The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-08 00:00:00

peace ; and I ask the right hon. gentleman, and I ask the
house, what has happened since to make him a peace advo-
cate ? It was quite clear, when the right hon. gentleman
joined the noble lord's Government, that this committee of
inquiry would go on ; it was as certain that motions would
be made in this house involving the consideration of the
conduct of the war. The right hon. gentleman being a
prominent member of Lerd Aberdeen's Government, we
have a right to consider that everything done and sail by
that Government was done and saki by the right hon.
gentleman himself. When the expedition to the Crimea
was propounded by the Government—for it was pro-
pounded by the Government and not by the generals—
the Duke of Newcastle wrote a despatch to Lord Raglan,
in which he Said that there could be no peace for Europe
until Sebastopol was taken and destroyed. That was
the statement made by the Government, and for that
statement I hold the sight hon. gentleman responsible.
When the conferences at Vienna ended—l don't mean the
day before yesterday—but when they ended in reality,
before that sham scene was enactod in this, house, had
Sebastopol then fallen ? (Hear, hear.) I will allow that
the Russian fleet had been destroyed, but suppose that at
that moment we had made peaee—l ask this house and I
ask every thinking man what would have been the result
of such a proceeding ? Would it not have been the univer-
sal opinion in the East, that England and France had been
conquered—would it not have been the general opinion
there that the fleets and armies of France and Englsnd had
retired with disgrace and discredit - would it not have been
plain to the smallest tribe in the East that we had left the
Crimea because we could not take Sebastopol, and be-
muses we could not obtain the objects for which the war
was entered into ? (Hear, hear.) Yet this is the conduct
which the right hon. gentleman asks us to pursue. Sup-
pose wa had made peace, as the right hon. gentleman
would have had us, would Europe have been safe—
would the Turkish empire have been safe? True it is that
the Russian army bad retired beyond the Pruth—that it
had evacuated the Principalities—but what security have
we that iu two years afterwards she would not have been
across the Danube again ? What does the house think of
the political morality which would recommend us to un-
dertake a war to obtain such paltry ends at those with
which the right hoc. gentleman is satisfied ? We have
spent millions of money, and sacrificed thousands of gal-
lant lives; our army has undergone unparalle'el suffer-
ings ; and all for what? Indeed it may be said that the
right hon. gentleman is out of office, and I well know that
that does make a wonderful difference in opinions ; but I
again ask the house whether the power of Russia has been
crippled, or whether any other object for which, when in
office, he entered into the war had been attained ? I think,
sir, that we should bringdegradation on this country if we
adopted the course which he now suggests. He is one of
those who cannot plead unwariness in the resolutions he
takes. What he does he does with great deliberation. I
don't say that he always acts prudently—(a laugh) —but
that, if he acts imprudently, it is with his eyes open. It
was with his eyes thus open that he undertook this ware
and for what did he induce the people of England to leave
their peaceful avocations and sacrifice their blood and trea-
sure? Was it simply that the Russian should retire be-
yond the Pruth, keeping all his armies and his power in-
tact and as great as ever, and with the reputation of Eng-
land and France reduced ? That is all we would have ob-
tained by following the right hon. gentleman's advice. We
should, indeed, have had a peace, but a dishonourable
peace, and our power would have been weaker than when
we entered into the war. (Hear.) I will be frank with the
noble lord at thehead of her Majesty's Government. I said
in this house some days ago that the country had not con-
fidence in the present Government for the management of
the conferences of Vienna; and I will now tell the noble
lord why I said so. In the first place, a rumour had
gone abroad that there were still in the noble lord's
Government persons who felt as those felt who have left
that Government ; and when I say this, I shall indulge in
none of those taunts which the right hon. gentleman told
us on the last night of this debate, were difficult to bear,
such as that of beingethe friend of Russia. What I impute
to him is not that he was the friend of Russia, but that,
from a mistake in judgment, he was not the friend of Eng-
land. I dont't suppose that he was a traitor to his country,
