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

M. DISRAELI'S RESOLUTIONS.

On Thursday Mr. Disitazu accordingly brought
forward his resolution. The conduct, he said, of the
Government was so ambiguous, and its, language so
uncertain, that the public mind was filled with dis-
trust and discontent. He had hoped that, in this
sullen temper of the country, the Prime Minister
would himself have put before Parliament his views
on negotiations so ostentatiously conducted. Though
nothing of the kind was done, he himself still shrunk
from bringing forward the question, lest he should
be ancused of unworthy motives. He felt, however,
after the country had been baulked by the with-
drawal of a recent notice, that it was no longer con-
sistent with his duty to remain inactive. After a
sarcastic review of the fortunes of the Ministry since
its commencement, and the position and conduct of

the seceders from it, who were to have been the
principal supporters of Mr. Gibson's motion, he
commented on the appointment of Lord J. Russell
as plenipotentiary at Vienna, a post for which he
was unfitted by his avowed hostility to Russia, his
diplomatic inexperience, and his political imprudence.
He referred to his conduct when the confidential
communications of Russia made known her designs
on Turkey—he had then committed himself to an
acknowledgment of the protectorate of Russia over
the Christians in Turkey—and proved, from the
terms of the fourth article of the Vienna Conference,
that the fatal interpretation of the treaty of Kirardje
was admitted to be an " erroneous interpretation,"
though that interpretation had led to the present
war. He went through the history of the Conference,
commenting on the care taken by Lord John of the
honour of Russia, as if the honour of Russia was
intrusted to his keeping, and which he followed up
by making the most insulting and degrading propo-
sitions ever made to an independent nation. This
he accompanied with the admission that the preser-
vation of the honour of Russia was one of the essen-
tials of peace—an admission owing to which the
conferences were broken off. The third pint,
according to all the rules of diplomacy, should have
been taken first; instead of which the conferences
began with a display of courtesy which only served
to embitter their termination. After having thus
exposed the conduct of the representative of the
Ministry during the conferences, he came to that of
the Ministry itself after them. The protocols were
laid upon the table—no address is moved to the
sovereign—the motion of an independent member is
suppressed. The excuses of the Ministry, in spite of
their declarations to the contrary, were vague, un-
eertain, and ambiguous. He exposed the discre-
pancy of the statements of the various Ministers,
when Lord Clarendon had expressly said that the
sleeting again of the Conference without a specific
object would give an erroneous impression that
negotiations were carried on when they were not.
This morbid state of negotiation damped the spirit
Of the country, and hindered the due prosecution of
the war. Conferences at Vienna cannot stop with
invasion of Russian territories, and destruction of
Russian forts. To declare the deceptiveness of the

THE PRESS.

Ministerial position, and to put an end to the vicious
double system of war and diplomacy, were the ob-
jects of his notion, which he trusted would not be
evaded by some miserable amendment.
Sir F. Bin's° objected to Mr. Disraeli that be
had not frankly and fairly brought his charges against
the Government in a separate form. He thought
that the principle of censuring a Minister became
he did not regularly supply information on negotia-
tion yet in progress was unconstitutional. He urged
against the motion that it was brought forward for
party purposes, and founded on party principles.
It shut the door upon peace, and, on our part, com-
munication with our allies. He proposed as an
amendment a resolution which simply regretted the
ill-success of the conferences, and promised the
support of the house in the prosecution of the war.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE objected to this amendment
that it was ambiguous and uncertain, and proposed
to add to it a sentence declaring that" the house still
cherished a desire that the communications in pro-
gress might tend to a successful issue." He was
fearful that the responsibility of blood might other-
wise rest on the head of that house. He considered
the proposition of Russia respecting the balance of
power in the Black Sea, and though he did not ap-
prove of it, he considered that it contained the fair
elements of negotiation. He thought that the
principle of limiting the Russian fleet would subject
Russia to a galling irritation, and was, besides, a
regulation which it would be very difficult to enforce.
As to the war, he contended that we might well rest
contented with our actual successes. . .

