The Press.
London, England, 1855-06-09 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

the tide of public opinion turned in England. He
Shen, in vehement terms, arraigned the conduct of
Russia, which took her out of the category of other
nations, and was characterised throughout by. fraud
and unscrupulous defiance of law and honour.
Three words would sum up her principles—con-
quest, aggression, aggrandisement. He surveyed the
conquests of Russia during the last century, and de-
manded if a power thoroughly imbued with such
principles would forego them because, under a tem
porary pressure, she acknowledged the independence
and integrity of Turkey. Her feelings we could
neither vindicate nor subdue; our only course was to
obtain ample material securities, which were- not
afforded by the Russian proposals.
Sir F. THEsioEu recalled the attention of the
house to the real subject before it—the question
of the conduct of the negotiations. These, he
thought, bad been conducted in a manner
most unsatisfactory, arising from the unfor-
tunate choice of the negotiator, who had committed
himself to opinions which unfitted him for the task
of conducting affairs so delicate. In support of this
assertion he instanced the weakness of Lord John
Russell's concessions to Russia on former occasions.
His views and feelings towards Russia likewise dis-
qualified our envoy for his mission. Adverting to the
four points, he agreed in the opinion of Lord John
Russell, in that the fourth point presented vast diffi-
culties, but contended that its consideration was ad.
journed by the personal embarrassments of the envoy
on the matters it contained. He submitted that he
had made out his charge, and that the failure of his
negotiations was inevitable from the commencement.
Mr, LLOYD DAVIES recognised the necessity of
carrying on the war with vigour, and would so far
abstain from embarrassing the government.
Mr. BENTnicit saw no alternative but to fight out
otir battle with energy, acknowledging that the
house was the real author of the war.
Mr. CARDWELL, after a personal defence of his
party, scrutinised the several amendments, and
deprecated the fettering the hands of the Executive.
He would support Sir Francis Baring's amendment,
as a simple declaration of the intention of the house
to support the Crown under the resent circum-
stances.

Mr. W•LPOLE denounced the ambiguous conduct
and language of the Ministers, and called upon
them to declare the objects for which the war was
protracted. He contended that the second Russian
proposal offered a solution of all difficulties, and
ought not to have been rejected. He declared the
several propositions o&red by several members to
be extravagant and unmeaning. He implored the
Premier to speak plainly, for, unless he did away
with the effect of the speech of the Attorney-General,
he saw no prospect of peace for ten years to come.
He vindicated the Conservatives from the charge of
acting from party motives, the absence of which
was proved by their forbearance at the beginning of
the contest. . . .

Mr. HORSMAN said that it was the traditionary
policy of Russia we had to guard against, lot her I
immediate greatness.
Mr. Drintaw reverted to the circumstances of his
original motion, under which be had deemed it
necessary to express his opinion that the behaviour
of Ministers was so ambiguous as to require a
definite censure—an ambiguity which had since been
admitted by speakers on all sides of the house. He
denied that his motion—which was intended as a vote
of censure for a specific act—should be considered
as a vote of want of confidence, or ought to have
carried with it the displacement of the Ministry, and
he could not understand why those who agreed with
it should have voted against it. Passing by the
amendment of Sir F. Baring as no longer of conse
quence, he came to the one of real importance, that
of Mr. Lowe, which was a complete and perfect
proposition that we should enforce the reduction of
the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. This was the
amendment adopted by Lord Palmerston. The ques-
tion before them, therefore, was neither uncertain nor
obscure. He was opposed to the rroposition, not merely
as brought forward now in a hap-hazard fashion, but
as one essentially bad and inefficient in itself. Our
great object was to destroy the preponderance of
Russia as towards Turkey. Now, of the three points
from which Russia would attack Turkey, that of the
Black Sea was the least to be feared. Again, Turkey
was to have but tour ships of the line in ie Black
Sea, but she might have as many as she pleased in
the Bosphorus. Russia might have but four, but
she might have as many as she pleased at Nikolaieff
whence she might float them in a day or two to
Sebastopol. Such were the conditions, the refusal
of which carried with it the continuance of the war.
He pointed out the territorial arrangements which
might effectually check the progress of Russia with-
out humiliating her. Another important point—
omitted from the protocols—was the stipulation that
the dismantled fortresses on the eastern coast of the
Black Sea should not be restored. He concluded by
urging that if Turkey was to be saved, it must be by
wore deAuite action than that pursued by our Feeent

SATURDAY,

rulers—by systems more matured, and of more de-
cided purpose.
Lord PALMERSTON contrasted Mr. Disraeli's accu-
sations against the Government, that they would
conclude an ignominious peace with his language
now, when he denounced them for demanding too
hard terms from Russia. He reiterated his opinion
that it was inexpedient for the house to assume to
itself the conduct of negotiations, especially when
carried on in concert with an ally. He thought that
the house would do well to adopt the amendment of
Sir F. Baring, as the simplest mode of expressing
its opinion. Adverting to the debate, it had, he said,
been carried on with calmness by all but the
advocates of peace, at any price who seemed
more fitted by their violence to be advocates
of war at all hazards, and who has least of all to
declaim against submission to popular feeling. He
ridiculed some of their arguments, and exposed
others. He next came to his ex-colleagues, whom he
charged with overlooking the constant aggressions
and injustice of Russia. He argued against the
suggestions of Mr. Disraeli, contending that it was in
the Black Sea that Russia could strike her readiest
blow. The Russian proposals for the settlement of
the "third point," were, he argued, utterly illusory
and untenable. The vote now demanded, involved,
not the question between the Ministry and the
Opposition, which had been settled before the recess,
but the decision of the house whether peace was to
be made on Russia's own terms, or the Crown sup-
ported in the energetic prosecution of the war.
Sir J. GRAHAM having given some brief expla-
nations,
The amendments proposed by Mr. Lowe and
Mr. J. G. thillimore, was put and negatived with-
out a division.
The resolution of Sir F. Airing was then put iu its
turn.

Mr. WALPOLE briefly declared his intention of
voting for the motion.
Mr. GLADSTONE also consented, with reluctance, to
accept the motion. The resolutions were. then car-
ried unanimously.
The house adjourned at a quarter past two o'clock.