The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-26 00:00:00

(Hear. We are called a ministry on sufferance • and it is
true that, feeling the deep responsibility which 'lay on us,
and the necessity after having entered on this war of put-
tine the country in a position, financially and strategeti-
,
tally, which should enable it to urge the war with success,
we felt, unsupported as we were by the house on domestic
measures, that it was our duty to continue to hold the
reins of Office. We have been met by contumely and in-
sult, but it is for the House of Commons to decide this
question. If the house does not choose to have a govern-
ment on sufferance, and if we do not choose to be a govern-
ment on sufferance, let the house manfully and explicitly
declare its opinions upon that head. We are prepared to
abide, as we do abide with confidence, on the decision to
which they might come. (The• right hon. gentleman re-
sumed his seat amidst considerable cheering.)
Mr. LAYARD insisted that the construction put by the
house upon the words of Lord John Russell, on the pre-
vious evening, with respect to the menacing position of
Sebastopol, was the correct one. The general inspresion
was that nothing short of the destruction of that fortress
would be satisfactory to the Government ; but when the
noble lord came to explain his meaning it appeared that
all that was meant was that Russia was not to be allowed
to have so large a fleet at Sebastopol. The object of Aus
tria was clearly to drive Russia from the principalities, and
nothing more, and it was much to be feared that in that
policy England would become entangled. It was a great
error to count upon the alliance of Austria at all ; but
looking at home he had great confidence in Lord John
Russell, but none whatever in the Earl of Aberdeen.
Mr. WILKINSON contended for the identity of the
two stanznnents of Lord John Russell.
Colonel DUNNE deprecated the delays which had taken
piece in the advance of th.; allied armies.
Admiral BERKELEY repelled the charge of unneces-
sary delay, and denied that the Government had at all tied
up the hands of Admiral Napier in the Baltic. The fact
that nothing great had been as yet attempted was to be
attributed to the formidable nature of the fortifications.
Mr. F. SCULLY defended the Earl of Aberdeen and
the Government.
Sir J. SHELLEY said that a strong feeling of distrust
pervaded the country with respect to the Earl of Aber-
deen, and he c uld only view the amendment as a vote of
want of confidence in the noble earl. While supporting
the amendment, he did not mean to imply a want of con-
fidence in the other members of the.Governinent, for he
believed many or them were most anxious to carry the
war to an advantageous result.
Sir J. WALSH opposed the amendment.
Mr. M. MILNES also opposed the amendment, but ex-
pressed his belief that her Majesty's Ministers would see
the propriety of calling Parliament together again at a
very early period.
Mr. HILDYARD deprecated a statement made by
Admiral Berkeley, to the effect that Cronstadt was im-
pregnable, as calculated to produce most peruicicus effects
throughout Europe.
Admiral BERKELEY said he had received private
letters from officers in the Baltic to the effect that Cron-
stadt could not be taken ; but the French Government
were sending out reinforcements, and whatever could be
done by gallant men would be done, he had no doubt, in
the Baltic.
Colonel BLAIR said he would support the amendment,
not so much as a vote of want of confidence in the Govern-
ment, as of a declaration of the necessity of having an
autumnal session of Parliament.
Mr. PETO had no hesitation as to the course he should
pursue on the vote before the house. If the fleet had been
placed in a pesition of jeopardy the house might have
shown a want of confidence in the Government. But no-
thing of the kind had been done in the Baltic or the Black
Sea. Few persons could be aware of the difficulties that
beset the Government: He (Mr. Peto) had always found
when he had his people ready half his work was done.
Four months had elapsed, and nothing had occurred to
shake the confidence of the country in the Government, or
in the conduct of the war. To tie the hands of the Go-
vernment, however, was a want of confidence, which they
could not tolerate for a single moment. The course pur-
sued in that house was mischievous to the country, as
well as unjust to the Government ; for it compelled them
to disclosures which, perhaps, ought not to be made, in
their own justification. He believed that it was nothing
but a high sense of moral duty which had kept the Govern-
ment in their position, under the continued impatience of
certain supporters of theirs, whom it was his (Mr. Peto's)
only sorrow to find still sitting on the same side of the
house with himself. (Oh, and laughter.) If there were
to be opposition, and a vote of want of confi lence from
gentlemen opposite, he could perfec,ly understand it. It
was quite fair and right. When the right hon. member
for Buckinghamshire (11r. Disraeli) g rt up in his place and
attacked the ministry—as he always did—fairly, openly,
and manly, he could well understand that; but when a
noble lord, sitting on the ministerial side of the honee,
professing to be a supporter of the Government, and ut-
tering all manner of philanthropic sentiment with regard
to nationalities, resorted to the language of attack, he
must say that the noble lord showed little acquaintance
with the real feelings of the country, which, in his (Mr.
