a laboured defence of Russian moderation. Russian concessions, he contended, had always been wrung from her, and never conceded in a spirit of conciliation, whereas Great Britain had throughout shown the most conciliatory disposition. Lord Lyttelton supported the motion, and avowed his concurrence in the opinions expressed by Earl Grey, but said he felt they were the opinions of a minority of the House, and unpopular out of doors. The Bishop of Oxford, although most anxious for peace, declared his inability to vote for the motion, and his dissent from the sentiments of Earl Grey. He justified war under certain necessities, as an appeal to the tribunal of God. But such war should be on strict principles of self-defence; and he proceeded to argue that there could no longer be any principle after the concession of Russia, and the successes we had obtained. The limitation plan would be no protection to Turkey, and a direct insult to Russia. He lamented that anything should be said in Parliament which would throw difficulties in the way of settling the last point. No peace would be lasting which reflected on a great Power a degradation incompatible with its greatness. The Duke of Newcastle observed, with feelings of sincere pain, that Earl Grey's motion and speech would irritate the people of this country, lower us in the estimation of our Allies and our enemy; and postpone the conclusion of peace far more effectually than the most violent declamation of the friends of war, by helping to raise a war-cry in the country that no Government could resist. In the Duke's estimation, the great objects for which we entered the contest had not been attained; and the counter-propositions of Russia gave no assurance of security. My Lords, I think when this nation is embarked in war, it is your bounden duty, to yourselves, to your country, but above all to posterity, not to allow that war to close in such a manner as that you will be exposed at an early day to its renewal-at a time, too, when you may not be able so well to thwart these endeavours, as I sincerely hope you may now be enabled to do.' (Cheers.) The Earl of Derby admitted that Russia did not desire war, provided she could obtain her object without it. He would not undervalue the concession she had made, but was of opinion that instead of having asked too much, we had asked too little. We had a right to a return for all our sacrifices. A material alteration had taken place in the prospects of the war since it had been made aggressive; from that time we had pledged ourselves to weaken the power of Russia, and limit her means of aggression. Conditions of this kind must from their nature be humiliating, but to that we pledged ourselves when we entered the Crimea. After the declaration that Sebastopol was a standing menace, after a seven months' siege, with all its efforts and glories, to retreat from that fortress would be an act of humiliation, for which he did not believe that any proposition at Vienna which Russia could have admitted would have been a compensation. He agreed that the limitation would have been easily evaded, and not satisfactory; but the counter-proposition of Russia CHAPTER IV. Mr. M. Gibson gives notice of his intention to move an Address to the Crown-Mr. Layard's notice of his resolution on the condition of the country-State of public feeling on both questions-After some inquiries by Mr. S. Herbert, and a discussion, in which several Members take part, Mr. Gibson postpones his motion-Mr. Disraeli's notice of his resolution-His speech-Sir F. Baring and Sir W. Heathcote move amendments—Mr. Ker Seymer, Mr. Wilkinson, the Marquis of Granby, Mr. R. Phillimore, Mr. Gladstone, and Lord John Russell address the House-The Debate is adjourned, and continued by Mr. Whiteside-Mr. Lowe, who moves a further amendment, Mr. Cayley, Mr. Roundell Palmer, Lord Stanley, Mr. Layard, and Lord Palmerston-After a reply from Mr. Disraeli, his resolution is rejected on a division-Debate on Sir F. Baring's amendment-Speeches of Mr. M. Gibson, Sir W. Molesworth, and Sir E. B. Lytton-Several other Members also express their opinions-The Debate, being again adjourned, is opened by Mr. Cobden, and continued by Mr. Collier, Lord H. Vane, Sir S. Northcote, Mr. J. G. Phillimore, and others— Speeches of Sir J. Graham and Lord J. Russell-Further adjourn ment of the Debate, which is resumed by Mr. Roebuck-Speeches of Mr. S. Herbert and Mr. Bright—Mr. Drummond, Sir H. Willoughby, Sir W. Clay, Lord R. Cecil, and other Members also take part in it— On the motion of Mr. Scott, it is once more adjourned-Speeches of Sir F. Baring, the Attorney-General, Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. Cardwell, Lord J. Russell, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Disraeli, and Lord Palmerston -After speeches from several other Members, Mr. Lowe's Amendment is rejected, and Sir F. Baring's carried without a division. ON N the 11th of May, Mr. Milner Gibson gave notice in the House of Commons, that he intended, on the earliest possible day, to move an Address to the Crown, thanking Her Majesty for communicating to the Legislature the papers relating to the Vienna Conferences: : expressing regret that the opportunity then offered for bringing the negotiations to a pacific issue had not been improved; and asserting that the interpretation of the third point conceded by Russia furnished the elements of renewed conferences, and a good basis for a just and satisfactory peace. Mr. Layard also, on the 27th of April, had given notice that he should on an early day move resolutions declaring that the state of the country was such as to cause serious alarm; that the sacrifice of efficiency to family and party interests is the source of misfortune and disgrace to the country: and that the House will support any Ministry which can enforce the efficient conduct of the public service and the vigorous prosecution of the war. These two resolutions respectively stood for discussion on Monday, May the 21st, and Thursday, May the 24th. In the meanwhile, however, it