The Press.
London, England, 1854-04-01 00:00:00

302

narrow spirit, and regarded the question from a Ger-
manic instead of a European point of view. Never-
theless he hoped fbr the best, knowing that the inter-
ests of Germany were identical with those of
England and France, and trusting that the Sove-
reigns of Germany would soon become awake to that
truth. As to the prospects or the terms of peace he
ventured only to say that the indispensable condi-
tion would be the full security of the Turkish em-
pire, though of the exact manner in which that con-
dition should be accomplished it was premature to
attempt a prognostic. Meanwhile a convention had
been agreed to between England, France, and Turkey,
wanting only a formal ratification, which specified
the character and principles of the assistance to be
given to the Sultan, who in turn bound himself not
to conclude peace without the assent of his allies.
Mr. LAYARD, without intending to oppose the ad
dress, announced his purpose of opening a charge
against the Government, which if the house thought
fit he should hereafter frame into a formal discus
sion and carry to a solemn vote upon their conduct.
For this purpose he referred at much detail to the
last series of blue books on the Turkish question,
urging, first, that Lord John Russell had not replied
to the first proposals for the partition of Turkey with
sufficient indignation ; secondly, that Lord Claren-
don, when he became Foreign Secretary, had treated
that idea still more gently, expressing a readiness to
discuss it further ; thirdly, that secret and confiden-
tial despatches were communicated to the Times
even before they were known to the whole
Cabinet a charge which be sustained by a
variety of internal evidence, and comparisons of
dates and phrases in the diplomatic correspondence
and leading articles of the journal in question ; and,
fourthly, that the members of the Government were
divided in their opinions and discordant in their
speeches. He then criticised the course pursued by
ministers towards Prussia and Austria, and towards
Turkey itself, where their assumed friendship bad
taken very disagreeable shapes. Declaring his belief
that their preparations for war had been late, and
were still very deficient, and that their whole policy
was vague, indefinite, and planless, he drew the
inference that
some perverse spirit thwarted their
councils and frustrated their efforts, recommending
them, as the only chance of averting ultimate dis-
grace, to " throw the Jonah overboard."
Mr. BRIGHT wished to exonerate himself from any
responsibility arising out of a war in which be did
not concur. He continued to argue at great length,
and with a copious use of the published despatches,
that the war was neither just, wise, nor necessary.
Turkey, he argued, was the centre of intrigues and a
scene of corruption. There was nothing in the
demands of Russia which the Sultan ought to have
refused, and would not have conceded, if he had not
thought war, with England and France for supporters,
more advantageous to his interests. The British
Government and Ambassador should have insisted
upon the acceptance of the Menschikoff ultimatum
or the Vienna note. War would then have been
averted, England saved from a terrible and expensive
conflict, and Turkey more benefited, in the end,
than by any battles we could fight for her integrity.
On behalf of the special interests of this country
he upheld the strictest policy of noni-ntervention.
Mr. J. BALL approved of the war, not for the sake
of the integrity of Turkey or the equilibrium of
Europe, but in vindication of public justice. Fought
for this object, the present contest would, he thought,
furnish a lesson to the world from which future
sovereigns might learn that, even among nations,
honesty was the best policy.
The Marquis of GRANBY thought that the Emperor
of Russia had been hardly treated, and did not de-
serve to be called the disturber of the peace of
Europe. France had set him the example of inter-
fering with the internal administration of Turkey ;
and another cause of disturbance arose from the
civil war carried on between the members of the
Cabinet.
Lord DUDLEY STUART wished the Government to
declare more explicitly their general objects in be-
ginning the war, and trusted they would show more
vigour in their acts now it was proclaimed than
in their councils heretofore.
Lord PALMERSTON submitted that a more appro-
priate occasion might have been found or made for
criticising the details of past diplomacy, as some
preceding speakers had done. He only followed
their lead so far as to remark upon and rebuke the
charge that Cabinet secrets had been revealed to the
newspapers. Looking at the question with a wider
view, he observed that the aggressive policy of Russia
towards Turkey had long been steadily pursued, and
could not be blamed if prosecuted without conceal-
ment, subterfuge, or fraud. But this, he contended,
had not been the case in the recent transactions.
The reason why the particular moment was chosen
by the Czar for his last aggression lay in the dis-
cordances then existing, or believed to exist, among
the Western powers. He speculated upon the
presumed impossibility of cordial union between
England, France, and Austria. European diffi-

