The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-16 00:00:00

STIPULATIONS RESPECTING TERMS OF PEACE

Mr. OT WAY—I rise to ask the noble lord at the head
of the Government the question of which I have given no-
tice, and though I am anxious not to delay the interesting
discussion about to take place, still, after having formally
given notice of my question, I feel bound to ask it. The
noble viscount has stated in the house that in February
last certain right hon. gentlemen who were lately eminent
members of his Government, stipulated as to the condi-
tions of peace, and more especially as to one which should
be asked of Russia. I should be trifling with the house to
suppose that those stipulations could have been made with
any other view than that of favouring Russia, for those
who have had the pain of listening to the speeches of the
right hon. members for Carlisle and the University of Ox-
ford must be aware that any stipulations as to the condi-
tions of peace made by them could have had no other ob-
ject than that of being favourable to our enemy.
Mr. GLADSTONE—Sir, I rise to order. (Hear.) You
have heard the language which has fallen from the hon.
member. He has stated that nothing stated or stipulated
by my right hon. friend or myself with reference to the
terms of peace could have had any object but that of being
favourable to our enemy. I put it to you whether that
language is such as falls within the rules of discussion in
this house? (Hear.)
The SPEAKER—It is not within the rules—(hear,
hear)—for it is attributing to hon. members that which is
traitorous.

Mr. OTWAY—I regret very much, Sir, that anything I
have said could be thought to impute such conduct as you
have described to the right hon. gentleman, for nothing was
further from my intention than to say that the right hon.
members had been guilty of treason. I conceived that the
tenour of their speeches must have led all hon. members to
suppose that any stipulations madeby them could be viewed
in no other light than that of their being favourable to
Russia. I think it must be conceded that that was their
intention, from the remarks which have fallen from the
noble viscount ; and that being the case, it cannot but be
thought that the noble viscount considered them proper
conditions, for the noble viscount and the right hon. gen-
tlemen were sitting foi nearly two years in the same Cabinet,
and were fully cognisant of each other's views as to the
terms and conditions of peace. I think this a grave matter
for consideration, and it is a sorry proof of the harmony
which was said to have existed in the Government of the
noble lord ; and if these right hon. gentlemen had so little
confidence in their chief I think it would have been far
better if they had notjoined his Government. In the struggle
in which we are engaged we have allies, and I should like to
know whether they were made aware of the stipulations of
the right hon. gentlemen ? Supposing that the conditions
referred to Sebastopol—and I think it not unlikely that they
did—what could be more natural than to suppose that our
allies, deeming the rebuilding or destruction of that fortress
most important, Should be desirous of imposing certain
conditions with reference to this fortress, concerning
which the right hon. gentlemen may have stipulated with
the noble lord. The same remarks will apply to
Bomarsund, and I ask if our allies were not made aware
of the stipulations of the right hon. gentlemen, what be-
comes of our alliance ? There are many other considera-
tions which call for positive inquiry into these proceed-
ings, with reference to which I consider the noble lord's
conduct was neither statesmanlike nor patriotic. There
are further considerations connected with the subject with
which I will not trouble the house, for the right hon. gen-
lemon have seceded from the Government of the noble
lord, and the fatal influence which they exercised with re-
gard to the conduct of the war no longer paralyses his ac-
tions. I will ask the noble viscount—and I do it in no
spirit of hostility, but because I think that, after the
statement he has made, it is due to the house to have a
clear and intelligible reply on this subject, and• because I
think the conditions which we are to demand should be
qualified by the successes of war—whether he is bound by
the stipulations of February last, and whether he is pre-
pared to counsel his Sovereign and our somewhat forgotten
allies to offer such terms as he considers will prevent the
aggression of Russia for the future, and secure a safe and
honourable peace? (Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—However natural may be the
desire of the hon. member to have a full explanation in
this matter, I am sure—at least I am confident— that the
house will concur with me in thinking that it would be ex-
ceedingly unbecoming in me to enter fully into this ques-
tion. (Hear.) 411 I shall state is this—and I trust it will

