The debate was then once more adjourned, on the motion of Mr. Scott, by whom it was resumed on the next day. He censured the conduct of the Government, as well as the culpable forbearance of the House, relative to the war. The weak and vacillating policy of the Ministry, of which Lords Palmerston and John Russell formed a part, had occasioned the war, and in his opinion they were unfit to be trusted with the conduct of it, or of the negotiations, without an explicit declaration of the opinions of the Cabinet upon the subject.

Sir Francis Baring explained the reasons which had led him to frame the amendment under discussion. What he wished to do was to convey to Her Majesty the same assurance of support as was conveyed by Mr. Disraeli's motion, but not at the same time to convey the Government to Lords Derby and Ellenborough. He had abstained from giving expression concerning the conduct of the Cabinet, believing that the time for that question had not come. Commenting on the other amendments, he pointed out that a vote on either of them would fail to show the direct opinion of the House on the question of peace or war, and the debate, notwithstanding its length and importance, would end in a

manner which looked like trifling with the country.

The Attorney-General adverted to the peculiar position of the Government upon that occasion, attacked in front, flank, and rear by adversaries, whose assaults, owing to their conflicting opinions, it was difficult to meet. He then proceeded to castigate Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright for their speeches, and commented with much severity upon the conduct of Sir J. Graham and his friends, who, after deserting their colleagues, had embarrassed their path and increased their difficulties by denouncing the continuance of a war which they had begun. He reviewed and denounced the conduct and designs of Russia, and dwelt upon her threatening position, and contended that the Russian proposals did not contain the materials for a safe peace, which was only to be achieved by a vigorous prosecution of the

war.

Sir F. Thesiger elaborately censured the conduct of Lord John Russell at Vienna, who, he said, had made concessions and committed himself to opinions, rendering him the most unfit person for the difficult and delicate office of conducting the negotiations, which he contended had been conducted most unskilfully and improperly.

Mr. L. Davies could not understand, if the origin of the war was just, how its character had changed. He regarded the Russian propositions as illusory, and denied that the object of the war had been obtained.

Mr. Bentinck charged the House with being the cause of the war, by sanctioning the formation of the Government under which it began.

Mr. Cardwell censured the At

torney-General for the rashness of his statements, and complained of the imputations cast by him upon his late colleagues, which he thought transgressed the strict rules of Parliament. He then scrutinised the several amendments, and deprecated fettering the hands of the Executive. He dissented, he said, from Mr. Lowe's amendment, the only effect of which would be to create a new war for new objects, with new motives, and it might be with new allies, and, perhaps, new enemies. He gave his ready assent to the motion of Sir F. Baring.

Mr. Walpole denounced the ambiguous conduct and language of the Ministers, and called upon them to state the object of the war. Lord J. Russell had said it was impossible to be more explicit, since the terms of peace must vary with the contingencies of the war. But, as it had been truly answered by Sir J. Graham, there was a total difference between the terms of peace and the objects of the war, which ought to be the same at the end as at the beginning. If this rule was just in general, it was peculiarly so in reference to this war, which was a war of justice, that right might be done to the party wronged, and security taken against a repetition of the wrong. More should not be required, and less should not be asked. With the policy of the war, therefore, he agreed; but, if this was its object, he next inquired how far it might have been obtained by the negotiations at Vienna, which he thought had been too hastily broken off. The principle had been laid down, and the whole matter was in a course of settlement; and, if the Government were justified in entering upon the negotiations upon the

principle, he contended that they were not justified in breaking them off in the way they were broken off, and for the reason assigned. But, taking the question as he found it, he objected to the amendment of Mr. Lowe on two grounds

namely, that the first part was not strictly true, and that the amendment was an impolitic one. He considered that the proposition offered to Russia for the reduction of her naval power in the Black Sea would be illusory as well as humiliating, and pregnant with future differences. He stated his reasons for dissenting from the other amendments, and implored the Premier to speak plainly, for unless he tempered down the speech of the Attorney-General, there would be no peace for ten years. He vindicated the Conservatives from the charge of being actuated by party motives, the absence of which was proved by their forbearance at the outset of the contest.

Mr. Horsman defended the course of the Government, and contended that the real danger which Europe had to guard against from Russia was not merely that which arose out of Prince Menschikoff's mission, but that which was the result of a long-studied and deep-seated policy, and regard ed the possession of Constantinople as the sure means of universal empire.

