carry these heads of agreement into effect. I contended that on the two first heads Russia had acceded to all you had asked, that on the first part of the third head she had also come to an understanding with you, and that on the second part of this head, what she proposed was better for your own purpose than that for which you asked, and that the condition on which you insisted, and the refusal of which you any practical purpose, not only was that not the case, but at this very moment proposals had been received from Austria, accompanied with subsequent modifications, which were at present under the consideration of the two Governments of France and England. There was very little chance -indeed he might say there was no chance -of a favourable conclusion. He thanked the noble Earl opposite for the really useful speech-useful to the national cause-made the ground for breaking off the newhich he had just made, and he trusted that his noble Friend (Earl Grey) would yield to his appeal to divide upon the present question. EARL GREY, in reply: *-My Lords: I can assure your Lordships that I am not going to commit what I am sensible would at this hour be the great impropriety, of availing myself of my right of reply, in order to answer the various objections which have been made to the Address I have moved, and to the arguments by which I supported it; but some imputations have been cast upon me of so serious a character that I cannot pass them by without notice. These imputations were made in the first instance by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for foreign affairs, and were repeated by the noble Duke below me (the Duke of Newcastle), and by the noble Earl oppo site (the Earl of Derby). My noble Friend accused me of having served the cause of Russia by my speech; of being the eulogist of the late Emperor; of having praised the moderation and forbearance of Russia; and of having gone so far as to say, that the Four Points presented to her as the basis on which the allies were prepared to treat for peace, were humiliating to her, and ought not to have been required from her. Now, my Lords, all these statements as to what I said in submitting my Motion to you are entirely erroneous. I will take the last first. So far from having objected to the "Four Points,' as they are called, I said expressly, that although all the matters in dispute before the breaking out of the war had been long ago decided in your favour, yet I was aware that you had declared, as you were entitled to do, that after the war had begun, you would no longer be content with the same terms with which you would have been satisfied before hostilities had been commenced. My argument was not that the "Four Points" were objectionable (for I think that they afford a fair basis for peace) but that Russia had fairly met you in the endeavour to gotiation, was one which would have been perfectly worthless if you had obtained it, while it was justly regarded as objectionable by Russia. Then, with regard to my alleged praise of Russia for moderation and forbearance, I beg to remind my noble Friend that I never used the words at all except when I recalled to your Lordships' recollection the fact, that in the original dispute with respect to the Holy Places, it stands recorded in the papers on our table, as my noble Friend's own opinion, that Russia was in the right and France and Turkey in the wrong, and that for some time Russia had acted with moderation and forbearance. I quoted this as the opinion, which it undoubtedly was, of my noble Friend and of the Government. It is equally incorrect to represent me as the unqualified eulogist of the late Emperor Nicholas, and as having asserted that Russia had been in the right throughout. What I did say was that the late Emperor, though he had great faults, had also some great qualities; that his faults were not the faults of fraud and falsehood, and that he did not deserve the unmeasured vituperation of which he has been the object. I said that the original cause of the war between this country and Russia arose from a misunderstanding between the two Governments as to their mutual intentions, for which our own Government was at least as much to blame as that of Russia: but so far was I from asserting that Russia had been in the right throughout, that I expressly said, in speaking of the occupation of the Principalities, that it was an act of aggression which it was impossible to defend, by which Russia put herself entirely in the wrong, though up to that time she had been, if not altogether in the right, at all events, much more so than her antagonist. My argument did not lead me to refer to what took place afterwards, but I have no hesitation in avowing my opinion, that in the various transactions that intervened between the occupation of the Principalities and our declaration of war, Russia was for the most part greatly to blame, and especially so in her rejection of the terms proposed in December, 1853, to which my noble Friend the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) has referred. The view which I took of the case was, that owing to the undecided line of policy pursued by our Government, the Emperor Nicholas was drawn on to commit himself to enforce a demand, which was not originally an unreasonable one, by means of a very objectionable kind, so that before he was aware that we should support Turkey in her refusal, he had gone too far to retreat without what he considered a sacrifice of dignity, to which, with his proud nature, and in the position he held, it was not wonderful that he could not make up his mind to submit. Hence I intended to argue, that although the aggression committed upon Turkey by the occupation of the Principalities was one which she was entitled to