The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-17 00:00:00

the Government was at all responsible, or that the hon.
gentleman's ingenuity would convince the Muse that
there was any connection between the Persian expedi-
tion and recent events in India. (Hear, bear )
Mr. NISBET, having had some experience in India,
denied that the present revolt was to be attributed to
the Persian invasion. The real reasons he believed to
be two—the first was, that the Bengal troops were re-
cruited exclusively from men of high. caste, who would
fight, but would do nothing else ; and next, that the
European officers were withdrawn from the native regi-

ments into civil offices.
Mr. BA ILLIE hoped this would not be turned into
an Indian debate lie proposed to discuss the policy
of the Persian war ; and with regard to the question of
communication with Parliament, be reminded the house
that the provisional order for the sailing of the expedi-
tion was made in July last, while Parliament was sitting,
so that an intimation of the war might then have been
made. He pointed out from the papers before the house
that before the war began Ferukh Khan offered to give
up all we asked, except to dismiss the Prime Minister.
For the dismissal of that Prime Minister, then, the war
was undertaken, and after gaining, as we are told, va-
rious successes, we agreed to a peace, giving up our
demand for the dismissal of the Prime Minister, and
even other points which Persia before the war was die-
posed to concede. He then argued that the Affghans
would in any case of war be found to be the natural
allies of Russia, while Persia had every interest in the
world to ally herself with us. It was madness to fling
array the friendship of such a people ; and, therefore,
unwilling as he was to embarrass the Government at
such a moment, still he felt constrained by a sense of
duty to vote for the motion. _ . -

Lord BURY fully agreed with the principles of Mr.
Roebuck's motion, but he could not consent to vote for
it, and so to embarrass the Government at this moment
of difficulty. He entered into details to show that Rus-
sia, even with Herat in her possession, could not invade
India, and therefore our alarm with respect to that
country was groundless. But he was rather disposed
at the present moment to support the Government, who
deserved the greatest credit for their promptitude in the
present emergency with India, and especially for having
sent out a man as commander-in•chief who to the eye of
a hawk united the arm of a sergeant-major.
Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR defended the policy of
the Government, and taunted Mr. Roebuck and his sup-
porters with having never objected to the war till they
were called on to pay the bill.
. Mr. WILLOUGHBY also miintained that the in-
terests of Eogland were strongly bound up in keeping
Herat out of the hands of Persia, and though he
might not agree to all the steps adopted for that purpose,
yet this was ❑ot the time to censure them. Adverting
to the state of India, he said there was no cause for un-
manly alarm, though he deprecated some of the discus-
sions that took place in this house with respect to it, and
particulArly the discussion on the petition from the mis-
sionaries.

S'r F. W. WILLIAMS said that the great experience

which be had had with Eastern countries convinced him
of the strong desire manifested by Russia to get to India,
and in the course of his communication with all classes
of the East, the advance of Russia on India was the
theme of conversation and discussion. The policy. of the
Persian war way, therefore, perfectly a sound one, awl
the results of the late operations at M.ohaminerah, one of
the most important and valuable to ens of Persia, would
not fail to be productive of the most beneficial results.
Mr. SEIERID AN supported the motion of the hon.
_ _ _

