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

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY.

Some conversation took place on a motion by the
Bishop of Oxford for the production of an address
from the Canadian Legislature, on the subject of
Church property in that colony.
Earl GarY then brought forward the resolutions of
which he had given notice. Assuming, which he
denied, that the policy of entering into the war was
right, he argued at length on the impolicy of the
Government in rejecting the grounds offered to them
for negotiation. He recapitulated the objects and
principles with which the war commenced, which
Were not only realised, but Russia had, in the con-
cessions already made, gone far beyond them. He
went through the Vienna Conferences to show how
much they had given to the Western powers, and
approved in many points of the conduct and argu-
ments of Russia, and defended her interpretation of
the third point. If Russia did not intend to keep
faith, nothing could he more easy for her than
to evade the conditions of the allies, even if she agreed

to them. He then adverted to the last Austrian
proposition, which was of sufficient importance to
cause the retirement of M. Drouyn de Lhuys, and
the objections to which came mainly from the English
Government. He proceeded to discuss our future

expectations—professing that he could not under•
stand what they ware, now that we had secured the
objects of the war—all beyond was vague and un-
certain. He characterised the continuance of the
contest as caused by an unjustifiable animosity
against Russia, caused, in great measure, by the
indiscreet language of members of the Government.
He went through the whole conduct of Russia, from
the dispute about the Holy Places, and vindicated the
moderation of that power up to the occupation of the
principalities. Ha thought that if the English
Government and embassy had exercised the same
discretion the war Would never have broken out.
He discussed the conduct of the embassy at the
commencement of the contest, which he characterised
as negligent, unjust, and reckless.
Lord CLARENDON said that the noble lord appeared
as an advocate of Russia. He forgot the uniform
aggressions of Russia on Turkey, and that the late
Czar had considered that country as past hope; and
the object of the Menschikoff mission was to give it
the coup de grace. Since the outbreak of the war
we had become better acquainted both with the de-
signs of Russia and the means she possessed of en
forcing them. Europe was, in fact, standing upon a
mine without knowing it. Russia for years had been
permitted to interfere and to encroach by the culpa•
ble negligence of the European powers. But for
Prince Menschikoffs imprudence Russia might in a
few years have realised all her plans, who was creat-
ing a fleet of war steamers, and creating military
railroads, which would have more than doubled the
means of offence. The policy of Russia was still the
same, and her unbending pride the first cause of the
war. The Russian defence of Sebastopol, excluded
E as she was from the sea, was a proof of the resources
of Russia; and the same accumulation of military
stores they found everywhere, from one end of the
empire to the other. As to the excuses of Russia,
taken from the possible aggression on Turkey of the
Western powers, she herself knew their futility. The
Russian proposal for opening the Straits would have
placed all the Greek territories at her mercy. Under
such an arrangement the independence of Ttirkey
would always be in danger, at Russia's own time and
convenience. The Western fleets would never be
able to arrive in time for a well-organised attack.
Russia still claimed her right to be a standing suc-
cour to Europe, and she had no right to say, by her
concessions to German interests, that she had ful-
filled her duty to European interests.

. _
The Earl Of MALMESBURY supported the policy of
the Government against the resolution, asserting
that the real objects of the war were not obtained,
nay, were not even sufficiently touched on in the nego

tiations at Vienna. He warned the country of the
danger When such opinions as those of the noble
earl, and others who thought with him, would be
quoted from one end of Europe to another. He then
replied at some length to the speech of Mr. Glad-
stone in the House of Commons. He thought the
limitation of her fleet was no degradation to Russia,
as it was reciprocal to her and other nations. He
approved of the plan of making the Engine a sea of
peace, and wished for a success which might draw
the teeth of Russia.

The Duke of ARGYLL said that Russian concessions
were always wrung from her, and never conceived in
the spirit of conciliation. This country, he said, had
been conciliatory throughout.
Lord LYTTELTON supported the motion.
The Bishop of OXFORD justified war under certain
necessities, as an appeal to the tribunal of God. But
such war should be on strict principles of self-
defence; and he proceeded to argue that there could no
longer be any principle after the concession of Russia,
and the successes we had obtained. The limitation
plan would be no protection to Turkey, and a direct
insult to Russia. He lamented that anything should
be said in Parliament which would throw difficulties
in the way of settling the last point. No peace
would be lasting which reflected ou a great power a
degradation incompatible with its greatness.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE opposed the resolution
in a short speech, as irritating to the country.
The Earl of DERBY admitted that Russia did not
desire war, provided she could obtain her object
without war. He would not undervalue the conces-
sion she had made, but was of opinion that instead
of having asked too much, we had asked too little.
We had a right to a return for all our sacrifices. A
material alteration had taken place in the prospects
of the war since it had been made aggressive; from
that time we bad pledged ourselves to weaken the
power of Russia, and limit her means of aggression.
Conditions of this kind must from their nature be
humiliating, but to that we pledged ourselves when
we entered the Crimea. After the declaration that
Sebastopol was a standing menace, after a seven
months' siege, with all its efforts and glories, to
retreat from that fortress would be an act of humi.
Ration, for which he did not believe that any pro-
position at Vienna which Russia could have ad
nutted would have been a compensation. He agreed
that the limitation would have been easily evaded,
and not satisfactory; but the counter-proposition
of Russia gave to Turkey nothing more than
it possessed by the right of nations—her offer was
nugatory and ridiculous. In the interest of peace
itself, he scarcely regretted the failure of the Vienna
Conference. We must conquer for peace, and to do
so we must show a fixed determination to go through
what we have undertaken to an honourable con-
clusion.
Earl GruNvimar, after complimenting the debate