The Press.
London, England, 1854-02-04 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 4, 1854,

we are cherishing hopes of peace, and labouring to restore
it when interrupted ; but, at the same time, her Majesty's
Government are sending a civil message to one of the
belligerent parties that if their vessels leave the port iu
which it is presumed they are lying we shall consider it an
act of hostility, and insist on confining them to their quar-
ters. On the other hand, are we applying the same condi-
tion to the other belligerent'? are we confining the Turkish
fleet under a compulsory armistice ? Or are we confining
the Russian fleet in its own harbour, whilst we are convoy-
ing the Turkish fleet, laden with ammunition anti with
troops, to enable Turkey m re effretnally to carry on war?
I sin not saying th.tt, it we are doing all this, we are acting
in a manner discreditable to the country,by giving a moral
and physical assistance to Turkey, but I say that by giving
the convoy of our fleet for the transport of ammunition
and of troops, whatever you may call it, we are virtually
engaged in war, but at the same time with all the dangers
and the risks, unaccompanied by the dignity or moral
effect, of an open declaration of war. (Hear, hear.)"
Of the policy of Russia the noble earl gave a
pithy recapitulation
" The whole policy of Russia for the last 150 years has-
been a policy of gradual aggression—not a policy of con,
quest, but of aggression. It has never proceeded by storm
but by sap and mine. The first process has been inva
riably that of fomenting discontent and dissatisfaction
amongst the subjects of subordinate states—then proffering
mediation—then offering assistance to the weaker party—
then declaring the independence of that party—then
placing that independence under the protection of Russia;
and finally, from protection, proceeding to the incorporation,
one by one, of those states into the gigantic body of the
Russian empire. (Hear, hear.) I say nothing of Poland,
or of Livonia, but 1 speak of Mingrelia, Imiritia, and the
countries of the Caspian, even as far as the boundary of the
Kraus ; and, again, the Crimea itself. But this has been
the one course which Russia has invariably pursued ;
although she has pursued this steady course for 150 years,
she has from time to time desisted from her schemes
where she has found that they met with opposition, and
has never carried any one of those schemes into effect
where she has been certain to meet the opposition of this
country. (Hear, hear.)"
Lord Derby proceeded to urge that the Emperor
of Russia had indeed great cause to complain of the
manner in which he had been treated by her Ma-
jesty's Ministers, for he had been led to believe that
under no provocation would measures of vigorous
warfare be adopted, and that there VMS no cordial
union with France as against Russia. After referring
to the Reform Bill, and coinciding in the advice of
Lord Grey for its postponement, the noble earl made
some inquiries touching the recent changes and re-
placements at the Home-office, asking for some expla-
nation of the cause of the resignation of Lord
Palmerston, and why, after the expiration of twelve
days, the noble viscount had taken office again.
The Earl of ABERDEEN repudiated the charge of
being the instrument and tool of Russia, declaring
that his policy throughout his life had been
eminently anti-Russian. Replying to those who
maintained that a more vigorous course would have
averted the probabilities of war, he observed that
nothing was th be gained in diplomacy by the game
of " brag," that menaces might be useful towards
small states, but if such had been employed against
Russia they would have provoked an immediate
march upon Constantinople. After explaining with
regard to the Palmerston resignation that the Home
Secretary had believed the details of a certain measure
settled, and therefore resigned, but., finding that it was
still susceptible of modification, subsequently resumed
his functions, Lord Aberdeen denied the right of
the Opposition to demand any explanation on the
subject. The performance of the public duties of
the office had never been interrupted. They had,
therefore, no right to ask for the causes of the differ-
ence, or the means of reconciliation. Had Lord
Palmerston left office, he would have been bound to
give a parliamentary explanation ; but where a
mere misunderstanding took place, whether in the
Cabinet or elsewhere, which was reconcilable, he
contended that no explanation was necessary. The
Premier afterwards diverged into the subject of the
charges brought against I'rince Albert, with which
the remainder of the debate was occupied.
The address was finally agreed to by the peers
without a division.

The debate on the same subject in the Commons
was more languid and diffuse. The mover of the
address, Lord CASTLEROSSE, touched very slightly
upon the multiplicity of topics suggested to his view
by the Speech, and judiciously compressed his re-
marks into a period of less than a quarter of an
hour
Mr. T. HANKEY, who seconded the motion, selected
the most important topic, the Turkish question, and
treated it under its most important aspect, as
challenging us to weigh our resources and
calculate our strength against the coming
struggle. Towards this calculation he contributed
a number of facts and figures, showing ho-.v
enormously the country had grown in vigour and
wealth, and bad freed itself from taxation, from
class disabilities, from shackles upon trade and
other inconveniences, and from legislative corrup•
Lion and popular discontent since the end of the last
war. Thence he proceeded to eulogise peace, and