would take advantage of it, in order to conclude a
peace honourable to us and not humiliating to Russia.
—Sir S. NORTHCOTE said he was prepared to vote
against the amendment of Mr. Lowe.—Major REED, on
the other hand, would support that amendment, because
it would carry out most fully what he believed was the
desire of the people—the vigorous prosecution of the
war.—Mr. EWART, as an earnest friend of peace,
believed the time had come for vigorous action, and
that such a course was not contrary to the principles of
peace, but, in existing circumstances, was highly
favourable to them.—Sir J. GRAHAM said that he must appeal
to the generosity of the house, since the opinions he was
about to express were not in accordance with those of
the majority. He had been of opinion, and he still
retained it, that the war was just and necessary, and
the real question at issue was, had the objects for which
the war was undertaken been obtained, or did the
conferences at Vienna afford a fair ground of probability
that the means of obtaining these objects did not exist.
He wished to know from the government—first, what
was the proposition lately made by Austria which
England had rejected; and, secondly, whether, in their
opinion, the four points were still regarded as the basis
of any future arrangements with Russia, or whether
these points had been abandoned, and fresh terms were
to be offered. He did not deny that during a war it
was perfectly legitimate to vary the terms of peace;
but the object of the war should be kept steadily in
view, and should not vary with the incidents of the
war. The avowed, and he considered, the sole object
of this war was the maintenance of the independence
and integrity of Turkey. He agreed that it was not
politic to humble an adversary by force of arms, and he
proceeded to state what were the original demands of
Russia, and to contrast them with the concessions she
was willing to make at the conferences, insisting that
this alteration of tone had been gained by force of arms.
The test of the concessions was, in his opinion, well laid
down by Lord J. Russell, when he said that in a treaty
of peace the honour of the adversary should be
consulted. Sir James reviewed and commented upon the
discussions at the conferences. He acknowledged that
he was a party to the proposition for limiting the
Russian naval power in the Black Sea; but he was
bound to state that it was never regarded by him as an
ultimatum; that it was not accepted by France as an
ultimatum, and that it was not proposed at Vienna by
France or England as an ultimatum; and the result of
the discussion in that house had convinced him that as
an ultimatum it was not tenable. On the other hand,
he considered the Russian proposition contained the
elements of an adjustment. Although not the friend of
Russia, he contended that the honour of Russia must
be considered—that she must not be pushed to the wall;
and, esteeming the restoration of peace one of the
greatest blessings that could be conferred upon this
country, he deeply regretted that any opportunity
should be lost.—Lord J. RUSSELL said the observations
made during the debate upon the negotiations, and
particularly the remarks of Mr. Cobden, rendered it
incumbent upon him to offer some explanation. He
accordingly went once more cursorily over the proceedings
of the conferences, vindicating as he proceeded
the part he took in them against the criticisms of Mr.
Cobden. With reference to the third point, he
maintained that the only mode of causing the cessation of
the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea was by
diminishing her naval force there; and although it had
been said that the plan would be ineffectual, he was of
a different opinion, because he believed that, if the
Russian government began building more ships in the
Euxine, the suspicions of Europe would be roused.
With respect to the very serious question—namely, if
we were forced to continue the war by finding the only
terms that would provide a security for the Turkish
empire refused, what was now the object of the war?
His answer to this question must be a general one, that
the object still was the security of Turkey against
Russia, and to obtain some material guarantee for the
peace of Europe against the aggression of that power.
The particular mode must depend, as it had been
already said, upon the events of the war. It would be
presumptuous to point out now what other terms of
peace we, in conjunction with our allies, should think
it necessary to demand; but this object had been
secured even by the abortive negotiations—namely,
that Turkey would be considered one of the powers of
Europe, forming part of the system of the balance of
power, and that her independence and integrity would
be recognised.—The debate was adjourned till Thursday.

On Wednesday, June 6, the debate on Mr. Spooner's
motion for leave to bring in a bill to Repeal the Maynooth
Grant, which stood adjourned from May 1, was resumed
by Mr. Serjeant O'BRIEN, who opposed the measure,
contending that the Maynooth endowment had been
granted by Sir R. Peel after deliberate discussion as an
act of justice, and for purposes that were satisfactorily
fulfilled.—Mr. WHITESIDE examined at great length
the educational system practised in Maynooth, as it was
exhibited in the report of the commissioners, and by
other authorities. That system he pronounced to be
vicious in itself and un-English in the principles which
it inculcated among the students.—The SOLICITOR-
GENERAL for Ireland controverted many of the
statements hazarded by Mr. Whiteside, especially such as
related to the predominance of priestly influence, and
the alleged monopoly of public offices in Ireland by the
Roman Catholics.—Mr. T. CHAMBERS traced many of
the evils and disorders that had arisen of late years in
Ireland to the existence of Maynooth.—The debate was
again postponed to the 27th inst.

On Thursday, June 7, the adjourned debate on the
subject of the War was resumed by Mr. ROEBUCK, who
stated the reasons why he considered that the war
should be proceeded with vigorously, so as to obtain an
honourable peace. He adverted to the opinions expressed
by Sir J. Graham, observing that he was curious
to know what had occurred between the time of that
right hon. baronet's leaving office, up to which he had
advocated war, and the time when he had become an
advocate of peace. When an appeal was made to this
country last year on the ground that the independence
of Europe was threatened by Russia, by whom was that
appeal more heartily made than by Sir J. Graham?
"We all recollect," said Mr. Roebuck, "when the war-
trumpet was sounded, how the right hon. gentleman
blew into it. We all recollect the speeches at the
Reform Club, and at the Mansion-house. It was said
then that the war which we were about to wage was to
be a war of freedom against slavery, of civilisation
against barbarism, of constitutional government against
despotism. It was said that the attempt of Russia to
enslave Turkey was her first step towards enslaving
Europe, that she was not intent simply upon swallowing
up Turkey, but that her design was, by placing herself
in Constantinople, and assuming to herself the rights of
the Turkish empire, to obtain a dominion over Europe.
It was not merely that an insolent embassy had been
sent to Constantinople, that Russia had crossed the
boundaries of the Turkish empire, that we were told
that there was a standing threat against Europe, and
that it was necessary, for the safety of Europe, that
Russia should be crippled and her power of offence
taken away. It was not Turkey simply that we were
called on to protect, but Europe, civilisation, and the
liberties of mankind. Well, we went to war, and
disasters followed." Mr. Roebuck then recapitulated
the circumstances attendant on the fall of Lord Aberdeen's
government, and said that Sir J. Graham remained in
the government constructed by Lord Palmerston until
the discussion arose respecting the appointment of the
Sebastopol committee, when he retired. "These
circumstances," said Mr. Roebuck, "I point out because
they are the most significant circumstances which
occurred between the time when the right hon. gentleman
advocated the war and the time when he advocates
peace; and I ask him, and I ask the house, what has
happened since to make him a peace advocate? It was
quite clear, when he joined Lord Palmerston's
government, that this committee of inquiry would go on; it
was as certain that motions would be made in this house
involving the consideration of the conduct of the war.
The right hon. gentleman being a prominent member of
Lord Aberdeen's government, we have a right to consider
that everything done and said by that government