Ethatts nit Vrourttiugo iu Varluimrnt.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEER.

Hones or Loans. Monday, May 21. Charitable Trusts Bill referred to a Select Committee-Customs-Duties-Bill read a second time--Spirit-Duties Bill read a se- cond time-Religious Worship Bill read a second time-Intestacy (Scotland) Bill read a third time and passed.

MR. GIBSON'S PEACE MOTION.

The House of Commons -was very crowded at the commencement of consider the modes exhausted ; that Austria, with the consent of the

on the 26th April, both the re resentatives of Austria and France de-

dared that the Russian proposal, then rejected, contained materials for a

tion in a different position from that on which it stood resting ou -Lord

Tuesday, May 22. Vienna Conferences ; Lord Lyndhurst and Earl Grey-Leases and Sales of Settled Estates; Lord Chancellor's Bill read a second time-Customs- Duties Bill committed- Spirit-Duties Bill committed-Parliamentary Representa- tion (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill committed-Registration of Births (Scotland) Bill committed.

Thursday, May 24. Mr. rhino; Lord Hardwicke's Question-Newspaper Stamp- Duties; Sir G. Lewis's Bill read a second time.

Friday, May 25. Negotiations with Russia; Earl Grey's Motion debated and withdrawn-Royal Assent to Income-tax Bill, Spirit-Duties (Excise; Bill, Customs Bill, Intestacy (Scotland) Bill-Adjournment to the 4th June ; for the Whitson holidays.

Horns or COMMONS. Monday, May 21. Captain Christie ; Sir James Graham's. Apology-Vienna Conferences; .Mr. Gibson's Motion deferred-Fisheries (British Islands and France) Bill read a second time-Militia (No. 2) Bill, considered as amended-Alterations in Pleadings ; Attorney-General's Bill read a third time and passed-Education of Pauper Children ; Mr. E. Denison's Bill recommitted. Tuesday, May 22. Metropolis Local Management ; Sir B. Hall's Bill in Committed -Conduct of Government; Mr. Disraeli's Notice-Diplomatic Establishments; Mr. Wise's Motion-Vote by Ballot; Mr. Berkeley's Bill, Motion for leave negatived.

Wednesday, May 23. No House-the Derby Day.

Thursday, May 24. Martial Law in the Principalities ; Lord Palmerston's Answer to Mr. Otway-Conduct of Governmeut: Mr. Disraeli's Motion ; debate and adjourn- ment-Education of Pauper Children ; Mr. Denison's Bill read a third time and

passed. .

Friday, May 25. Conduct of Government; Mr. Disraeli's Motion negatived by 319 to 219 : debate on Amendments adjourned-New Writ for Bath, in the room of Mr. Phinn-Adjournment to the 4th June.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords. The Commons.

Hour of Hour of Hoar of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. Meeting. Adjournment, eh . Ills 30m Monday 4h . Sh Om Oh 71t Mm Tuesday Noon 411 Om

No sitting. Wednesday No sittig.

thie Session. 67 ; — 13511 40m

4; Time.14h lem — this Sesaion. 81 ; — 518h 20in Sittings thia NS erk, b ; Time, 3511 45m

Westmoreland's declaration that his instructions were exhausted. The negotiations, it appears, are still open ; and, feeling the deep responsi- bility of interfering with the proceedings of Government under such cir- cumstances, Mr. Gladstone thought Mr. Gibson would exercise a wise discretion if he left the matter in the hands of the Government, unembar- rassed by a weakening discussion. As he had been interrupted by Mr. Roebuck on the point of order, Mr. Gladstone formally moved the ad- journment of the House. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT interpolated the announcement, that, if the mo- tion were persisted in, he should move " the previous question." Lord Heiner VANE, who had undertaken to second the motion, now, amid murmurs from the Opposition, supported Mr. Gladstone's appeal.

Mr. Denim= rose, exclaiming—" I have seldom, Sir, witnessed in the House of Commons a scene like that which is now enacted." Lord Palmerston's answer amounted to this—that " he believed that he could venture to say that it was not impossible peace might be obtained." But if the impolitic and unreasonable request pressed by " the two right honourable gentlemen" were to be granted—if this strange forbearance were to be justified—Ministers must make a more explicit statement. He dwelt on this mysterious and sinister demand from an influential quarter for a strange forbearance on the part of Parliament ; especially after Lord Palmerston himself, far from discouraging, had facilitated the discussion of these " unsuccessful negotiations," by putting aside public business, and naming a Government day. Mr. Disraeli repeated more than once a demand for an explicit, unequivocal declaration from the Minister, to show that the House had not been trifled with.

Lord PALMERSTON vindicated his own uniform and consistent course.

