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

•
hnutteda
ambas-
sador of
. as
personally concerned. There was
toe
whose
einagnbiilsihtieeds
nobleman, now no more—a man
very scant
pbujtice was done
wi n his
ap;
m
uslicservice_b u was
moved, praying the Crown not to sanction that appoint-
sador to his Majesty. An address to the Crown was
appoint-
ment. The right hon. gentleman supported that address.
But did the Government resign because Lord London-
derry was made ambassador at St. Petersburg ? No.
It was considered a vote of censure for a specific object.
I could multiply instances of this kind, but will not do so
at this late hour. It is quite clear that a vote of censure
for specific acts and a vote of want of confidence are per-
fectly contrary, and the house was justified, if it thought
that the charge I made was a just charge, in voting for
that motion, and the Government would not be justified
in resigning office, and that is a position which I think
every one will be ready to admit. I will say nothing more
of the amendment of the right hen. member for Ports-
mouth. It was a case of felo de se. He has himself finished
it to-night, and therefore I will come to the more im-
portant motion of the right hon. member for Kiddermin-
ster. Technically speaking, that motion is an amendment,
because, unless it had been put as an amendment to my
motion, it could not have been introduced to the
house,' But it is, in fact, in itself a complete proposition.
It is this, in effect, that in consequence of Russiahaving
refused to reduce the Black Sea fleet the means of nego-
tiation are exhausted so far as the third point is concerned,
and therefore we are called upon to rally round our
Sovereign and support her in the war, It, in fact, calls
on the house to announce that, unless Russia will reduce
her fleet in the Black Sea negotiation is not to be
sanctioned so far as the opinion of the House of Com-
mons is concerned. Well now, what happened when the
division upon my motion took place' The noble lord,
who is not only the leader of the house, but also the
First Minister of the Crown, and moreover a man pre-
eminently versed in foreign politics, and perfectly aware
of the importance of the issue in question, selected this
motion of the member for Kidderminster. He said, " I
discard the clumsy assistance offered by the member for
Portsmouth, and of the many amendments before me I
select that of the hon. member for Kidderminster as the
one to which I give my adhesion, and on which I will
take the sense of the house," and in order that there
might be no mistake, he rose again on the motion for the
adjournment of the debate, and said, " The real question
we have to decide is the conduct of the negotiations by
her Majesty's Government at the conferences at Vienna."
Now I admit that the noble lord did on that occasion
say, that he would only agree to that part of the amend-
ment which " regretted that owing to the refusal of Rus-
sia to restrict the strength of her navy in the Black Sea;"
and that there he would stop, and that he would not
agree to that part of the amendment which went on to
declare that the means of coming to an agreement on
the third point were thereby exhausted. But what was
the reason given by the noble lord why he could not
agree to the latter part of the resolution I Of course it
could not be that the means of negotiation were not then
exhausted, because the noble lord was no doubt then
aware that the conferences at Vienna were closed, and
that the means of negotiation were exhausted. He there-
fore did not insist on that—but taking up a random ex-
pression of mine in reply—and really I think express-
sions in reply should not be noticed—that that part of
the amendment of the hon. member for Kidderminster
was unconstitutional, the noble lord said that it was de-
cidedly unconstitutional, and that therefore he could not
agree to it. Unfortunately on that occasion I re-echoed
an opinion I had heard from the highest authorities in
this house—some of whom are still living, while others
have left us—that it is an interference with the preroga-
tive for the house to express an opinion as to the terms
on which peace should be obtained or war waged. There
are several opinions that have been going about the
house for some time equally popular and equally un-
founded. (A. laugh.) The hon. member for Leominster
has to-night vindicated the constitutional principle, and
if it was necessary to enforce his arguments or add to
the facts he cited, I could easily show that nothing is
more certain than that it is the privileee and the duty of
the House of Commons on proper occasions to advise her
Majesty as to the terms upon which they should nego-
tiate peace, or the objects for which she should carry on
war. I think, therefore, that the house may assume
that the solitary reason which the noble lord gave for
not supporting the motion of the hon. member for Kidder-
minster has no foundation. But if it had any foun-
' &tic n, it is not of the slightest consequence to the ques-
ion before the house. Because if the house, adopting
merely the first part of that motion, address the Crown,
declaring. that in consequence of Russia having refused
to restrict her naval force in the Black Sea, we feel it
our deity to rally round the Throne and support her in
Vie war, the only deduction is that we have mule that
condition a sine qux non in our negotiations. (Hear.)