member for Sheffield. - -
Lord J. RUSSELL—There ara two questions before
the house, both of which have been discussed with great
calmness, and I, for one do not wish to alter the tone of
the discussion. One of the questions raised by the hon.
and learned member for Sheffield referred to the control
of this house over the finances of the country, the other
is the policy of the Persian war. With regard to the firet
of these questions the gentleman who spoke last, aud se-
veral who preceded him, and even the hon. and learned
member for Sheffield himself, who spoke with so much
ability on the question, have a little overlooked the pre-
cise facts of the case. With regard to the delay in the
production of the papers, I must say, that from Feb.
until that production, the house itself was a consenting
party. As soon as Pailiament met communications took
Place between Lord Cowley and Ferukh Khan, which be-
came the basis of negotiations, and it then became a ques-
tion with the ministry whether it would be conducive to
the success of the negotiations to produce at that time pa-
pers explanatory of the causes of the Persian war. It was
their opinion that the production of the papers would em-
barrass the negotiations, but any member might have
made a motion for their production, and if successful, the
papers would no doubt have been produced. It was wis-
dom, in my opinion, in the house to refrain, and that
accounts for the whole period from the beginning Of the
session down to the signature of the treaty of peace. It
may be said that they pushed reserve too far in not pro-
ducing the papers until the treaty had been ratified, but
every one knows that when that took place the house
was menaced with dissolution, and every ono was think
ing more of the elections than of the treaty with Persia ;
and it must be admitted that the moment the treaty was
ratified the papers were produced. This eeeplains the
greater portion of the delay ; but with regard to the for-
mer portion, I do not think that Ministers were altoge
they justified in not calling Parliament together at an
earlier period. I do not think that, when orders were first
despatched to Bombay it would have been wise to pnb-
blish our intentions by a discussion in Parliament ; but
when Nov. 1 came round, and the Governor-General of
India had by their desire declared war, I think it would
have been right to come down to Parliament with exp.a-
nations. But when Ireflectthat this is the month ofJuly,
and that the delay complained of took place some weeks
be&re Feb. 3, I think the charge Bs grave as to justify
the house in coming to a resolution. (Hear.) With respect
to the second question raised, viz., the negotiations, I
own I cannot see that it is at all proved that we might
not have had as good a convention as we have obtained
without any declaration of war. Lord Clarendon repeat-
edly declared that the sine qua non of negotiation was the
dismissal of the Persian Prime Minister, a most extraor-
dinary demand, but one that was not persevered in. If
that demand had not been pressed, Lord Stratford had in
his hands a complete compliance with all the demands then
made, a compliance fully at complete, as the hon. mem-
ber for Inverness had proved, as that which had been ob-
tained as the result of the war. I cannot but think, on
this part of the subject, that her Majesty's Government
were not justified in going to war without being fully
eatisfied that the objects which they deemed essential to
the honour and interests of the country could not be ob-
tained without it. It has been said that all means of re
gotiation were in the first instance exhausted, but he did
not prove his assertion, nor is it to be proved out of the
pipere. A gallant friend of mine says he found on the
froatiere of Persia and Prussia much speculation as to a
Raecian invasion of India, and on that ground he juilti-
fled our policy towards Persia. I must say I never knew
a shorter cut in logic than that taken by my hon. and
gallant friend. lam quite ready to adinit all he says of
his own authority, as it would be a very natural subject
for political theorists to speculate on the future destinies
of England and Russia, but that, therefore, we should
conclude that our policy towards Persia had been sound,
is, I must confess, rather too sudden a leap for me.
(Hear.) Taking his pre nines, I should have thought
our best policy would have been to conciliate Persia. It
may be said that they had violated a treaty, but then the
convention with regard to Herat was of a vague and ue-
defined character, and there were many loopholes of
which advantage might be taken. One thing is tolerably
clear, that if the Governor of Herat ma's incursiont into
the Persian territory, the Shah could not have been pre-
vented taking steps in retaliation. The Persian Guvern-
meat was ready to acknowledge the independence of He-
rat ; and if it had not been for the trumpery quarrel got
up at oar mission, the probability is that by the usual
diplomatic means we should have come to an understand.
ing, and that the subsequent war might have been pre-
vented. The war may cost a million, perhaps two, it
may have been imprudent to take the troops away from
India—l shall not pretend to say so, but at the same time
these wars disturbed men's minds, and gave rise to those
vast speculations which are natural to the Eastern ima-
gination: It seems to me that when you obtained peace
with Russia that was the time to commence a general
policy of peace. ,We should then have been as friendly
with Russia as with any other power in Europe, and
have endeavoured, as much as possible, to tranquil.
line the world, which had been disturbed by our con-
test. Having so concluded that war, I cannot but think
that it is our interest, and the interest of the world, that
the peace which has been established should be main
tamed. Our interests trend all over the civilised world
—there is no part of any sea—in the ear, in the west,
in the north, or in the south—in which we have not
some interest more or lass considerable, and where we
have not sometimes unfortunately chosen an agent, in
whose hands large powers arc necessarily entrusted. It
is impossible to avoid trifling quarrels arising' at times at
some one or other of these places, and•the only way to
keep peace is to endeavour to smooth down the-e differ-
ences as they arise, and to instruct the agents to bring
them, if possible, to a rational and speedy conc!usion,
I
and that while they did not sacrifice any of our engage-
ments or our great interests, to recollect that it is nei-
ther our aim nor wish to inflame those differences and
those quarrels, but rather to avoid and put an end to
them. (Hear) These sentiments which I have ventured
to express are, I trust, not adverse to those which both
the house and the Government entertain. (Elear.) I ,
regret that tlfe war with Persia and these hostilities in
China should have made it necessary now to vote this
sum of money—which, however, I am persuaded every
hon. member present w:11 be ready to vote—hut in the
hope that it will be the desire and the object of the Go-
vernment to do all in their power, without sacrificing
the honour and interests of the country, to preserve that
peace which we have obtained at so much, cost.
Mr. KER opposed the resolution.
Mr. WALPOLE contended that Ministers bad com-