resist; still, when the circumstances which led to this step were considered, the conduct of Russia did not deserve to be described in the exaggerated language that has been applied to it, and that has created the spirit of animosity against her now generally displayed. As to the service which it is said that my speech will do to the cause of Russia, I would remind your Lordships that this is merely what has been said of every man who has at any time ventured to lift up his voice against a popular war. It was said of the opponents of the American war; and, again, of the opponents of the revolutionary war with France. It may be admitted that some inconvenience does arise when the country is engaged in war, from the arguments of those who oppose it, but far more inconvenience-or rather a most formidable evil-would arise in a free country, from attempting to restrain those who disapprove of war, from expressing their opinion. Your Lordships cannot fail to perceive that it is possible, at least, that a war, though popular, may yet be unjust or impolitic; but there would be no means of preventing or putting a stop to such a war if those who condemn it are to be silenced on the ground that their arguments may help the enemy. If this principle were to be established it would be better, as regards its foreign relations, for a nation to be under a despotism than under a free government. A despot, before he plunges into war, or rejects overtures for peace, VOL. CXXXVIII. [THIRD SERIES.] will generally listen to what his counsellors may have to say in favour of peace, and will not, therefore, decide for war without knowing the arguments against it. But, in a free country, public opinion is the ultimate governing power which decides, in the last resort, the great question of peace or war; and how is the public to have the means of forming a sound opinion, and of coming to a just decision on this most momentous question, if you are to silence all those who would endeavour to show by argument the injustice or impolicy of engaging or persevering in war, while free conrse is given to those who flatter the passions of the people, and court their favour, by defaming and vilifying any nation with which we may have a controversy? The noble Duke below me (the Duke of Newcastle), while he joined my noble Friend the Secretary of State, in condemning the course I have taken, on the ground of its being serviceable to Russia, added, as an additional objection to it, that he feared it would irritate the people of this country and thus make them still more averse to peace. My Lords, I do not think so meanly of my countrymen, as it would appear that the noble Duke does from his expressing this opinion. I have no doubt that the speech I have made this evening will give great offence. Neither individuals nor nations, in general, like to be told that they have been in the wrong; but I have such confidence in the right-mindedness of the people of England, that I do not doubt that in spite of the offence I may have given, they will allow their due weight in the end, to whatever truth and justice there may be in the arguments I have used. My Lords, I have only further to say, in answer to the advice of the noble Earl opposite, that I should call for a division, that I shall act upon the old maxim that it is dangerous to take advice from an enemy, and that I much prefer following the advice not to ask your Lordships to divide, which was given to me by my noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton), who must, I fear, be considered as the only one of your Lordships who has supported me in this debate, since, if I rightly understood my right rev. Friend who spoke a short time ago (the Bishop of Oxford), he does not intend to give me his vote, though all his arguments seemed to me to be in favour of my Motion. I am the less inclined to put your Lordships to the trouble of a division, because I know that more than one of the 2 Q 1187 Mr. Phinn's Appointment COMMONS} On Question, Resolved in the Negative. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, May 25, 1855. MINUTES.] NEW WRIT. For Bath, v. Thomas Reported-Court of Session (Scotland). at the Admiralty. 1188 accepted an office under the THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the office Mr. Phinn had accepted was not an office under the Crown, but under the Admiralty, and his acceptance did not, therefore, necessarily vacate his seat. He believed, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had already taken steps for that purpose. SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE asked if the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that Mr. Phinn had applied for the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds ? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE 3° Personal Estates of Intestates; Militia (No. 2). QUER said, Mr. Phinn had applied for THE PARIS EXHIBITION-QUESTION. MR. THOMSON HANKEY asked the Secretary of the Treasury whether any arrangements will be made for the purpose of facilitating the obtaining of passports to Paris during the Exhibition? MR. WILSON said, the question of passports to Paris during the Exhibition, had been brought under the notice of the Treasury by the Foreign Office some few weeks ago, and an arrangement had been made whereby passports would be issued free to workmen and artisans of the United Kingdom, for the purpose of visiting Paris, and which would be good for one month from the time of their being issued. Arrangements had also been made for the purpose of enabling workmen to apply to the Foreign Office for their passports, and he believed they would require to have the recommendation of the mayors of the towns in which they lived, or, if they resided in London, the recommendation