The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENIING, JULY- 17, 1855

or still the voice of conscience. Does he think that men
of common sense can endure—does he think that this Eng-
lish Parliament would have accepted, and that this Chris-
tian people would have endorsed, a bill drawn upon human
life on fraudulent pretences ? Some may think that war
is wholly unnecessary; but those who hold that war is
necessary, and that no honourable peace could be obtained
upon the bases proposed, have a right to call upon the
country to make every sacrifice of its blood and treasure.
Well, then, can any excuse of Cabinet compromisesjustify
the reasoning of the statesman who was sent forth to
negotiate a peace, but who feeds the flames of war with the
very olive branches which he hasbrought back? (Cheers.)
I say this more in sorrow than in anger. But is this the
noble lord who well, in some respects, deserved thosecheers
which greeted shim when he sat down? Is it you, the noble
lord whose labours and whose genius have so honoured
your name so that we feel every stain upon it as a national
calamity ? Is it you who have taken from the people of
England power and dignityfor twenty years—who holding
office as a Minister of the Crown, call upon your coun-
trymen to send their children to a slaughter which you
deem unnecessary, and advise your Sovereign to jeopardise
her sceptre rather than endanger that feeble and ragged
thing called a Government--(Great cheering)—and which
the noble lord told us last Friday week we ought
to be the more tender of because it had lost the favour
of the people? Why, sir, the noble lord said that the
executive was weakened by popular distrust ; and I tell
the noble viscount and the Government that the weak-
ness and the distrust both arise from that belief in
your insincerity and vacillating purpose, of which oil
Thursday last the most signal proof was the appearance of
the noble lord upon that bench (the ministerial). The noble
lord complained that our councils were unstable. Why,
sir, how could they help being unstable when the noble lord
represented in the cabinet the very element of instability
in his own person ? The noble lord rebuked the people for
their distrust of public men, while, in the same breath, he
told them on Friday week he held office upon a question
that involved his duty to the public service. The noble
lord then said, " See the circumstances of the time. Will
yon make two abstract bases—one of peace and ono of war?"
No, sir ; I say that the circumstances of the time require
either peace in earnest or war in earnest. And I say. you
cannot have peace in earnest if our negotiator accept terms
upon one day, and shrink from the responsibility of ad-
hering to his opinions on the next. With what face can
the Government appeal to the ardour of the people so
song as the noble lord remained in office to paralyse, by
his acknowledged sentiments, the war which he has sanc-
tioned by his official vote? But the noble lord said, "I
am misrepresented ; it is rot because I thought this peace
safe, honourable, or expedient, on the Ist of May, when
I brought those proposals back from Vienna—it is not be-
cause I still think that at that time peace might be safe,
honourable, or expedient, that I am bound to think so
now." Now, I believe that that is the argument of the
noble lord, and then, said the noble lord on Friday week,
in a tone so languid that it might have disheartened
Achilles, that he believed the only chance of peace was iu
a vigorous prosecution of the war. Does not the noble
lord, in effect, say, that though the expression of his opin-
ions here may disqualify him from being a member of a
peace administration, yet that it did not in the slightest
degree affect his position as a Minister of the Government
pledged to the carrying on of the war ? If, however, the
noble lord tells us that the object of the war could have
been attained in May, it is in vain that he appeals to the
military ardour of tha people of July. What progress would a
recruiting serjeant make through the country when he ad-
dressed the people with some such language as this—
" Come and fight, my boys, for your Queen and country.
Think of Alma and Balaklava. Never was there a better
cause for your support. Think of this glorious result—
that if Russie shall hereafter be at liberty to send eight,
ships of war to the Black Sea, England shall have the pri-
vilege of sending four." (Laughter.) Now, I say, that
when a minister so recently as May had approved of the
principle of the Austrian peace propositions, he is not a
fit minister to carry on the war in July. What are the
reasons which rendered in the noble lord's mind peace
honourable and expedient in May, which are not equally
good in favour of such a peace in July? Sir, I deprecate
this sliding scale of homicide, which is attracted by every
fluctuation in the market of life. (Hear, hear.) Bat, as
I understood the noble lord, he said that in the position
in which England and Franco was, he did not thick he
would be acting prudently in resigning. Now, that
is the reason why I think that the noble lord could
not remain in office with advantage to that unity of coun-
cil whisk was so necessary in the direction of the war.
The noble lord's continuance in office had, in fact, en-
dangered the alliance, by placing our councils at variance
with those of France. The Emperor of the French had re-
jected his Minister for the expression of thessame opinions,
while the noble lord still retained his office. That Sove-
reign said that he held Austria imperatively bound in her
engagement to share in hostilities ; but the noble lord some
days ago said he considered that Austria might be excused
from hr fulfilment of the engagement. So long as the noble
lord remained in the Cabinet he might be looked upon as
the Minister upon whom Russia founds her excuse, Austria
her justification, France her dissension, and England her
condemnation, in respect to tlse war. I understood the
noble viscount on Thursday last to say that the Govern-
ment were prepared to stand or fall together. The principle
that said that one Minister of the Cabinet does not stand
alone—that all were equally worthy of praise or censure
—applied with still greater force to the present
case ; because the house will remember that when those
negotiations were under discussieu on a former evening
the noble viscount expressed his cordial approval of the
conduct and ability of our negotiator. The noble viscount
still farther identified himself with the opinions of his
noble colleague, by taking upon himself the responsibility
of declining to accept the resignation of the noble lord.
The house, end the country too, will recollect that the
noble viscount had treated this vital difference upon a
question of peace and war with as much lightness as a
disagreement upon the details of a petty beer bill. Now,
I will take the liberty of telling the noble viscount that
there are two parties in this house who have some reason
to think that the aspect of sincerity does not bear a
prominent place as respects the part he took in these
transactions. The house will remember that immediately
upon the formation of this Cabinet the noble viscount gave
a pledge, in answer to a question from the right hon.
baronet the member for Carlisle, that he would adhere
to the foreign policy of Lord Aberdeen. Well, those who
consider that that policy wanted the requisite vigour have
a right to complain that ho had given a pledge contrary to
the expectations of those who assisted in raising him to his
present elevated position. On the other hand, those dis-
tinguished adherents of Lord Aberdeen's Government have
some right to complain that the noble viscount had given
a pledge rather too lightly, when they see him reject terms
which his own envoy, who left the Aberdeen government
from the want of vigour in the administration of the War
Department, had not only assented to, bat promised to
support in the Cabinet with all his power. Sir, I have
looked carefully through this correspondence now before
us, and I confess my astonishment is increased that
the noble lord did not resign his office as Minister of
the Crown within a week after his return with his pro-
positions from Vienna. This correspondence, also, I feel,
justifies my• continued distrust in the Government in
consenting to act with the noble lord in the councils of
the Crown. Those papers show also that during the lat-
ter period of the negotiations at Vienna the noble lord
was at direct variance with the noble earl onr Minister for
Foreign Affairs ; and that the noble lord had agreed to a
peace founded ou a basis which the noble earl the Minister
for Foreign Affairs had declared to be inadmissible, im-
practicable, and dishonourable. (Hear, hear.) To the very
first suggestion of the noble lord—which was called an
Austrian proposal, but which, in fact, emanated from our
English envoy—Lord Clarendon writes word, on the 18th
April :—" We think that the limitation of the Russian
fleet should be absolute, and that it would bo made too
conditional by the plan which you propose. ' We must avoid
as much as possible the system of counterpoise, the objec-
tions to which you have explained folly to the Austrian
Government." Well, then, what does the noble lord do ?
Why, the noble lord matures that plan that was considered
so objectionable,and bases it upon the principle of a counter-
poise. He does not return from Vienna until he has pro-
mised the Austrian minister to introduce this proposal to
his cabinet when he returns to London. The noble viscount
who succeeded Lord Aberdeen in the government, on the
express ground that all dissension upon the question of
peace or war should cease, deems that dissension in the ca-
binet of no consequence so long as it is concealed ; and
when it is found out he declares that the concealment of
the opinion of the noble lord is highly becoming the con-
duct and the elevated position of his noble friend. (Hear.)
Now, I am quite willing to accord the Government all
the praise which they are entitled to claim. lam willing
to my, so far as Lord Clarendon is concerned, that there
is a frank, hearty, and English tone in all his despatches.
