The Press.
London, England, 1854-02-18 00:00:00

THE EASTERN QUESTION.

On the motion that the Speaker should leave the
chair,
Mr. LAYARD rose, pursuant to notice, to call atten-
tion to the Eastern question. The present moment,
when the house was called upon to go into com-
mittee and vote the navy estimates, was, he remarked,
peculiarly fit for introducing the subject. The ex-
traordinary reserve of the Ministers had left the
public in much doubt as to the real position of the
country with regard to its foreign relationship.
These doubts he hoped would now be cleared up,
and not only the future intentions but the past
conduct of the Ministry effectually developed. Briefly
touching upon his own proceedings with regard to
this question dui ing the last session, and discarding
all party prejudices, he declared that he had early
arrived at a conviction that the Ministerial policy was
wanting in vigour and straightforwardness, nor, after
a careful perusal of the voluminous blue books lately
issued, had he found cause to change his opinion. Mr.
Layard then entered into an historical detail of events
to support his assertion, that even in the earlier months
of last year the British Government had received ample
warning of the approaching danger, both from the
military preparations and from the diplomatic pro-
ceedings of Russia. Comparing the contents of
different despatches on various sides, he argued that
the Ministry had overlooked the most obvious facts,
had misunderstood the most unmistakable tenden
cies, and trusted to the most evidently fallacious
assurances. He quoted expressions from Russian
despatches in which Lord Aberdeen was signifi-
cantly thanked and eulogised as playing a beau role.
He noticed that no formal protest had been made
against the occupation of the principalities, and re-
marked on the matter of the Vienna note that it was
only the candid manifesto of Count Nesselrode which
taught the Ministry what was the import of their
own propositions, and enabled them to escape the
rerretration of a terrible act of injustice. Adverting
to the movements of the fleets, he found that in every
step the French had taken the initiative, and seemed to
be urging on their reluctant ally, although it had been
urged in vindication of the English Government that
they were hampered by the necessity of securing the
co-operation of France. Declaring that the tragedy
of Sinope impeached the honour of Eng.and, and
required ample explanation, he drew evidence from
the published documents to show that the admirals
of the united fleets might have prevented the catas-
trophe, or the Turks by themselves have averted it,
if it had not been for the timorous and vacillating
instructions sent out by the British Government.
Concluding his retrospect by urging that the Minis
ten; were condemned out of their own mouths, he
inquired, as to the future, what they were going to
do ? On what system were they about to prose-
cute war, on what terms were they willing to
negotiate a peace? He inferred from their recent
language that they would still treat on the basis of re-
turning to the status quo ante bellum; and proceeded
to condemn that presumed step as sacrificing at once
the independence of Turkey, and the honour and
interests of England. Great efforts had been made,
and much blood already shed, and as war was practi-
cally begun it should never be allowed to close with-
out affording some tangible results, by sweeping away
the treaties under which Russia had so long sheltered
herself while prosecuting her aggressive designs.
Mr. I,ayard then controverted the assertion that
Turkey was not worth defending, declaring that the
Turks had advanced more in fifteen year than the
Russians had done in a hundred and fifty, and that
the Ottoman empire was rapidly improving in wealth
and commerce, in the liberality of its Government,
the intelligence of its people, and all other elements of
strength. In conclusion, he called upon the Govern-
ment to do their duty, in the certainty that the people
of England would do the'rs.
Sir 3. GRAHAM would not appeal to the forbearance
of the house, but to its wisdom and justice, and was
ready to rest the case of the Government upon the
decision. The duty of the Ministry was to preserve
peace, so long as it was consistent with the honour of
the country ; and this they had done up to the present
moment. Commencing his reply to the successive
allegations affirmed by Mr. Layard with the charge
brought against Lord Aberdeen of having trusted
blindly to the assurances of Russia, the right hon.
baronet declared that every colleague of the Prime
Minister was ready to share in his responsibility in

THE PRESS.