When the papers were asked, he had laid them on the table. If they were not the records of negotiations resulting in a peace, the fault lay not with Lord John Russell, nor with our ally the French Government, nor "with Austria, our ally to a certain extent"—(Laughter)—but with the Government of Russia. When asked to challenge a vote of Parlia- ment on these proceedings on a message from the Crown, he had said that if he did so it would shut the door against all hopes of peace, and he would not shut the door. Mr. Bright had put questions to him, and he said that the discussion would be attended with public inconvenience ; but when Mr. Gibson gave notice of his motion, he felt it his duty boldly to face that motion, and not interpose technical delays. He gave him an early day, and was now ready to meet him face to face and to discuss the motion. The discussion would be inconvenient, not to the Government, but to the interests of the country : it might be disposed of by the pre- vious question or a negative—he cared not. But he would not be led by Mr. Disraeli's remarks into explanations of what was passing between this country and France and Austria. The House would commit a great mistake if it took upon itself the duty of the Executive Government and attempted to carry on negotiations. If the House had no confidence in the Government, let that be distinctly and plainly stated.

Mr. BRIGHT stepped in as a peacemaker, thinking there had been a little over-excitement on both sides. He wished clearly to understand whether the negotiations were in that state wherein one side carrying on a war is always willing to receive offers from another; or whether there is a pro- bability that peace is not distant. So long as there is a hope of peace, he will be anxious to abstain from bringing on a motion. Lord Harry Vane, and Mr. Gladstone if he understood rightly, intended to speak and vote in favour of the motion, and it became a question whether its postponement would not beat subserve the interests of peace.

Mr. ROEBUCK contended that the circumstances had undergone no change ; and urged the House to insist on a discussion of the motion, be- cause "there is a feeling abroad that a large portion of the Cabinet was at that moment anxious for peace at any price," and because he bad no con- fidence in the Government.

Lord Josue Russell. offered explanations respecting the conferences at Vienna, to show that they were only suspended, not finally broken off; and that Austria, who throughout the conferences gave the greatest moral support to the Western Powers, will, before they are finally closed, offer some propositions. If, as it had been complained, the speech of Lord Palmerston was vague, it was " because there is nothing definite or pre- cise in the situation." But the state of affairs was very different from that state in which, in time of war, propositions for peace may be made from one party to another. Sir Joule PAKINGTON, still dissatisfied, pressed for further and more explicit explanations. Sir GEORGE GREY repeated, that the conferences are not closed, and that Ministers do not desire to evade the question. They thought it would be prejudicial to the public interest, but they were content to leave it in the hands of the House.

Mr. MILNER Grimm said, that a heavy responsibility had been thrown upon him ; which, however, he was bound to endure. As the Govern- ment had said that they could not discuss the question with freedom, and especially as Mr. Herbert's notice of motion would prevent the question from being decided on its merits, he felt that he should not be serving the public interests by pressing the motion at present. But he did not abandon it : he would take the earliest opportunity after Whitsuntide to bring it before the House.

Mr. Mainss characterized the debate as a "mock proceeding." The country would look with disgust upon the indefinite postponement of the motion. Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY thought Mr. Gibson had exercised a " wise discretion." Mr. CAYLEY expressed a strong opinion that these protestations of peace would only, in the end, put peace more distant from our shores.

The motion for the adjournment was withdrawn. The House, how- ever, soon broke up. EARL GREY'S MOTION.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, Lord LYNDHURST asked Earl

Grey, whether, in consequence of "the scene" elsewhere on the night before, of which, he understood, "the noble Earl was a spectator' " he in- tended to alter the course he proposed to pursue with regard to his own motion on Friday ?

Earl GREY said, he was undoubtedly a spectator, though he could not say an edified spectator, of the scene alluded to. At that moment, he Was not aware of any reasons why he should further postpone his mo-

tion; if there were any ho would consider them. Te Earl of DERBY said, it was not for him to suggest the course to be pursued ; but the same reasons for postponement still exist, and if the motion were brought forward on Friday, Earl Grey would still be de-

prived of the prestige of the eloquence and the powerful division that was to have supported his views in another place. Earl Gaiiv said, he had postponed the motion with great reluctance, and against his own wishes.

In reply to Lord LYNDHURST, Earl Gaszeviiin said that the negotia- tions at Vienna are not closed : Government are ready to receive any propositions calculated to lead to a safe and honourable peace. Lord Grey must himself decide what he would do.

Lord Lrtinitiatar closed the interlude by remarking that he " never heard anything more vague."

Ma. Durum AND MR. LAYARD.