mitted a grave infringement on the privileges of this
house, and showed by a comparison of dates that the
war was determined on before Parliament separated last
year. He thought this was not a matter to he lightly
passed over by Parliament, and he hoped Ministers
would give them the assuranc that this case would not
bs drawn into a preecdent. He was unwilling to do any-
thing that would weaken the hands of the Govern
lira at the present crisis ; and be was inclined to evade
giving any opinion on the motion by voting for Ong
Into committee, but he would do this on the distinct
protest that he altogether disapproved of their conduct.
Col. SYKES opposed the motion.
Mr. V. SMITH entered at great length_into the his-
tory of the transactions connected with the Persian war.
and n.)ntended tbat if Ministers bad announced their in
tendons to Parliament in July last year, it would have
been a warning to Persia, and enabled them to stand on
the defensive. With respect to the war itself, he denied
Mr. Millie's assertion that the war was caused by the
refusal of the Shah of Persia to give up his Minister.

The truth was' that at Constantinople Ferukh Khan
had no power 100 treat, and was the first to break off
negotiations when he found that the Persian expe(iition
had sailed. The peace we bad concluded, he maintained,
was an essentially good one ; Persia herself was satisfied
with it ; our power was strikingly Exttnplified in the war,

and he believed Persia would henceforth attach hk rseli

to England rather than to Russia.
Mr. GL ADSTONE said the question before the house
was one of extraordinary gravity and difficulty. He was
not disposed to omit from his consideration the verdict

