The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-06 00:00:00

considerablepas the restitution rt of Anatolia,reitut ien of Karsandthe is broughtreforewhe penuinon the
eoef
tatheiCs, thbf
Conferences
reneeßussian plenipctantiaries admit the principle of
restitution,P but as it cannot finally be decided upon until
the end of the negotiation, they express a hope that credit
will be given to them for the concessions which they have
mile. In the first instance, in exchange for Sebastopol
Kinburn, Eupatoria, Kertch, and Balaklava, which we
had obtained from Russia, we wore to have this rectifica-
tion of the territory of Bessarabia as agreed to at Vienna,
agreed to on the pert of Russia, and forming a portion of
the preliminaries on which the new negotiations were en-
tered upon for the present treaty. Now, when we come
to the subsequent treaty, the Russian Minister, admitting
the restitution of Kars, puts forward his claim in respect
of that restitution in other articles which are to be dis-
cussed, and the result of it is that an important alteration
is made in the rectification, which important alteration,
by the protocols themselves, is placed as a counterpoise for
the restitution of Kars, and then my noble friend has the
courage to tell your lordships that the fall of Kars had no
influence on the negotiations on either side. What is this
rectification? My noble friend talks of it very lightly.
(The noble earl then described the geographical difference
between the boundaries as defined by the preliminaries of
peace, and those substituted in the recent treaty in conse-
quence, as he alleged, of the fall of Kars.) Then there is the
neutralisation of the Black Sea. We are told that it is Jo
be completely neutralised—that it is to be open to the con-
merce of all nations, and that no military arsenals of any
shapeare to be upon its coast. I forget to ask what isto be-
come of the two important forts of Ismail and Killia-nova.
Are they to be razed? I should be glad to know whether
they are to be razed or not. Is there any understanding
on the subject? (The Earl of Clarendon was understood
to reply in the negative.) Then they are not to be razed.
(The Earl of Clarendon—" They have been restored.")
'They form part of the Turkish territory, but they cannot
be occupied by Turkish troops. These fortresses will be
garrisoned by Moldavians, and so far as Turkey goes, I
don't think there will be any security. Then Nicolaieff is
a great maritime and naval arsenal—one where a great
portion of the ships of war in the Black Sea used to be
constructed, and then floated down. Is Nicolaieff to be
destroyed ? The noble earl opposite may find it conve-
nient now to argue that we had no right to demand that
Nicolaieff should be destroyed, but at the Conferences at
Paris he himself proposed that it should be done away with;
but on the suggestion of the Russian plenipotentiary the
question was postpone I, which was a mild way of getting
rid of it altogether—something like a motion for reading a
bill that day six months—but it is admitted by the Go-
vernment that Nicolaieff is left untouched, and that Rus-
sia
is free to build any number of vessels there which else
may think fit. The noble earl might say that, though there
was no positive engagement entered into, they were satis-
fied with the declaration of the present Emperor that he
did not intend to build any other ships there except those
mentioned as the basis of the negotiation; but that decla-
ration was not recorded in the treaty, and though that
may truly bo the intention of the present Emperor, we
cannot say what may be the intention of the future sove-
reigns of Russia, nor will any of his successors be bound
by such an understanding. Agein, there is no restraint
upon the rebuilding and fortifying Sebastopol. I see no
reason why Sebastopol may not be made impregnable—
why the docks may not be restored in all their original
magnitude—why an indefinite number of vessels of war
may not be built at Nicoleieff, and in a very short time
floated down into the Black Sea, and placed under the im-
pregnable fortress of Sebastopol, which you allow them
to reconstruct, and which you do not call upon them to
demolish ; and that is the way in which you gain the neu-
tralisation of the Black Sea. It may be said that we will
have consuls at Sebastopol, and all the ports of the Black
Sea, and will receive information from them as to any-
thing which is being done contrary to the spirit and inten-
tion of the treaty, and that ample time will be afforded to
us to remonstrate ; but Nicolaieff is not on the Black Sea,
nor ie-the Sea of Azoff a portion of the Black Sea. Nei
ther have we by this treaty the right of sending a single
consul to tell what is doing in the interior of Russia. The
noble earl says we could not call upon the Russian Govern-
ment to abolish the forts, but the British plenipotentiary