THE PRESS.

culties were considered Russia's opportunity, and
the occasion was seized for another attempt at
aggrandiserumt at the cost of Turkey. Arguing in
reply to Mr. Bright, that the demands of Russia
struck at the roots of Turkish independence, the
noble lord remarked that we were not fighting
upon the question who was to rule in Constanti-
nople, but who was not to rule, and to prevent
Russia from becoming master of that important
post. Declining to attempt a detailed definition of
the " balance of power," he characterised it as cora •
anon sense sagaciously exercised in self-defence, to
avert hostility before it reached our own door. He
could not concur in treating the question as one of
mere profit and loss. Higher aims were before us,
and the country was arming to prevent the civilised
world from falling prostrate at the feet of a single
power, to defend the liberties of Europe and the
independence of the world.
Mr. DISR/ELI supported the address, citing from a
speech of Mr. Canning the opinion that no dissent
from the policy of a Ministry, and no censure upon
their conduct, should warrant the Opposition in ob-
structing measures taken for the defence of the
country. Declining his intention to follow that in-
junction at present, the right honourable gentleman
proceeded to remark upon the dissonances which
existed in the views of different Ministers. There
were evidently two opinions in the Cabinet upon
every branch of the subject. The epithets they ap
plied to the war, the objects they indicated for it, the
prospects they drew of its course and results—above
all, their appreciation of Turkey and her possi-
bilities of future prosperity—were hopelessly irre-
concilable with one another. Glancing at the
Nesselrode " memorandum " drawn up• in 1844,
be contended that it showed the existence even
at that early date of an agreement between the
Czar and the British Ministry involving nothing
less than an absolute partition of Turkey, in which
France was admitted to no share. If not an agree-
ment actually, this memorandum amounted to one
of those "gentlemanly understandings" which the
Emperor Nicholas professed so much, especially
when dealing with so old a friend. Was that memo-
randum ever answered, or its obvious inferences
disclaimed? Adverting to the more recent corre-
spondence, Mr .Disraeli denied that the Russian Em-
peror could be charged with duplicity. His objects
were avowed and his language frank. If ambition
and aggression were ranked as offences, neither
England nor France could come into court with
clean hands. To prevent Russia from possess-
ing Constantinople was a just reason for
war ; but that section of the divided Minis-
try who concurred with Lord Aberdeen in be-
lieving that Turkey was defunct could not rea-
sonably call on the country to support them in
conducting it. It was remarkable that the partition
project, which slept through various Administrations,
evived in the mind of the Czar a few hours after
Lord Aberdeen had succeeded Lord Derby as Prime
Minister. Mr. Disraeli then reverted to the des
patches, founding upon their contents a variety of
criticisms on the language and conduct of the
Cabinet.
Lord J. RUSSELL briefly replied to the various
censures which had been passed upon the Govern-
ment in the course of the debate. Alluding espe-
cially to the speech of Mr. Disraeli, the noble lord
combatted with much energy the charge that the
memorandum of 1844 contained any agreement for
dividing Turkey, or that the British Ministry bad at
any time countenanced the proposal. He concluded
by offering some remarks upon other points pre-
sented in the address of that right hon. gentleman.
After a few words from Col. SIBTHORP,
The address was unanimously adopted ; and, on
the motion of Lord Jour; RUSSELL, it was agreed to
present it to her Majesty on Monday by a deputa-
tion of the whole house.
Adjourned at ten minutes to one o'clock.

16,,