that had been given by the constituencies in favour of
the present Government, because the noble lord at the
head of the Government had a right to urge that those
acts complained of must have been under the review of
the people during the last election, and approved of by
them. He (Hr. Gladstone) was deeply convinced of the
value of the privileges of the house over the Govern-
ment through the estimate., and that without them there
was no guarantee for the honour and glory of this coun-
try. He took an unfavourable view of the question, and
was sceptical of the dogmas that had been advanced in
the course of the debate, and of the importance attri-
buted to the position of Herat. (Hear.) It was net by
such conduct as bad been pursued in this war that the
honour of England was to be consolidated. A connec-
tion in some degree might be presumed to exist between
what had occurred in Persia and India, but he did not
think it was a question for consideration in that debate.
He dissented from the sours- that had been adopted-by
the Government with re •pect to Herat, but he admitted
they had only given effect to what might be considered
traeitional ideas. He eootended that the Government
had not given a satisfactory answer to the question—for
what we went to war ? We went to war for oljects
that were found unattainable, and as soon as that was
discovered we mike fresh demands. The right hon.
gentleman the President of the Board of Control had
stated that we did nut make the dismissal of the Persian
ambassador an ultimatum, but the contrary was the
fact, arid the right hon. gentleman (11r. Gladstone) read
extracts from the blue nook to show that such was the
case. Who was it that urged the breaking out of hos-
tilities for not going on with the negotiations t Why,
not Feruk Kban, but Lordh Stratford himself ; and yet
at that time Ferukh Khan had conceded more than we
had since obtained by treaty. So .much for the Persian
war. There then remained the constitutional question,
and upon that question the allegations of the hon. and
learned member for Sheffield had not been met. The
right hon. gentleman who had just sat down had referred
to Indian precedents ; but these precedents ought to
arouse the jealousy of the house, because the principle
laid down was, that while the Government could not
with the Queen's army cimmence war without the sanc-
tion of Parliament, yet they could do so with an Indiau
army. (Elver.) That was a most dangerous principle,
and in that case ;t was the more dangerous because the
Persian was not an Indian war. That war was a matter
of British and not of Indian principle, and therefore no
claim could be made for it of being exempt from the
control of Parliament. The question, then was, what
course were they to take I Could they afford altoge-
ther to pass it by as regards the derogations which
had taken place of the privileges of Parliament. He
thought words of the deepest censure were justi-
fiable ; but as the derogation took place in the last Par-
liament, he would be content to waive that censure, pro-
vided he could obtain security for the privileges of Par-
liament for the future. Upon that subject he felt much
alarm, beeauset the Government had defended themselves
upon the merits of the case, and without reference to the
dignity of Parliament. He confessed, therefore, that
while he was not convinced of the necessity of recording
censure, yet it would be inconsistent with the character
of the house, and inconsistent with the jealousy with
which the house always watched its privileges, if they
allowed the matter to pass unnoticed. It the Government
had said that this was not to be a precedent, he would
have urged the hon. and learned gentleman not to per-
severe in his course ; but as they had been told that
everything was right, he fur one could not, by putting a
negative on the hon. and learned gentleman, support a
principle which asserted that a war might be commenced
and concluded without the consent of the British Par-
liament. (Cheers )
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I cannot concur either
with the constitutional doctrine or with the constitu-
tional conduct of the hon. and learned gentleman who
has moved these resolutions, If I understand the con-
stitutional doctrine which the hon. and learned gentle-
man endeavoured to lay down, it is this that the crown
has no right either to make war or to make peace with-
out previous communication with and the concurrence
of Parliament. Now, I deny that doctrine to be any
part of the constitution of this country. I contend, on
the contrary, that the constitution of the country vests
in the crown the prerogative and the discretion of war
and of peace ; but with this reserve, that when the ad-
visers of the crown have deemed it their duty to counsel
their sovereign either to engage in war or to put an
end to war by a treaty of peace, that it is the duty
of those advisers to lay before Parliament, if sitting, the
grounds upon which either the one course or the other
has been adopted ; and if Parliament be not sitting
when the interests of the country are deemed to be such
as to require a recourse to war, I frankly admit that it
is their duty to take the earliest opportunity of calling
Parliament together for the purpose of laying before them
the grounds on which that course has been taken. I
should be the last man is the world to deny that general
proposition. I rosootsio however, !05.% io 400 orrrirmo,
which the motion abides, there were circumstances,
which ren lered it a temporary exception to that rule. I
must observe, however, that there is a wide distinction
between the conduct of the hon. and learned gentleman
and the doctrine of the right hon. gentleman the member
for Oxford. The hon. and learned gentleman declares
that in any case in which a war bad been undertaken,