did request that those forts should be abolished. Perhaps
the noble earl is so intoxicated with military success,
though mingled with some disasters, as to think that the i
naval operations by which those forts were obtained were
such that Russia should not be able to rebuild them I ask
it not as a question of gratitude to the Circassians, but as
a question of policy—a question of carrying out that which
the noble earl himself declared to be theobjects of the war—
namely, to limit the territorial aggrandisement of Russia,
and for which that tribe should be maintained as indepen-
degt of Russia. an 1 to form a most effectual barrier against
het power. You boast that the objects of the war were to
resist the aggressions of Russia, and secure the indepen-
dence of Turkey ; and you enlarge the power of Russia
precisely on the side which will best enable Russia to carry
out her views at any future time. You may say what you
please of the independence of these tribes; but I say, in
providing for the neutralisation of the Black Sea, the Cau-
casian provinces were those of all others to which you
should have directed your attention. (Hear.) Well, now,
there is one point which has not bean touched upon by my
noble friend, and, consequently, was not replied upon by
the noble earl opposite, and that is, the condition in which
you have left the affairs of the Principalities. Now, if
there was ono point which, more than another, deserved
your consideration, 'it was the condition of Moldavia and
Wallachia, which formed a barrier (between Russia and
Turkey, and whose independence, under the suzerainty of
the Porte, you have left untouched. Thus, the constitu-
tion of the Principalities was left to be rogalated by two
separate bodies—one to be constituted by the Sultan, the
other by whom neither you nor I know. Now, I say that
this peace leaves open endless causes of dispute and indif-
ference. My lords, there is another point ; but it is one of
much too great importance to be dealt with incidentally in
a debate upon a treaty of which it does not form a part,
but which I cannot pass over without entering my solemn
protest against—l mean that delegation of mai itimepower
which, for the first time, introduces a new principle into
the maritime code of England—the abrogation of a prin-
ciple for the maintenance of which we have resisted foreign
aggression.
The Earl of CL &RENDON—The same thing was done
by the abolition of the corn laws.
The Earl of DERBY continued—The corn laws ! Yes,
but did we repeal the corn laws by the aid of plenipoten-
tiaries? (Hear, hear.) It was without the ranction of
Parliament that this surrender of our maritime supremacy
was yielded. I use the mildest word—and no protocols
tell of the arguments used in its favour. But this I know,
that, right or wrong, it was volunteered or surrendered by
the British Minister to the feelings or prejudices of other
oountries—it was done in the dark, without the knowledge
of Parliament—and the Minister sent by the country to
conduct the peace took advantage of his position to make
an important alteration in the maritime law of England
without the knowledge of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) I
say this ie a question too large to argue now ; but I should
be unworthy of a seat in your lordship's house if I did not
advert to what undoubtedly forms an aclj tarot of the treaty.
For the treaty itself, I accept it with some degree of reluc-
tance. I do not, God knows, regret that we are deliveredfrom
the horrors and calamities of war, and I hope, far more than
I trust, thatthe peace yon have concluded will be permanent.
I do not regret we should have peace at a moment when
the country has a mighty naval armament the like of which
the world never saw, and an army in the very finest condi-
tion, though it is just at the moment when they are no longer
required. I am willing to believe that the exhibition of
that power has bad some influence in the negotiations of
this peace, and I am willing to believe that that great
naval armament should be taken as the latest exhibition of
the greatness of the nation and the incapacity of the Minis-
ters. (Hear, and a laugh.) Ido not regret that more
blood is not shed, but if you call upon me in this horse to
say that, in my judgment. the peace is honourable to the
Crown, and fully effects all the conditions for which we went
into the veer, I cannot assent to that which I do not believe
to be the fact, and I must give my assent to the amendment
propoied by my noble friend. Ido not mean to take a di-
vision upon it, but to record my opinion that the words of
this address are not justified by the fact, and that, though
the nation consents to the peace, they do not hail it with
enthusiasm, but they accept it with reluctance, and with
the belief that it reflects no great honour upon the Ministers
who have accomplished it. (Cheers from the Opposition.)