In the House of Commons, on the same Tuesday, there was played out a different scene. Taking advantage of a formal motion, Mr. DISRAELI, referring to the " scene" of the previous night, and remarking that the language of the Government was equivocal and discouraging, and that the state of affairs was critical, announced that he could not accede to the proposal for an adjournment of the House until Monday week, without obtaining some explicit idea of the position of the country with regard to peace or war. He compared the circumstances to those of 1853, when it was impossible to discuss the question then pending, because they were always informed that negotiations were going on which would be injured by discussion. But the forbearance that then muzzled the expression of opinion in the House did not help the Government to secure peace, for they drifted into a disastrous war. Now, negotiations are carried on at the same court as in 1853, and it is to be feared that we should drift into peace—perhaps an ignominious peace—during the Whitsuntide recess. Therefore, he should ask the House to give its opinion on the conduit and language of the Government—language so ambiguous that it bad created a feeling of distrust in the country. Ho appealed to the kind in- dulgence of Mr. Layard to give up Thursday night. He would not press that wish, but only say that if an opportunity were given he should bring forward a motion.

Mr. LAYARD, with great seeming alacrity and cordiality, said he would give way. Lord PALMERSTON said—" If it be true that there was a scene enacted here last night, it has certainly been exceeded by that which has been enacted on the present evening, and which I must say does great credit to the actors concerned in it." (Laughter.) Government is quite ready to meet the motion ; and had Mr. Disraeli not complained of the language of the Government, it would not have been necessary for Lord Palmerston to speak.

Now, he entirely denied that the language of the Government had been ambiguous and equivocal ; but if by that were meant that they bad not detailed passing or passed communications with other Governments, the an- swer was, that it would have been a great want of public duty to have de- parted from the necessary reserve. But it was said that the country drifted into war in consequence of the silence of the House in 1853: on the con- trary, the forbearance of the House from discussions which might have pre- vented the chances of peace was favourable to peace. It was a charge against the Government that they were conducting negotiations at the very court and under the same auspices as they conducted the negotiations of 1853 : but it would have been a just reproach to the Government if they had re- pelled the advances of Austria, and had said, " We will have nothing to do with you ; we choose to conduct our negotiations without your assistance." It might be matter of blame if it could be justly said that, relying on the friendly offices of Austria, they neglected the means of carry- ing on the war; but while the door of aocommodatiou has been kept open, Ministers have acted in the prosecution of the war as if no nego- tiations were going on. In reply to Mr. Disraeli's taunt that an ig- nominious peace might be patched up in Whitsun week, he said —" I can assure the House and the right honourable gentleman, that so long as those persons who are now charged with the conduct of the affairs of this country shall remain in the exercise of the trust which has been reposed in them, he need be under no alarm, the House need be under no alarm, and the country need be under no alarm, that any peace will be made which will not be honourable to the country, which will not give safety for the fu- ture, which will not accomplish those objects for which the war was under- taken. It is not from those who ait on these benches that ignominious terms of peace will proceed ; and I trust that no man in this country, however much he may wish for peace—and, Heaven knows, every reasonable man would wish for peace if it could be properly obtained—I trust that no man who calls himself an Englishman, that no man whom this country would not thrust forth as a degraded outcast, would lend his name or give his sanction to such a peace as that which the right honourable gentleman seemed to indicate." (Cheers.)

MR. DISRAELI'S MOTION.

On Thursday, the orders of the day having been disposed of for that purpose, Mr. DISRAELI rose to move the following 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, this House feels it a duty to declare that it will continue to give every support to her Majesty in the_proaeoution• of the war, until her Majesty shall, in conjunction with her allies, obtain for this country a safe and honourable peace."

In a preamble of unusual length, he recited recent proceedings,—the failure of Lord .Palmerston to follow precedent and address the Crown

when he laid the protocols of the Conference on the table ; the suspicious- circumstances attending the withdrawal of Mr. Gibson's motion ; the. feeling of distrust that arose in consequence ; the feeling in the House just awakening from inglorious lassitude, that Europe was to be baulked in its expectation of a discussion ; —all this to explain why, ho was ashamed to say, from a cowardly fear of vulgar imputation, he had hesi- tated to bring the question forward earlier; and to show that now when he did bring it forward, it was not a surprise, but a matter growin g out of the circumstances of the hour and forced upon him by the conduct of the Government. Before he expressed the purpose of his resolution, he distinctly disclaimed having had any communication with Mr. Leyard on the subject. Not that he would have any hesitation to communicate with that gentleman : he had known him from boyhood, and be had the greatest confidence in his abilities and excellent intentions ; 'though he must tell him frankly, there is a fair foundation for the prejudices which have risen against him, but which, no doubt, he will outlive.

