The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-26 00:00:00

great share of calamities which have befallen us in conse-
quence ? (Cheers.) Sir, it has been objected to the motion
which I have placed in your hands that it is not in accord.
ance with the speech I have made. It has been said that
the motion does not in an unmistakeable manner express
the policy we propose to follow, and which we ate pre-
pared to recommend. Well, sir, having been some time
in this house, and having seen during that time much of
the conduct of its affairs, I have had much experience in
the motions which have been drawn up in this house and
offered for its adoption ; and I can truly say this, that I
have been called upon as a member of Parliament to give
my opinion upon motions that were drawn up by men of
unrivalled sagacity and experience in Parliament, and I
never knew any motion which was not most critically re-
ceived, and in which great errors were not discovered by
those who had previously resolved to vote against it
(Hear.) lam prepared to maintain the propriety of the
resolution, in every respect, which I have laid upon the
table. lam prepared to maintain not only its propriety
but its frankness—(a laugh)—and precision. The hon.
member for Kidderminster, in a speech of great ingenuity,
following in that respect some other member who preceded
him, seemed not only to intimate, but, indeed, I believe,
declared, that it was my duty to have expressed clearly the
terms upon which wo held a peace ought to•be obtained, or
the objects for which the war ought to be prosecuted. And
no doubt there is upon the paper an amendment by the
hon, member for Kidderminster, which, coming from him
as it does, I have conned more than once, for he is a man
who does not write without thought—(a laugh)—but I am
bound to say with respect to motions of that kind, that
I see very grave objections which I cannot help think-
ing that, upon reflection, gentlemen of the talents and
i igenuity of the honourable member for Kidderminster
will find not unworthy of their attention. You must
feel that it is the last thing the House of Commons
c m do, in motions proposed t o be adopted by its mem-
bers, in any way to interfere with the terms on which
peeco and war should be proclaimed. Therefore, being
dissatisfied with the language and conduct of the Govern-
ment, especially with respect to recent negotiations and
the conduct of affairs with reference to the great question
of peace and war, all we could do was to ask the house, if
we proved our case, to express an opinion that there was
ambiguous language and uncertain conduct on the part of
her Majesty's Ministers with reference to the great ques-
tion of peace cr war, and at th same time to show that
there was no ambiguity in our language or uncertainty in
our conduct, we publicly declare that we are still deter-
mined to support her Majesty with all our means in the
same spirit as when we first addressed the Crown in an-
swer to her Majesty's gracious message announcing that,
war had been declared. I say then that the resolution I
have moved is proper and loyal in its language, and per-
fectly adapted to meet the present contingency. If the
noble lord disapproves of the resolution because it is a vote
of want of confidence in the Government, why does not he
simplify the question at issue, and allow one of hisTriends
to propose a vote of confidence? What can be more in-
convenient than the position in which the leader of the
house has now placed it ? If you negative my resolution,
will the adoption of any of the amendments be equivalent
to the expression of confidence in the Ministry ? If this
motion is equivalent to a vote of want of confidence,
either the noble lord must meet it with a direct negative
or he does not clear himself from what he represents as
an attack on his position. Let me ask whether what has
occurred within the last two nights has not justified
the course we have taken ? Have we not had an ex-
pression of feeling from the noble lord which a week ago
no one would, have anticipated, and which is wholly in-
consistent with the past conduct of the Government ?
The noble lord has repeated to-night the commonplace ob-
servation that while carrying on his negotiations he was
also carrying on his war, but he never answered the obser-
sution I made yesterday on the subject. I say you cannot
tarry on negotiations permanently while you are carrying
on war, and at the same time carry on a war effectively ;
for by so doing you depress the spirit of the people, and damp
the ardour of your allies. (Cheers.) Then the noble lord
has treated us to some remarks as to who may be the suc-
cessors of the present Government if it is displaced. Ido
not know what the gentlemen who sit below the gangway
and were recently his colleagues may think of this esti-
mate of their electioneering prospects. (A laugh.) I ob-
serve by the public prints that some of these right hon.
gentlemen attended the meeting at the noble lord's office,
and there were paraded as his most distinguished follow-
ers. Could they be conscious when he addressed them in
that animated style that the noble lord had calculated the
duration of their career ? that at this very time those use-
ful, though less celebrated members of the party who are
supposed to be intimately acquainted with all the chances
of our political existence, had in fact numbered these great
lights of our assembly as dead men in their books.
(Laughter ?) But the noble lord has supposed that we may
be the coming men. He thinks there may be some diffi-
culty in the arrangements from our divided opinions. He
has particularly impressed on the house the inconvenience
which her Majesty might experience in finding amongst
her councillors my two right hon. friends who differ on
the subject of education. But when I hear of a coming
Government with divided opinions, what am I to think of
the right hon. gentlemen and noble lords before me ? They
no doubt have no questions on which they are divided in
opinion. The question of church rates is one on which
the following of the noble lord is distinguished for its irre-
sistible numbers and influence. (Laughter.) I believe
that on the ballot they aro all agreed. The division on
the motion with respect to the conduct of the consular
branch of the diplomatic service, showed what a powerful
and united Government this is ! Some of his followers in
°free, particularly the Secretary for the Admiralty, are no
'doubt bound to the Government by every tie since they
have acceded to the views of the hon. gentleman with re-