Lord Clarendon, however, represents himself alone ; but
the noble viscount, as Chief Minister, represents the en-
tire cabinet. If the noble viscount is acting in concert
with Lord Clarendon I ask how can he express his cordial
approval of the conduct of his negotiator ? This fact ap-
pears to roe to be marvellously suspicious. No one can
doubt that the noble viscount must have been sufficiently
anxious for the success of those negotiations to have
sought for e, letter from the noble lord while those nego-
tiations were Pending at Vienna. Now, in the whole of
the correspondence before us, I do not see a single letter
from the noble viscount. (Heath) Of course I may be told
that the noble earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was
the proper
person with whom the noble lord should corres-
pond. But I will tell the noble viscount that I think that
he would be acting more fairly to the country, and more
justly to himself, if he did not so rigidly adhere to this war
military routine, and had written some letters for the pur-
pose of relieving or confirming the perplexed consciences of
his noble friends. (Cheers.) Now, throughout all these
complicated transactions, I will venture to say, that not
one man in the country has ever suspected the sincerity of
Lord Clarendon—while I am afraid that there are some
persons ill-natured enough to suspect that of the noble vis-
count. (Hear.) By the exhibition of a little more candour,
the noble viscount would have gone far to justify himself
and to strengthen his Government. But here is a
still
more important fact. The Earl of Westmoreland commu-
nicates to the English Government the last Austrian pro-
pc, which was received in London on the 19th of May.
Now Lord Clarendon almost invariably answers communi-
cations on the following day It,
however, they are received by him.
• appears that the noble earl does not answer this
communication until 10 ,days afterwards, namely, the 29th
of May. What occurred in the interval ? Why from the
hesitating tone of the English Government, and more espe-
cially of the noble viscount, my right hon. friend the mem-
ber for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) was induced to
bring forward a motion upon the ambiguity- of their lan-
guage and the uncertainty of their conduct. During those
10 days ministers were deliberating upon those proposals in
their cabinet. We, too, were discussing
the resolutionsof
my right hon. friend in Parliament. And Lord Clarendon
was instructed not to reply to Count L'uors propositions
until you (the Government) had ascertained the sense of the
House of Cotomons. The judgment of the house being
taken, it left the Government no option but to continue the
war. With those facts before us I think it is a fair in-
ference that the noble lord (Russell) does not hie, et alone in
his opinions in the Government, and that Lord Clarendon
is not the spokesman for the entire Cabinet. (Dear.) It
was not until the temper of the House of Commons com-
pelled you to renounce that ambiguity of language and un-
certainty of conduct that those Austrian proposals were
rejected. Now the noble lord has misunderstood something
I said upon a former occasion, in regard to the Austrian
alliance. On that occasion I made a distinction between
the alliance of Austria and the friendship of Austria. I
said that I was desirous of the friendship of Austria, but
that I did not care for her alliance. At this moment I
would really rather be without it. In the first instance, I
believe that such an alliance would necessarily produce a
schism between England and France. Even now, Austria,
as a mediator, makes a proposal of peace, which France
rejects and which makes' you hesitate—the mere enter-
taining the thong ht of 'which almost broke-up the Govern-
ment. Now, suppose the same thing to occur again whop
Austria was our ally, with power to raise her voice in the
general councils of the united nations. Suppose, then,
that France accepts this Austrian proposal. Suppose that
the English people would not allow the British Govern-
ment to accept them. You would, under such °intim-
eau°, fulfil the prediction of the hen: member for the
West ridiDg York3hire (14 Cobden), ynu,iyuuld 'And

alone in the struggle, with the loss ofthefriendship
Austria and France, and with exhausted finances.
think
the most effective course we could pursue, and the one
most conducive to the future tranquillity of Europe, would
be if we could convince the world that England and France
united in arms are quite sufficient to prevent the aggression
of Russia. But if you lay down the doctrine that these
powers are not sufficient without the aid of Austria and
all the combined states of Europe against Russia, then I
say that your success, however glorious, would not tend
to weaken the temporal power of Russia. She would
still say to the world at large, and to future ages, " I
think I have shown that England and France united are
unable to compete with me in arms ; it required the com-
bined powers of all Europe to retrain my ambition within
certain bounds. Such a combination cannot, however,
occur again ; it was but momentary, but my ambition is
eternal." (Hear, hear.) I would simply repeat what I
said on a former occasion. I value the friendship of Aus-
tria. I would even be indulgent to her weakness. I
would not entrap her into an engagement. I would not
take a single step to bring about an alliance with her, un-
less I felt that she could embark in it with a hearty sense
of her own interests. If, however, you desire to have
Austria neither your ally nor your friend, surely you
could not have taken a better course to effect that object
than to allow a member of the Cabinet to promise her his
support tof her indefinite proposal for peace, and to re-
main, nevertheless, in office, and to advise his Sove-
reign to reject such proposal with disdain. (Hear, hear.)
One thing, however, is clear ; we cannot have war while
such negotiations are going on—we cannot allow the great 1
name of England to be frittered away by such a vacil-
lating policy. (Hear, hear.) Let ushave peace even upon
Austrian terms, sand let us hope ,that the energies of
our commerce may atone for the failure of our ar.ns ;
or let the ministers and the people be with one heart and
one soul to carry on this war to a speedy and triumphant
end, by the earnestness of our purpose and the worthiness
of our preparations. Well, then, I ask whether Lord Cla-
rendon is the spokesman of a united cabinet? I should like
to hear the expression of opinion an the part of other mem-
bers of the Cabinet besides the noble viscount. There are
gentlemen in the Government who have not as yet expressed
their opinion upon the nature of the war or the proposi-
tions for peace. What are the opinions of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer? What are the opinions of the First Lord
of the Admiralty ? Are all the members of the Govern-
ment united upon this subject? Again, I ask, is Lord
Clarendon the spokesman of a united Cabinet ? If so, I
am glad of it ; but yon told ns the same in the month of
May last, when we now know that the noble lord (Rus-
sell) was dividing your councils, and when it is our
impression, and that of the country, that the noble lord
did not stand alone in those opinions. (Hear, hear.) lam
willing to give you all the benefit of the doubt. The noble
lord's retirement from office has so far effected my object ;
but he must pardon sue for saying that I do not think he
has at all cancelled what I call his errors. The noble lord's
retirement has at least prevented for a time those errors
increasing in the public service. There is something, how-
-1 ever, which I think ought to be more precious than any
peace, and more glorious than any war—l mean that high
standard of public integrity, without which nations,
though mighty, may rot, and with which all enemies may
be defied. On Friday week he heard reasons given to
justify the expediency of dissimulation. It is for us to say
that we, the representatives of the people—l certainly
do not desire to claim a triumph for either party—it is
we, I say, who have combined to raise the standard of
public integrity to that proper height to which even the
enemies of England admit her right to raise it. Now, in
asking leave to withdraw my motion, allow me to con-
gratulate the house upon having successfully asserted
those vital elements of all free goverments which
are nearly lost from our national councils. The house has
maintained its character in the recognition of the' principle
of public virtue, which should influence the actions of
public men on all occasions, and which declares that no cy-
nical audacity shall give the lie to our convictions. All the
objects we have had in view have been effected, except the
party object of the change of one government for another
that may corns later. I trust that even a change of govern-
ment would be viewed as comparatively trivial compared
with the great object of a vigorous prosecution of the war.
I am williug that the government should not be removed,
but I warn them that they will be under a much more vi-
gilant.surveillance of public opinion. It remains to be seen
yet whether the sacrifice of a man who has hitherto been
trusted by his country and revered even by his opponents,
until in an evil hour, when on two previous occasions he
might have , etired from office with honour, you induced
him to consult your tempurary interests rather than flee
dignity of his own imperishable name, it remains to
be seen whether that sacrifice has clearly removed the
only obstacle to the earnestness of your purposes and the
unity of your councils. (Cheers.)
Mr. BOUVERIE—I am not going to follow the hon.
baronet into the subject of his motion, now departed into
thin air. But there is a matter personal to myself, and
with which my name has been connected in reference to
recent transactions, which has given me much pain. I
trust, therefore, that the house will permit me in a few
sentences to justify myself on what I cannot but conceive
to be a matter affecting my personal character, in con-
nection with the retirement of the noble lord. The state-
ment is that on the part of a number of my colleagues, not
in the Cabinet, I represented to the noble lord that we
were prepared to resign our offices rather than oppose the
motion of the hon. baronet. (Hear.) Sir, so far as lam
concerned, I beg to state most fully and decidedly that
that is not only not an accurate representation of the
fact, but that it is the very reverse of the fact.
In spite of the criticisms of the hon. baronet, I still believe
in the integrity, the honour, and the sagacity of my noble
friend. And if in matters of recent occurrence, I'might be
disposed to question the accuracy of his judgment, still I
hope the house will permit me to say that the glory of all
which the noble lord has done for his country may have the
effect of preventing me seeing those specks which might be
said by others to blemish his fair fame. Apart from all po-
litical attachment to the noble lord, I am not ashamed to
confess a strong personal attachment to the noble lord. I
feel I should be unworthy of that friendship with which
the noble lord has honoured me if I were found amongst
the number of those who, we are told, swarm in times of
prosperity, but who fall away in the period of adversity.