but I believe that he has committed a grave error, awl,
having done so, I have little faith in the right hon. gentle-
man's judgment in future. I have toll the noble lord that
there was an impression that there are still in his Govern-
ment persons entertaining the same sentiments as those who
lately seceded from it. One person to whom I partichlarly
point is the noble lord the member for the City of London;
and the reason why I say this is, that the noble lord held
language at the conferences of Vienna that was unworthy
of an English Minister. (Hear, hear) I say that no truly
English Minister, especially no friend of reform in Par-
liament, would have put his hand to that protocol to which
the noble lord put his, taking from an independent people
the power over their own concerns. (" Hear, hear," from
Mr. Layard.) Englene's interests are, I believe, the inte-
rests of the world, and those of civilisation and self-govern-
ment ' • but the noble lord sided with the despots of Europe
—sided with those who would crush an independent peo-
ple, and take from them the management of their own
affairs. The house must know the protocol to which Ino .v
allude. A Minister of England, really understanding the
position of his country and the part that Austria was play-
ing; would have whispered in the ear of the latter Power
talismanic words which, when I name them, I know will
rouse the voice of members of this house against me. But
I am as sure as I am of my own existence that the time
shall come when the three words which I would have men-
tioned to Austria shall be the watchwords of freedom and
the forerunners of good government in Europe. The words
mean are—" Poland, Hungary, Italy." (Hear, hear.)
It may be said that I am now arousing nationalities.
Sir, I take the part of nationalities against despots always,
and I believe that Austria, if these words had been whis-
pered iu her ear, would have understood her position, and
would not have played fast and loose as she has clone with
the people of this country and of France, but would have
trembled before the spirit that would have been conjured
up before her at the sound of thos6 names. I know wisat I
incur by the statement I now make ; but although, feeble
as I am, I cannot maintain as I would wish the belief that
I put forth, yet I am strong in the conviction that these
threo words are talismans to Europa. I will tell the
noble lord the member for the city of Londun that his first
speech in this debate went far to answer the imputations
that were rife in the public mind against him. I believe,
from the statement it contained, that the world was
let to suppose that the noble lord was not of that
peace party which sits behind me, although I must say
that the subsequent speeds of the noble lord went some-
what to undo the work of his first one. And, Sir, Ido ob-
ject to this fest and loose mode of speaking: (Hear, hear.)
The people of England have been dragged by their lee ler3
into was-. I don't, however, mean to say that they have
gone into it without a full confidence in those who 'reed
them. The people have had such a confidence, but I sev
it behoves those who are leaders of such a people to be
stedfest iu their faith, and not in the month of September
to send out to their generals despatches telling them that
the only means of safety to Europe spring from the deetrue-
tion of Sebastopol and of the Russian fleet; and then, in
the months of April, ally, and June, to ba the advecetes
of a peace, and to propose that England should snake a
sulunissiou to Russia. (Hear.) Ido not be- •
lievo, however, that the neble lord at the head of her Ma-
jeste's councils is of this wavering disposition. I believe
that he went into this'war with his eyes open and his spirit
firm, that he was not about 'to vacillate from change of cir-
cumstances—personal chances I mean. I believe that he
kept before him the interests of England, that thug in-
terests were, in Ids mind, paramount to all others, and that
he meant to consider them far beyond himself. (hear.)
I do hope that the noble lord will maintain the same r,pirit
—that as eve entered into this war so we shall continue it
—that we shall be firm, bild, straightforward—that what
we gain we shall in no self-denying spirit unwarily give
up--that what in the muse of civilisation against hl.rb i-
riern, of Europe against Russia, we acquire honestly by
our arms we shall maintain firmly by the same means—
that, our object being to cripple Russia, what we take we
shall keep. These, sir, are signiticaee phrases, and I mean
them to be such. To cripple Russia we are not to con-
sider her honour—(hear)—but we are to consider mankind
as our allies in the struggle, and that in crippling Russia
we are fighting the battle of mankind, and benefiting the
whole human race. (Rear, hear.)