this respect; and, after observing that Russia had
been an old and faithful ally to Great Britain, urged
that " dark, malignant suspicions did not easily take
root in generous minds." The assertion that the
Russian armaments would have been checked, and
especially the Sinop° disaster averted, by a more
prompt movement of the naval forces, he met by
comparing the dates of the instructions sent out to
the admirals with those of the successive events;
citing several passages from Lord Stratford's des-
patches to support his argument, and remarking,
also, in reference to the last mentioned catastrophe,
that no one except the Turkish officials knew in how
disgracefully defenceless a condition the harbour of
Sinope had been left. Briefly vindicating the Vienna
note, Sir J. Graham went through the catalogue of
succeeding events, contending that in every instance
the Government had shown quite as much vigour as
the case required, or as was compatible with their
hopes and efforts for averting war. Besides main•
taining peace through many months of complicated
negotiations, in which the Emperor of the French
had been a faithful participator, the Ministry, he
pleaded, had done much. They had cemented the
union with France, and had obtained the consent of
Austria and Prussia to such an interpretation of the
pre-existing tieaties as secured the independence of
Turkey. Both England and France were now pre-
pared for war; both were agreed upon the objects for
which they should contend, namely, that the princi-
palities should be evacuated—that the independence
of Turkey should be maintained—and that any inter-
ference on the part of Russia was inadmissible.
This being so, what, he asked, would the house do ?
The Ministry would do their duty, and intended to
ask for an increase of 10,000 men to the army, of as
many more for the navy, and of two millions to the
national expenditure. Whatever their decision, be
called upon them not to potter over blue books, or
raise indirect debates, at the risk of creating disunion
and delay. If there were serious grounds of com-
plaint, let them be manfully urged, and the Ministers
placed definitively on the defence. But let the ma-
chine of government move on in any case at a crisis
when it could not be arrested, even for a moment,
without serious peril.
Lord JOCELYN urged that the Ministers had in-
curred heavy sacrifices for the sake of conciliating
Russia, who had outwitted them after all.
Lord DUDLEY STUART had entered the house with
a sincere wish to support Ministers, but his friendly
feelings had suffered a severe shock from the speech
of Sir James Graham. He contended at great
length, and in reply to that right hon. baronet, for
the fitness of the present moment, and the perti-
nence of the motion before the house, for a discussion
upon theE astern question. In th at speech,he remarked,
very little information had been afforded, and he
trusted that some colleague of the right hon. baronet
would supply the deficiency. For himself, he con-
fessed he had not found time since his return to
England to read all the blue books on the question,
but knew enough of them to feel convinced that the
conduct of the Ministry lacked boldness, and could
be best described as consisting of one part discretion
and three parts cowardice. That it could not be
termed wise he argued from the historical facts,
which proved thAt the conduct of Russia had been
perpetually faithless with regard to treaties.
Throughout his recent travels he had heard but one
opinion, that, if some bold and firm Minister had
filled the office now occupied by Lord Aberdeen, the
Pruth would never have been crossed, nor the
Russian ambition taken the shape of acts. Another
word, he added, was everywhere spoken, and that
word was " Palmerston."
Mr. ROEBUCK defended the Ministers for their conduct
in a delicate situation. If they had rushed hastily into
war the first to find fault would be their present opponents.
They had to satisfy the people of England as to the neces-
sity of the war. While peace was possible, England spared
nothing to preserve it. Now war was certain, England
would exhibit all her energies in its prosecution. It was
not now the time to inquire into the diplomatic faults of
the Ministry, but it was now time for the Ministry to de-
clare clearly what they intended to do.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, thus summoned, recapitulated the
history of the late differences. The conduct of Russia in
her first pretensions was pure deception. The Govern-
ment had been on their guard, and had followed each move
by decisive opposition. When the Russians invaded the
principalities, it was by Lord Stratford's advice that war
was not immediately declared. Turkey was not prepared
for it. After tle fleets arrived at Constantinople, the am-
bassadors decided on their entry into the black Sea ; but
just then the French Ambassadors were changed. The
French admiral declined the order of a parting ambassador,
and his successor took, unfortunately, another view. He
characterised the congratulation to Russia from her
officers after the affair at Sinope as afflicting and disgrace-
ful, after a catastrophe marked with cruelty, destruction,
and want of generosity. The fleets then entered the
Black Sea, with orders to send back to their own
port every Russian ship they met. The rejection by
Russia of the last proposition of the four powers
was a grievous disregard of the peace of Europe.
The counter-proposition, which contained all the
old Russian claims, with the addition of a demand for the
extradition of refugees, Count Buol, who presented it,

157

expressly refrained from recommending it. Referring to
the last letter of the French Emperor, he said, it contained
no concession to Russia, but there was no hope its terms
could be accepted. Austria and Prussia had hitherto been
but half independent, but Germany was now rising to a
sense of its own dignity, and, if not actually with us at
present, gave us its sympathies, and would, if necessary,
assist us with its arms. England and France now pro.
posed to Turkey that she would not sue for peace without
their consent. He had no doubt that this condition would
be accepted. He had always found our French allies
frank, straightforward, and honest, and deserving all our
confidence. It would be necessary to demand au increase
of the supplies of three millions. War required rapidity,
secrecy, combination—all these must be ensured by the
proper means. If the house hail confidence in the ability
of the Government to carry out the war, it would now show
it. The country must submit to sacrifices, and he would
cheerfully bear his part.
Mr. CROSSLEY thought that as we were not a continental
power we had nothing to do with continental politics.
A motion for adjournment having been made,
Lord :lons RUSSELL hoped that the vote fur the number
of men might be taken at once.
Mr. DISRAELI then said that if he had had the manage.
ment of the discussion he would have consulted the conve-
nience of the Ministry in fixing its date ; but, as it had
taken place. it cught to be continuous. The speech of
Lord John Russell was worthy of himself and his position ;
but the question had been most impertinently met by the
First Lord of the Admiralty. The speech of Lord John
itself contained fallacious statements and false positions,
which demanded an answer. The world should know the
sentiments of the nation, and its unanimous determination
to prosecute the war; and the vote for the number of men
should not be hastily concluded. The discussion ought to
be adjourned.
LOIN' JOHN RUSSELL, understanding that there would be
no opposition to the vote of supply, consented to the ad•
journment.