Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-17 00:00:00

THR WAR WITH

On the motion for going into supply,
Mr. Roebuck moved the following resolution :—"
the war with Persia was declared, prosecuted. a0:,21 con_
eluded without information of such transactl'un being
communicated to P trliament, while expo"-tsive arma_
ments were equipped -without the
sanction of
a ;vote of this House. That it is tk.e opinion of this
House that such cond'ict tends to WP'Alen its just author-
UT, and to dispense with its oolntitutional control over

the finances of the country, and renders it requisite for
this House to express its strong reprobation of such a
course of proceeding." In support of his motion, the hon.
and learned gentleman contended, that though it was the
prerogative of the Crown to declare war, the House of
Commons should have au opportunity of expressing an
opinion upon it. The course that the Government had
taken was calculated to lessen the importance of the
House in the eyes of the country; and he charged the
noble Lord, that he, the so-called Prime Minister,
had done more than any Minister had ever done
before, and that he had insulted the House of Com-
mons. He attributed the disasters in India to the with-
drawal of the troops from India for service in Persia, and
argued therefrom that the quarrel involving the existence
of the Indian Empire, and consequently the power of
England was of equal importance with the Russian war,
and ought also, upon the earliest occasion, to have been
announced to Parliament. Ile charged the noble lord
with treating the House of Commons as though it had no
existence, and with choosing a time to take that course—
the most dangerous for England that had ever occurred
since the declaration of independance of America.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had come down to the
House prepared to defend in detail the policy of the
Government, but the question had been treated so gene-
rally, that he did not think it would be his duty to take
that course. He proceeded to point to the importance, con-
sidering that Persia was but a vassal power of Russia, of
maintaining the independence of the territory between Per-
sia and India. Having so far justified the war with Persia,
he vindicated the course taken by the Government in re-
gard to Parliament, remarking that no communication was
made of the operations at Bushire and Herat in 1838, and
that there was no analogy between this and the Russian
war, for while in the latter case Parliament had to pro-
♦ide the whole :expense, it had to bear but a small
proportion of the cost of the Persian war. The papers
relating to the war with Persia, had been laid on the
table without any motion being founded upon them, and
he challenged the honourable member to point out
any inconvenience that had arisen from the
course which the Government had taken, He
He denied the connection between the Persian war and
the mutiny in India, and in proof, stated that the dis-
affection was not apparent in Bombay and Madrasthe
presidencies in India—end remarked that had the
disaffection then existed, the time of the war would have
been seized upon as a favourable opportunity to show it •
He had no apprehension as to the loss of our Indian
empire, and he could not accept a censure upon the
Government, founded upon a connection between the
war with Persia and the Indian mutiny.
Mr. Nisbet attributed the Indian mutiny to the employ-
ment of high castes in the army, and to the paucity of
officers.

Mr. IL Baillie concurred in the censure convoyed in
Mr. Roebuck's. motion, and stated his belief that the war
originated with the demand of Lord Stratford de Red-
cliffe for the dismissal of the Persian Minister.

Lord Bury condemned the Persian War, but would not
support the motion, as he did not consider this a fitting
time for a change of Ministry.
Mr. P. Seymour vindicated the Government, and jus-
tified the war with Persia.
Mr. Willoughby took a similar view to that stated by

Lord Bury.
Sir W. Williams anticipated much benefit to the coun-
try from the war with Persia.
Lord John Russell, assuming that the policy of Russia
was to attach our Indian Empire, urged that the object of
this country should be to conciliate Persia, so as to create
a barrier between the Russian and Indian territory.
Captain Scott believed that the origin of the meeting in
India was the seizure and annexation of territory by the
Indian government. Upo❑ the question before the House
he should vote with the government.
After a few words from Mr. Kerr,

Mr. Walpole thought that the governmeat should
have called parliament together as soon as the war was
determined upon, and a great constitutional question being
involved, he demanded some more satisfactory explanation
of the conduct of the executive than had yet been afforded.
As to the motion of the hon. member for Sheffield, he was
glad that it had been brought forward, but he felt that
the question one of such difficulty, that he should evade
giving a direct v)te by supporting the original proposi-
tion, that they should go into committee of supply.
Colonel Sykes considered the question before the House
to be the constitutional or unconstitutional course taken
by her Majesty's. Government, in regard to Parliament
involving neither the policy of the Persian war, nor the
mutiny in India. He argued that as Parliament was not
sitting at the commencement of the war, ministers
wore not open to the censure conveyed in Mr. Roebuck's
motion.

