, and that our
vote may be placed on record to render ti-
midity traitorous and retrogression impossible.
That is one course of action, and it is the
course which a great nation should not hesitate
to adopt.
. _ . . .

short of the limitation of the Russian fleet
could be accepted by our Government, while
there was not the slightest probability that
those terms would be conceded by the Cabinet
of St. Petersburg. The fact of Russia resist-
ing the limitation of her fleet was, in Lord
Jons's opinion, a pregnant proof that she me-
ditated aggressive designs against Turkey. It
was her interest and her object to possess
Constantinople, and to rule there. Still, the
door for negotiation must be kept open that
the Aberdeen party, with the peace advocates,
might not be offended.
The Ministry, then, is compelled to play a
double game to maintain its precarious exist-
ence. Ambiguity is a necessity of its position.
Peace and war are the magnets which attract
it on one side and the other, and keep it in a
state of perpetual fluctuation.
Does any one believe that such uncertainty
is consistent with a really vigorous prosecution
of hostilities, or is likely to produce an im-
pression of our earnestness abroad ? Despotic
Governments may afford to negotiate for peace
while they throw all their strength into the
prosecution of war, as tho whole powers of
the State are at their disposal But in free
Governments the strength of the Executive
must depend an the force and energy of the
public sentiment, and that sentiment never
can be intensified until a decided line of
action be determined on.
The weakness of the Government and its
causes are now apparent. A majority of the
House are pledged to support it in office, but
to perplex it by opposite counsels, to drag it
in different directions, to deny it their confi-
dence, to depreciate it by their speeches, to
deprive it of all real power by their votes,—to
keep it in existence, but to make that existence
as degraded and as worthless as possible.
On Tuesday night the question art com-
plete revision of our Consular Establishments
came before the House. The motion was
opposed by the Government, which on a
division could muster only 57 votes to 112,
though amongst the 67 were the names of five
Cabinet Ministers—Viscount PALM E ASTON,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Sir G. C. LEWIS, Mr.
VERNON SMITH, and Sir W. MOLESWORTH, with
the two Secretaries of the Treasury, and a
muster of Ministerial hacks. What elements
of strength can such a Government really
possess? Supported by influences which dare
not be avowed, it is fuund in constant oppo-
sition to the great body of its nominal
adherents.

From the Ministerial benches there emanate
three counter-propositions. The Peelites, or
the remnant of the Aberdeen Ministry, have
made common cause with that party which
considers all war as sinful, and which demands
that peace shall be obtained—if on satisfactory
terms so much the better, but, at all events,
that there shall be peace. As the peace party
thus constituted find that they are much too
insignificant to impose their views on the
country, or to give them direct effect in any
way, they content themselves with demanding
that " the door of negotiation shall be left
" open." In this sense two members spoke
on Thursday night.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE would have the House
expressly vote that "it still cherishes the
" desire that the communications which are
" in progress may arrive at a successful issue,"
a vote which, not only in St. Petersburg, but
in every Court of the Continent, would he
received as an unequivocal declaration that
England was no longer a Power to be feared
or respected, but to he conquered, when her
spirit had been a little further dashed by a
continuance of hostilities, and of Liberal mis-
government and dissensions.
Mr. GLADSTONE broadly took the ground
that it would be impossible not only to con-
quer Russia, but by any scheme of policy, or
by any success in arms, to make her consent
to terms to which she had a strong objection.
He entirely concurred in the proposed amend-
ment of Sir `V HEATHCOTE. He considered that
we have gained the objects of the war, and that
by continuing we were in danger of chang-
ing it, on our part, from a just to an unjust
war. These opinions, honestly held, should
have led to a cordial support of Mr MILNER
Guises's motion. But the Government was
not to he directly opposed, while it kept "the
" door of negotiation open."
Mr. LOWE, representing another section of
the Ministerial side of the House, would
consider the door of negotiation absolutely
closed by the refusal of Russia to restrict the
strength of her fleet in the Black Sea. Thus,
between these two parties of Government sup-
porters there is direct opposition of opinion ;
and in this division of sentiment is to be found
the secret of that "uncertain and ambiguous
" language" which compromises our honour,
impairs our strength, gives confidence to our
foe, and induces neutral States to believe
that they have nothing to fear from our hos-
tility, and everything to hope from our vacil-
lation.

It is impossible that this state of things can
last without both bringing our whole system of
government into contempt, and greatly weak-
ening the moral power of the country. The
compact between the Ministry and a majority
in the Legislatnre is flagrantly corrupt. It is
founded on no agreement of principle or iden-
tity of sentiment, but on a secret community
of selfish views. The public interests are
sacrificed, and constitutional government
brought into disrepute. that a knot of great
Whig families may, in the forcible language of
Mr. DisaAEct, " govern by the principles of
" an oligarchy, masked by the language of
" democracy."
The debate will have the good effect of
clearing up a world of misunderstanding as to
the position of our leading public men. There
are the Peelites with their convoluted tactics,
sager for peace yet afraid to openly declare for
it, and bent on keeping the door of negotiation
open ; the war party, represented by Mr.

The Government dare not offend one or
other party of its supporters, and endeavours,
therefore, to conciliate both by piomising that
the door of negotiation shall be kept open
while the war shall be prosecuted with vigour.
A more humiliating confession of weakness
was never made in the British Parliament. In
this great emergency the Ministry retains
office only by balancing the opposite demands
of its supporters, and fears to proclaim that its
policy is either for peace or war lest a great
desertion from the Ministerial benches should
ensue.

Yet the speech of Lord JOHN Russeu Was
directed to prove that further negotiation
must of necessity be fruitless, as no terms

r' •
•
s7l'%‘—fri‘j's
•
J I
/710° 7/AIX&
tie t
11)

n a
nty
ion
im-
Ai°
ace
the
I Of
ree
ire
:he
ver
of
its
the
but
it
afi-
to
-to
nce
1111-
ate
vas
l a
12,
ire
ON,
Kr.
ith
a
ate
fly
are
po-
nal
can
n of
R k-
'he
.ity
t is
en-
ity
ire
!nt
Nat
of
of
of
of
to
re
38,
nn
Ir.