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

THE PRESS.

The Earl of Clarendon. relying, speglfically, on the principle
of the neutralisation of the Black Sea, proceeds to show that
these forts could not be rebuilt.
- -

The Russian Plenipotentiaries, setting up the distinction
which, according to theui, exists between these forts and
military-maritime arsenals, maintain the contrary opinion.

Of course, they maintained the contrary opinion, and they
maintained it with great skill, with great courtesy, and, as
the event proved, with remarkable success. (Hear.) But
what was the result ? That the consideration of the point
was adjourned. Until when ? Until the Ides of March—
until the Greek Wends! (Cheers.) And the noble lord,
who could state that the terms of this treaty would not
permit Russia to re•erect these forts, when his position
was controverted, had not the heart to resume a discussion
in which the honour and interests of England were pre-
eminently concerned. (Cheers.) Why did the noble
lord shrink from the re•discussion of the question, and
why did he consent to terms so dishonourable to the Crown
of England?

Mr. M. MILNES thought that there was nothing t)
be ashamed of in the treaty. He believed the
aggressive and encroaching spirit of Russia to have
been materially curbed by the late war :

As regarded the Circassian people, the noble lord had,
in his opinion, enormously exaggerated the amount of
independence which that people had asserted and enjoyed,
ns well as the claim which they were supposed to have upon
England. There was scarcely any incident in the war
which had more disappointed the advocates of freedom than
the small amount of interest and sympathy which the Cir-
cassian people had taken in the great contest in which we
had been engaged. He believed the fact to be that very
intimate relations existed between the Russian Government
and the leaders of the principal Circassian tribes; and that
all the noble lord's fi'ars of any vengeance being wreaked
upon the Circassians in consequence of anything that they
might have done during the late war were entirely
visionary and groundless.
He did not believe that all the objects of the war
were attained by this peace ; but, considering the
circumstances, he thought it "as good a peace as any
reasonable man could hope to obtain."
Mr. LAYMiD confessed that he could not think the
great objects of the war were attained by the peace.
With the greater part of the speech of Lord John
Manners he certainly felt himself compelled to
agree. He objected to the non-recognition of Cir-
cassia :

The very name of "Circassia" did not once occur in the
protocols. He wished to know whether the blockade es-
tablished on the Circassian coast was to continue. Eng-
land had hitherto been excluded from all commercial inter-
course with that coast. He believed that if British corn-
werce were allowed there it would greatly tend to civilise
the people. He agreed with the noble lord (Lord J.
Manners) that there was no declaration which had ema-
nated from any European power which recognised the
right of Russia to Circassia. On the contrary, this country
had always considered that Circassia was wrongly and un-
lawfully occupied by Russia. But there was in the treaty
a passage which acknowledged that Russia was in pos-
session of Circassia, and the very fact of their entering
into a discussion as to the power of Russia to rebuild the
forte admitted the right of Russia to the coast. He ad-
mitted that a distinction had been made between a fort and
an arsenal. it was true Russia ought to have the right of
defending her coasts. But what he contended was that the
coast of Circassia was not a Russian coast. Therefore, if
they tolerated her building or rebuilding forts there, it
would be admitting that she had a positive claim to that
coast.
He agreed, also, with the noble lord that the capture
of Kars had its effect in the rectification of the Asian
frontier, and he could not agree with the Chancellor
of the Exchequer that the fall of Kars was of no im-
portance. Yet he thought, on the whole, that her
Majesty's Government, and Lord Clarendon in par•
ticular, deserved great credit for the treaty of peace
which bad been made.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was persuaded chat the treaty
fully accomplished the objects of the war. The
restoration of the Circassian forts he considered a
confirmation of the Russian power in the Black
Sea:--

My hon. friend (Mr. Layard) and the noble lord oppo•
site ( Lord J. Manners) have argued that Russia has no
rights over the Crimea. I believe her rights are confined
to what were formerly the rights of Turkey. That power
had certain forts which she occupied by hvr garrisons ; she
had no sovereignty over the mainland, her rights being
confined to those forts. By the treaty of Adrianople those
forts were surrendered to Russia, who succeeded to the
rights of Turkey, but to no more, and not one inch of
ground beyond the forts could she claim upon that account.
Those forts, however, gave Russia the means of sending
troops from Odessa and Sebastopol to the Asiatic coast.
If I am told that no advantages could be obtained beyond
those we have obtained, I confess, I would rather hear
that Russia had stipulated not again to occupy those forts
than to have stipulated about the Aland

With respect to the Belgian press, while the French
Emperor was entitled to regulate the press in his
own dominions, he ought to respect similar rights in
other countries, and not to call upon an English
Minister to put down the freedom of the press. He
strongly condemned the intervention of Au'tria in
Italy, which bad now lasted for seven years, and
which was the cover for the most horrible excesses.
He believed that good government in Italy c,iuld
only be restored by the sacrifice of priestly power,
and by the cessation of the Austrian protectorates.