The past which I took in these transactions was this : I
was aware that there was a strong impression amongst
many of my colleagues that the sense of the country
and the house was so strong against the noble lord that
it was idle for them to contend against the motion of
the honourable baronet. I was aware that a representa-
tion was likely to be addressed to the noble viscount at
the head of the Government upon the subject. I, how-
ever, refused to be a party to any such representation, on
the distinct ground of my personal attachment to my noble
friend. At the same time I stated, that as a friend of the
noble lord I was ready, however painful it must be, to in-
form the noble lord of the general impression that existed
among my colleagues. (Laughter.) I was not aware, in
pursuing that course, that I was acting any bat the part of
a true friend of the noble lord. (Great laughter.) I was
doing that which was most painful to myself, but I felt I
was only discharging the duty which I owed to my noble
friend. I endeavoured to discharge that duty to the best
of my ability, and I am satisfied that my noble friend fully
appreciates the motives and the friendship which prompted
me to undertake such an office. (Cheers and laughter.)
Viscount PALMERSTON—Sir, the resolution to which
the hon. baronet has come does as much credit to his dis-
cretion as his eloquence generally does honour to his
talents. But, at the same time, lam bound to say that I
never heard a speech more full of inconsistencies. (Cheers.)
In the first place, while the speech of my noble friend the
member for London was still ringing in the hon. baronet's
ears—a speech in which my noble friend stated, that though
he had certainly entertained certain views as regarded the
propositions for peace on his return from Vienna, yet that
a few days after his return events had occurred, and cir-
cumstances had taken place, which provedithat the plan for
that purpose which he had believed to be practicable in
Vienna was practicable no longer, and this being so, that
, he was prepared to concur with his colleagues in the Go-
vernment in the vigorous prosecution of the war—the hon.
baronet, I say, with this fresh in his memory, goes on ar-
guing as if the contrary was the fact—that my noble friend
from that day to this night has acted as if he still enter-
tained opposite opinions on the subject to those which he
has expressed and acted on, and proceeds upon an assumption
which he must know to be whollygroundlesa, if his memory
is worth ten minutes' duration, to make it a charge against
my noble friend, and the foundation of a speech against
the Government. lam astonished, sir, that any hon. gen-
tleman should take such a course. And yet, forsooth, the
hon. baronet is the man to stand up on the question of sin-
own(Cheers
and part,
sin-
cerity. On that point I give the hon. baronet, however,
his choice, either
pofdsieblilbeepr,altietiienasliingiaceorirtayncoen. his
or of the grossest possible
disapprobation:) The hon. baronet says he applauds Lord
Clarendon's conduct. But what of that ? Lord Clarendon
was the organ of his own feelings and opinions. (Cheers.)
Does the hon. baronet believe that ? If he does, then all I
can say is that he is more grossly ignorant—l will not say
than any man in this house—but than any child who reads
a newspaper. (Hear, and no, no.)
Sir E. B. LYTTON—I rise to order. The noble lord is
misrepresenting my argument. (Cheers, and cries of no.)
What I stated was that I regarded Lord Clarendon as the
representative of his own opinions. (Hear.) I did not state
that ho was not the representative of the opinions of the
Government, but that I regarded the noble lord the Chief
Minister of the Crown as responsible for the opinions of
the entire Government. (Hear )
Viscount PALMERSTON—Even so,I must say that the
hon. baronet's explanation leaves the matter just where I
found it. It reminds me of the well-known question, "Who
shall interpret for the interpreter ?" (Laughter.) The hon.
baronet's explanation requires an interpreter. (Laughter,
and cheers.) The honourable baronet cannot deny—he
does not deny—that he stated Lord Clarendon was
the organ and expression of his own opinion, and
he drew a contrast, moreover, on that basis—he said,
" while the noble lord at the head of the Government
speaks for the Government, Lord Clarendon speaks for
himself." (Laughter, and hear.) And says the honour-
able baronet, I should like to know what letters were
written by the noble viscount to Lord Clarendon. (Cheers
from the opposition benches.) That derisive cheer is the
one that befits the question. The honourable baronet
well knows that the correspondence with a plenipotentiary
is carried on by the head of the Government as well as by,
the Secretary of State ; and therefore I repeat what I have
alreaely said—l offer the hon. baronet his choice between
deliberate insincerity and the grossest public ignorance.
(Cheers and approbation.) I wonder that a man of the
hon. baronet's standing —a man given out to hold a high.
office in the Government that is to come—(cheers and
laughtcr)---should be capable of adopting such a course or
should place himself in the dilemma of such au alternative.
And this reminds me that the hon. baronet said the re-
peated changes which have taken place in the government
of the country has caused it to be the ridicule of Europe.
(Laughter and cheers.) Why, sir, there might be another
change which would make the country still-more ridicu-
lous—(cheers and laughter)—if a man like the bon. baro-
net was to hold a high situation iu that Government.
(Cheers, laughter, and disapprobation.) The hon. baronet
wants to know if Lord Clarendon spoke and wrote the sen-
timents and opinions of the Government ? I say he did speak
the sentiments and opinions of a united Cabinet. (Cheers
and laughter.) I speak the sentiments and opinions of a
united Cabinet, and I defy the hon. baronet to show any
Passage in any speech I may have made on the subject
which does not tally with the despatches of Lord Clarendon.
justified
baronetia orsu
cahn any
hon.(C li e egresa 1 e Im
In shouldsurprised hav e thatfelt hon.
litihmesef ill
course as that which he has taken on this occasion, should
lower himself so much in the estimation of this house and
of the public on a mere consideration of party purposes.
(Haar.) Theleon. baronet began his speech by taunting
the 0,. vernurmt with nacriacing my noLie friend as a
Viatik'l to avoid an impeding storm ; but at its c,)noinisit,n
he reproacher us, the Government, for nut accu:)tinq tho
voluntary tender of resignation made, gby my noble friend.
f 1
(Cheers.) How can the hon. baronet reconcile these dis-
crepant propositions? , (Rear.)‘ On the part of the Go-
vernment I deny the first charge, and I repel the impata,

tion conveyed in the second. I did not accept the resigna-
tion of my noble friend, and on Thursday night I told him
that the question had assumed a form so peculiarly perso-
nal to himself that I could not meddle with it, and it was
for himself alone to decide whether he would persist in his
intention ; but at the same time I said that if, upon fur-
ther reflection, he thought it would be better to stay in the
Government, then I was prepared to face the motion of the
hon. baronet with the Government as they stood, and that
I should stand up and defend his conduct on the part of
the Government. (Cheers.) There was therefore no sacrifice
in the case. (Cheers and laughter.) My noble friend did
that which he considered consistent with his own views
and feelings. (Cheers and laughter.) And as for the re-
proach levelled against me for not accepting my noble
friend's resignation in the first instance, I should have
thought it unworthy of him, as well as of me, if I did so
under these circumstances. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The
hon. baronet wishes—and not very unnaturally—to place
every member of the Government on the stool of examina-
tion, and to subject them to all sorts of questions which
his ingenuity could devise —(laughter)—to ask what
was their opinion of the policy of the war? To inquire
whether it was better to go to the Sea of Azoff at the
commencement of the war, or when the expedition took
place ; to ascertain what was their idea about going to
Balaklava ; and so on. (Laughter.) But I beg leave to
tell the hon. baronet, in the name of my colleagues, and on
the part of the entire Government, that there is no division
in the Cabinet—(cheers)—and that one and all, the mem-
bers of the Cabinet, are animated by the same determina-
tion to carry on the war with all the vigour which the re-
sources of the country shall supply, until we have accom-
plished a peace upon safe and honourable terms. (Cheers
and laughter). I say, therefore, that the hon. baronet has
not only misrepresented my noble friend, but has also
contradicted himself over and over again in his short
speech—(a laugh)—though it was not a very short one.
