The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-09 00:00:00

to that of Mr. Lowe. He did so because he held that it
would be most unwise on the part of the House of Com-
mons to fetter any Government as to the terms on which
peace was to be concluded. It would be far better to con-
tinue in the course the house had always followed —to
entrust to the Crown the conduct of the negotiations ;
but at the same time to make it known to the Govern-
ment that :the war was to be pursued for objects
that were real and practical—not vague and remote.
Mr. WALPOLE complained that up to this m oment
the house did not know what was the policy of the I
Government except it was to be gathered from the in-
flammatory speech of the Attorney-General that would
land us in a perpetual war ; for, according to him, our
enemy was a power so perfidious that we could never
trust him. He rose, therefore, to ask from the head of
the Government a statement of something like the po-
licy which the Government intended to pursue. He
entirely agreed with the Government that the war was
just and necessary—a war so just that they ought not to
have avoided it if they could, and so necessary that they
could not have avoided it even if they would. Were the
objects of the war to be obtained by the negotiations
He thought they were—at least to this extent—
that if they were justified in entering into nego-
tiations at all, they were not justified in break-
ing them off in the way they had done. He gave
no opinion, however, on the point whether the
negotiations ought ever to have been entered into. Now
that they were broken off, hehad to consider what course
the house had now to take. He objected to the first
part of Mr. Lowe's amendment, because, in point of fact,
it was not strictly true ; and he objected to the second
part, that it would limit the power of future negotiators,
and because the limitation it recommended was practi-
cally illusory. He went through the amendments in
the same manner, objecting to them all, and he hoped
the Government would adhere to the course indicated
by Lord John Russell at the close of his last speech, in
which he promised that the Government would come
down with an address to the Crown.
Lord J. RUSSELL intimated that that was on con-
dition of the amendments being all withdrawn.
Mr. WALPOLE thought that ought to make no
difference ; and he earnestly urged upon Ministers
the necessity of now clearly defining the objects of
the war, and of stating whether the four points
were now the main objects of the war, or whether
we had gone beyond them, and if we still held to them,
to explain their construction of the third point. That
had never been done yet ; and to show that it had not,
the right hon. hart. went into a lengthened review of
the different treaties, negotiations, and protocols, which
preceded and accompanied the events of the war. This
uncertainty and ambiguity on the part of the Govern-
ment had led to most extravagant expectations, and had
misled the people of this country. Some held that Sebas-
topol must be taken at all hazards—others insisted that
Russia ought to be cocked in Asia—others that she
must be stripped of all her conquests made during the
last half century ; and others still were for waking up a
war of nationalities. Many of these would have their
expectations still further inflamed by the speech of the
Attorney-General, Which, if the Prime Minister did
not temper down to-night, there would be no peace for
the next ten years. In conclusion he denied that the
Conservatives wished to make a party question of this
subject, and pledged his support to the Government on
condition that they would clearly define their policy.:
Mr. HORSMAN defended the speech of the Attor-
ney-General. He was as warm an admirer of peace as
Mr. Bright, and he believed every member of the house
had the same feeling. But what was peace ? War post-
poned till resistance became impossible was not peace,
and serious as was the responsibility incurred by the Mi-
nister who pronounced for war, still more serious was
the responsibility incurred by him who declined war
when circumstances rendered it necessary. He explained
that the Four Points were urged upon England by Aus-
tria, and were accepted by our Government not as the
best terms that might have been insisted on, but as a
compromise. He contended that Turkey gained no ad-
vantage from the first two points, and as to the third, he
could not understand how Mr. Cobden or Mr. Bright
could support the Russian proposition, which involved
the country in the great annnal expense of keeping up a
large fleet at all seasons ready to enter the Black Sea.
He contended that Parliament had entered into the war
to defend Turkey, and we could not now recede from it
with honour.

Mr. DISRAELI—I have heard in the course of this
debate now prolonged for an unusual time many diff,r-
sent characters of our discussion. I have heard it called
ra discussion without an object. I have heard it called a
wearisome discussion. I have listened to gentlemen
apologising for prolonging a debate which was tedious ;
there was a moment when the house, now so crowded,
seemed to tremble fur its existence. Four days have
elapsed, and it is now my duty to offer an impartial opi-
nion on the subject. (Laughter and cheers.) I can
truly say that, unwilling as I am and unnecessary as
I have thought it, having lately expressed opinions
een the important subject on which we were engaged
-very lately, for me to interfere in it on the pre.