I say then that the question before the house is neither
an obscure nor an insignificant one. On the contrary, the
decision of the House of Commons to-night is: of vital
importance, and I would really venture with the ut•
mos; sircerity to impress on • the house the nature of
the subject hey are now called on to investigate, and
di cuss. Let me remind them that there is a great dif-
ference I-etwcen onestions of domestic and questions of
foreign policy. The power of a majority of the House
of Commons is omnipotent so far as domestic questions
are concerned. A minister by their aid may support un-
ju t laws and uphold a political system which a quarter
of a century arterwards may be condemned by the aid of
another Parhamentar r majority. The passions and the
or -.indices of p trty spirit that flourish in a free country
may supnc rt nd uphold him in the course which he is
ta':ins. But when we come to foreign politics things are
very different. Every step you take is irretrievable, and
the conseetzencee of your conduct are immediate and pal-
pable. If you make a mistake in foreign affairs, enter
into unwise treaties, conduct campaigns on vicious prir-
ciples ; if the scope and tendency of your foreign system
is founded on want of information or false information,
offering no clear idea of what are your objects or your
means of obtainine• then), there is no majority of the
Hoilee of Commons that can support a Government
under such circumstances. (Hear, hear.) A majority
under such circemstanees will not make a government
stronger, hot will make this horse weaker. Therefore,
entreat the house very carefully to consider the course
they are taking, lest while they are only supporting their
own political friends they should injure the country ;
and that when they cheer over a majority as they
the red the other evening, the day may be coming,
and that rapidly, when they will remember that cheer
with confusion and shame. (Oh, oh.) I beg the house
to consider how the house has been treated by the Go-
vernment during this debate. Last night we were ad-
dressed at considerable length on topics of high interest
by a late colleague of the First Minister of the Crown,
and by the hon. member for Manchester, who always,
and especially on questions of peace and war, addresses
this house with great power, and in a manner which de-
mands great attention ; but no Cabinet Minister rose to
reply to that speech. To-night another right hon.
gentleman, also a colleague of the noble lord, addressed
the house, and that, too, in a vein which required
some response. A right hon. friend of mine
also gave to the house the results of as deep
and as fine a study of these diplomatic documents that
have confused Europe and complicated the subject as the
human intellect is capable of. Now, although no one re-
spects more than I do the talents of the Attorney-
General, and of the Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant,
who have conducted the debate to-night on the part of
the Government. yet they are not Cabinet Ministers,
are not acquainted with the subjects on which we want
information, and cennot speak with authority on the
points on hich we require to have some knowledge.
Take the inquiry addressed to the Government by my
right hon. friend the member for Midhurst. He asked
when we might expect to Faye delivered to us that mes-
sage from the Crown which, for the purpose of influ-
encing the debate, was announced to us by the Secre-
tary of State, the late plenipotentiary at Vienna—the
announcement being corroborated by the First Minister
of the Crown, but which we have never received. It
certainly was very natural in my right hon. friend to
ask when we might expect to receive that communication.
No Cabinet Minister rose to give the house the necessary
information. Five nights have passed of a debate on
the most important question that could be imagined, in
which some of the most distinguished men in the house
have taken part, and no Cabinet Minister has con-
descended to rise. That does appear to be a mode of
treating the house not sanctioned by custom. There
m ofanrtiescpi
slesebus a
uldduefincit ebnac,Te
peacttedtofwrnamrdstbtehneuhboleuslenrwdhainchd
his colleagues. The coalition no longer exists, but it is
not to be supposed that administrative ability and de-
bating power have both receded to below the gangway,
therefore I think that the house had a right to expect that
some Cabinet Minister—the First of the Admiralty, for
instance—would have condescended to address it. If
the house thinks it right to declare that the limitation
of the Russian fleet should be a sine qua non
of peace, it ought to adopt the resolution of the hon.
member for Kidderminster. I am opposed to that re-
solution, not merely because I think it unadvisable that
the house should, in this crude and hasty manner, assent
to a proposition so untenable, and, at least, so important,
but because I think that the proposition ought never to
have been made, and is essentially inefficient. Our
object at present is to check, to control, to diminish, if
possible to destroy, what is called the preponderance of
Russia against Turkey. That preponderance is not
limited to the Black Sea. Of the three quarters from
which Turkey may be menaced by Russia —the Danube,
Asia, and the Black Sea—the Black Sea is the one
which is least to be feared for. The proposition of the
noble lord and the Government only pretends to meet
the difficulties and dangers which may arise from the
Russian preponderance in the Black Sea. I deny that
Russia has, ever had, or ever can have, the power to
send an army with the necessary cavalry, artillery, and
means of transport to any port on the Turkish coasts in
in the Black Sea. On the second night of the debate a
learned sergeant talked of the great expedition of a
Russian army to Unkiar Skelessi, which he estimated at
5.000 men. I think the number was nearer 10,000 or
12,000, but the transport cf that small force took all the
power of Russia, facilitated by the Turks, who were
most anxious to receive the Russians. All that Russia
could under any circumstances do she did in 1828, when
she disembarked forces at Scezcpoli and Bourgae. Those
armies had no power of moving, and could have-no effect,
except in making, to a certain extent, a military diver-
sion in favour of Russia, which was then invading Turkey
frontthe Danube. There is only one point of the coast on
_o which Turkey could be assailed, and that is the Bosphorus.
d I not pretend to say that the command of the sea
is not a great nava twar with
Turkey, as enablingammunition to her
her to transport stores, arms, and
tage, and one not
rtr?ops, but that is a limited advan-
at the nature of decisive as to the result of a war. Look
theand reciprocall limitation of the naval
forces of Turkey
tain number of ships in hutssia. Turkey is to have a cer-
number in the Bosphorus. Russia,
Sea, and an unlimited
litpulassia. is to have only a
limited number of ship,,
thein
ek
as many as she likes at Nicolaieff, Sea,
but may build
wships. I have seen them floated then
%roe stile builds all her
o Sebastopol in