Earl GRANVILLE observed that the two noble earls
who had spoken on the Opposition side of the house had
vituperated the noble lord who acted as ambassador at Con-
stantinople, and had also censured the conduct of the Go-
vernment in retaining him in office. Without going at
length into the question, he would only state that it was
obvious to the common sense of their lordships that it
was the duty of the Secretary of State to consider, not
that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe had done wrong upon one
point, but that, having conveyed a rerimand upon that
point, it was his duty to consider whether it was more for
the advantage than the disadvantage of the country that
the noble lord should remain in his position. It was clear
that, except upon this point, the two noble earls opposite
were of opinion that the noble lord was the proper person
to represent her Majesty at Constantinople. The noble
earl (Malmesbury) imputed the loss of Kars to the Govern-
ment at home, and argued that if Gen. Williams had got
authority to raise money, provisions, and ammunition, the
Russians never would have taken the town at all. But it
should be remembered that her Majesty's Government
could give no such authority to an officer not in its own
army, and that it was the Turkish Government Alone
which could have placed him in the position he desired to
occupy. With regard to money, it was somewhat extra-
ordinary that Gen. Williams never, except on one occa-
sion, made any application for money; and with respect to
provisions and ammunition, there was an abundance of
both in Asia Minor, and it was only owing to the culpable
negligence of the 'Turkish authorities that they were not
stored in safety in Kars long before its investment. With
regard to the other stipulations of the treaty, the noble
earl appeared to undervalue their importance, as, upon
communication with the Turkish Government, it was
ascertained that the principal things they wished for
were the ratification of the boundary in Bessarabia and
the opening up the commerce of the eastern portion of
the Black Sea; and these had been secured. For his
own part, he owned that there was no part of the treaty
which surprised him so much as that Bus ,is should have
given up the fortress of Ismail—the scene of one of her
most brilliant military achievements. The noble earl com-
plained that Nicolaieff was not included in the treaty, and
stated that Sebastopol was still a standing menace to Tur-
key, as there was nothing to prevaint her reconstructing
commercial docks, fortifying them, and building any de-
scription of vessels she pleased. Bat Nicolaieff was the
subject of a solemn declaration made by the plerlipoten-
Lim lee, and subscribed to by Russia in the face of Europe.
An t as to Sebastopol, if Russia attempted to rebuild docks
and fortify them, she would be breaking the terms of the
t,l,re?•ty. With regard to the Circassians, unfortunately,
Celt y,
died, and Mr. Longworth failed in his negotia-
tviorenuschwit them ; but the same thing happened to the
nugstoutt:tesi were not settled by the Plenipotentiaries,
boundaries e ini,eioner ; and when the noble earl asked why
nsoeir,avbred that they could not carry out these
11
thesetalterrmcaarry them out, well
agents,
ding this nation to mahkeewho were already appointed
noble earl had assisted in parsua-
slavery, and yet he saidth their
r Zehn.,
igreat
Government c ii ti c e inha getting
pursued
an
ill-judged policy in
themselveseein settleal. the boundaries, but
egard to the Princi-
slave-trade in Circaesia.
hat the Plenipoten-
pitrf t o put an end to the
se sfiatdh the
not
of
e earl
sufficient
Commissioners
though they were men of great ability, yet the did not
issioners
tpil la
riitei
possess at Paris the knowledge
to enable them to
come to a satisfactory arrangement. The .
were already appointed, and the members will be
to represent their Governments and to afford assistance
to Turkey and to the inhabitants of the Principalitr.
The noble earl said that, with regard to the settlement
of the maritime law, he would reserve his animadver-
sions upon the subject for a future occasion, but when-
ever her Majesty's Government were called upon they
would show the noble earl, who was such a stickler for
precedent, that they had followed precedent in this
matter, aud, moreover, triumphantly show that what bad
be:ri' done would be for the benefit of mankind and