Mr. KER SEYMER had no confidence in the
Vienna negotiations, or in the conduct of Austria.
He thought it of the utmost importance that the
house should show itself in earnest, not only in the
sight of foreign nations, but in regard to the opinion
of the country itself. The real question was, whe-
ther we were to obtain peace by military success, or
by conferences at Vienna. He supported the original
resolution.
Mr. WILLINsoir complained of the assertion that
those who wished the war vigorously conducted were
adverse to peace. He retorted on the peace party,
that they themselves, by their encouragements to
the Czar, were in part the authors of the war.
The Marquis of GRANBY made a complaint directly
opposed, that the peace party were unjustly charged
with desiring war at any price. He defended the
conduct of Russia, who at the commencement of the
contest might have occupied Sebastopol if she had.
chosen, and considered that we had no right to re-
main at war after the object of war had been ob-
tained.
Mr. R. J. PHILLIMORE held similar language. He
could not admit the honourable intention assigned
to Russia, but he thought that we had already secured
objects of the greatest importance, and that to con-
tinue the war would be to share the guilt of the
aggressor.

Mr. GLADSTONE, reviewing the several propositions
before the house, had no hesitation in coinciding
with that of Sir W. Heathcote. Two courses were
open to them in the present struggle—one to take
stipulationa and enforce acceptance, the other to
dismember and destroy the opposing power. We
were in danger of adopting a middle course, insulting
Russia without weakening her, and after offering
her indignity leaving her in all her strength to wait
for opportunities of revenge. He then reviewed in
detail the negotiations from the commencement.
Russia bad, in various treaties, managed to obtain a
ser►es of claims upon Turkey which might be at any
time alleged to justify her in any aggression. It
was on this ground that the war originated, and the
first objects did not contemplate the complete eradi-
cation of the evil. For a long time the efforts
of the powers were confined to narrowing it. He
traced the progress of the various demands of Russia
and counter-demands of Europe, until, iu August
last, Lord Clarendon made the propositions which
contained the germ of the four points. Those pro.
positions were instantly and ignominiously rejected
by Russia. Yet only four months subsequently, after
thelexpedition to Sebastopol—and he mentioned this
to show the influence of that expedition—the Czar
declared his acceptance of the four points. Mr.
Gladstone then reviewed the late negotiations on the
four points ; we had obtained the two first, and we
were certain of obtaining the fourth ; we had even
obtained one half of the third, but the other half
contained stipulations to which Russia could not
consent consistently with her safety and honour,
and she offered a counter-proposition which in itself
contained more than the allies could have ventured
to ask her, in leaving the absolute control of the
Straits at the disposal of Turkey. He asked what
were the objects of continuing the war? They could
Rot he a dismemberment of Russia—that was impos•
sible ; they could not be a question of nationalities—
such a war we should have to wage alone. Were our
objects, then, merely those of military success ?
Against such a vrinciple he declaimed vehemently,
as unjust, unchristian, and tempting the wrath of
heaven. Further success would only increase our

SATURDAY,

difficulties, by exciting the enthusiasm cf Russia.
We ought to be satisfied with the glory we had
obtained, and might well shrink from adding other
victims to the half-million which had already perished
in the contest.

Lord Joubi RUSSELL, after adverting to the party
motive by which he supposed Mr. Disraeli to have
been actuated in bringing forward his motion, placed
the question upon practical grounds. Whatever
might have been the terms which we would have
accepted before the outbreak of hostilities, at present
we could only accept such as would prevent its re.
currence. He thought that security would be best
obtained by making the Black Sea a commercial
lake. He argued that the proposition of Russia to
throw open the Black Sea to the war-ships of all
nations would be only to permit her to appear
whenever she chose at the gates of Constantinople ;
that in practu3e, the ships of other nations would
seldom visit the Black Sea, while those of Russia
would be always in readiness ; that in such cases
priority was everything; and to leave so great a
danger behind us, and withdraw 200,000 men from
the Russian territory, would he to acknowledge a
defeat in the eyes of Europe and of Asia. He traced
the general increase of the Russian power, and of
her hold upon Turkey, arguing that we could not
make peace without having established an effectual
check upon both. We were far from attacking the
honour of Russia; it was on account of her honour
that she was invited to take the initiative in the pro-
position on the third point. He defended the con-
duct of Austria, alleging her del►cate position, ex-
posed to the open attacks of Russia, and the secret
hostility of Prussia. He concluded with a general
defence of the conduct of the Ministry.