The only point that I can compliment the hon. baronet
upon is his discretion in shrinking from the contest of
which he had given notice. (Cheers, laughter, and cries of
"no." I repeat, shrinking from thei contest—(hear)—for
what did he say ? His charge, he said, included the whole
of the Government. Well, then, here we are, ready to meet
him. (Loud laughter, cheers, and cries of " oh.") After
the exhibition, the lamentable exhibition, I must say, the
hon. baronet has made, however, I do not think the coun-
try will be at all anxious to expose itself to the ridicule
which, according to the hon. baronet's statement, would
attend that change of Government which it was the object
of the hon. baronet's motion to accomplish. (Cheers, laugh-
ter,
and disapprobation.) •
Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I should not have thought it ne
cessary to make any remark on this question but for the
courtesy which is pre-eminently due to the observations of
a person who fills the office of First Minister of the country
and leader of this house. (Laughter and cheers.) The house
will excuse me therefore for making a few comments upon
the remarkable address of the noble viscount. Sir, such
a defence of an Administration placed in such a critical
position, in circumstances of such gravity, and with a
weight of responsibility attaching to it such as no Admi-
nistration has for many yeare incurred and encountered,
I do not suppose any person in this house or out of it either
ever listened to or conceived to be possible. (Loud cheers,
and expressions of dissatisfaction.) I think it would have
been only respectful to the eminent member of this house
who has just quitted the Cabinet of the noble viscount, if
the noble viscount had treated the circumstance and the
occasion with some little regard both to the character of
the noble lord the member for London and to the subject
' now under consideration. (Cheers.) The noble viscount,
however, only made the secession of the noble lord the
subject of common-place bluster. (Loud cheers.) Notice
is given of a vote of want of confidence in my administra-
tion, said the noble viscount—you remember the high
spirit which I showed a few nights ago, when I stated that
I was ready to meet you—here I am ready to meet you—
(cheers and laughter)—and you will experience a defeat
when the exhibition is made—for the noble lord calls the
admirable speech of my hon. friend an exhibition. I say
admirable because it expresses in language which the
noble viscount cannot command—(hear and laughter)—the
feeling of the country, and political views which I think
it would be well, indeed, for the noble lord if he followed.
(Cheers and laughter.) I will not call it the answer, but
the reckless rhodotuontade with which the noble lord
treated the speech and the motion of my hon, friend
searcely requires further comment—(cheers, and no)—and
were it not that the subject is one which I still believe to
be an expression of the opinions of a great majority in this
house, I should not think it necessary to make any remarks
on the observations of the noble lord. (Cheers.) But let
me remind the house of the gravity of the subject—of the
serious character of the facts—of the very peculiar circum-
stances which have attended the negociations carried on
during the present war, since its commencement and in
its progress. ( Hear, hear.) What happened at the begin-
ning o the last session of Parliament? (Murmurs.)
That murmur is a better answer, coming from whence
it does, than almost any other which my question could
receive. (Hear, hear.) When we were discussing the
napers which had been laid on the table by order of her
-Majesty--when the house expressed its determination to
uphold the interests of the country, and a want of confi-
dence in the government was almost avowed—is it not the
fact that the noble lord the late Secretary of State (Rus-
sell) rose in his place, and denounced the Emperor of Rus-
sia and the Russian Prime Minister as persons whose con-
duct in respect to the cause of the war was false and fraudu-
lent ? (Cheers.) Well, what occurred after this ? An
answer appeared in a foreign newspaper, referring to trans-
actions wnich had been concealed from the knowledge of
the House of Commons; and within a few days thereafter
this house was treated to a series of revelations on the sub-
ject, the most extraordinary, to say the least of them, of
any recorded in diplomatic annals. Well, what happened
this year ? The Minister of the Crown comes down to
this house to excite the country on the subject of the
s ar, and does excite it. What follows ? A document
appears—the Austrian circular to its foreign ministers—
referring to matters which were concealed from the House
of Commons, which gave a new aspect, as we all know now,
to the whole of these affairs. (Cheers.) Ate these not re-
markable facts ? (Cheers.) Are these news to be received
with murmurs ? (Cheers.) Last year the speech of the noble
lord the member for the City called forth the correspond-
ence of members of the cabinet who had addressed the Em-
peror of Russia in language very different from what they
had held in this house. (Cheers.) This year the speech of
the noble lord has brought out another correspondence,
which shows that ministers were willing to agree to an
arrangement contrary to what this house has recom-
mended. (Cheers.) I ask, are not these grave circum-
stances? (Cheers.) I ask, is there not still some' lingering
respect for itself in the House of Commons, which will not
let these facts pass unscrutinised ? (Cheers.) Well, what
happens? (Hear.) It is obviously impossible to pass by the
revelations of the Austrian minister unnoticed. A motion
is framed accordingly, conveying what I believe to be the
feeling of this house. That motion aimed in its construc-
tion at one member of the Cabinet; but it did not seek to
visit with the censure of the house that minister alone.—
(Hear.) The noble lord the member for London, the minis-
ter aimed at, is himself mainly responsible for the language
of that resolution—for, six weeks ago, when, upon good
information I wanted this house to interpose in the matter
the noble lord objected to the resolution then proposed,
on the ground that it was too vague and general in its
terms. (Cheers.) On the present occasion, therefore, it
became absolutely necessary to refer to a particular minis-
ter. But I for one repeat now what I have often said be-
fore, that I will never make an attack upon one member of
the Government—(Hear)—as I hold the whole Cabinet re.
sponsible. (Hear, heal.) And when my hon. friend asked
leave to withdraw his resolution it was quite clear that
after the important step taken by the noble lord, that auy
resolution to meet the case must be drawn up in different
language. (Hear, hear.) But, sir, no one on these benches
intended by his vote on that resolution, had it come
on, to sanction any attack 'upon an individual member
of the Cabinet. (Hear.) On the contrary, I expressed it
as my own opinion that there was no member of the Cabi-
net who was not identified with the policy of the noble
lord, and that more than one member of the Government
ought to stand up and express their opinions on the subject
of peace and war, and the question at issue. I had good
reason to believe that the views of the noble lord the mem-
ber for the City were favourably entertained by the whole
of his colleagues, and that nothing but the occurrence of
unforeseen circumstances had prevented the plan of
arrangement which he proposed and advocated from being
adoptd by the Government. (Cheers.) I make these state-
ments not without due authority. (Cheers.) I make them
on the same authority as six weeks ago I made similar
statements. on the same subject in analogous language—
(hear)—and my conviction is, that before long—before the
present session terminates—there will be evidence of the
fact before the house. (Hear.) The noble viscount, how-
ever, rises and talks of bringing forward the motion of my
hon. friend in terms wholly inadequate to the occasion.
and tries to stop all discussion. I told the noble viscount
six weeks ago that we were only in the ante-chamber, as it
were, of discussion ; -but the noble viscount, as usual,
laughed it off. (Hear.) I ask, however, has not the result
been almost a daily discussion ? and I 101 l the noble vis-
count once more that so long as the 101 l
of the Go-
vernment is marked byambiguity and open to grave doubt,
so long must there be discussion, until, indeed, the politi-
cal atmosphere has become clear. (Cheers.) The house
will therefore see that we are discussing a question of great
importance. The noble viscount, with a great deal of
noise, takes credit to himself for having accepted the re-
signation of the noble load the member for the City, and for
saying at the same time he was ready to stand or fall by
the noble lord. I admire this sort of thing as much as any
one else; but, after such strong expressions of respect and
affection, I should much rather wish to see the act follow
the word. (Cheers.) The noble viscount says he was ready
to stand or fall by the noble lord. Ido not see that he
has either stood or fell by him ; on the contrary, he has
remained sitting on the Treasury bench. (Laughter and
cheers.) How was the knot to be solved? The noble
viscount presses the hand of the noble lord; he vows eter-
nal devotion to him—(laughter)—he says we are in the
same boat—(laughter)—we shall share the same fate there-
fore—(laughter and cheers) —and in a spirit of political
partisanship, which would be extraordinary if it were sin-
cere, he says, "one member of the firm, one member of
the Cabinet can't be bankrupt; we all stand together, or
we all fall together." (Cheers.) But in the meanwhile
there are other means by which the noble lord, who is so
adroit, can extricate himself from this positioi. He is
pledged to stand or fall with the noble lord—who, by the
way, has fallen, while the noble viscount remains standing
—(laughter and cheers)—and it req tired the talent of the
Vice-President of the Board of Trade to solve the question
of such difficulty and delicacy as the noble vissonnt had to
deal with. (Laughter and cheers.) That solution seems
to be successful. (Laughter.) I listened to the Vice-
President of the Board of Trade with the feeling which
became the occasion. (Laughter.) I am not a friend of
the noble lord the Inember for London, but I appreciate, I
hope, his high qual;ties, in common with the Vice Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade. I eannet, I confess, therefore,
comprehendth a pcaosseit, a
ions not onlyViceofthethe friend,
President of the Board
of Trade in this
but the de-
voted friend and political admirer of the noble lord. I can
only very distantly approximate to the nature of his
feeling—(laughter)—and I am sure the house will appre-
ciete the agony which he must have felt before the result
of his convictions arrived at the form of an imperative
duty. (Laughter.) There are many instances of friend-
ship on record. (Laughter.) Friendship was held to be a
gift of the gods, given as a comfort and a consolation to
man. It is a theme which has long occupied the ingenuity
of essayists and the intellect of philosophers ; and the
greatest minds have been engaged in the analysis of its va-
rious forms and conditions. (Laughter.) Friends are of
s
ls
icei) aitoveinctvlytttei
that
taefeeitrldwi
_a:t9nisi,7o‘bi
u.wheloie,niss:Ltti•
oakmoaunnuena
Idogatswhor.
rsot.
etrarßpj.fo(i)l3iLliet
ibibgiyyhev:(ty:
aLaeeol:atin.
suLreg.
epithet
ttioi
eloh:
yon--(loud
e laughter) i
jou, thataNhvvt
rceh otherailsj.
the
orna-
ment
.)
of this house who once described that friend'
(Laughter.) Bat though the devoted friend, especially if
be is Prime Minister, Ulm the flret position in thi

meratiun of friends, still the other friend—l do not mean
the candid friend, nor the friend who is not bad-natured
- has his place also. And for this kiudof friend, Isay, com-
mend me to the Vice-President of the Board of Trade.