had become evident to their authors, that neither propositions suited the majority of Members who were opposed to the Ministry. The peace doctrine which was involved in the motion of Mr. Gibson did not obtain the adherence either of the Conservative or of the extreme war party; on the other hand, the more warlike proposition of Mr. Layard was at variance with the views of the peace party, nor were that gentleman's antecedents and political standing such as to constitute him the statesman around whom any party would rally. Such was the position of affairs on the 21st of May, when the House of Commons was crowded at an early hour by Members eager, as it seemed, to discuss Mr. Gibson's resolutions. In the midst of the highlywrought expectation Mr. Sidney Herbert rose, and put some queries to Lord Palmerston, intimating that the course which he and his friends should pursue with respect to the motion depended upon the answers. Lord Palmerston in reply said, that the Government did not consider the means of pacification exhausted; that Austria was still furnished, under the consent of the Allies, with the means of bringing about a peace; the Conferences were suspended, but not closed; and that the most favourable consideration would be given by the Government to any propositions made through Austria by Russia for a pacific purpose, although they would never consent to any terms of peace which did not satisfy the House, and secure the objects of the war. Mr. Gladstone remarked that the replies just given conveyed the assurance that negotiations had not ceased, and under these circumstances urged Mr. Gibson to postpone his motion. Having been interrupted in the course of his remarks by Mr. Roebuck on the point of order, Mr. Gladstone concluded by moving the adjournment of the debate. Mr. S. Herbert intimated his intention of opposing Mr. Gibson's motion, if then urged to a division. Lord H. Vane, as the intended seconder of the motion, also expressed his persuasion that a postponement would be discreet. Mr. Disraeli said, that before the motion was withdrawn, the House had a right to expect a more explicit statement from the Government as to their intentions. He attributed the postponement which was now in prospect to some mysterious and sinister operations of the Prime Minister. Lord Palmerston justified his conduct as having been uniform and consistent throughout. When the Conferences were suspended he laid a record of the proceedings before Parliament as a matter of right, but had always declined himself to invite a discussion on them, because the result might have been to shut the door to all further hope of peace. But, at the same time, he did not shirk such a discussion, which involved the question of confidence in his administration. His wish for delay at any time arose from no apprehension that the debate might be inconve nient to the Government, but that it would be prejudicial to the country. All chance of a negotiation being brought to a successful issue must be destroyed if that House took the management out of the hands of the Executive, and prescribed beforehand the basis on which they should treat, and the conditions on which peace could be accepted. Mr. Bright, on behalf of the peace party, disclaimed all partisan associations, and all indirect objects, their single purpose being to obtain an honourable peace. Mr. Roebuck contended that nothing either in the circumstances that had occurred, or in the ministerial speeches that had been made, gave any new complexion to affairs since Mr. Gibson first an nounced the terms of his motion; which, accordingly, he saw no reason for postponing. The Marquis of Granby wished to know distinctly whether any new propositions for peace were now offered or under consideration. Lord J. Russell recapitulated the incidents of the last Conferences in which he took part, and adverted to the communications that had subsequently been exchanged between the Russian envoys and the representatives of the Western Powers. Austria, he remarked, still declared that the means of pacification were not exhausted, and had shown herself throughout the negotiations willing to act with the Allies, but reluctant to propose terms which would involve her in actual hostilities with Russia. As matters stood, he expected that Austria would make some final propositions, which, if rejected, must terminate the Conferences; and if accepted, would re-open the negotiations under far more favourable auspices than heretofore. After some further discussion, in which Sir G. Grey, Sir John Pakington, Sir H. Willoughby, and Mr. Malins (who characterised the debate as a "mock proceeding") took part, Mr. Gibson consented to postpone his motion until after the Whitsuntide recess, and the House soon after broke up. 66 The field being thus left open. Mr. Disraeli at once determined to occupy it, and to give the House the opportunity of expressing an opinion on the great question of peace and war previous to the recess. Accordingly, on the very next day, May the 22nd, the leader of the Opposition gave notice that on the following Thursday, the 24th, he should move this resolution: That this House cannot adjourn for the recess without expressing its dissatisfaction with the ambiguous language and uncertain conduct of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the great question of peace or war, and that, under these circumstances, the House feels it a duty to declare that it will continue to give every support to Her Majesty in the prosecution of the war, until Her Majesty shall, in conjunction with her Allies, obtain for the country a safe and honourable peace." In giving this notice, he observed that after the scene of the previous evening, after the equivocal language of the Government, and their discouraging demeanour, he could not agree to the adjournment of the House without some means were taken of obtaining some explicit information on the great subject of peace or war. The silence of the House in 1853 had lowered its character, and had not assisted in the preservation of |