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

DIPLOMATIC ESTABLISHMENTS.

Mr. WISE on Tuesday moved a resolution pledging
the house to a revision of these establishments, in
accordance with the report of the committee of 18150
on official salaries. lie advocated the reduction of
our expenditure—the abolition of the smaller German
missions, which cost much and loaded the Foreigu-
office with useless despatches—and the establishment
of a mission at Frankfort in their place. He thought
that the Italian missions might be reduced in the
same way. The country knew too little of what was
termed " secret diplomacy "—if it had known more
we should have been in a better position at this mo-
ment. He complained that the whole service was
full of jobbery and favoritism.
Mr. EWART, who seconded the motion, urged the
establishment of an educational test for our diplo-
matic agents.
This last suggestion, Lord PALMERSTON said, was
now about to be carried out. As for our diplomatic

arrangements, the salaries were below rather than
above the proper standard, and inferior to those
paid by other countries. Our missions to the smaller
German States were necessary to give the intimate
knowledge of their politics which was required. He
defended generally the principles upon which diplo-
matic appointments were made, and the conduct
of our diplomatic officers, upon whom the motion was
a censure.

After some further discussion, in which Mr. OTWAT
cited several instances of the undue promotion of
members of the aristocracy, the resolution was car-
ried by 112 to 57. Mr. Wise had proposed its with-
drawal, which was only prevented by an objection
from Mr. H. Baillie.
NEGOTIATIONS FOR PEACE. - -

The announcement of Mr. M. Gibson's motion had
thronged the house on Monday with an assemblage
of members such, as Mr. Disraeli afterwards ob-
served, as had not been collected there for many
years. In the midst of the general expectation,
Mr. S. HLRBERT rose and said that on a subject
so momentous he wished, for the guidance of him-
self and those who acted with him, to put a question
to the Prime Minister. Quoting a passage from a
protocol of the Vienna Conference of the 21st of
April, in which Count Iluol declared that be did not
consider the different modes of solution exhausted,
that it belonged especially to Austria to look for
means of accommodation, and that he trusted the
Conference would before long resume its sittings,
he begged to ask if the Government considered the
means of pacification exhausted, if it held all nego-
tiation at an end, if Austria was still charged with
the task of accommodation, and if the Conference
was still in a state to snake or receive new proposi-
tions?

To all this Lord PALMERSTON replied that the
Government did not consider the means of pacifica-
tion exhausted, that Austria was, in truth, charged
with the task of accommodation, and that the Con-
ference, though suspended, was not closed. The
Government would feel it their duty to give their
earnest attention to any proposition that might arrive
through Austria
Mr. GLADSTONE then appealed to Mr. Gibson to
withdraw his motion. A second Russian proposal
had been, tendered on the 26th of April, to which
the Reach and Austrian plenipotentiaries had

MAY 26, 1855.

declared their strong objections, but admitted at the
same time that it contained the possible elements of
peace, while the British plenipotentiary had simply
declared that his instructions were exhausted. The
state of things had fully justified Mr. Gibson in an-
nouncing his motion, but he submitted to that right
hon. member if, after what the house had just heard,
it would not be a sound discretion to refrain from
asking the opinion of the house at such a juncture.
After Mr. S. HERBERT had declared that he would
meet the motion, if persisted in, by moving the
previous question,
Lord H. VANE, as the intended seconder of the
motion, advised its withdrawal.

Mr. DISRAELI characterised this course as unpre-
cedented and impolitic. Before acceding to it, the
house had a right to information much more explicit
than that which had just been given by Lord
Palmerston. Why had he not, when his Ladled
emissary returned from Vienna, stated that the
negotiations were not finally closed, when he might
have appealed to the house, perhaps not in vain, to
suspend its opinion? Instead of this he had actually
given a Government night to tue right hon. member
for Manchester. Now that the whole country was
expectant, by some mysterious communication, with-
out the annluncement of any new fact, and with
nothing but the most vague assertions to support
him, the noble lord expected the house to stop the
discussion without * protest, or even without a
murmur. He contended that the Ministry should
make a litatement, clear, explicit, and unequivocal,
to show the country that it was not trifled with, and
to justify the renunciation, by the House of
Commons, of one of the gravest duties which it bad
to perform.
Lord PALMERSTON defended his conduct. He had
stated before that he held such a discussion to be
inconvenient, but when notice was given that the
discussion would be raised it was his duty not to
shrink from it, not to place technical difficulties in
its way, and had come to the house prepared to face
it. The motion would be prejudicial to the country,
not inconvenient to the Government. The house
would be seriously injuring the public service if it
took upon itself the duties of the executive, dictating
the terms and conditions of negotiations. It would
be impossible to carry on negotiations if the Govern-
ment were compelled from day to day to give an
account of their progress.
Mr. BRIGHT said his own object was simply the
procuring peace; he did not want to know if the
Government were willing to listen to negotiations, or
if modes of solving the difficulties yet existed—all
this was matter of course. What he wished to know
was if the negotiations were still in that form which
took them out. of the ordinary state of things which
existed during war, wherein one side is always willing
to receive offers from another. If the elements of
peace, as asserted by the Austrian and even the
French Minister, existed in the last Russian propo-
sitions, he conjured the noble lord not to let slip the
opportunity. Something more definite might be
stated by the Government in a few weeks.

Mr. ROEBUCK could not see that the state of things
was altered from the time when the resolutions were
first laid upon the table. He was himself anxious
for the question to be raised, because he believed
that the country had no confidence in the Govern-
ment, and believed a part of it anxious for peace at
any price. He contended that the member for Man-
chester, who had placed himself forward as the
mover of the resolutions, had no right to withdraw
them.

After the Marquis of GItANBY had urged the ne•
cessity of more specific information,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave some details of the
latter days of the Conference—explaining that, though
Count Buol had agreed that the Conference should
close for the present, he bad expressed his hope that
it would resume at a future day, and that the several
envoys had declared their instructions exhausted,
because the Russian propositions did not include the
limitation of the Russian power in the Black Sea.
He believed that, before the Conference finally
closed, the Austrian Government would submit a
proposition of its own ; after which, either the nego•
tiations would be finally broken off, and the house
would be at liberty freely to express its opinion, or
they would be resumed under better auspices. If the
explanations, he added, of the Government on the
subject were vague, it was because there was a vague-
ness and uncertainty in the situation itself. But he
contended that the situation was not the oidinary
one, in which during war proposals of peace might
be made by any party. The Conference, though cus-
p iaded, was not broken off.

Sir J. PAKINGTON contended that nothing definite
had been stated to guide the house in its decision.
The protocols had been laid upon the table, and it
was the natural consequence that Parliament should
express its opinion upon them. In die absence of
all declaration by the Government that anything had
occurred to suspend the discussion, he saw no
reason why the motion should not be persevered in.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that when the Government

THE PRESS.

laid the papers upon the table it had courted the
opinion of Parliament, and ought to have anticipated
discussion. But, now that it appeared that Austria
was actually charged with the task of accommoda-
tion, and that the Government would not frankly
discus the various proposals which had been made,
he felt that he should not be serving the public in-
terest if he persevered in his motion. At the same
time he hoped that the existence of the Conference
would not delay the discussion till Parliament sepa-
rated; and he should bring forward the subject at
any early day after Whitsuntide.
After this the debate totally lost its interest,
though it was still further continued for a short
time.