Mr. Disraeli said, he had never listened to a debate in which a more important issue was at stake, and which threw more light upon public transactions than that in which the House was engaged. In stating what that issue was, he referred to the motives which had induced him to propose his motion, imputing to the Government ambiguity of language and uncer

tainty of conduct, a charge which the debate, he thought, had pretty well established. He denied that his motion-which was intended as a vote of censure for a specific act -ought to have been considered as a vote of want of confidence, or to have carried with it the displacement of the Ministry. He then traced the pedigree of the different amendments. That of Sir F. Baring he considered to be felo de se. That of Mr. Lowe, which professed to be an amendment of his motion (which it was not), was in itself a complete and perfect proposition, and it was one of the most important ever made in that House, which it called upon to declare that, unless Russia consented to reduce her fleet in the Black Sea, negotiations should not be sanctioned. The question, therefore, was not obscure or insignificant, but palpable and vital. The authority of that House was preeminent in all domestic questions, but with respect to foreign policy any step was irremediable and its consequences immediate. He entreated the House, therefore, carefully to consider the course it took, the future fortune of the country with respect to peace or war depending upon its appreciation of the circumstances before it. Those who believed it to be wise for the House to declare that the condition introduced into the Conference upon the third point should be a sine qua non ought to vote with Mr. Lowe; he should vote the other way, not only because it was impolitic for the House to pledge itself to a position so important and so untenable, but because, in his opinion, it was a proposition that ought never to have been made, and that would be essentially inefficient. It was, moreover, impolitic, for no

thing could be more unwise than to humiliate a Power which was to be an element of the European system. With regard to the question of preponderance, the history of Europe was a history of attempts to check the preponderance of strong over weak nations. There were, therefore, practical means by which the preponderance of Russia could be controlled, and what he complained of was, that he saw no evidence in the proceedings at the Conference of a recurrence to such means to solve the difficulty in this case. Why not apply to Turkey the same principles as were applied to the Low Countries and the Rhine in 1815? Another point was the condition of the eastern coast of the Black Sea, every fort below Anapa not in the possession of the Turks having been destroyed; and a stipulation that they should not be restored would be no humiliation to Russia, while it would tend to consolidate the power of Turkey.

Lord Palmerston closed the debate in an animated speech. He showed the position in which the several opponents of the Government stood, and the weakness of the course which each one proposed; and made a direct appeal to the common patriotic feeling of members in support of the Crown and Government, to carry through a struggle necessary for the interest and honour of the country. He reminded the House, that the peace-at-any-price men were the only members who had introduced bitterness and passion into an important and gravely-conducted debate. "With peace in their mouths, they have nevertheless had war in their hearts; and their speeches were full of passion, vituperation, and abuse, and delivered in a man

....

ner which showed that angry passions strived for mastery within them. (Cries of Oh!' and cheers.) I must say, judging from their speeches, their manner, and their language, that they would do much better for leaders of a party for war at all hazards, instead of a party for peace at any cost. (Loud cheers.) . . . . The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) did at last tell us that he would fight-no, not that he would fight-but he said there was something for which the country must fight; and he added, that if Portsmouth were menaced -he said nothing about the Isle of Wight-he would go into the hospital. (Laughter.) Well, there are many people in this country who think that the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs would do well to go immediately into a hospital, but a hospital of a different kind from that which the hon. Gentlemen meant, and which I shall not mention." (Renewed laughter.) He showed how useless the first of the Russian propositions would be, and how Turkey already possesses the privileges which the second pretended to concede. He said that Sir Francis

Baring having framed upon the basis of Mr. Disraeli's decapitated resolution almost exactly such a one as Government would have taken the initiative in proposing,

66

he foresaw that a large majority would rally to vote for that resolution, as a means of enabling the Government to give effect to the wishes of the Parliament and the country in carrying out the object of the war. That object, he said, was to prevent the partition of Turkey" by a gigantic Power, which would stride like a Colossus, from the Baltic to the Mediterranean; and in so doing not only to protect the Sultan, but that very trade of Manchester and our manufacturing districts which Russia prohibited and Turkey enlarged. "I trust," said Lord Palmerston, in conclusion, "that party feeling will for one night be set aside; that, as it is no longer a conflict of party-the vote a fortnight ago having silenced that question-we shall, at least for one night and upon one occasion, be unanimous in our assurances to the Crown that we are determined, as the true representatives of the people of this great country, to give to Her Majesty the best support we can in the prosecution of the war to the attainment of a safe and honourable peace."

Mr. Lowe's amendment was then put, and negatived without a division; after which Sir F. Baring's motion was carried without further opposition.