when co part of the expense was to be paid out of the re-
venues of the country, that then it was a case in which
Parliament had no ground to interfere, whereas the right
hon. gentleman contends that even in the case of Indian
war, carried on within the limits of India, and with re-
gard to which no charge whatever would be thrown on
this country—that even in that case the principle would
apply. I leave the hen. and learned gentleman, and the
right hon. gentleman to settle which of the two princi-
pies they should adopt. Now, with regard to the case
itself ; I am quite rea ly to admit that it does involve a
question which Parliament is entitled to have well ex-
plained to them, and which it not less capable of expla-
nation and if it were drawn into a precedent, might be
attended with injurious and improper consequences. But
the right liar. gentleman is quit, mistaken (and I think
he could not have been present oaring the earlier course
i.of the evening) in saying that no explanation has been
given by any member of the government of any peculiar
circuinsta'ices which took this case out of the general
rule. The Chanc,llor of the Exchequer and the Presi-
dent of the Board of Control stated at length and in great
detail why it was not a case in whicn it was necessary
that Parliament should be consulted. It has been con-
tended by some that Parliament should have been caled
together when the force was rent off to Bombay. 1
think my right hon. friend's answer is perfectly conclu-
sive. It would have been the height of absurdity to
have proclaimed to the world that we were making pre-
f parations for waging war in a certain event which might
or might not happen. Then it was said that Parliament
ought to have been called together in September when
the Governor-General gave orders for the expedition. I
say it was premature even then to call Parliament toge-
ther, because it was impossible to say that circum-
stances might not have occurred in India which might
have prevented the Governor-General from prosecuting
the war. The earliest moment when Parliament could
have been consulted with propriety on the subject was
when we had knowledge of the declaration of war. Well,
at that time Parliament was called together for the 31
of February. The Christmas holidays were near, and the
eariiest period at which Parliament could have been
called together was the first or second week in January;
and therefore the only lathes, if there were any Itches at
all, was in not calling Parliament together between the
middle of Jan. and the 31 of Feb. If the war ha.-1 been
one with an European power involving great and serious
Consequences, aed likely to require the immediate co-
operation of Parliament, he admitted that even that short
period ought to bates been avoided—(hear)—hut consi•
dering the remoteness of the scene of action, considering
that no immediate requisition was called for from Par-
liament, he thought it would have been attaching more
importance to the matter than it deserved if they had
issued a. proclamation to call Parliament together a fort-
night sooner on the announcement that war had been
commenced in Persia. We did, in the beginning of the
session, in the speech from the throne, communicate the
fact of this dispute with Pet sia, and the military opera-
tions
which had taken place. Where was the hon. and
learned gen lama° then ? Where was his constitutional
jealousy ? Where was my right hon. friend the member
for Oxford ? Where was my right hon. friend the member
for Cambridge'? Where were all these constitutional cham-
pions ? Silent as the grave. Where was the vote of cen-
surs ? Where was the reprobation which the hon. and
learned gentleman now wishes to draw down upon
us ? Why, there are things which are said, like
the oak to be long in attaining maturity ; but when they
do attain it their irrength and power are great in pro-
portion to the time they have been acquiring them.
And so with the indignation of my hon. and learned
friend. He did not get up on the first or second day of
the session and say, "You have just got Ui into a war
with Persia and have not called Parliament together. I
will propose a vote of censure upon you." He has
brooded over his indignation from February till July,
and now comes forward with a vote, not of censure, but
of reprobation, with a strength of language proportioned
to' the time it bas been suspended and the heat of the
weather. (Cheers and laughter.) As to his constitu-
tional principles, I do not think the country will applaud
them, and the time that has intervened and the moment
he has chosen prove he is not a very ardent or a very
ready champion of our constitutional privileges. What
is the moment he has chosen ? He has waited until the
feelings and at xieties of the country are roused and ago-
nised by the accounts we have received from India; he
has waited'until the moment when the Government are
engaged with all their mind and all their thoughts in
providing for the difficulties of the hour. But, sir, has
he even given the house the notice which is usual and
customary when a member is about to propose anything
which he thinks of great importance ? No, sir. The
honourable and learned gentleman suddenly bethouglb
himself yesterday evening, about six o'clock, that he
world call attention to the evil doings of the Govern-
ment last year, and at six o'clock he gave notice of what
he would do this evening. That, sir, is a departure
from the ordinary practice of Parliament, He proposed
to call the attention of the house to a subject of
great importance, with regard to which papers of :ome
magnitude had been laid on the table ; and I think it
was only due to members—l do not talk of the govern-
ment, for we are always ready—(laughter)—l say he has
laileo,lll the respect due to members in not giving them