support to her Majesty in the prosecution of the war,
until her Majesty shall, in conjunction with her allies,
obtain for this country a safe and honourable peace."
Mr. Disraeli assigned as his motive for inviting a
discussion upon the conduct of the war, the distrust with
which he had been inspired by the ambiguous language
and inconsistent course of the government, especially
with regard to the conferences lately held at Vienna.
For his own part, he had abstained from taking the
initiative in the case, apprehending the imputation of
party promptings, until the appearance of the notice
given by Mr. Milner Gibson, followed as it was by the
dramatic scene of Monday evening, convinced him that
it was time to interfere from the opposition bench, in
order to secure a serious discussion of the great question
of peace or war. In the resolution which he now
offered for their adoption he wished to express his
conviction that the conduct of the administration
had been inconsistent, and their language ambiguous,
and to invite the house to declare that their determination
was unchanged to carry on the war with
unflinching energy. Tracing the proofs of mutability
in the policy of the existing government, Mr. Disraeli
remarked that shortly after the formation of the new
cabinet, Sir J. Graham had elicited from the premier
an assurance that the conditions on which he would
make peace differed in no degree from those proposed
by Lord Aberdeen; and yet the same right hon.
baronet and his friends had lately promised their
adhesion to the motion of Mr. Gibson, in which the terms
insisted upon at the conferences were heavily
censured. This, he contended, was a significant symptom
of vacillation in the general policy of ministers,
and he proceeded to collect from speeches and
public documents the materials for substantiating
a like charge of feebleness against Lord John
Russell as an individual minister. Contending
that the choice of a plenipotentiary to conduct
the negotiations had heen most unfortunate. He urged
that Lord John Russell, before he went to Vienna, had
committed himself to a violent and anti-pacific course;
had overset a cabinet avowedly on the ground that its
policy was too weak; and during the progress of the
conferences had exhibited a want of skill and adroitness
which had left the country in its present state of
anxiety and peril. Quoting and commenting upon the
Vienna protocols at much length, Mr. Disraeli contended
that Lord John Russell had mismanaged his mission,
with results not only of present failure in concluding a
treaty of peace, but of rendering it almost impossible
to obtain peace by means of a treaty hereafter. His
unskilful handling had left affairs in an entanglement
which diplomacy could no longer untie. He concluded
by challenging the government to proclaim in positive
terms the conditions on which they would accept peace,
and the purpose for which they were prosecuting the
war. The present indeterminate system, in which
negotiations and war were carried on simultaneously, was
most fatal. It led to disasters abroad, chilled the military
spirit at home, and extended an injurious influence
over our foreign relationships, inasmuch as a Power
who had been appointed a mediator would never
become an ally. He called upon the house to
declare that the time of negotiation was past.—Sir
F. BARING moved as an amendment a resolution in
which regret was expressed at the unsucessful
result of the Vienna conferences, and a pledge given
on the part the house to support the crown in
the prosecution of the war.—Sir W. Heathcote,
Mr. Seymer, Mr. Wilkinson, the Marquis of Granby,
and Mr. Phillimore, opposed Mr. Disraeli's resolution.
—Mr. GLADSTONE defended what was called the
ambiguous conduct and language of the government as
imposed by the necessity of the case, and the duty of an
administration charged with great negotiations. If he
charged the government with indecision, it was because
they omitted to take advantage of the admirable
opportunities afforded them in the course of the negotiations.
For these reasons he objected equally to the motion of
Mr. Disraeli and the amendment of Sir Francis Baring.
What purpose, he asked, was in our minds in proceeding
with the contest? To propose, not to dismember
Russia—not to weaken her, but to insult and humiliate
her—was a course neither intelligent nor consistent; it
left her in all her strength to meditate revenge. Mr.
Gladstone then reviewed the four points to prove the
importance of what had been conceded by Russia
towards securing the objects for which the war was
undertaken. The only question unsettled was that of the
preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea, for which
Russia herself had made two propositions. Examining
the condition in which the controversy was now left, he
remarked that the allies had obtained three out of four
points; and on the fourth, which in itself was absolutely
incapable of a perfect solution, they were presented with
an alternative which in many respects was better than
their own. Under the existing circumstances, he
considered a prolongation of the war unjustifiable and
unchristian.—Lord J. RUSSELL combated the conclusion
that peace should now be made because Russia offered
the terms which were demanded before the war began.
The conditions that might have been accepted to avoid
hostilities were insufficient after an actual appeal to arms.
In one case the removal of immediate danger sufficed;
in the other the belligerent powers were entitled to
demand securities for the future. Upon this principle
the noble lord examined the Russian propositions, and
contended that they fulfilled none of the conditions on
which the safety of Turkey and the peace of Europe
must depend. To have accepted them would have
resulted in a practical abandonment of the chief purpose
for which war was undertaken, and a confession of our
inability to limit the preponderance of Russia in the
Black Sea. Denying that hostilities were prolonged
for the sake of obtaining a military success, he pointed
to the danger as well as the disgrace that must attend
the conclusion of a peace while Russia refused to
concede by treaty the most important item of the terms
required, and while Sebastopol still remained a standing
menace to the world. Adverting to the Vienna
conferences, Lord John Russell confessed that his
political experience had been gathered rather in
parliament than in diplomacy. He had,
nevertheless, consented to undertake the mission, and
took part in the conferences, the proceedings of which
he passed in review, analysing and defining the various
questions that successively presented themselves for
consideration. Chief among them was the increasing and
aggressive power of Russia, the increase being evident
and enormous by land and sea, both in Europe and in
Asia, and the aggression pushed forward with incessant
activity, and under most favourable circumstances,
against Turkey. This was the peril which the Western
Powers were called upon to avert, and the noble lord
delineated the various phases which the problem assumed
as the successive events, military and political, transpired
one after the other. Adverting finally to the Russian
proposals, he contended that the maintenance by Russia
of a strong fleet in the Black Sea could be desired only
with the view of attacking Constantinople, from which
danger the privilege to be granted to the Sultan of
summoning aid from other powers would prove a most
ineffectual protection. The alternative proposed by the
Allied Powers, to make the Euxine a merely commercial
sea, on which only a limited number of ships of war was
to be permitted, formed, he believed, the most
satisfactory principle whereon to solve the difficulty.
Referring to the resolution proposed by Mr. Disraeli, Lord
John urged that it converted a question of vast national
interest to the narrowest party issue. Distrust, he
admitted, might exist, but he doubted whether it would
be removed by the transfer of government into the
hands of the present opposition. Even in a party view
of the question he believed that the step they had just
taken constituted a false move.—On the motion of Mr.
WHITESIDE the debate was then adjourned.

On Friday, May 25, the debate was resumed. Mr.
Whiteside supported the resolutions.—Mr. LOWE
objected both to the resolutions and the amendment,
and intimated his intention to make another amendment.
—Lord STANLEY announced his intention to vote
in favour of the resolutions, as involving a direct censure
on the administration.—Mr. LAYARD, in the course of
some personal explanations, stated that his own motion
was delayed, but not withdrawn, and would be brought
forward on the first supply night after the recess.