Изображения страниц

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 regarded 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,

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.


Mr. Collier calls attention to the state of the Trade with Russia-Same · subject in the House of Lords-Statements in both Houses relative to the Hango Massacre-Attempted Administrative Reform AgitationMr. Layard's Resolutions upon the subject-Debate thereon-Speeches of Sir S. Northcote, Mr. Gladstone, Sir E. B. Lytton, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Goderich, Mr. F. Peel, Mr. Drummond, Mr. J. G. Phillimore, Mr. Disraeli, and Lord Palmerston-The question is again introduced by Mr. V. Scully-A long Debate ensues, in the course of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir S. Northcote, Sir F. Baring, Mr. Gladstone, and Lord Palmerston address the House-Position of Lord John Russell upon the publication of the Nesselrode Circular-His Explanation—Comments of Mr. Cobden, Lord Palmerston, Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Disraeli-Sir E. B. Lytton gives notice of a Vote of Censure on Lord John Russell-Further explanations and comments-Lord John Russell announces his Resignation-Statements of Explanations and Opinions by various Members, amongst whom are Sir E. B. Lytton, Mr. Bouverie, Lord Palmerston, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Gladstone-Debate upon Mr. Roebuck's Resolution on the Report of the Sebastopol Committee-General Peel moves the Previous Question-Speeches of Mr. Lowe, Sir J. Graham, Sir J. Pakington, Sir C. Wood, the Attorney-General, Mr. Whiteside, Lord John Russell, Mr. Bright, Mr. S. Herbert, Sir G. Grey, Lord Palmerston, Mr. Disraeli, and several other Members— Upon a Division, the Previous Question is carried-Discussion on Mr. Laing's Motion-Remarkable Speech of Mr. Gladstone-Speech of Lord John Russell on the Prospects of the War and Position of the Country-Reply of Lord Palmerston-Speech of Sir De Lacy Evans on the War-Lord Palmerston's observations in reply.

N the 20th of February a dis'cussion of ON cussion of great interest and importance arose in the House of Commons upon a motion of Mr. Collier for certain returns connected with our Russian trade. In a very able speech he drew the attention of the House to the whole question of the trade with Russia, its evasion of the blockade, and its continuance through Prussia. He intimated that if the explanations of Government

were not satisfactory, he might subsequently set forth the policy which he thought advisable, in the form of a substantive resolution. The wealth of Russia consisted almost entirely of serf-labour, and in the products of the soil; tallow, hemp, and linseed being the chief commodities produced for the benefit of the nobles. At the outbreak of the war, it was expected that as much would be done by injury to the commerce of Russia

as by our prowess in the field; that her wealth would be so crippled as to render continuance of the war impossible. Upon former occasions, as when Russia joined Napoleon in the continental blockade, she became a serious sufferer, and a rouble, "the pulse of Russian commerce," declined in value. At the outbreak of the present war, it fell from par-38 pence to 32 pence; and bankruptcy for the Russian land and Government was anticipated. The results had been the reverse. Notwithstanding the blockades, the exports had been greater than ever; the decline of English money sent to Russia had only been from 11,000,000l. to 10,000,000l., and the rouble had risen to par. That amount had not been sent in goods, but in money, the most convenient form for Russia under existing circumstances. The blockade in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov-where much was expected, because the land-carriage would be too lengthy for evasion had not been maintained: it was notified in June, in July, on the 1st of February, and the 16th; but if any had existed at all, it had only been within the last few days. The shipments of linseed from the ports in those seas had been unprecedented in scale; 700,000 quarters from May to December, 1854, against 640,000 and 445,000 quarters in the whole of the two preceding years. By blockading the Danube, Turkish grain had been kept back from this country, while the vexatious blockade of the other ports had only thrown the trade and its profits into the hands of the Greek merchants, who took it up where our trade had abandoned it, and the sea was so small, that a single

steamer might have blockaded the Straits of Kertch. The blockade of the Baltic had been evaded by the transit through Prussia; 1000 thalers a day have been taken for import duties on the Prussian frontier; 500 loads of hemp and flax had arrived per day at Memel. This route had occasioned an increased cost on Russian produce of not less than 2,500,000l., which fell upon the consumer; so that besides the expense of imposing the blockade, we pay 2,500,000%. for its evasion. This trade was organised to a great extent by the Governments of Russia and Prussia for the purpose of evading the blockade; a convention had been entered into for the formation of a railway, and Prussia derived a great revenue. It was a new trade, carried on to the detriment of ourselves. Now, by "the rule of 1756," a neutral was at liberty to carry on his accustomed trade in time of war, but not a new trade, to the prejudice of either of the belligerents,-a rule laid down by Lord Stowell. Mr. Collier glanced at the means for rendering the blockade effectual,-the actual closing of the Black Sea and the Baltic on the Prussian frontier, the search of neutral vessels for goods from a blockaded port, and the prohibition of Russian produce in this country. The merchants in St. Petersburg informed Sir Hamilton Seymour, that if the trade were prohibited, they would have nothing to do with it; and a similar conclusion was come to in London. On that declaration, the rouble fell from 36 to 32. Substitutes for the produce of Russia could be found in other countries

India, Africa, and Italy. The measure might entail some sacrifice upon this country; but unless

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »