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

SATURDAY,

allies. Remarking upon the impalience which had
been exhibited for some brilliant triumph, be pointed
to the career of Nelson and Wellington, whose most
glorious victories were obtained at long intervals, and
were the fruits of protracted operations and patient
waiting for opportunities. There were military cri-
tics, he observed, who seemed not to be content if
the enemy ran away, but justified the expressii
attributed to the Duke of Wellington, that the peop!e
of England were always dissatisfied unless they got
a good butcher's bill. Vindicating the professional
skill and energy of various officers and heads of de-
partments, and eulogising the gallantry of the ltta
Major Butler and of Captain Nasmyth, in defence Ef
Silistria, Mr. S. Herbert again declared his readi-
ness, on behalf of the Government, to take up the
gauntlet now thrown down, and challenge the opinion
of the house on the question of confidence.
The debate which ensued travelled over ground
already exhausted, with the addition, however, of
many comments upon the want of accordance dis-
played by Lord J. Russell sometimes with the Prime
Minister and at others with himself. Mr. LAYABD
sustained his criticisms upon the military proceec-
ings against the arguments of Mr. Herbert, and re•
inforced his previous conclusions, that Austria
sought only to restore the status quo ante bellurn,
and would co-operate with us no further than obtain-
ing tne evacuation of the principalities. With regard
to the question before the house he felt some dill:-
culty, not wishing to embarrass the Government
with a hostile vote ; but, feeling no confidence in
Lord Aberdeen, he was compelled either to support
the motion proposed by Lord Dudley Stuart, or ab-
stain from voting altogether.
Mr. WILKINSON and Colonel DUNNE having
spoken,
Admiral BERKELEY offered a defence of the naval
proceedings, especially those undertaken by the
Baltic fleet. IN hile contending that Sir C. Napier
bad displayed consummate judgment in his conduct
of the war, he declared Emphatically that the Minis-
try had given that gallant admiral an absolute carte
blanche, and afforded him every assistance and en-
couragement in whatever enterprises he thought
proper to attempt:—
" It was very easy," he added," to talk of knocking down
Cronstadt. But he would lead some extracts from Sir C.
Napier himself, and from Admiral shads, who was known
to be one of the most scientific officers in the service.
Here was what Admiral Napier said : It has not been in
my power to do anything with this powerful fleet, bet
attacking either Cronstadt or Sweaburg would have been
certain destruction.' (Hear, hear.) Admiral Chads says:
' After two days' inspecti.ms from the lighthouse, and full
views of the forts and ships, the former are too substanti,l
for the file of ships to make any impression. They are
large masses of granite. With respect to an attack on
the ships where they are, it is not to be entertained.'
(Hear.)"
Mr. F. Scums remarked upon the injustice of
attacking a single member of the Ministry on account
of a policy for which all were equally responsible.
The motion now proposed invaded the prerogative cf
the Crown, and none but trivial grounds had been
shown for pressing it upon the house.
Sir J. SHELLEY confessed that the proposition
before them involved an inconvenient issue. IA rd
J. Russell had somewhat diluted the import of his
speech by subsequent explanations, but his outline of
policy eifiribited Brobdignagian dimensions as com-
pared with the Lilliputian proportions delineated by
Lord Aberdeen. Viewed as a vote of censure upon
the Administration generally, he could not assent to
the motion, though ready to declare his want of con-
fidence in the Prime Minister.
Sir J. WALSH distrustEd the policy and doubted
both the consistency and the firmness of the present
Government.
Mr. M. MILNES, adverting to the war, declared
that he saw no way out of the difficulty, nor could
imagine any means for effectually obviating the
danger of Russian aggression in time to come.
Nevertheless, he was willing to afford every pro-
vision for the active prosecution of hostilities.
The Ministerial war policy had been assailed only
upon trifling points of detail. Their diplomacy was
more open to censure, and he blamed the Govern-
ment for dallying so long with Austria, and involving
the policy of Eng:and in the tangled web of German
interests.
Mr. HILRYARD protested against the statement of
Admiral Berkeley, that Cronstadt and Sweaborg could
not be safely attacked by the fleets, and characterised
it as the most indiscreet announcement ever made
by a public functionary. It was utterly inexcusable,
unless, indeed, it was intended to beguile the Russians
into a false security.
Admiral BERKELEY explained. His statement was
based on private letters from the fleet, written before
the junction of the French squadron; and the conclu-
sion respecting the impregnability of the Baltic
fortresses amounted only to this, that they could not
be taken by a naval force alone.
Colonel Buie supported the motion of Lord D.
Stuart, not as a vote of want of confidence in the Go•
vernment, but for an autumn sitting of Parliament.