Mr. S. HERBERT—Sir, I have risen thus early in the
debate because I imagine it is the wish of the house, if pos-
sible, to compress the discussion within the scope of this
night—(hear)—and I am anxious to leave time and room
for others whom I think it is important that we should hear
before we arrive at any decision on this question. The
hon, and learned gentleman who has just sat down has
made an attack on my right hon. friend who sits beshle me
(Sir J. Graham), upon grounds which no doubt he thinks
are conclusive against him, but which I trust in a few sen-
tences to convince him are fallacious. He says, in the first
place, that in a despatch written by the Duke of Newcastle
so far back as June last, a despatch which was produced
before the committee of which the hon. and learned gen•
tleman is chairman, the Duke of Newcastle pledged this
country to make no peace until the fortress of Sebastopol
was captured or destroyed. Let me say, so far as these
words aro concerned, that is not a correct quotation. The
Duke of Newcastle never said there shall be no peace. He
said there will be no prospect of peace—(bear, and
laughter)—no prospect of peace until we can deal to
Russia such a bodyblow as shall induce her to submit to
the terms we hope to get. (Hear.) The hon. and learned.
getrtleman cheers that. See back to the first despatch in
which the Duke of Newcastle says, "'Bear in mind
that if the Russian generals make no demonstration
of any further onward movement, it may become essential
for the attainment of the objects of the war that some ope-
rations of an offensive character be undertaken by the
allied armies ;" some operations actually of an offensive
character, but being part of a defensive system they should
be to that extent defensive operations. lie goes on "No
blow that could be struck at the southern extremities of
Russia would be so effectual as the taking of Sebastopol,"
The Dake of Newcastle conceived that to be the heaviest
blow which could be dealt to the Russian empire.
Sig J. PAKINGTON.—Is that the despatch of the 10th
of April.
Mr. S. HERBERT.—Yes, and then comes the subse-
quent despatch of the 29th of July. Ido not see how,
after those despatches, the honourable and learned gen-
tleman can say the Duke of Newcastle ever said we
could not make peace till the fortress was taken ; for
how can he reconcile that with the fact that in the
despatch there is not one word of imperative injunc-
tion, but the general is told it is left to his discre-
tion?
a ("gear, hear," from Mr. Roebuck.) Yes, but
the discretion was not left because we would not make
peace without it, but to undertake operations which, if
successful, 'would, more than any other, force Russia to
accept terms of
of the Pace. Is that the plain and obvious mean-
inglearned gentleman expression?
(Hear, and a laugh.) The hon. and
oFaniett I ask him, if the capture of
Sebastopol was to bae'llie
(cliteiaon of peace, why in the four
points did it not appeees
My right hon. friend the
member for Southwark in hisreloquent and impassioned
speech said, " you do not,. take Sebastopol you will have
to return to England and furl your banners in disgrace."
Is that so ? What would have happened if, 10 days
as
eaeegn
dition of peace? o,
Russia had accepted the limitation
(Hear.) That was what the late Mr. Sheil-
would have called a " rhetorical artifice." The whOle
error consists in this feet, we are making confusion of two
things essentially distinct—confounding the °peeweeB
. of
war, which
are the means to an end, with the enditself.
The operations of war are conducted with a view to force
your antagonist to agree to peace. When you are
• 6
at war, I agree with the hon. baronet . Lytton)
that we should humble our enemy if possible. When at
war, injure her, humble her, crush her, if you can. (Hear.)
But when you contemplate peace you can stand ond
iffe.
rent ground. In the first case, when dealing with an
enemy, you are right to crush him, but in the second you
man who is about to become your
,1 mistrust him, tie his hands, but don't
embe-
"it the man whom yon hope may
pass from that question raised bythe
tleman, and come to another matter
line importance in this discussion. In
‘e say feel es everybody else feel,/ in

S .anycide.alif with -a
1
A6,Zt`t t;o7ltratill'o7 mi
• 4,,,, 7 le nne yourf • man
.r.. 1, !lend , I
on. and. lea • '
tr! A_ whieh I thinkTlawl
Wil
,--j0 , or ,o,
the ant place, let tae
....1%
(
....9.,f ..V.1.1.-0;-:;-14....../
.11'.4,1:sAi SVAI4NI