' motion of the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucking-
hamshire because it implied a censure on the Government,
and in his opinion it was not desirable to change the Govern-
ment at the present crisis. A decisive majority of 100 had
Pronounced that such a change was inexpedient, but the great
question raised by the lion. member for Kidderminster in his
amendment was not yet fully debated. The noble lord had
threatened him and those who sat near him with their consti-
tuents. He should be rejoiced at an opportunity of stating
his views upon this question before his constituents, but such
an opportunity had not yet been afforded him. Ho hoped,
therefore, that the -first business after the recess Would be to
resume this debate, for it was impossible that due jus-
tice could be done to the question at that hour in the morn-
ing ; and if, therefore, they should go to a division, he should
certainly vote in favour of the adjournment. If he understood
the noble lord rightly, all negotiations were at an end. He
had heard that to-night for the first time. The speech, too,
of the noble lord (J. Russell) last night placed the state of
our relations with Russia on a new footing, which appeared
to him would lead, if not to an interminable war, at least to
the commencement of a war of 30 years' duration. (Cheers,
and " Oh, oh ! ") Although lie was not satisfied with the
declaration of hon. gentlemen opposite as to the policy
they-
would recommend, yet the speech of the right hon, gentle-
man
(Mr. Disraeli) laid down principles which appeared to
him to afford a prospect of a fairer settlement than that an-
nounced by her Majesty's Ministers. (Loud cheerio., from the
Opposition benches.) The right hon. gentleman declared that
in his opinion there were only two modes in which war could
be conducted with Russia—one was the revision of territorial
arrangements throughout Europe, and an attack on the ex-
tended frontier of Russia ; in fact, a war of nationalities ;
and he expressed an opinion in which he concurred, that a
war of that description would be interminable, if not hope_
less. The second moile proposed by the right lion. gentleman
was, that the war should be conducted on the principle bf
protection to Turkey, so that her independence and integrity
should be preserved, aud that that operation should be
effected without the invasion of the territory of Russia. He
was prepared to defend the step taken by the Government,
of which he was a member, in attacking the Crimea ; but
with respect to the future policy of this country ho was con-
vinced that the view of the right hon, gentleman was one
which, if steadily pursued, did not exclude the hope of peace,
while the announcements of the Governinent, that the nego-
tiations had been abandoned and that the ground of war had
been changed, was not a question of terms, but that terms
being abandoned the war was to assume the position of a war
of nationalities. (Cheers and cries of " Oh.") A more
serious question thanthis was never raised in the British Par-
liament, and full opportunity ought to be given for the dis-
cussion. (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—A. very important question had been
raised by the right hon., gentleman, but in the first place he
must utterly and entirely deny what . the right hon. tmtle-
man had attributed to him. (Cheers.) What he said was,
that the object of the war, beyond the immediate defence of
Turkey from the aggression committed by Russia; was secu-
rity for Turkey for the future. . (Cheers.) He said that -.the
Government had endeavoured to obtain that security, but he
had never gone beyond that declaration. He had said no-
thing of nationalities. Ho said the plenipotentiaries of France
and England were precluded at Vienna from entering upon
the question of diminishing the territory of Russia, but never,
either with regard to territory or to nationalities, had he
given utterance to any expressions which would justify the
remarks of his right hon. friend. (Cheers.) He conceived
that wlMn security for Turkey was obtained we ought not to
hesitate for a moment to make peace with Russia. (Hear.)
The right hon. gentleman had referred to what had fallen
from the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire. He (Lord
J. Russell) understood the right hon. gentleman opposite to
say that we could not at the same time carry on negotiations
and conduct a war, and • he declared that the negotiations
ought to be broken off and that the war should. continue.
That was his decision, and how from that state of things
he was to evolve peace hereafter he knew not. (Cheers.)
With regard to the question now before the house, there was
one deslaratiem included in all the propositions that had been
brought forward—viz, that this house would continue to give
every support to her Majesty in the prosecution of the war
till her Majesty should be able to obtain a safe and honour-
able peace. He thought that, before they separated for the
holidays, the house should agree to some declaration which
would contain these words— (eheors)—that being a decima•
tion in which all parties concurred. (Hear.) The motion of
the right hon member for Manchester might be taken ou an
early day after the holydays. (Hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI begged to congratulate the supporters of
the noble lord on the majority of that evening,. but, at the
same time, had to remind them that, no sooner was that ma-
jority obtained than the noble lord (Lord John Russell) had
risen and recanted the speech which had called forth the ob-
servations of the right hon. the member for Carlisle. (Cheers
and " No, no.") Only yesterday we had a picture drawn not
of the power only, but of the policy of Russia, which equalled
the spirited pencil of Dante. The house was affrighted as the
noble lord drew his description of a power and active policy,
which proved that he thought this kingdom was in danger
from the engrossing power and systematic aggression of Rus-
sia ; but no sooner is the majority obtained—a majority
which had expressed no confidence in the Government—(Oh,
and laughter)—than the noble lord, when his attention was
called to this remarkable statement, immediately rose and
recanted the views which he had given. (" No, no:") It was
another edition of the Sebastopol speech, which the noble lord
recanted the same night in which it was delivered. (Hear.)
And yet he was told the language of the Government was not
ambiguous. {Cheers.) This was a motion which concerned
the honour and. interests of the country, and could not be
disposed of without discussion. He had told the noble lord
that the last division would be only the beginning of a pro-
tracted discussion, and he repeated that to hurry to a deci-
sion now upon the important motion before them would be
impolitic and indecent; although he felt the feeling of the
house to be quite distinct that no more discussion could take
place at that moment. (Hear.)
Mr. S. HERBERT thought the house had been perfectly
right in deciding at once upon the last resolution, which was
one of great importance to be settled in declaring the opinion
of the house as to in whose hands the Government should be
intrusted. But now that it hail decided a great question as
between parties, it was called upon to decide upon a question
affecting the country,—to dispose of, without discussing, two
motions on which the meaning of words required to be mi-
nutely weighed, He was not now prepared to come to a
decision upon those resolutions which related to a subject the
most important which had occurred since he had had the
, honour of a seat in that house. It would be indecent and