(Laughter and cheers.) Sir, I have deemed it necessary to
make these remarks in consequence of the assertion of the
noble viscount that he was ready to do battle in the cause
of friendship, on the motion of my hon, friend, only that
we have receded from the contest. And why has not the
great contest taken place? (Hear.) Here is a Minister,
or rather ono who has been a Minister—a man who has
long occupiedthe attention of his fellow-countrymen—a man
who for a quarter of a century has exercised the greatest
influence over public affairs in this country than any man
in that period ever possessed—a man who, with the brief
interval of Sir R. Peel's Government, was really or virtu-
ally the Chief Minister of the Crown in this country dur-
ing this period--a man who has taken a most prominent
part in the questions involving the country in that war in
which we are now engaged—a man who was the manager
of our foreign relations shortly before or at the very mo-
ment when we entered into the discussions which led to this
war—an individual who a few months before the war broke
out in which we find ourselves now involved, with its con-
comitant dangers and disasters, by a single speech in this
house broke up the Government of which he was a member
—a man who, though he then incurred popular odium and
public distrust, but a few days after was by her Majesty, in
the exercise of her prerogative, offered the post of Chief Mi-
nister of the Crown, which offer he only declined because he
was not able to form a Cabinet at the moment which would
act underhis auspices—a man who, notwithstanding his com-
paratively reduced position, was named as minister pleni-
potentiary to negotiate a peace and end a war for which he
perhaps more than any other person was responsible—a
man who, although absent on that mission, was appointed
to the office of Secretary of State with a seat in the cabi-
net—every one feels, I say, that when we have to discuss
the character, and conduct of such a person, under such cir-
cumstances as those which exist, we have to do with a
question of a grave character—a question respecting which
the country has a right to expect, and, moreover, will de-
mand,,information as to his conduct and motives. (Hear,
hear ) His motives have been questioned—his conduct
has been impugned—his colleagues, or, r4ther, the noble
viscount, for the Government stakes the existence of the
Cabinet on the triumphant vindication of the conduct of
the noble lord. It is scarcely forty-eight hours since the
Prime Minister of the country could hardly sappress his
exultation at the prospect of the coming fight, stating
that he was ready to
,stand or fall by his noble friend,
and behold, rsuddenly, before the motion in question
is :brought on, and before my hon, friend, or any other
member of this house has an opportunity of expressing his
opinion on the subject of that motion, the noble lord is
mysteriou-ly withdrawn from office. (Cheers.) One of so
prominent and responsible a position in the eyes of the
country as the noble lord, called upon as he had been by
his Sovereign to form a cabinet, then to conduct most im-
portant negotiations in the Vienna congress, and made in
his absence Secretary of State in conmendant—(laughter)
—a person of such accumulated responsibility, whose con-
duct has been publicly ehallenged, and whom the First
Minister of the Crown pledged himself to stand or fall by
in vindication of that conduct—(laughter)—that such a
man should withdraw in such a manner—that he should
evade, by that means, all discussion ; that the First Minis-
ter of the Crown should say it was " much ado about
nothing," is., I will not say, an intolerable mode of acting,
but certainly not a proper manner of meeting the ques-
tions so raised. (Cheers.) This patrician bullying or the
Treasury bench may do for a private bill. This tone may
be assumed for the petty object of party triumph to-night,
to be forgotten in the morning. (Hear.) But the discus
sion is upon the vital policy of a country, one of the
greatest in the world, with peace or war for the issue.
When we are discussing the conduct of campaigns, and
their results, and when we have before us, in connection
with these questions, the character and conduct of a states-
man whose mind has given form and colouring to the history
of this country for the last quarter of a century—that the
noble viscount should rise in his place and try to stop this
discussion by addressing language to my hon, friend which
I will not use an unparliamentary epithet to describe—but
which is language, I will say, that choulcl not be used by
the leader of Parliament, for that is an accident of life, but
by a gentleman, who is not a i accident of life. All that
I heard from the noble lord was some sort of abuse of my
hon. friend the member for Hertfordshire, for his alleged
constitutional ignorance or intentional malignity in
assuming for a moment that my Lord Clarendon, when
he wrote his despatches, might have been expressing his
individual opinion, and not that of the Cabinet of which
he was a member. Now, I put it to the house whether
they think that any doorkeeper could make such a mistake
or take refuge in such gross ignorance or malignity ? What
my hon. friend said was that, individually, he gave credit
to Lord Clarendon as expressing in th -se dispatches the
policy which lie aeproved of. My hon. friend did not
mean to say that my Lord Clarendon wrote those des-
patches without the knowledge of the other members of
the Cabinet; what he meant was that there might be a
Secretary of State—there might be a member of the Cabi-
net who did not sympathise or concur in such policy. And
my hon. friend says ho must be pardoned for being incre-
dulous on that point, for the house wore told a few weeks
ago that the Cabinet were unanimous when that despatch
was written. And it now appears that the most illustrious
member of that Cabinet did not agree in the policy ex-
pressed therein. The noble lord the First Minister now
informed us that the member for the city of London came
back to this country recommending a particular policy
to the cabinet - but then, says he, there were certain cir-
cumstances which occurred in the course of the week which
rendered it impossible it should be received and adopted.
The circumstances referred to were well known—viz., that
France would not listen to the proposal, and that the French
minister had, therefore, resigned. What was it that he
stated to-night ? He says "My colleague came back from
Vienna and has proposed certain terms for the obtaining
of peace. These terms are denounced by the House of
Commons and the country, but the reason why he did not
adopt them is not because they are considered by the House
of Commons and the country totally inadequate to the
occasion, but because our ally would not agree to them."
I infer that if no difficulty had arisen with France,
the terms of compromise on which this question would have
been settled, the terms on which a great war wouldbave been
concluded, are the terms which the noble lord brought from
Vienna. (No, no, from the Treasury bench.) No, no. Forall
that, I want the noble lord to rise and speak upon the sub-
ject, or if the noble lord cannot speak again, some of his
colleagues may—there are plenty of them. Isay, the only
inference that could be drawn from the rash and discour-
teous observations of the noble lord, though hastily and
precipitately made they may have been, was that the terms
which the noble lord brought from Vienna would have
been accepted by the cabinet but for the difficulty raised
by France. • We, therefore, know what the noble lord
thinks of these terms, and of the case before the house, and
I appeal to the house if this statement is true, and I 1-... -
Hove it if true, how they are to justify the conduct of the
noble lord, who came into office as a great war minister ?
Viscount PALMERSTON—The hon. gentleman totally
misunderstands what I stated, and what was stated by my
noble friend. He stated that his opinion of the practica-
bility of these terms was changed by circumstances. But
I never said that was the opinion of the rest of the Cabi-
net or of myself. On the contrary, I said that the language
of the noble Secretary of Foreign Affairs had been un-
favourible and adverse to any such terms, and that his
language, opinion, and sentiments were those of myself
and the rest of the Cabinet Ministers. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI.—What the noble lord has said does
not in the least affect what I was saying. In consequence
of circumstances the noble lord the member for the City of
London remains in the Cabinet, and in consequencs of cir-
cumstances which have arisen, others that were favourable
to that opinion remain.

Viscount PALMpRSTON.—None.
Mr. DISRAELI—I can fancy the noble lord addressing
his colleagues in the Cabinet would say—" It is of no use
discussing whether we are to have war or peace; there is no
use in a controversy about whether we shall pursue the
war with vigour, or accept those terms, because circum-
stances have rendered it impossible to act upon this opi-
nion, and therefore we shall dismiss it to the limbo of re-
jected projects." Bat, if it were not for these circum-
stances, the inference which I draw is that you would have
accepted those terms, and, if possible, have carried them
through Parliament. Now the questicn is, Did you or did
you not approve of the project which the noble lord
brought forward? This is a subject on which we cannot
accept a special plea. It is not enough for the minister to
get up and say, we did not approve of that project ; that is
every minute point. The point is, whether or not the
noble lord the member for London communicated with
other ministers than those who appear on the papers pre-
sented to Parliament, giving them the outline and spirit of
the policy which was developing under his auspices at
Vienna, and whether he received any discouraging reply ?