be sufficient for the hon. member and the house. My right
hen. friends who have lately ceased to be members of my
Government, when they were considering proposals made
by me that they should join my Government, very natu-
rally and very properly desired to come to a clear under-
standing with me as to any point of difference of opinion
which they thought might afterwards arise, and I think in
so doing they did that which was due to themselves and
to me. (Hear, hear.) There was one point on which
they required information, and that was whether it was
the intention of the Government then forming to make
a .sine qua non of peace. I stated, by the mutual friend
through whom the communication was made, that the
demand was not one of those which the Government was at
that time entitled to make a sine qua non of peace, and that
it was not my intention to propose it as such. It has been
declared in repeated communications made by this Govern-
ment, and that of France and of Austria, and by them to
Russia, that the conditions of peace would depend on the
events of the war; and that which may at one time have
been a condition which the sou. try was not entitled to
make, yet under altered circumstances may become so. I
hope that the house will consider what I have said in reply
to the hon. member to be sutfisient, and will agree with
me in thinking that I ought not to go into details on this
subject. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. DISR,AELI—It is, no doubt, of the utmost import-
ance that there should be a complete understanding between
the members of a Government. The house has no right to
ask for more than a general exposition of the main princi-
ple on which a government is formed. It has no right to
inquire into all the conditions which may have taken place
between the several members of the Government. But
when in a debate of the magnitude of that which has
taken place the members of the Government specifically
referred to a particular stipulation and condition assented
to by the noble lord who remains at the head of the Go-
vernment, her Majesty's Ministers must not be surprised
at such a question as that asked by the hon. member. It
is perfectly legitimate, Parliamentary, and constitutional,
and her Majesty's Ministers must have expected an inquiry
would be made after the specific allusion made by them to
these stipulations. (Hear, hear.) I should not have riven,
but I thought the tone of the noble lord's reply implied
that the inquiry was improper ; but, as I have said, after
what has taken place, he must have expected that such an
inquiry would be made.
Mr. GLADSTONE—Sir, I should not have risen to
claim your protection against the language used by the
hon. member—language which I do not think he has
abandoned, as he might have done—had I not felt justified
in so doing. I agree, however, with what has fallen from
the right hon. member (Mr. Disraeli), and do not think
that the slightest blame is to be attributed to the hon.
member for making this inquiry. I feel a good deal em-
barrassed both by the question and the subject it has re-
ference to ; for it appears to me, in a question of this kind,
one of two courses ought to be pursued. The House of
Commons ought either to know nothing or everything.
For my part, as far as my personal and strong inclination
and earnest desire go, I wish that my noble friend, if he
felt it consistent with his public duty, after having made
reference to this subject, could have felt himself at liberty,
to proceed, and have laid before the house all the informa-
tion in his power ; for I am certain that the effect of these
partial references with information jealously and stintedly
given—going up to a certain point and then stopped short
by the plea of official reserve—cannot but be mischievous
to all the parties concerned. (Hear, hear.) lam not in a
condition to press for the information beyond express-
ing my personal inclination and desire that it should
be given, but the public interest must rule all the de-
cisions in questions of this character. With regard to
myself—and I do not, presume to speak for any one but my-
self—but for myself I beg leave to say that I am not aware
that I have at any time, either directly or indirectly, by
myself or through others, put a question to my noble friend
with reference to the anticipated conditions of treaty with
Russia, for this reason—l was not aware that any dif-
ference of opinion existed between us as to those condi-
tions, or that any such difficulty would arise. In thus
speaking for myself, and"not admitting that I was a party
to any question of the kind, I do not wish to be understood
as making any assertion on behalf °tiny right hon. friend
the member for Carlisle ; it is for my right hon. friend
himself to state, if he thinks fit, the part which he took.
As far a
far as I am concerned, no communication to which I
party
re hadi reference to any particular stipulation,
term,
statediti of peace with Russia. I hope I have
explicitly
my
nothing An, the woerslpdecipa
own inclination to the house. I
leeply regret the
position in which this question stands.
I sincerely wish,
allsyse
din
baetcase like thigh,
lwhlerde
and my right hona.frie.nonedeuxcept what was perefecntely feraonrk,
and b.
straightforward, table upon all sides, that, after