The Press.
London, England, 1856-05-10 00:00:00

U.

SATURDAY,

He trusted, therefore, that Lord Clarendon' s words,
as used at the conference, would not be allowed to
fall to the ground, otherwise Italy would be left
worse than she was before.

Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON addressed himself en-
tirely to the question of Circassia

He thought the Government ought to have taken care
that the gallant Circassians were not handed over entirely
to the power of Russia, because the termination of the
war placed them in a worse position than they were before,
Russia had armies in the neighbourhood sufficient to.
trample under foot the gallant defenders of Circassia. lie
was aware an impression was abroad that the Circassian,'
had no claim upon us, and that there had been great
apathy and indifference on their part during the late war
But they were not to be condemned so hastily. It woe
true that two Circassian chiefs had been consulted. but
those gallant mountaineers thought they would bo called
upon to co-operate with a force landed in Asia, and left
Varna, thinking that they had received a promise to that
effect. The' had spread this idea, and no doubt theis
was a deep feeling of disappointment in Circassia when
the allied generals gave up the notion of military opera.
tions in Asia. He regretted that nothing had been dove
to counteract this impression, for the Circassians said,
" only send us one battalion as a nucleus round which we
may rally." The exigencies of the Crimea had, however,
prevented even this limited assistance being sent to them.
The Circassians had, notwithstanding, maintained their
ancient character for gallantry. There was no doubt they
might have made terms with Russia if they had been so
inclined. Even their neutrality would have been a help
to Russia during the war, but they had continued in me
mitigated hostility to Russia, and had hardly been treated
by us as they deserved. He could not say that a peace
so concluded was an honourable peace. The Black Sea
was thrown open to the mercantile marine of every nation,
but did this apply to the 250 miles of the Circassian coast f
The treaty said that the navigation of the Black Sea
should be free from any impediment, "subject only to the
regulations now in force." Did the house know that for
twenty-five years there had been a rigid blockade in force.
He hoped that the Government would not upon this
occasion follow the practice which had been pursued at
the conferences and adjourn the answer to all inconvenient
questions, because " adjournment" seemed to him to
mean an unconditional surrender to Russia. It had been
the case with regard to the arming of transports and to
every question that had been adjourned. He wished for
some explanation respecting the amnesty which, according
to the treaty, each belligerent power was to grant to its
own subjects who had participated in the war, and to the
mode in which it would affect Circassia. The Circassians
denied being the subjects of Russia; and he feared that as
free and independent people they would have no rights
under the amnesty and would be exposed to the vengeance
of Russia. In conclusion he moved, in the second pan,-
graph of the address, after the word " learned," to omit
the words " joy and," and after the word " conditions " to
omit the remainder of the sentence and to substitute for it
" which have accomplished to a great extent the objects
for which the war was undertaken."

Sir CHARLES WOOD denied that the Circassians
had any claims upon us. By permitting Russia to
rebuild her forts on the Circassian coast we only put
affairs in the status quo cute. Ile admitted that
there was little or no enthusiasm about the peace,
but he thought that would be only transient.
The debate was then adjourned till Tuesday, when
it was resumed by
Mr. W. S. LINDSAY, who argued that the treaty
afforded grounds of joy and satisfaction, and accom
plished the objects we had in going to war.
Mr. R. PHILLIMORE, in bringing forward the
amendment of which he had given notice, expressing
the regret of the house that the immemorial and un-
doubted belligerent right of the Crown to capture
enemies' goods in neutral ships should have been re-
nounced without an opportunity having been afforded
to Parliament of expressing its opinion upon so
grave and extensive an alteration of public andin-
ternational law, said he considered the declaration
signed by Lord Clarendon a direct sacrifice of the
maritime rights of Great Britain ; and insisted that
such a question, not generally understood, ought to
have been debated in Parliament, because it was
impossible to deny that the principle of the
renunciation extended to the right of search and
the capture of contraband goods. Reason, custom,
and authority justified the retention of these man•
time rights, which had been parted with without ilia
house and the country being aware of the importance
of the sacrifice.

The Marquis of GRANBY thought that the treaty, as
a whole, contained as much as we bad a right to ex-
pect, and that it was one which the people of this
country would accept.
Mr. S. HERBERT (lid not agree that we were bound
by any engagements to the Circassians. They had
not assisted us ; and, considering what we had got
by the treaty, was the house prepared to carry on the
war alone for this point? In conclusion, he con-
sidered the terms of peace more than commensurate
with the success of our arms for what was lost by
our mismanagement in the field.
Mr. BENTINCK, adverting to the second and third
articles of the declaration in the protocol of the Bth
of April, on the subject of neutrals in time of war—
that the neutral flag covers enemy's goods, except
contraband of war, and that neutral goods, with the
same exception, are not liable to capture under an

MAY 10, 1856.