spect to the necessity of army reform—(hear, and laughter)
—but I think there never yet was a body of gentlemen less

remarkable for their union of opinion than the gentlemen
who now fill the offices of Cabinet Ministers. All that is
required to show bow admirably they agree is that the
noble lord the member for London, when he has recovere.l
from the great exertions of his exhausted instructions
should introduce a reform bill, or something of the kind,
to show how compact is the alliance of their united bodies.
(Divide, divide.) That cry of " divide" must allude to the
division in the Government; for lam not aware that I
have trespassed upon the house an unusual time. • Then
the noble lord treated us with a stale taunt as to the in-
ability of Lord Derby to form a Government because he
had not political friends competent to form a Ministry. If
that were•the case I should leave tho observation unnoticed,
but inasmuch as there is no man in this house more cog •
nisant that the statement he has made is—inadvertently,
of course--erroneous than the noble lord—(oh, oh)—he
must permit mo to say that upon reflection ho will see that
ho has not the slightest foundation for the assertion. Lord
Derby refused to form a Government because it was his
opinion that England was in such a condition that the gra-
tification of individual ambition was no longer to be
thought of, but that the formation of a strong Government
was an object for which every sacrifice should be made.
Lord Derby and his friends might h.ve sat upon that
bench or a similar one in another place if they would have
taken the Government without being assured of that corn-
' manding majority which they believed to be necessary to
carry on the affairs of this country. The noble lord elected to
carry on affairs with a very weak Government. The noble
lord, by suddenly avowing a policy utterly inconsistent
with the instructions which he had given to his own diplo-
matic minister—the noble lord, by suddenly taking a course
which we all know, from his own expressions, he could not
a week ago have meditated—the noble lord, by his pledges
to-night that he intends not only to prosecute the war, but
to prosecute the war for objects which last Tuesday he
could not have anticipated, has clearly shown that this
motion of mine has extorted these admissions from him.
The noble lord, possibly, by these means, may defeat the
motion, but this is only the first of many motions which
he will have to mtet, now the policy of Government by
this discussion has become more explicit. The noble
lord may rest assured that this is but the beginning of
his Parliamentary campaign. He must know that he will
have now to marshal his force's, and to show that
he has that strong Government which Lord Derby thought
was so essential to the government of the country. An hon.
gentleman has noticed the remarks which I made on the
conduct of the recent plenipotentiary at Vienna. It was the
hon. member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), who, I think,
said that these observations were not fair, and that had not
the person been a minister of state or a member of this
house they would not have been uttered. Well, sir, I will
make this admission to the hon. member for Kiddermin-
ster. It is always more agreeable to me to make remarks
of that kind upon those present than upon those absent.
If the conferences at Vienna have been conducted in a man-
ner most pernicious to the public interests, and the pleni-
potentiary has committed the most gross errors, I am pre- ,
pared to assert that it is not merely the right but the duty
of a member of Parliament to bring this conduct before the
house, and to ask its opinion upon it. I say that in those
observations upon the noble lord I merely did my duty.
(Divide.) I say that the noble lord at the commencement
of these affairs committed a most gross error in acknow-
ledging the rights of Russia over the Christian subjects of
Turkey, which right Count Nesaelrode now tells us never
did exist. T say that, by his false interpretation of the
treaties, the noble lord was one of the principal causes of
the war. Is it not a duty to bring these things before the
house ? Am I to be stopped by the observation of the noble
lord that he considers those remarks too strong ? I say the
noble lord by his fatal admission of the protectorate of
Russia-

!destructive to their character to allow such questions to be
treated as mere postscript to a party debate. The noble lord
had complained of having been misrepresented by his right
bon friend (Sir J. Graham), and surely the accuracy'of that
complaint was a matter of importance. , Now that the i outs.
try was called upon to enter upon A new Russian war. when
the prospect of other interference was hold out, ho (Mr. Her- 1
bort) called upon the house to vindicate its privilegeg, and
not to allow the convenience of a few days' holidays to inter-
fere with their ditties .at, this important moment. He for
one would not consent to dispose of the matter until he knew
the opinions of the Government upon this new Russian war.
Mr. BARROW, though differing with the right hon. gen-
tleman.upon the resolution, agreed with hiffi as to the im-
propriety of deciding without discussion, and equally as much
to proceeding at that time.
Mr. ROEBUCK inquired of the Speaker whether the
house had not the power to revoke its decision as to the ad-
journment ?

