The Press.
London, England, 1854-07-29 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

Lord PALMERSTON rejoiced to perceive that the
house were unanimous in advocating a vigorous pro-
secution of the war; and in supporting the Govern-
ment in their efforts for that purpose. Eve n the
leader of the Opposition, he remarked, had raised no
objection upon principle, but had contented himself
with making an amusing speech founded on a play
upon words. Lord J. Russell, he added, had spoken
the sentiments of his colleagues, who were united as
to the mode of carrying on the war , and, with France
and England cordially unified as they were, he did
not care who joined them, or who stood aloof. After
eulogising the magnificent armaments we had sent
out, Lord Palmerston said that if the house had
sufficient confidence to grant the vote that was asked
it was bound to believe that there would be no want
of energy or of judgment in carrying on the war.
Lord J. Russell had not overstated the resolution of
the Government to prove itself worthy of the confi-
dence of the house; and when the house met again,
be it sooner or later, there would be no reason to
think that such confidence had been misapplied.
Grateful for pat support, the Government could
feel nothing but gratification upon meeting Parlia-
ment at any time. In the present debate, however,
he hoped that the Legislature would show itself
unanimous in declaring that the war should be pro-
secuted until the aggressor could be deprived of
the means of again disturbing the peace of the

world.
Lord D. STUART contended that, as Lord J. Russell
had made a retractation of what he had said, and as
Lord Aberdeen was repotted to have made a speech
nearly diametrically opposite, the house ought to
have time to obtain further information. He moved
that progress be reported.
Lord J. RUSSELL denied that he had retracted
anything, and, after some explanation, professed
his inability to see why the vote should not be de-
cided on.
Mr. LAYARD supported the motion for adjourning
the debate.
Mr. GROGAN urged that before the session termi-
nated the Government should clearly explain and
define tha intended policy with regard to the war
generally. '
Sir J. SHELLEY had understood from Lord J. Rus-
sell's speech that the destruction of Sebastopol was
to be a sine qud non, and regretted to find that he
had been mistaken.
A miscellaneous conversation followed, in the
course of which many hon. members described their
impressions of Lord 3. Russell's meaning originally.
At length the vote was allowed to pass, upon the
understanding that any further debate should be
taken when the report was brought up. To facili-
tate this object, it was agreed that the motion should
come on as the first business on Tuesday evening,
several private members who had notices on the
paper consenting to waive their right of priority.

On Tuesday accordingly the subject was renewed
when the vote was being "reported." Lord DUDLEY
STUART moved as an amendment the addition of a
long paragraph praying the Queen not to prorogue
Parliament until better information could be given
touching the war and the negotiations, and assigning
reasons for that prayer. Referring to the debate of
the previous evening, the noble lord contended that
Lord John Russell had contradicted himself, and in
a later explanation had destroyed the force and
point of his original statements. From this and
other circumstances he inferred that unity did not
prevail among the councillors of the nation ; anti;
after observing upon the resultless character of
dll
our military operations hitherto, conterded that the
rublic had cause to fear that, if Parliament were
once prorogued over the winter, en attempt would be
made to securo peace at all hazards, even by the ac-
ceptance of dishonourable terms.
The motion was seconded by Sir J. SHELLEY.
The SECRETARY AT WAR admitted that the amend-
ment now proposed was not without precedents, but
with the distinction that they had always emanated
from the opponents of the Government, and were
intended to convey a direct censure upon the Minis-
try. Assuming, however, that there was some idea
of impugning the practical operations which Govern-
ment had set on foot for the purposes of the war,
Mr. S. Herbert embarked upon an exculpation and
defence of those proceeding*, and entered upon
detailed examination and refutation of certain por-
tions of Mr. Layard's speech of the preceding night,
respecting the ordnance and commissariat of the
British army in Turkey, dwelling upon the important
fact of the health of our troops, and deprecating in-
vidious comparisons with the French army, whose
comforts were, however, not more attended to. He
then noticed the remark that the war had as yet pro-
duced no favourable results. Was it lambing, he
asked, to have established a complete and irresistitle
blockade of the enemy's ports ? How many pounds
had been expended by Russia in erecting that chain
of forts by which Circassia was bound, all of which
but one had fallen? Even the successes of the
Turks had not been unassisted by the arms of their