(Loud heers.) I have reason to think that communi-
cations were made, and that the noble lord did not receive
any discouraging reply. (Hear, hear.) If that was so we
ought to receive extracts from these letters. Again, when
the noble lord arrived in England, did he expect, or had he
any reason for expecting, in every chance, that these pro-
positions would he can led into effect ? Is it a fact, or not,
that the French Minister communicated with the authori-
ties at Paris while at Vienna, and received a reply which
was favourable to these propositions, and that that reply
was communicated to the noble lord the member for the
City—that he, in consequence of that communication, com-
municated with his colleagues? That, in comequence of
that, there was not a compact, but an understanding, be-
tween both Governments that these terms might be ac-
cepted ? Is it or not the fact that, for at least for a day—
I believe for a much longer time—these terms were accepted
by the Government of England, and that they were sand
tioned by the noble lord the First Minister?
Viscount PALMERSTON—No.

Mr. DISRAELI—I have some reason for entertaining
that suspicion. _ I know not- whether this Parliament will
last six month more; but if it do, I believe I shall find
these remarks which I am now making—which are being
received now by some so suspiciously—received at length
by the great majority of this house. I make a statement
on the greatest authority, and I now express my profound
conviction of its truth. And uow we are told that it is
making much ado about nothing. Two years ago we were
involved in negotiations on a most important subject, and
at that time if any member of the house rose to ask a ques-
tion he was told that he ought not to press his question,
as he would embarrass. the policy of Government. What
did that indulgence end in? The- greatest diplomatic de-
feat on record. Another year passed, and we were in-
volved in war. If a member rose to ask a question he was
told silence—not another word—or the enemy will know
our, tactics, and you will interfere with the vigorous prose-
cution of the war. Now, when a third year has nearly
expired, a foreign document appears—the mind of the
country is agitated—a few expressions in that document
arrest the attention, A question is asked in the house.
Doubt and distrust pervade the land, a belief that there is
guilt in the management of our affairs. (Cheers.) Sir, I
call it guilt to come down to this house—this free House
of Commons—as a Minister, and to give reasons for his
policy which are totally at variance with his instructions
of the Minister abroad. (Hear.) A foreign document ap-
pears—the people think—they talk—they ask questions.
What happens to one of the ablest of statesmen on the
night on which it is announced that this quesion shall be
brought forward ? He mysteriously disappears—the man
of a reputation of a quarter of a century —the refoi inner of
Parliament, who has told us to-night that ha has been
throughout his long career the champion of cid' and reli-
gious
liberty, and has achieved great success—the man
who has met giants in debate, who has contended with
Canning, and shared in the reputation of so groat a man
as the late' Sir It. Peel—that man dare not to-night meet
the debate on his acts and on his language. But, in his
stead the noble lord has spoken, and has shown by his lan-
guage and the tone of his mind if•tho honour and the
interests of the country are committed to his keeping the
first will be degraded and the last betrayed.
Mr. ROEBUCK—The language of the noble lord at the
herlti of her !Majesty's Government will load the house to
cuppoge that he I.r.'; been injured by some one. Who has
done him ap injury —azd what ig it ? A question has been
asked of the noble lord heretofore his colleague. That ques-
tion . .
received an answer -front the noble lord, which newer

brought forward the motion of the hon. member for Harts
(Sir E. B. Lytton). The noble lord the member for Lon-
don did on that occasion what he did once before. At the
very sound of danger, at the first whistle of the storm, he
ran and hid himself in the hack benches ; he disappeared
from the Treasury bench. The right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Disraeli) had referred to the noble lord's reputation of a
quarter of a century; I fear that that reputation has dis-
appeared also. The noh'e lord has forgotten his duty to
England, to this house, to truth, and to honour. (Sensa-
tion and murmurs.) We will see if this be not true.' In
consequence of a motion of which I gave notice in this
house, the noble lord retired from the Government of Lord
Aberdeen, and, in retiring, left behind. him a speech,
which, in fact, broke up that cabinet. Then, like Jack in
the box, he turns up at Vienna. There he is entrusted with
the great interests of this great country. He goes there
with specific instructions, instructions which do the noble
lord the Foreign Secretary great honour. When there, cer-
tain proposals are made—they are said to have been made
by the Austrian Minister. To these proposals the noble
lord assents. He suggests them to his Cabinet with a sig-
nificant paragraph at the end of his letter to this effect :
" I hope no decisive answer will be given to his proposi-
tion before lam heard." The nobler lord came to this
house iu his character of a member of the Cabinet. The
question of the conference is brought before this house.
He has been ; the Cabinet knew his opinions; they
knew the ground of those opinions. When the noble lord
came to this house he came to find his conduct as a nego-
tiator impugned. Now I will appeal to this house—l will
appeal to every hon. member who recollects the speech of
the noble lord on the 2 lth May, whether in that speech he
did not declare himself an uncompromising advo-
cate of the war. Did he in that speech give us to under-
stand that the negotiations had been 'so carried on that he
had received proposals for peace from the Austrian Minis-
ter which had met his approval? (Hear, hear.) Did he
not lead the house—l am sure he led me— (hear, hear)—to
an opinion which gave to the noble lord at the head of the
Government a large majority on that occasion? (Hear,
hear.) Now, I will make a confession to this house. I
came to this house upon the 24th May fully intending to
vote with the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli). In
proof of this I 'hey make one statement. I received a
letter from the noble lord at the head of her Majesty's
Government inviting me to a meeting of his friends pre-
vious to that discussion. Feeling within myself that I
was about to oppose the noble lord, I did not attend that
meeting. I felt it was no place for me. But I voted with
the noble lord. Why ? Because of the speech of the noble
lord the member for the City of London. I said to myself
when I came to this house, " I will not vote for a divided
Government." I thought that the noble lord—and it is
well known that there was throughout the house, end every
gallery of it, a rumour to that effect—was coming down
to make a peace speech. Instead of doing so, he made a
vigorous onslaught on Russia. I said we have now a
united Cabinet. I can see the danger of ousting such a
Cabinet. The noble lord convinced me ; I was re-assured,
and voted with him. He practised upon me a deceit; and
I say that the noble lord at the head of her Majesty's Go-
vernment condoned with that deceit—(cheers)—and I say
this is not doing your duty with truth and honour. The
words which were on the lips of the noble lord did not
come from his heart. He came down to this house and
urged us to war when he himself was in favour of peace.
But the noble lord says that after he came from Vienna
and arrived in London circumstances occurred which al-
tered his opinion. The right hon. gentleman (slr. Disraeli)
says these circumstances were the opposition of France.
The noble lord at the head of the Government rays uo
such thing. (Lord Palmerston—" No.") The noble lord
says " No." Then it was the opposition of Preece ? (Lord
Pahnerston—" I did not say so.") This is a sample of the
ambiguous phrases of the Government. (Cheers.) When
the right' hon. gentleman (Hr. Disraeli) says that these
circumstances were the opposition of France, the noble
lord denies that fact. Now, however, he denies his de-
nial. But I say, if it is not the opposition of France, we
have a right to know what it is. (Cheers.) We have had
two sets of papers placed upon the table, the 13th and the
15th. The 13th set were placed upon the table previous to
the 24th May, and they were intended to afford to this
house inforesatien upon the subject of the conferences.
Did they afford the slightest information with regard to
either the coud act of the noble lord the member for the
City or of the Austrian Minister ? Then, I say again, that
the noble lord at the head of the Government has proved
in fault, for it was from his hand that these papers came.
And I want to know who else is with the noble lord—l
want to know who are the traitors in the cabinet? (Hear,
hear.) I want to know what is the opinion of the right
hon. baronet the Home Secretary upon the case ; I want
to know the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and what is the opinion of the First Lord of the
.Admi-
ralty. It is my sincere belief that they coincuted with the
noble lord when ho returned from Vienna. I say
&at so far from having an undivided cabinet, we have one
which is not earryiee on the war with their whole heart
and mind, for they are divided among themselves, and a
great number of them agree with the noble lord. Let us
remark what has occurred in connection with this war.
After the declaration of war, until I gave notice of the mo-
tion for the Sebastopol committee, before the world there
was unity in the Cabinet. Everybody believed the Go-
vernment was of one mind ; everybody knew that they
were carrying on the war as well as they could. When I
gave that notice the noble lord the member for the City of
London disclosed the fact that they were a divided cabi-
net, that they had been divided from the beginn'.ng of the
war upon the conduct of it in a most material matter, the
appointment of a war minister. The next result was the
breaking up of the Aberdeen Administration. The next
was the appointment of the Sebastopol committee, upon
which the three gentlemen behind me (Sir J. Graham,
Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. S. Herbert) quitted the Govern-
ment of the noble lord. The moment they left, it turned
out that they were the peace party. We never learned
that while they were iu the cabinet. Then came the jour-
ney of the noble_ lord to Vienna. We all know that the
noble lord left hero with a certain blemish upon his reputa-
tion ; his mind was soured by Parliamentary defeats. At
Vienna they gave him the sweets of flattery, with which
he was intoxicated. When he came back the strong breezes
of .Parliamentary opposition blew upon him again—ag-..in
he changed. Ho came here and made that warlike speech.
