excite surprise in savage nations, but which could not
be expected in a civilised nation. And that if this
offence was not at once punished, her Majesty's
government considered that it would merit the severest
reprisal. When her Majesty's ministers had obtained the
answer of the Russian government, they would of
course be prepared to state what steps they would take
to punish the culprits.—Lord GRANVILLE, although he
expressed it as his opinion that this most wanton
outrage would in the end be disavowed by the Russian
government, hoped that the explanation would soon
be given, for the feelings of indignation which must be
excited by the transaction would necessarily tend to add
still more to the horrors of war.—Lord COLCHESTER
recommended that a flag of truce should be sent in to
communicate with the highest authority which could
be found, demanding that the atrocity should be
disowned.—Lord BROUGHAM was not satisfied with a
barren disclaimer. He called for punishment on the
perpetrators of a deed so extraordinary and so cruel.
If ever the land called for blood it was now.

On Friday, June 22, the Marquis of CLANRICARDE
inquired whether the Baltic fleet had been provided
with the Apparatus necessary to attack Maritime
Fortresses in the manner recommended last year to the
admiralty and the board of ordnance by Colonel
Bethune.—Lord PANMURE said the suggestion of Colonel
Bethune was one of those innumerable propositions
which were made to all governments in a time of war,
when any gentleman who pleased, and there were many
who pleased, might suggest means for destroying the
enemy. It was made to the admiralty in July last,
and was referred to Sir Charles Napier, then in
command of the Baltic fleet, who, after studying it carefully,
said it might do all very well, "but we would require
the gentleman himself to 'bell the cat'"—The Marquis
of CLANRICARDE replied that Colonel Bethune had
offered to "bell the cat" if he were permitted.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—On Monday, June 4, the
adjourned debate on the Prosecution of the War was
resumed. Sir Francis Baring's resolution stood no
longer as an amendment on Mr. Disraeli's motion, but
as the substantive motion, opposed by Mr. Lowe's
amendment. Mr. MILNER GIBSON reviewed the progress
of the last debate, and concurred in the opinion
then expressed by Sir James Graham, that the views
of Mr. Disraeli were more rational and more likely to
lead to an early and honourable peace than those
expressed by government. The question now before the
house was the motion of Mr. Lowe, to which he must
say "No."  He had himself brought forward a proposition
the converse of this, and as he had been charged
with postponing it in consequence of an intrigue, he
would now state that the responsibility of its postponement
rested entirely on himself. He denied that the
doctrines of the peace party had any influence in
inducing the Emperor of Russia to go to war, and he
assigned the articles that appeared in the leading
journals as a much more probable cause of war. That war
he understood to be undertaken for the defence of
Turkey, and for that alone; but ghastly phantoms were
ever and anon conjured up as to the colossal power and
the aggressive tendencies of Russia. The members of
the government, it was plain, did not themselves believe
in these phantoms, for in despatches recently laid before
the house those ministers were lavish in their praise of
the moderation and integrity of the Russian Emperor.
The limitation of the Russian fleet was puerile, but to
insist upon it, and to make a question so narrow the
cause of a great war, was unheard of in the history of
this country. He thought the Russian proposal was better
for Turkey than ours, for he was satisfied that it was
all in favour of the interests of Europe that the straits
should be open to ships of war of all nations. Why
should they not make the Black Sea as open to all
nations as the Baltic? But it was a mistake to suppose
the only danger to Turkey arose from Russia; the time
had been when her independence and integrity were
threatened from the west. It was not the first time
Russia had interfered to protect Turkey from invasions
secretly directed by a western power. He thought it
would be far better that they should allow matters to
rest where they now were—existing aggression having
been repelled, and we retaining the right to repel all
aggression in future. As the conferences were now
closed, and we were entering upon a new war of aggression,
he asked the government to give some explicit
declaration of the object for which the war was to be
carried on. It could not be for glory—it could not be
from fear of disgrace; he called upon the house then to
pause well and consider before they committed
themselves to a war for indefinite objects.—Sir W.
MOLESWORTH said the question now before the house was,
whether we ought or ought not to have made peace
upon the Russian proposals. He denied that the
objects of the war had yet been gained. In order to avoid
war, the allies had lowered their demands on Russia to
the lowest possible point; as that object had not been
gained, but they were compelled to draw the sword,
they were entitled to increase their demands. That
right had repeatedly been asserted by Lord Aberdeen's
government. The objects of the war, as he understood
them, were to prevent the dangerous aggrandisement of
Russia at the expense of Turkey, and to maintain the
international law of Europe, by punishing Russia for her
violation of it in the unjust invasion of the Danubian
principalities. These objects were not to be attained
by the Russian terms, which would require the allies to
keep up a constant war establishment in the Mediterranean.
Mr. Gladstone told them the other night they
had got three-and-a-half out of the four points, and asked
what they were now quarrelling about? He would
reply that they were quarrelling about that very thing
without which all the rest were valueless—the destruction
of Russian preponderance in the Black Sea. He agreed
with him in defending the Crimean expedition. But
he never concealed from himself that that expedition
committed them irretrievably to a contest with Russia,
from which there was no middle course between an
inglorious retreat and the destruction of Sebastopol. Her
late concessions were only the effects of fear, and
intended to create a Russian party in that house. His
own impression was that peace on the terms suggested
by Mr. Gibson would be a confession of defeat on the
part of the allies, and would immeasurably enhance the
reputation of Russia. It would endanger the alliance,
and would be a heavy blow to the interests of western
civilisation. Such a recreant peace would make every
Englishman blush, and would cause every colonist to
be ashamed of the pusillanimity of the mother-country.
—Mr. J. M'GREGOR insisted that no peace should be
concluded till Sebastopol was destroyed and till Russia
made full indemnity to the allies for the expenses of the
war.—Lord DUNGARVAN made his maiden speech in
support of a war policy.—Lord ELCHO was anxious to
mark his dissent from the sentiments expressed in the
speech of Mr. Gladstone, a speech which he deeply
regretted, as he believed the country would accept it as
a sufficient explanation of the blunders that had
occurred, and would consider "lukewarm" as the
reason of "too late," but which he regretted still more
because he believed it would tend indefinitely to
postpone the prospects of peace, which Mr. Gladstone
seemed so anxious to attain. He maintained there was
great danger in Russian power unless it was checked in
time; and the propositions commended by Mr. Gibson
were intended not to check Russian power, but to
leave it as it was. He was in favour of the government
propositions, which, he believed, contained the principle
of limiting Russian power. But for himself he believed
that the road to a secure peace lay through Sebastopol.
Therefore, though it gave him the greatest pain to
separate himself from his friends on this question, yet
he was prepared to leave the question in the hands of
the government, believing that they would not continue
the war a moment longer than was necessary to secure
a lasting peace.—Sir E. B. LYTTON reminded Mr.
Gibson that the sentiment of honour which might be
given up by an individual was essential to the existence
of a nation. And he could not believe that the honour
of England would be kept unstained if we were now to
accept terms of peace which Turkey herself would
indignantly reject. Mr. Gibson and some others were
consistent, for they had always opposed the war. But