naval and military preparations which had already been
made. Since January 1853 the number of war steamers,
third-rate or upwards in force, had been increased
from 1 to 17; the sailing ships of war of similar magnitude
from 11 to 18, and the whole number of steamers
and ships of war in commission from 209 to 259.
Within the same period the muster-roll of seamen
employed had enlarged from 28,000 to 47,000, and the
marines from 5,000 to 9,000. With regard to the land
forces, 30,000 troops had been conveyed to Turkey, and
were lately at Varna in readiness to operate in any
required direction. Respecting the actual purposes
upon which the money now asked for was to be spent
he could give no details; but after mentioning that
heavy expenses had been incurred on account of the
commissariat, ordnance, and transport services, and that
a plan for organising a body of Turkish troops in
English pay was under consideration, declared that the
appropriation of the vote must be left to the discretion
of the executive government. He then alluded to the
negotiations which had recently taken place between
Austria and Russia, and stated the tenor of the Czar's
reply to the last message from the Vienna cabinet.
This reply, he pointed out, was inadmissible in many
respects, but chiefly because it repudiated the principle
that Turkey should be admitted into the great
community of European nations. In regard to the conduct
of Austria, he admitted that her attempts at contriving
a diplomatic solution of the difficulty had been too long
protracted, and might even be again renewed under the
pressure of domestic circumstances and the half-hearted
co-operation of Prussia; but could not doubt that she
would finally fulfil her engagements to the Western
Powers and to Turkey. Reiterating the declaration
that England could never sheathe the sword she had
drawn, except upon the conclusion of a just and honourable
peace, Lord J. Russell, without giving any pledge
as to details, gave an outline to the conditions which
such a peace should include. Among them were the
extinction of the Russian protectorate of the Principalities
and the obliteration of the menacing armaments
at Sebastopol. The enunciation of this latter condition
was received with vehement cheering from all sides of
the house, which were renewed when the noble lord
added that the French Emperor fully concurred in this
view of the guarantees that should be provided against
Russian aggression. He then proceeded to trace the
bygone steps of this aggression, showing how the
Sovereigns of Russia had always been envious of all
improvements, and hostile to all reforms in Turkey,
having opposed every movement that tended to elevate
the Ottoman nation, and fostered every symptom of
decay or disorganisation in an empire of which they
hoped to become the inheritors. Against this attempt,
so long persisted in, and so widely ramified, the present
war was commenced, and considering the power and
character of the sovereign against whom it was waged,
he could entertain slight hope that its duration would
be brief. He was, however, assured that Englishmen
would not grudge the sacrifices which the continuance
of the war would necessitate, feeling convinced that
both the honour and the interests of the country were
engaged in preventing Russia from substantiating the
claim she had already urged to be the arbiter of the
destinies of Europe. Lord J. Russell then referred to
the question of an autumnal session; and after admitting
that circumstances abroad or at home might render
such a step expedient, contended that the discretion of
the government should not be fettered by calling upon
them to give any pledge upon the subject.—After some
observations from various members, Mr. COBDEN
strongly objected to the scheme of invading and
occupying the Crimea. He commented at much length
upon the course pursued by the English government
towards Austria, Greece, and the Christian population
of Turkey. On many points he found subjects for
blame or prognostics of danger, and predicted that in
six months the English public would be as anxious for
peace on any terms as they were now eager for war.—
Mr. LAYARD intimated his intention not to embarrass
the government by resisting the present vote; and then,
in reply to Mr. Cobden, contended that the Christian
subjects of the Porte were liberally governed, and
afforded every opportunity for advancing in wealth
and social condition. Lord J. Russell's speech had,
he confessed, given him much satisfaction, but heretofore
they had heard speeches of very different tenor from
other members of the cabinet, especially from the Prime
Minister. The opinions expressed by the noble member
for London were not pronounced, and could not be
considered, as those of the whole of a united administration.
With a government thus discordant among themselves,
he urged that the house could not prudently consent to
separate and leave the destinies and conduct of the war
at the uncontrolled disposal of the two or three ministers
who might happen to be in town at any crisis during the
recess. From a detailed analysis of bygone diplomacy
and a consideration of recent operations, he drew the
conclusion that the ministry had pursued a half-and-half
policy, resulting in much ill success, and requiring a
watchful supervision from the legislature.—Lord D.
STUART also urged the government to pledge themselves
to summon parliament together in autumn.—Mr.
DISRAELI having originated the suggestion of an
autumnal session, contended that the proposal was
neither unreasonable nor unprecedented. Last year the
absence of parliament had led to many disadvantages,
leaving the public in mystery and anxiety, and rendering
the policy of ministers uncertain and obscure. The
speech of Lord John Russell, he remarked, contained
the first distinct announcement of the purposes and
objects of the war. Repeating his conviction that the
war had arisen through the discordancies of the Coalition
Cabinet, and abstaining from any comment on the
military operations, he proceeded to remark upon the
two conditions which had been described as being
essential to the conclusion of peace—namely, the
removal of Russian influence from the Principalities,
and the destruction of Sebastopol.—Lord J. RUSSELL
interposed a correction. He had not insisted upon the
destruction of Sebastopol, but that Russia should not
maintain so formidable a fleet in that harbour.—Mr.
DISRAELI appealed to the house to corroborate his
impression of Lord John's speech, and then remarked
that they had been existing for six hours in a "fool's
paradise," and debating this question all night under a
totally false idea of the Ministerial policy. Enlarging
upon this new view of the case, he declared that the
mystification of that evening formed an appropriate
climax to those which had prevailed since the very
commencement of the session. Different ministers had
contradicted each other's statements, and sometimes their
own, to the great perplexity of the world. At last,
indeed, there seemed to be some unity in the opinions
of Lord Aberdeen and Lord John Russell; but they
were unanimous in conducting war for insignificant
objects and to a contemptible end.—Lord PALMERSTON
rejoiced to perceive that the house were unanimous in
advocating a vigorous prosecution of the war, and in
supporting the government in their efforts for that
purpose. Respecting the suggested session of parliament,
he repeated the assurance that if circumstances required,
the legislature should be summoned, declaring that the
ministry, grateful for past support, could feel nothing
but gratification upon meeting parliament at any time.
In the present debate he hoped that the house would
show itself unanimous in declaring that the war should
be prosecuted until the aggressor could be deprived of
the power of again disturbing the peace of the world.—
Lord D. STUART, observing that Lord J. Russell had
overset the impression originally derived from his
speech, moved the adjournment of the debate.—Lord J.
RUSSELL explained. He had not intended to indicate
the capture of Sebastopol and the occupation of the
Crimea as the object of a military expedition, but as the
possible result of some future treaty of peace.—A
miscellaneous conversation followed, in the course of which
many hon. members described their impressions of Lord
J. Russell's meaning originally. At length the vote
was allowed to pass, upon the understanding that any
further debate should be taken when the report was
brought up.

On Tuesday, July 25th, the Vote of £3,000,000 for
War Expenditure having been reported from the
committee of supply, Lord D. STUART rose to move a
resolution, thanking her Majesty for her gracious message,