The SPEAKER said, it had never been the practice for the
house to revoke a decision formally adopted upon the same

Lord PALMERSTON said, that at that hour of the morn-
ing he did not feel able to resist the feeling of the house for
the adjournment of the debate. (Cheers.)
The debate Was then adjourned.
NEW WRIT.

On the motion of Mr. HAYTER, a new writ was moved for
Bath, in lieu of Mr. Phinn, who has accepted the Chiltern
Hundreds.

LIMITED LIABILITY.

Mr. BOUVERIE obtained leave to bring in two bills re-
specting the law of partnership, and the bills were read a
first time.
The house adjourned at a quarter past 3 o'clock.

Mr. Pugh paired with Mr. Ewart against Mr. Berkeley's
motion on the ballot.

Mr. Pugh paired with Mr. Milligan for Thursday and
Friday.
Mr. B. Coles paired in favour of Mr. Disraeli's motion with
Mr. Bagshawe against it.

Mr. h. W. Grey's name was accidentally omitted from the
list of members who attended the meeting at Lord Palmer-
ston's yesterday, May 25.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

( From the Times of this day. )
It is said to be an ancient practice of the Court of Rome
that on a certain festival of the Church a preaching friar
mounts the pulpit for no other purpose than to impugn the
faith, to distort the truth, to degrade what is right, to vindi-
cate what is wrong, and, in short, to defend the cause of the
Enemy of Man. A similar ceremony was performed last
night in the House of Lords, and the speaker who assumed
the strange office of the Devil's Advocate was no other than
Lord Grey. The Peers who followed, and answered with the
feeling of statesmen and of Englishmen this interminable and
extraordinary harangue, thought fit to pay Lord Grey a com-
pliment on the sincerity of his motives, as they could find no
other pretext for the customary civilities of Parliamentary
debate, but it requires au effort to join in even that faint
compliment, for it is not easy to comprehend the sincerity of
a man who wanders through a labyrinth of sophisms
until he finds himself arrayed on the side of the ene-
mies of his country. The wretched deserter who
skulks on a stormy night from the pickets before
Sebastopol until he is snapped np by a pulk of Cossacks is
struck with dishonour from the roll of the British army, and
incurs the punishment of death if he falls into the hands of the
Provost Marshal ; but that military offence may be more venial
in its motives and less injurious to the public service than the
desertion of a British Peer, bearing a name once illustrious in
the public service, possessing great powers of intellect and of
oratory, but of so frail ajudgment and' so perverse a temper,
that in the very crisis of a great national contest he throws
the whole weight of his authority and his example on the side
of the enemy of his country., Lord Grey was entirely at liberty,
as we all are, in the exercise of that freedom of debate which
is the birthright of every Englishman, to criticise and con-
demn the policy of the Government,' to dissent from all the
principles on which the Minister .of the Crown have acted,
and to deprecate what he conceives to be the effects of this
war. On these points we acknowledge the consistency with
which he has adhered to what he terms the cause of peace.
But when he was driven by the necessity of his own logic to
go further—not only to censure every act of the British Go-