of the Lord Mayor or the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police. In country places, where there was no mayor, that authority would require to be given by the Superintendent Registrar of each district in England and Wales. MR. PHINN'S APPOINTMENT AT THE ADMIRALTY. SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE inquired whether it was true that Mr. Phinn, the Member for Bath, had been appointed to the office of Assistant Secretary to the Board of Admiralty? MR. WILSON said, he believed so. SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE then moved, that a writ be issued for the election of a burgess to serve in Parliament for the City of Bath in the room of Mr. Phinn, the office in question, and a grant had been made, but he could not say whether it had gone through all the official forms. There could be no doubt, however, that the office would be conferred upon Mr. Phinn, in order to allow him to vacate his seat. SIR CHARLES WOOD stated that, in appointing Mr. Phinn to the office of Assistant Secretary to the Board of Admiralty, he told him that, as the person holding the post did not change with the Government, he must not again appear in his place in Parliament. Hon. Gentlemen op posite, therefore, need not be under any apprehension of Mr. Phinn recording his vote that evening. SIR FREDEŘic thesigeR believed that the hon. Baronet in making this Motion was actuated, not by a desire of preventing the hon. and learned Member for Bath attending in his place to-night and recording his vote, but because he believed that the hon. and learned Member had really vacated his seat. ["No."] He admitted that it was wrong to suppose that the acceptance of the office of Assistant Secretary to the Board of Admiralty necessarily implied that Mr. Phinn could no longer hold his seat; but they had now learned from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Mr. Phinn had accepted an office-the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds-for the express purpose of enabling him to vacate his seat, although the right hon. Gentleman was not certain whether the grant had been finally completed or not. Now, he apprehended that it was not the making out the grant, but the acceptance of the office, which vacated the seat; and that, therefore, the hon. Baronet the Member for Petersfield was perfectly in order in the Motion he had made. SIR CHARLES WOOD said, he had and hence the motion he had submitted to had some experience as Chancellor of the the House. Seeing, then, that Mr. Phinn Exchequer, and would therefore state that had applied for the stewardship of the the mode of dealing with the Chiltern Chiltern Hundreds, he hoped there would Hundreds was this:-If a person wished be no objection to his proposition. to vacate his seat in Parliament, he applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, and it was in the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the office or not as he pleased. If the application was to be granted, the practice was for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to write a letter to the applicant, stating that he had conferred upon him the office in question-and it was the receipt of that letter that constituted the acceptance of the office. He could not say whether that form had been gone through in the present instance or not. SIR FITZROY KELLY considered that it was entirely immaterial whether all the official forms had been gone through, or whether the patent or grant had been formally completed. According to law, and the invariable usage of that House, whenever an office was granted under the Crown, and the person had intimated his acceptance of it, from that moment his seat was vacant, and a writ was moved for as soon as possible. Such appeared to him to be the position of the present case. SIR FRANCIS BARING said that having held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he might be allowed to make a few remarks upon the point before the House. There could be no doubt that if a man applied for an office, and the office was given to him, or if a man was offered an office, and he accepted it; it was not necessary that he should go through all the official forms in order to vacate his seat. But there must be two parties to every transaction of this kind; there must be an application on the one side, and a conferring of the office on the other; and it was no proof that Mr. Phinn had vacated his seat to say that he had applied for the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, and would probably get it. They must wait until they had evidence before them that the office had been conferred upon him, and that he had accepted it. SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE rose to explain. It was only within the last few 'minutes that he had learned that Mr. Phinn had accepted an office under the Board of Admiralty. When the fact was mentioned to him he thought it would be a pity to have the writ suspended over the holidays, THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he would state exactly what had occurred. He received that morning an application from Mr. Phinn for the office of the Chiltern Hundreds in order to enable him to vacate his seat in consequence of his appointment as Assistant Secretary to the Board of Admiralty. The grant of an office under the Crown was brought to him for signature, and he signed it that morning; but he could not say whether the grant had already reached Mr. Phinn, and therefore could not answer to the House for its actual acceptance. He knew, however, that directions had been given for its transmission to Mr. Phinn, and he believed it was the intention of the Secretary to the Treasury to move a writ before the House rose. MR. DISRAELI said, his experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer was not so long as he could have wished, but he had the opportunity upon several occasions of conferring offices under the Crown, and he thought it ought to be understood that when an application was made and granted the office had been accepted. SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE said, he withdrew his motion, as his object would be attained by having the writ moved for before the holidays. CADETSHIPS-QUESTION. MR. H. A. BRUCE asked the Clerk of the Ordnance whether the cadetships to be granted in July were to be disposed of by nomination, or whether any system will be adopted by which they will be rendered attainable by young men of ability, unaided by interest? MR. MONSELL said that the system which had prevailed for many years at Woolwich with regard to the appointment of cadets had been excusively that of nomination. Within the last few days, however, upon the reconsideration of the civil departments of the army, he directed the attention of the Secretary for War, in the first place, to the necessity of appointing a considerable number of additional cadets at Woolwich; and, in the next place, the expediency of altering the system by which they had hitherto been selected. It was utterly impossible, the want being so urgent, to make any permanent arrange ment for the appointment of cadets, but | of the Burmese medals had been sent to a plan had been adopted which, at all India on the 4th of April for distribution, events, was a considerable improvement on and the rest were in a state of preparation. the old system. The Secretary for War TION. was about to address a letter to the heads THE GOVERNOR OF GIBRALTAR-QUESof all the chief educational establishments in England, Ireland, and Scotland, requesting them to nominate a certain number of young gentlemen who were anxious to enter the royal artillery or engineers, and willing to undergo an examination at Woolwich for that purpose. From the number thus nominated the Secretary for War would select from 100 to 120 of the best qualified, and these again would be reduced to thirty-five, by a public examination held at Woolwich. That examination would not be special or professional, but would be directed generally to ascertain the capacity and attainments of the young men; and he thought that in that way they would procure a large number of well educated and efficient officers for Her Majesty's service. THE CRIMEAN MEDALS-QUESTION. MR. A. STAFFORD asked what arrangements had been made for forwarding the Crimean medals to those wounded and invalided soldiers who were now at home with their friends on leave of absence? MR. FREDERICK PEEL said, that 2,000 medals were now in the hands of Messrs. Hunt and Roskell, to be delivered immediately to those soldiers at present in England on leave of absence from the Crimea, who had not been able to be present at the ceremony of the 18th instant. Those soldiers who had received medals on that day without clasps would immediately be furnished with certificates, by the production of which they would be able to obtain the clasps to which they were entitled. He might also take this opportunity of mentioning that arrangements had been made for forwarding to the Crimea 8,000 medals fortnightly for distribution there. MR. A. STAFFORD: But how are the soldiers at present at home with their friends to get these medals? MR. FREDERICK PEEL: Hunt and Roskell have received orders to forward them to their homes. THE BURMESE MEDALS-QUESTION. MR. ESMONDE asked whether the Burmese medals had yet been forwarded for distribution to the troops entitled to them? MR. VERNON SMITH said, that 2,289 MR. BRIGHT rose to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in the absence of the Secretary for the Colonies, with respect to the Governor of Gibraltar. During the last eighteen months he had had to present some halfdozen memorials to the successive Ministers for the Colonies, complaining of the conduct of the Governor of Gibraltar with regard to his interference with the trade of the port. The Duke of Newcastle, in an interview with a deputation which waited upon him from Gibraltar, gave them reason to expect that Sir R. Gardiner's term of office would then almost immediately expire, and his successors had intimated the same thing; but Sir R. Gardiner still remained there, and he (Mr. Bright) had received fresh memorials to present with regard to fresh grievances. He wished, therefore, to ask the noble Lord whether anything had been done to recall Sir R. Gardiner, and to appoint a rational man in his place? VISCOUNT PALMERSTON thought the language just made use of by the hon. Member was not quite the language to be applied to an old and deserving public servant. It might be all very well for hon. Members to use such epithets one to another in the course of debate, but he was sure the hon. Gentleman's good feeling must tell him that it was not the way in which to speak of an absent public servant, Sir R. Gardiner's period of service had expired, and he was only going on performing the duties of his office until his successor was appointed. The hon. Gentleman had no doubt referred to the complaints which were made of Sir R. Gardiner's refusal to permit the exportation of certain things which were considered to be articles of war, consisting of iron tubes, he believed, for the boilers of steam-vessels, and which had been imported into Gibraltar without his knowledge, contrary to a regulation which required that the permission of the Governor should be obtained in all such cases. The instructions which Sir R. Gardiner received from home were to grant permission for exportation in this instance, but for the future not to allow the standing regulations to be departed from. |