Mr. V. Smith remarked that Mr. Roebuck hal shrunk
from censuring the policy of the war with Persia. It was
the duty of the Executive to declare war and make
peace, and to present to Parliament at the earliest oppor-
tunity an estimate of the expenses of the war. That was
the course pursued in the case of the Persian war : and he
defied any one to show anything unconstitutional in the
conduct of the Government. In reply to the arguments
that Parliament should have been called together imme-
diately upon the declaration of war, be stated that Par-
liament was about to meet in a short time, and drew
attention to the effect which a sudden calling together of
Parliament would have on the funds and commerce of the
country. He at some length spoke in justification of
the hostilities 'against Persia, urging the necessity of
dealing with firmness with a semi-barbarous nation, and
observed that the policy of Persia should be, if she
apprehended aggression on the part of Russia, to throw
herself upon the protection of England.
Mr. Gladstone regretted the retrogression of princi-
ples of constitutional liberty in the nineteenth century,
and censured the Government for speaking of Persia as
a vassal of Russia. There were two resolutions before
the house—the circumstances recited in the first were not
denied, and he considered that by them the expressions
in the second were justified. With regard to the policy
of the Persian war, he granted that the government were
carrying out policy which was almost traditional ; but
contended that by the peace less was gained than Persia
offered before arms were resorted to. With regard to the
constitutional question, he contended that the power of
parliament ought not to be curtailed by the doctrine
that the action of the vast and powerful machinery of the
Indian government should be altogether independent of
their authority. (Loud cheers.). He did not wish to
censure the government, but he could not reconcile it with
his duty to negative the motion of the member for Sheffield.
Lord Palmerston maintained the ceusitutional right of,
the government to declare war and conclude peace, though,,
as a general rule, he admitted that parliament ought to be
informed, at the first opportunity, of the course, that the
government thought it their duty to pursue. This, hew-
ever, was an exceptional case, there having been no pos-
sibility of calling parliament together before the middle of
January, and it having been fixed to meet a fortnight after
that time. Yet, when they did meet, nothing was said by
those great champions cif constitutional liberty, the mem-
bers for Cambridge, Oxford, and Sheffield, and they bad
brooded over their indigation from February to July. He
vinaicated the policy of the defeace of Herat horn Persia,
defended the peace cmcluded with Persia, and asked for
praise rather than censure for what be hed done. He
characterised the speech of the member for Sheffield as
un-English, and stated that that was the reason Why his
motions of censure recoiled upon, himself and his sup-
porters.
Mr. Disraeli had no confidenee ho the Persian policy of
the present. Government, and in regard to the disturbances
in India, attributed them not to a spontaneous motion,
but rather to a long course of mismanagement. The
noble lord had ridiculed the motions of the mem-
ber for Sheffield., but, he would remind him that
one motion re:Toting the Crimean mismanagement
compelled th.e nvete lord to leave the then government,
and that another motion, meved in 18:50, had for its object
the defereoe of the noble lord. EL could not object to the
first resolution of the *honourable member, but he thought
that the censure; was too severe for the premier, and he
he,ped that nr, division would take place. If they did not
divide, lie should feel it his duty to vote for going into
I commito,te.
We question was then put, and a division being called
i're, a etun'eer of members left the house.
The numbers were—
For going into supply
For Mr. Roebuck's motion

Majority ...
The House accordingly went into committee pro forma.
The report of supply was brought up and agreed to.
The Fraudulent Trustees Bill was read a third time
and passed.
The other busines was disposed of, and the House ad-
journal at half.past one.