enemy's gag—contended that they would be fatal to
us-as a maritime power when engaged in war, and, if
not reversed, result in the complete loss of our mari-
time superiority.
!dr. CARDWELL observed that the concession we
had made upon the point of free ships making free
So ,(19 was made to the universal iuteraats of
humanity and of justice to neutrals. Upon the
whole, he believed that we should be great gainers by
avoiding hereafter wars into which a rigid enforce-
ment of these maritime rights would lead us.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD said the treaty did not, in hie
view, fulfil the two most important objects of the war—
that relating to the Christian population of Turkey,
which he considered worse offthan before the war, and
the destruction of the preponderance of Russia in the
Black Sea. As the matter stood, Russia might
possess an unlimitect number of transports and of
go-boats, which might carry a large force from the
Sea of Azoff, or even from Sebastopol, to Constanti-
nople. By permitting Russia to reconstruct the Cir-
cassian forts, we recognised her right to the sur •
rounding territory, a right we had hitherto never
recognised. He could not say that the treaty
" fully accomplished the great object for which the
war was undertaken."
Mr. MILNER GIBSON objected in toto to our gua-
ranteeing the existence of the Ottoman empire, and
certainly not unless we reserved such a right of inter-
ference in its internal government as would enable
us to prevent Turkey from dragging us into a war at
any period. lie approved of the declaration of
maritime law attached to the protocols.
Mr. WHITESIDE observed that there were grave
points involved in the question connected with the
treaty and the protocols—such as Circassia, the
press of Belgium, to the extinguishment of the liberty
of which Lord Clarendon bad agreed, and Italy—
which could not be disposed of by an incidental
discussion, and he reserved the right of debating
them hereafter.

Mr. GLADSTONE said the general benefit achieved
for Europe by the war was far more extended than
any stipulation that could be put upon paper. With
respect to the stipulations affecting the principalities,
he Mould have preferred that a more substantive
independent existence had been secured for them,
and the neutralisation of the Black Sea he thought
not free from pitfalls which might at some future
day prove deeper than the Government anticipated.
Neither did he think the arrangemerts made relative
to the Christians free from the danger of future
complications. The proposal to submit future differ-
ences to national arbitration he considered a great
triumph, but unless a rule was laid down that no
nation should resort to arbitration until she had
reduced her claims to a minimum and was prepared
to support them by force, the system of arbitration
would give encouragement to the trumping up of
untenable claims and bad cases in the mere hope of
getting something out of the diplomatic contention.
With respect to what took plate at the sitting on the
Bth April, he entertained grave doubts of the pru-
dence of the discussion. He considered it a most
unfortunate mishap that an article condemning the
liberty of the press in Belgium should have been
signed by Lord Clarendon, and he felt confident that
Parliament would not and could not support or
sympathise with such a sentiment. The Belgian
press was not unlicensed or uncontrolled by law. In
1'52 a law was passed condemning to a tine of from
1001 to 2,000 f., and from three months' to two years'
Imprisonment, any person who should attack the
authority of any foreign Government; and when a
trial took place under that law, the Belgian Govern-
ment took upon itself the odium of prosecution :
What is now suggested ( continued the right hon. gentle-
man) on the vague pretence of satisfying " a European
necessity," is that the Belgian people should be required
to change by a deed of their own the law relating to the
press, and to do so in such a manner as to deprive it of the
see. arty and protection which trial by jury is calculated to
afford. (Hear, hear.) The history of Belgium is that of
averY small fraction of Europe. But though small phy-
sically, and as viewed cn the map, morally it occupies a
large position. The spirit of their forefathers dwells in
unbroken force within the bosoms of the Belgian people—
(Hear, hear)—and as it was the object of these conferences
to dispel the clouds of war, not to create them, and to pro-
mote, not tumult and disorder, but peace and harmony
among nations, I think it right to point out as clearly as
it is possible for an independent member of Parliament to
do so, that this appeal to a people gallant and high spirited
as the Belgians are—an appeal which appears to be con-
templated under the compulsion of foreign, and, some of
them, remote powers, and having for its object the limits,
non by the Belgians of their own dearest rights and most
cherished liberties—is not a policy which tends to clear
tic_ political horizon, but rather one which will darken and
disturb it, and cast gloom and despondency over a prospect
otherwise brilliant and joyous. (Cheers.)
Mr. HADFIELD moved the adjournment of the
house ; but, upon Lord Palmerston's request to re-
consider his motion, rose, and amidst considerable
interruption attempted to address the house, and
persisted in moving an amendment " that her
IlaJesty would endeavour, with the other European

~~

enemy
us ass
not re
time s
Mr.
had m
go ,(19
1111111a1
whole
avoidi
mat
Mr.
view,l
that
which
the dr
Black
posse`
gun-b
Sea of
nople,
cassia
round
vcogi
" full.
war W
Mr.
ranter
certai
fermi(
us to
any
rnariti
Mr
points
treaty
press
of wh
which
diseu,
them
Mr.
for F.
any el
revel
he sh
indep,
and tl
not fr
day I
Neith
to tit
comp)
ences
trittru
uatiot
retitle
to sus
would
unten
gettin
IVith
Bth A
deuce
nutor
libert'
signet
Pulls
syrup
press
1A52
1001
impri
autho
trial
ment
man)
neeess
to char
press,
seearil
afford.
very
sicslly
large
unbrol
(Hear
to disl
mote,
MOPE
it IS pi
do so,
as the
temph
them,
Lion to,
Owls]
the po
disturl
others
Mr,
house
eonsic
interr
persis
111,jee
•