This roused the anger of those whose tool he had been at
Vienna ; they disclosed what had been the circumstances
of his condue. This was again the consequence of Parlia-
mentary action. The noble lord then turns out to be a
peace minister. Again, a curious consequence of Parlia-
mentary action. Now the noble lord says he changed his
mind after he returned from. Vienna, and in consequence
he came down to the house. The hon. and learned mem-
ber here took from his seat a copy of a daily paper, from
which apparently he was about to read au extract of the
noble lord's speech. Being, however, called to order by
the Speaker, he proceeded to tear away that portion of
the paper containing the speech ; upon which

I The SPEAKER said the hon. member was doubtless
aware that, by a standing order, it was not allowed that
any member's speech should be read from the report in a
newspaper. Such being the order, the hon. member was
not acting within it, althoughhe tore the speech in question
out of the newspaper.
Mr. ROEBUCK resumed—l will then, sir, state from
memory the purport of the noble lord's speech. The house
will excuse me if I do not state it quite correctly, since it
is through its own rules that I am forced to have recourse
to so treacherous an instrument,. On the 7th July the
noble lord came down to the house, and he was asked by a
right hon. gentleman whether he had changed his opinion.
The answer w I certainly thought that, although this
plan of counterpoise was infsricr to the plan of limitation
which we had advocated, yet that it would be a mode of
concluding the war that would be honourable to the allied
powers, and would give, I will not say a certainty, but a
fair promise of the duration of peace. That was my opi-
nion. The right hon. gentleman asks me whether I have
changed that opinion. I have not changed that opinion."
That being the case, and the facts being known to the col-
leagues of the 'mule lord, they must have heard with won-
der what his statements were. The noble lord at the head
of the Government might well have said with Heloise,
"Saints would wonder at the vows he made ;" but the
saints of the Treasury bench have ceased to wonder at the
statements of the noble lord. Did not the noble lord turn
round upon the arguments of Mr. Gladstone ? Did he not
object to the very things to which he had agreed at
Vienna ? Had he not shown how futile was the security
offered in these very prepositions? Shall we then say,
after that, that this house has any right to have confidence
in the noble lord or any of his collo Tees ? I say no to
that question—(hear, hear)—that the conduct of the noble
lord has been such that it shakes the confidence of the
world in the whole of political society. Truth and
honour amongst public men may now be considered as
nought ' • for what can truth be but a clear statement
of that which has occurred, not palming upon any-
body false suppositions and false conceptions of
actual facts? What did the noble lord do? Did he not
come down to the house? Did he not persuade us to be-
lieve that he himself was not only then a steady supporter
of the war, but that he always had been so? I say, Sir,
that the noble lord by such conduct has not done his duty
in this house to this country, to truth, or to honour.

Sir G. GREY—As the motion of the hon. baronet is to
be withdrawn, I should not have thought it necessary to
say anything, had it not been for the assertions pointedly
made by the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Roebuck)
—without his having adduced one fact in support of them
—that there were members of the Cabinet who thought
that the Austrian proposal brought by my noble friend
(Lord J. Russell), and discussed in the Cabinet in the first
week in May, ought to be adopted. fie has done me the
honour to call upon me by name to state whether I was
one of those members. I decline to answer the, question
of the hon. and learned member. In this country, if I, as
a member of a Cabinet, in my speech, here or elsewhere,
had expressed opinions, or had done any act calculated to
throw suspicion upon the sincerity of my conduct, I should
have felt that any hon. member had a right to call upon
me for any explanation of what I had said or done, and to
require me to vindicate toy conduct. But when ,the hon.
and learned member alludes to circumstances which have
no existence, save in his own imagination, I say that I
should-demean myself in the face of this house and of the
country if I attempted any answer to his observations.
The papers are now on the table showing the result of the
deliberations of the Cabinet with reference to the Austrian
proposals, and the reasons that inducted the C deitet's re-
jection of them are also on the table. expressed by his noble
friend the Secretary fOr Foreign Affairs in language which
I think has elicited the universal approbation of this house,
except those who think abeolutely that the war ought to
be terminated and puce restored. (Cheers.) I feel bound
by those papers, as the record of the opinions of the Cabi-
net. As a member of the Cabinet I a;u responsible for
its acts, and I deny the right of any member of
this house to bring forward without proof the argument
that I, in my individud capacity, bold opinions differing
from those of the majority of ley celleegues. The right
hon. gentleman opposite did, I think, something of the
same kind when he charged the Government with using
ambiguous language respecting the Correspondence which
has been laid before this house ; and when he says that he
is iu possession of private information from sources not
accessible to this house. On the strength of that informa-
tion lie takes upon himself, in his place in Parliament, to
affirm that there was a time when my noble friend at the
head of the Government expressed Isis opinion in favour of
these Austrian proposals. Sir, to that general statement
that there was a time when the Cabinet considered—l am
not speaking in my own name, but in that of the Govern-.
meat—when the. Cabinet considered that the Austrian
proposals might be accepted, I gave the most unqualified
contradiction. (Hear.) The project alluded to was no
doubt considered. in: the Cabinet, and here I must say that
I heard with regret the speech made by my noble friend
the member for London on the 6th, because the statements
in that speech were Most unjust to my noble friend him-
self. My noble Selena- brought the propositions home from
Vienna, -hevieg.previously requested that they might not
be yejected !witilAiittlii.3 having been heard in their de-
fence. The yroi.loAtions were discussed during the wqek
beginning tiee pyil, ending the 7th of May, and dur-
ing that cif2eus,iion my noble friend stated his views, other
members of tiho en`-.r !.1 into the discussion, with
the view of coming iu the conclusion most likely to be con-
ducive to the interests pf the country, and at the apse of
the week I should have been prepared to aagert in dupla.

lified terms that the unanimous decision of the Cabinet '
was that the intea eel s of the country required that the :
Austrian proposals should be rejected. (Ironical cheers.)
I challenge, then, the right hon. gentleman for the proof
of his assertion that at any period the Cabinet expressed
an opinion favourable to those propositions. On the con-
trary, we arrived at an unanimous conclusion—some
might.have been influenced by one reason, others by an-
other—but at last we arrived at the unanimous conclusion
that the duty of the Government and the interests of the
country required that the Austrian proposition should be
rejected. It was rejected, and the despatch containing the
rejection was communicated to every member of the Cabi-
net before it was sent off, and received the cordial and
unanimous concurrence of all. (Hear.) It is now said that
my noble friend practised a deceit on the house on the
2lth of May, when he supported a vigorous war, and that
we were partakers in the deceit for not having remon-
strated against the inferences to be drawn from his state-
ments. I deny, sir, that either Government or my noble
friend were chargeable with such deceit. He spoke in
language in which all his colleagues participated when he
led the house to believe that he was convinced the honour
and interests of the country required that the Austrian
proposals should be rejected, and that all means should be
taken to bring the war in the Crimea to a successful con-
clusion. The speech of my noble friend was in fact one
from which none of his colleagues could have dissented, it
contained no doubt his own honest and earnest convic-
tions, and harmonised undoubtedly with the sentiments of
the Government. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE—I have no intention of entering into
the personal questions, considered as inch, which have
been raised in this debate, neither shall I avail myself of
the opportunity which the technicalities of the house may
be said to offer for discussing the policy of the war with
reference to the late negotiations, but it appears to me
that inasmuch as most important papers containing most
important disclosures have boon laid on the table since the
house debated this great and momentous subject, and inas-
much as it must be perfectly plain to the House of Com-
mons that the debate on this subject has ended—not, in-
deed, in total darkness, but with most imperfect informa'
tiou in respect to the question under discussion—it appears,
I say, quite plain to me, that there must be an early and
more satisfactory discussion on the subject. (Hear.) At
present, however, in the midst of the difficulties by which
we are encompassed, those papers raise some questions upon
which it is desirable that the Government should have the
opportunity of giving the fullest information and expla-
nation, namely, as regards the obligation that rests on
them to communicate fully to the house papers, when upon
those papers are to be raised solemn discussions, and on •
them are to be based solemn decisions. (Hear.) ' The first
objection I mean to take is to the speech delivered by my
noble friend the member for London on the 21th May. I
do not wish to overstate or exaggerate the iroportance.of
that speech as a demonstration in favour of a warlike
policy, but this stands clearly in my own recollection, that
whenin the course of the discussion, and speaking before
any member of the Oovernment had uttered an opinion, I
ventured to say that it appeared tome that the last two
propositions of the Russian plenipotentiary, instead of
bring summarily rejected, ought to have been treated as
the starting points for further communication, my noble
friend, following me in that debate, denounced in the
strongest terms those Russian proposals—(hear, hear)—
and even went so far as to say that, rather than admit
terms substantially corresponding with those proposals, it
would be better avowedly to have thrown over the third
point altogether, and confess your inability to deal with
it. (Hear, hear.) I must confess that having those em-
phatic wores of my noble fiend fresh in my recollection,
it was with considerable surprise I read the letter I find in
the Bth page of these despatches' in which be, on his own
part and on that of the French Minister, proposes to her
Majesty's Government certain plans for the settlement of
the question.. I have no doubt but chat most members of
this house have read.these papers, and shall not therefore
read them further than that portion at page 8, in which
my noble friend says—" If other hope is lost, I wish to
propose to the conftrence the following plan. The French
Minister is favourable to it. Austria will not support
any demand for cession of territory." And then he pro-
ceeds :to detail the plan, which had precisely the same
basis es that which my noble friend subsequently con-
demned in this house. (Hear.) This is not a question of
the terms proposed by Austria, this is a distinct proposal
from the British Minister, and it appears to me to re-
commend to the Government to accept terms which in
every substantial point agree with those of the Russian
plenipotentiary. The baSes upon which Russia wished to
proceed were—no limitation with regard to the fleet, but
leaving unlimited discretion to the Porto to call in the as-
sistance of her allies. It was proposed that the general rule
of closing the straits should be maintained, but that it
should rest with the discretion of the Porte to say when
the rule was to be relaxed, and that the relaxation, when
it took place, should be consilered as forming no ground of
complaint on the part of Russia. Here is a plan that, with
the exception of one or two peiuts, is exceedingly like the
Russian. It provides that France and Great Britain shall
send in their ships in conformity with the desire of the
Sultan. and without any complaint on the part of Russia.