sent occasion, I am yet bound to express my sincere
opinion that since I have had the high honour of sitting
in this house I have never listened to a debate more im-
portatnt, upon a subject of more transcendent interest, in
-which greater abilities have been shown in its conduct,
in which a more important issue has been at stake,
-which has thrown greater light upon public transac-
tions, which has placed public men in a more intelligible
position—(laughter)—than this debate, which it has been
convenient for some to characterise as a debate of little
importance. (Hear.) My opinion is that it will be re-
cognised by the country, not only in its immediate cha-
racter, but in its ultimate consequences, as one of the
most important discussions that ever was originated and
sustained in the House of Commons. But we are told
that even the object of the debate is a mystery. There are
gentlemen—l should hope, gentlemen who have not been
present during the discussion—who really do not know
what is the point upon which we are going to decide. Now,
before I presume to offer any observations upon the topic
before us, the house will not think it unreasonable if I
try to ascertain in a manner which can no longer be ques-
tioned what is the character of that issue—what is the
•question before us, what we are to decide by the irn-
lpending vote, and what may be the consequences of that
-vote. I will first explain to the house the reason which
Induced me suddenly to give the notice which I placed on
the paper. It was a notice of motion asking the house
to express its opinion that in consequence of the ambi-
guity of its language, and the uncertainty of the conduct
of her Majesty's Government, with respect to the great
question of peace or war, it was our duty to rally round
the throne, and assure her Majesty we would stand by
her. The reason why I gave that notice so very sud-
denly on behalf of those with whom I have the honour to
act was this—we had cause to believe that her Majesty's
Government were on the point of concluding a peace—a
peace which I will not characterise as inglorious or igno-
minious, because these are epithets to which different peo-
ple may ascribe different meanings—but a peace which, in
ouropinion, was one which would have caused a great and
a just discontent in the country, and, which was of far
greater importance than the discontent of the country,
a peace which would not have accomplished the great
object of the war, which I take to be to maintain the
power of the Ottoman Porte at Constantinople. Under
these circumstances, we had to consider whether the
conduct of her Majesty's Ministers, or whether the
language of her Majesty's Ministers, was in consonance
with the behaviour which we were induced to believe
they were about to follow. We found such uncertainty
about it, and the declarations of the Government were
so doubtful, that we felt it our duty at once to ask the
house to declare an opinion on the subject—the house
being about to adjourn—and to decide whether in their
opinion there was that ambiguity in the language and
that uncertainty in the conduct of her Majesty's Mi-
nisters which justified that interference. The house
remembers well the issue of that debate. (Hear, hear.)
A majority decided that my resolution should not be
sanctioned. (Hear, hear.) It decided nothing more. I
may be permitted to say that every honourable member
who took pert in that debate, on whatever side he sat
—every member almost who has taken part in this
renewed debate has found the amplest materials for his
speeches in demonstration of the ambiguity of the lan-
guage and the uncertainty of the conduct of her Ma-
esty's Ministers, and it was a very strange thing, which
I am sure the house will hardly f
hileorget, that the night,
when the division was called, the I:Limbers were
still in the ears of every member and the rash cheers of
gentlemen opposite were still sounding—proving that a
majority of the House of Commons would not sanction
the imputation of ambiguity of language or uncertainty
of conduct on the part of the chiefs of the Ministry—one
of the most distinguished gentlemen who bad voted on
that side instantly rose and brought a strange and start-
ling, but, I think, a well-founded accusation of ambi-
guity of language against the noble lord the member for
the City of London. (Hear.) It is from the motion of
which I gave notice that the question now before us has
arisen, and the house must trace well the pedigree of
the motions on which they are going to vote. Depend
upon it, if you will only give your attention, the pedi-
gree is clear. It is not that doubtful, that obscure
question that persons too rashly imagine. Let me ascer-
tain that before I venture to make the few observations
'which it will be necessary for me to make on the general
question. There was an amendment made to the mo-
tion whioh I offered to the house. I don't think it ne-
cessaryfor me to make any remarks on the amendment
of the right hon. gentleman the member for Portsmouth
—not from any
want of respect for the right hon. gentle-
man, because he knows that ii a feeling quite foreign to
my nature. (Laughter.) I think I may on the part
• of my friends on Chia side of the house, stha't we are not
going to support that amendment. The noble lord at
the had of the Government has morei,h. than once announced
do t
that he will have nothing toit, and the most re-
markable thing to-night is that the right hon. gentleman
says he will have nothing to do with his own amend•
went.
(Laughter.) Yet, remember that this slippery and
broken • I
broken bridge, which nobody will tread on, was theonnlY
:means of escape of the Government from a vote which
the house would have arrived at on the motion which I
made. Many gentlemen have told me that they agreed
with my views and with the language of that vote, but
they had been informed that it was a vote of confidence
in the Government, and they were not prepared at the
present time to cause a change in the Government ;
I was astonished to see a great authority in this house,
the right hon. member fur Carlisle, rise in his place anti
vindicate a vote of which be did not approve, and which.
the moment after, he gave with a feeling of irresistible
penitence. (Laughter.) I was astonished that a gen
tlernao so acquainted with Parliamentary life, and who
_is looked upon as a great leader and authority on the
subject, should not have discriminated between a vote
.0i censure and a vote of want of confidence. Over and
rover again it has been decided that a vote of censure
.ern any specific Government is no reason why that
,Government should relinquish office. I will take a
casee in which the right honourable gentleman was