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

MAY 26, 1855.

on its unanimity and temperate tone, stated that'
though the Vienna Conferences tare not withdrawn
he must declare that the, Government had little or
no hope that the proposition last made by Austria
would lead to any result.
Earl GREY replied, and withdrew his motion.
The house adjourned at a quarter to one.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY.
THE CONFERENCES.

In answer to questions from Mr. ROEBUCK and
Mr. M. GIBSON,

Lord PALMERSTON said that no conferences had
taken place since the last meeting mentioned in the
papers laid before Parliament. The British Minister,
Lord Westmorland, still retained power to attend a
continence, but could not exercise it without specific
instructions from the Government.

A motion that the house on rising should adjourn
to Monday, June 4, was made and agreed to.
The adjourned debate was resumed by Mr. WHITE-
sum, who supported the original motion, on the
ground of the discrepancy of the Ministerial state-
ments. He thought that the negotiations ought to
he brought to a close, as no faith could be expected
from Russia, and no security found for the peace of
Europe, except in the humiliation of her power in
the Black Sea, which she would never agree to in the
conferences. The motion would not have been
necessary if the Government had been in the hands
of capable men.
Mr. Lowc declared his opinion to be that the only
ground on which peace could be made was the destruc-
tion of the strength of Russia in the Black Sea, and
to this effect he proposed to add words to the amend-
ment. He denied that we had secured the objects
of the war, if we desisted and left Turkey, Persia,
and other nationalities at the mercy of a power
whose principle was the greatest misery to the
greatest number.
Mr. CAYLEY defended the conduct of Lord John
Russell at Vienna, and gave him credit for having
seen through the artifices of Russia. He opposed
the resolution, and should vote for the amendment
of Mr. Lowe.

Mr. R. l'AtztEn, as a peace advocate, protested
against the assumption that he advocated national
humiliation. He deprecated the appeals to ven-
geance or military vanity, made to stimulate the
mind of the country to the prosecution of the war.
To bring Turkey within the pale of European civili-
sation was the great object of the contest, and that
object we had now effected.
Lord STANLEY thought the present excitement of
the country could scarcely be produced by a war
which it considered purely defensive, yet we had
renounced all idea of dismembering Russia, or re-
viving nationalities, at nothing remained but the in-
dependence of" Turkey, except, perhaps, a vague desire
to humble our adversary. Declaring his opinion
that if the Ministers had spoken out at the com-
mencement the war would have been avoided, and
believing that the charge of ambiguity and incon.
sistency had been established, he should vote for the
original proposition. _ _

Mr. LAYARD argued that even the points conceded
by Russia were nugatory ; that on the principalities
would have allowed her and Austria to dominate at
her pleasure. The navigation of the Danube was to
be found in existing treaties. Lord John Russell,
he contended, has mistaken the import of past trea-
ties, and missed his way to a practical solution of the
difficulties. As to what had been done, Austria had
all the profit without any of the sacrifices. He ob-
jected to the European protectorate of Turkey, which
would deeply injure that country, and forward the
views of Russia. What of the other questions—
Boinarstind—the corruption of the German States—
about all of which Lord John Russell had mid so
mu3b, and of which the protocols said nothing ? He
declared his resclution to support any Ministry that
would act with vigour, but he saw nothing but
vacillation on either side of the house.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the motion was
directed, not against the actions, but the words, of
the Ministry. Adopting it as a vote of censure, he
challenged the opinion of the house. Confessing
many errors of detail in the prosecution of the war,
he defended its general conduct. He replied to Mr.
Gladstone's argument of the night before, urging
that the third point was of vital importance if we
wished to preserve the security of Turkey after other
powers had reduced their establishments to the
peace level. He repeated the statements of the ad-
vantages which the moral support of Austria had
afforded us. It was not, he submitted, from the
ranks of the Opposition—which bad already failed to
form an Administration—that the country would find
men better able to prosecute the war with vigour,
and take charge of the interests of the country.
Mr. DISRAELI replied, contending that the various
amendments upon his motion proposed from different
sides of the house, and especially the confessions
which had been extorted from the Prime Minister,
constituted his complete justification in bringing it
forward. The right hon. member proceeded to

THE PRESS.

notice in turn the criticism pronounced upon his
resolutions, and asserted that their tenor was strictly
according to precedent, and the issues which they
presented were definite and frankly expressed.
The house divided :
For the resolutions 219
Against 319

Majority UM►
Sir F. Baring's amendment was then put as a sub-
stantive motion, to which
Mr. LOWE moved an amendment, setting forth
that tae means of negotiation were exhausted.
The adjournment of the debate was moved by Mr.
M. Gissox, and then considerable discussion took
place on the question whether the debate should be
pursued or postponed. Ultimately Lord Palmerston
gave way, and the discussion stood adjourned.
The House adjourned, at a quarter-past 3 'o'clock,
to Monday the 4th of June.