That, I believe, is the material point of both plans. There
may be minor points, but, as far as regards the great fea-
tures, I believe that both plans are practically the same.
Both were founded on counterpoise • and, if anything., met
noble friends proposition was more limited and loss favour-
able to the Ottoman Government than that which was put
forward by the Russian plenipotentiary. There is another
question which I wish to present to the house, with respect
to the position in which I was placed during the late dis-
cussion. It will be seen that Ido not take the same view
of the papers as the right hon. member for Buckingham-
shire, and I invite him to listen because I think I can find
an answer to the charge he has made against the Govern •
mint. The plan of the noble lord was formed by him from
Vienna on the 16th April, and not acted upon, I presume,
until the 18th, but on the 18th ho wrote a most important
letter, and in that letter he stated to his Government that
it had been agreed between him and the other plenipoten-
tiaries to adopt a certain order of proceeding at the next
meeting of the Conference. It was this :-1. That the
plan of limitation of numbers agreed to in London should
be first proposed, and be supported by Count Buol. 2. That
it should be proposed that Russia and Turkey, by mutual
' agreement, should maintain reciprocally a force no
larger than that which shall remain to Russia at the end
of the war. A list to be drawn up, and the convention re-
ferred to in the treaty tohave the same forte, as if it formed
part of the treaty. Ships of war of the allies to be admitted
into the Black Sea in limited numbers, not exceeding for
each half of the Russian force. 3. In case of the failure
of both- of these propositions, he thought that bases of
peace might bo foundin the following conditions :—A. gene-
ral engagement to respect the integrity of the Turkish em-
pire, on behalf of each of the Powers, and against any one
of them which should vioiatethis engagement. Aprovisiou
that the closing of the Dardanelles and _Bosphorus should
continuo to be the rule, with the exception that Powers
which have not establishments in the Black Sea may be
admitted by the Sultan to the extent of half the number
maintained by Russia for each power. The third of these
plans was that which was called the Austuian proposal,
and which had the sanction of my noble friend. Well,
this letter was received by Lord Clarendon on the 21st of
April; 'and in the closing passage of it my noble friend
saYs, " mould the Government of her Mejesty, in concert
with that of Franceebe of opinion that such a peace can be
accepted, they will instruct Lord Westinorzlad accordingly.
If not, I hope to be allowed to be heard personally before
a final decision is ma'ale." This appeal for a personal hear-
ing was received at the Foreign-office on the 21st of April,
but on that very same 21st of April there was written a
letter from the Foreign-office, not professing to take any
notice of the appeal from Vienna, but dealing with his plan,
condemning it in the strongest terms, and asappears to me
entirely disposing of it. If gentlemen will read the letter
at page 12, dated 21st of April, and founded on Count
Collbredo's despatch of the2oth, they will see as appears to
me, that this Aus.rian proposal was rejectodnot in May or
June, but in April. Lord Clarendon expressed in strong
terms the surprise and regret with which he listened to the
proposal, and all through his letter there are expressions of
the strongest condemnation. Now the point I wish to put,
and upon which I wish to be corrected if wrong, is that
this letter was written on the 21st of April, the very day
upon which the proposals were received, and was in point of
fact a complete rejection of the plan of counterpoise. Bat
there are two Austrian proposals. If you refer to the able
papers of Count Buol you will find that the proposal for
counterpoise stands second, and that the first contained the
proposal which the British and French plenipotentiaries
refused to entertain. That proposal consisted of simple
counterpoise, and admitted limitation, which was in the
first instance to be arranged between Russia: and Turkey,
and subsequently incorporated in the treaty. How did Go-
vernment receive that letter ? I have shown you that one
plan was refused on the very day of its reception, and the
other it appears to me was considered equally inadmissible.
I hope the right hon. gentleman will la op these things in
view, and admit that this and the other proposal wore dealt
with in a summary manner. (The right hon. gentleman
here quoted Lord Clarendon's despatch, and continued.)
But it is not these transactions alone that require explana-
tion. I wish to refer to others which took place in this
house. If lam right, these two proposals were condemns
on the 21st and 24th April. Their rejection was not com-
municated to the house, a thing of which I should not
complain, if something were not communicated which led
to a contrary conclusion. On the 21st May a question was
put to the first minister of the Crown by my right hon.
friend near me, and his answer was that all means of solu-
tion were not exhausted, that Austria had made fresh pro-
posals, with a view to peace, and that such proposals, when
presented, would receive the most careful consideration.
(Hear.) But answers had been previously sent to Vienna
by the Government, committing them to the rejection of
the Austrian proposal. (Hear.) Looking from my own
point of view, I think I have a right to complain that we
were allowed to debate this proposal as if it were still an
open question. (Hear, hear.) We came to the discussion
in the full belief that Austria, England, and France
were at one in the negotiatiou. We had before us papers
in which it was stated that Austria had reject©d the Rus-
sian proposals, but we did not know that a diplomatic
eruption had taken place between England and France
on the one side, and , Austria on the other, although
that was a vital element in the consideration of the case,
(Hear.) What I want now to know is this, whether it does
not stand on the papers that the rupture had taken place,
whether the Austrian proposal had not been discussed and
rejected by Government, or whether there was any reason
to believe that Austria had another proposal to make? I
know that there are greet ilitilculties in the case, but I
think we ought to have all the facts before us before vt o re-
sume the discussion on this question. (Hear, hear.)

• The motion wrts then withdrawn.
The Fublic Offices Extension Bill passed through com-
mittee. - -
The Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Bill was read
a third time and passed. -
STATE CAREIA.GES DUTIES, &c., BILL.

Tho house having gene into committee upon this bill,
The .CHANCELLOR of. the EXCHEQUER, - being
much pressed, consented to withdraw the sixth clause, re-
lating to benefit building societia4, upon the understand.
ing that next session the subject should be investigated by
a select .committee. .
The Turnpike A ~ts and Turnpike Trusts Arrangement
Bills were read a third time and passed.
The Slave Trade (Sherberol Bill passed through com-
mittee.
The Militia Officers Qualification Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Grand Juries Ireland- (so. 2) Bill was. read -a se-
cond time and passed.
The Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Advances Bill went
through commit-fee pro forma, for the purpose of being
reprinted with amendments.•
Tho LICITO.It•GENERA.L moved the second read-
ing od the end ;7:;ples ef Sett lied Estates Lill, and
expL;a,,. that 3 e1,,11:,,t) 1:A,(1 }XXII insericd for the purp6zie
of exempting r!ll.inp:,;teLd-i,f;atii from the operation of the

uioasuro.
Lind SEYMOUR suggested that the bill should be
re-
ferred to a select committee.
A re HENLEY could not concur in the Principles of the