Peto's) opinion were decidedly in favour of leaving the
conduct of the war in the hands of the Government, with
the firm conviction that they would do what was right
under the circumstances. (Hear, hear.) Let the noble
lord at once avow that he was no longer a supporter of
the Government, and had no farther confidence in them
Heir.) That was a course of policy he could understand,
nd so would the country, which had given the ministry
its most unreserved confidence, in the belief that they
would carry the war to a successful issue. (Divide, divide.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—There are but few things which I
find it necessary to Bey in this stage of the debate. I will
not certainly accept the invitation of my hon. friend the
member for Aylesbury IsMr. Layard) that I should make
aver again the speech I made last night. I certainly
do not think it necessary to give any further explanation
of the statement I then made (Hear.) I have seen this
morning the reports of what I then stated. Those which
I have seen appear to me to be accurate, and I am quite
willing to abide by that statement. (Hear, hear.) The
hon. member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) following
anther hon. gentleman who said that the object of the war
was the dismemberment of Russia, proclaimed last night
that our objects were the destruction of Sebastopol, the
conquest of the Crimea, and, I think, the transference of
the Crimea to some other power. Such was the inference
the hon. gentleman drew from what I said ; but it was a
perfectly gratuitous inference, and the statement which I
made did not bear out that construction. But we have, in
fact, every kind of opponent to deal with ; some who tell
us that it is wrong to go to war for the dismemberment of
Russia, and others who tell us that we are not seriously at
war, and that wo are unwilling to do any great injury to
Russia. In this state of affairs, with expressions rife of
various kinds, I certainly thought it was due to the House
of Commons, now almost upon the eve of prorogation, that
I should enter more than is usually done into the question
of the objects of the war, and into the present state of our
foreign relations. I did so as fully as it was possible for
me to do so—(hear, hear)—and I am willing to bear the
consequences, if I made that statement with too little re-
serve to the country. I believe that in carrying on a war
in which the feelings of this country are engaged, it is not
imprudent to state to the country at large what are the
general objects that we have in view, and what is the na-
tional purpose that we hope to attain. My hon. friend the
member for Aylesbury says he wishes there was some
statesman who could take a statesman-like view of the ob-
jects of the war, and that would take that view which a
statesman alone can take of the importance of the object
and the magnitude of the contest. Well, if we who belong
to the Ministry are entirely benighted in this respect ; if,
in all the debates which have occurred, we have never pro-
perly expressed why we went to war, and what should
be our objects in going to war, I was in hopes that the hon.
gentleman, who is so much more enlightened, and who has
calculated the interests of all the powers in Europe, would
have told us what these objects should be, and in what way
we were to carry on this contest. But he has not, lam sorry
to say, so enlightened us upon the subject. It appears to
me, indeed, that the case might be generally stated in very
simple language, and without any very great profundity of
view. (Hear.) The Sultan of Turkey is attacked by the
Emperor of Russia. Is he unjustly attacked? ' Yes ;he
is unjustly attacked. Have we any interest in defending
him 9 Yes, we have an interest in defending him. (Hear
hoar.) And there, as it appears to me, is the very simple,
plain case upen which the minds of the people of this
country are satisfied. without those profound calculations
and those mysterioas views which my hon. friend has in
his own breast, but which he so carefully conceals from us
who are his inferiors, no doubt, in experience and under-
standing. (Ministerial cheers, and laughter.) Then, with
regard to the conduct of the war, in stating the reasons for
taking this vote, I refrained purposly from entering into
any defence against those generally anonymous accusations
which have been made against that department of the Go-
vernment which sent out our fleet and army, and those who
are in command of that fleet. No such accusations had
been made in this house, and I thought it not unbecoming
ray position to wait and see if any such would be made. I
am sorry to say that some of those unfounded accusations
have been repeated here. But my right hon. friend the
Secretary at War (Mr. S. Herbert) has furnished so ample
an explanation upon that subject that it is quite unneces-
sary for me to add one word respecting it. We all knew
—at least we ought to have known--that one hon. gentle
man, the lion member for Surrey, hinted out to us, if we
had not found it out for ourselves, that this is a war not
similar to many wars in which we have been engaged.
Had Sir Charles Napier, for instance, instead of having to
encounter dangerous shoals, granite built forts, narrow
channels, and continual fogs, gone to distant seas, I have
no doubt that before this time a whole archipelago of
islands would have yielded to his flag. But we have in
this case a sort of rhinocerous to attack, and it is not a
very easy thing to penetrate the hide of such an animal.
(Hear.) With regard to the Black Sea, it is an inconsider-
able advantage that those forts which Russia has for many
years been constructing, VS ith the view of maintaining and
extending her power in the countries bordering upon that
sea, have been yielded without a blow being struck by
the Emperor, who, whatever others may have felt has
himself confes ed that the inferiority of his forces in the
Black Sea was a reason why there should be an armistice
on its shores. There is one other topic which has been
dwelt upon both last night and to night, respecting which
I think it is absolutely necessary I should address a few
words to the house. Some hon. members have singled out
the noble earl at the head of the Administration, and have
made him the peculiar object of their attacks. Now, what-
ever may be the constitutional nature of this motion—and
I do not deny that, as a motion of want of confidence, it is
constitutional—yet there is nothing constitutional in the
attempt to separate the Cabinet from the noble earl who
is at its head, and to make him alone responsible for that
in respect to which all his colleagues must share his re-
sponsibility. With regard to the general measures of the
Government, those measures have been considered step by
step by those advisers of her Majesty who are usually called
the Cabinet, and when decisions have been adopted all the
colleagues of Lord Aberdeen are alike responsible to this
house and to the country with that noble lord. (Hear.)
With regard again to particular departments—with regard
to the Minister of War, and with regard to the First Lord
of the Admiralty—who are deeply charged with the con-
duct of this war—l am sure lam satisfied in saying that
there is no measure which they have opposed, in order to
impart greater vigour to the operations of war, and thus
ensure the success of that war, which my noble friend at
the head of the Government has not zealously encouraged
and supported in the Cabinet. (Cheers.) That my noble
friend for a long time believed in the possibility of main-
taining peace, and wished to avert the calamity of war, is,
I think, a reproach which he can very well bear; but with
regard to any delay that took place, or Unit has been charged
to have taken place, in commencing that war, those who
acted with Lord Aberdeen as his colleagues are alike
chergea.ble with him for such delay. Let me remark,
however, that that which was for eonio time the great sub-
ject of attack --namely, that when the Pruth was passed
by the Russians we did not at once advise her Majesty to
declare war, or to take such steps as would show that we
Were dotoniaineti to encoluiter the nik of hotitilittet—tb.at