vernment and its Allies, but to justify every act of the Czar
—not only to impute to the men with whom he has hitherto
acted during his whole life a criminal blindness of "liciyn and
tnhde
219 a disgraceful levity in action, but even to pronounce
319 British House of Peers an elaborate defenpcoeliot
Majority — —lOO the good faith, the moderation, and the ,
The announcement of the numbers was received with loud Nicholas of Russia, we are astonished that his own moral
cheers by the Ministerial side of the house. ficaltheccoharanducctteori
d G
sense did not recoil from so monstrtohuse
aarvcomneeliuitsiasonL.
We are perfectly willing to take orGrey
The SPEAKER then put Sir F. BARING 'S motion, upon unjustma r andke
d
which, has stated it. Be it so, that to pronvuesstihai
unnecessary each successive step of shawsarbeen
Mr. LOWE moved his amendment,
• • Constantinople was the modest claim
Mr. GIBSON (amid mingled cries of " Adjourn," ~ Di- by candour,. honesty, and the desire of peace ; that Prince
vide," and " Agree") moved the adjournment of the debate Mens.chikoff's mission to
until Motiday week. of friendship ; and that Prince Gortschakoff a proposals at
Lord GODERICH opposed the motion for adjournment,
Vienna were fresh loaves of the Russian olive branch. Is Lord
upon the ground that it would be most improper to separate Grey content to try the issue and to take the verdict on thcs 3
facts, and, if they are disproved, to abandon the paradox which
for so long a period as a week while this subject was leftf n.
he has attempted to dress up in all the dignity of an opinion ?
a state of uncertainty. It behoved them, as guardians of the
before To make out the appearance of a case he was compelled
public interests, to decide this important question
t oul to misrepresent but positively to in • -
cniodent iyn these 'transactions, and the moment vtelliteseevesrLiens--
adjourning for their own pleasure and amusement. (Hear,
hear.) for the ad- sive events are restored to their true form and meaning the
Mr. It, PHILLIMORE supported the motion whole structure of falsehood and delusion crumbles into- the
dust. If this were all, and if Lord Grey's reputation as a
in expiation of
journment of the debate.
statesman were the only sacrifice required
Lord PALMERSTON said that, although the
.house was
these absurdities the result would be indifferentto the world.
But we cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that, as far as
late, yet, considering the importance of the subject before
them, they had better proceed. He had no objection to the
first part of the amendment of his hon.- friend the member
for Kidderminster, which merely recited a fact, but he ob- such a speech has any force at all, that force is used either
Peace more difficult to be
jetted to tbe second portion of the amendment for the same to prolong the war by rendering
sonaetfur purchased at the expense
as he had done to that of the right hon, gentleman attained, or by causing peace to be
reason
echo
oe
but well
in
Ilk
the
ew
indignationtha that the member for Buckinghamshire, because it contained a of the honour of the Allies, Here, among the people of Eng-
ta unnatural
ea
country.spee e h willa
le of interference with the prerogative of the
ilnaendee,
princip
I Crown.
• Sir J. GRAHAM observed that be had voted against the public see to what shifts the -- partisans of moo-at-any-price
Whenw a 1 theeawaken

Lord J. RUSSELL—I never used the word " protec
torate." (Cheers.)

Mr.DISRAELI—I have the papers by me. I believe the
word is " protection." (Cheerefrom the Opposition.) What
difference is there between these words ? I say that in the
treaties no protection whatever was granted to Russia. Is
this quibbling between the words "protection" and " pro-
tectorate" to save the noble lord ? I say that when Russia
found the claims for which she had not the shadow of a
basis were in this despatch acknowledged, sanctioned, and
granted by the English Minister, her course was clear.
(Cheers, and cries of "Divide, divide.") I say that when
the Plenipotentiary went to Vienna he commenced the
negotiations by another admission equally fatal to the in-
terests of this country. (Divide.) The noble lord says
because I criticised the conduct of a Plenipotentiary in
the most awful service that a man could possibly be en-
gaged in, because I showed that he was utterly incompetent
for that service, arid by his conduct has achieved great
disaster for his country, I have degraded the debate—de-
graded the debate on a question of peace and war mainly
dependent upon the conduct of the noble lord. I will not
quarrel with that. I will leave it for the country to decide
on this point whether I have done my duty or not. The
noble lord says I have degraded the debate. At least I
have tried to do this—to prevent the noble lord from de-
grading his country. (Cheers.)
The house then divided upon Mr. Disraeli's motion. The
numbers were—
For the motion
Against it,.