- Having disposed of these preliminary matters, Mr. Disraeli took up the main theme of his speech. His object was to show that the language and conduct of the Government were ambiguous and uncertain. When the reverend brow of Lord Palmeraton was encircled with the Parlia- mentary crown, who was the first to anticipate the fast dissipating en- thusiasm of the glorious epoch ? Sir James Graham, who a few years back denounced the First Minister as a firebrand—his seat in the Cabinet he had left still warm with his ample presence—put a question, and Lord Palmerston's reply was, that " the policy of the Government was en- tirely identified with the policy of Lord Aberdeen." Yet when Lord John Russell returned bootless from the Vienna conferences, and Mr. Gibson gave notice of his motion, to everybody's surprise it was found that Sir James Graham and two of his colleagues were to be the prime supporters of that motion. Did not that indicate some change in the conditions upon which peace was to be sought for?

This led Mr. Disraeli to the appointment of Lord John Russell, and his conduct at Vienna. That appointment was not a happy one. By his

denunciation of the power and ambition of Russia—by his declaration in

).854 that " England could not lay down arms until material guarantees were obtained," Lord John Russell roused the great passion of this great

country for a decisive struggle with the colossal energies of Russia. Thus the noble Lord, selected as the plenipotentiary of peace, was the advocate of war. Though Lord Palmerston told the House that he had conducted the negotiations with consummate ability, it could be shown that he was totally incompetent for the office he rashly and fatally un- dertook. It was of infinite importance to investigate his conduct, his ar,tmedents, his qualifications. What had he done? He not only made

the speech referred to, but he distinguished himself by denouncing the conduct of the Emperor of Russia as "false and fraudulent." He did more : be revealed, in July last, the secret policy of " that profound

Cabinet," and told the House of the invasion of the Crimea and the des- truction of SebastopoL But these were not all his 9ualifications. Be- fore he went to make peace for his country, he "trapped up his Prime Minister because he was not earnest enough in prosecuting the war, and he destroyed a Cabinet." " This was the dove sent out upon the troubled waters." In fact, his conduct was the main cause of our difficult position. What was his conduct during the brief period when he held the seals of the Foreign Office, when he was the head of the diplomacy of England ? In the course of those "secret communications" between the Govern- ment of England and the Emperor of Russia, Lord John Russell wrote a confidential despatch to Sir Hamilton Seymour, in which he made the . fatal admission of acknowledging the protectorate of Russia over the Christian subjects of the Porte—in which he told the Emperor that the

exercise of that protectorate, which Count Nesselrode has just told us

does not exist, "is prescribed by duty and sanctioned by treaty." Now, bearing in mind this mistake, look at the fourth point. There it is said, that the erroneous interpretation of the treaty of Kainardji "has been the principal cause of the war." By whom was that erroneous interpre- tation made ? by the noble Lord, or the Emperor of Russia ?

"If by the Emperor of Russia, it was assented to by the Minister of Eng- land. (Opposition cheers.) What right have we to interfere in this quar- rel, when the united wisdom of all these statesmen has found out that the erroneous interpretation of the treaty of Kainardji has been the principal cause of the war,' and the erroneous interpreter is sitting before me ? (Loud Opposition cheers.) . . . . We are only at the commencement of the extraordinary blunders, the fatal admissions, the disgraceful behaviour, and, as I believe, to this country the calamitous consequences of the appointment of that noble Lord, who displays, we are told, consummate ability, though unsuccessfully."

That was the key-note to the disgraceful scene at the conferences, so awful in its consequences to the country and to the character of public men. The conferences went on swimmingly until the third point was reached. But before he touched on the real point, Lord John, mindful of his mission, found time to hint at "a new Reform Bill for the Princi- palities " ; which, however, Prince Gortachakoff reminded him, might be postponed—as a new Reform Bill had been postponed in a more import- ant place. But when they came to the real point, Lord John Russell de-

clared—and Count Nesselrode referred to this passage as "la definition fort remarquable "—that "the only admissible conditions of peace would be

those which, being the most in harmony with the honour of Russia, should at the same time be sufficient for the security of Europe, and for preventing a return of complications such as that the settlement of which is now in question." What had he, what have we to do with the honour of Rus- sia ? No doubt, after that, the Russian Plenipotentiaries declined to take the initiative offered them, because they thought the Allies would make proposals more agreeable in spirit than the Russians themselves. And what were the propositions ? They were most humiliating, and supported by the most infelicitous precedent ; Lord John Russell appealed to the treaty of Utrecht and the destruction of the fortifications of Dunkirk ! The admission respecting the honour of Russia was the real cause why the negotiations were broken off, why peace by negotiation was placed out of question, and a knot tied that diplomacy cannot solve. Lord John, in- stead of showing great ability, had thus committed every blunder which _a negotiator could possibly accomplish. Having made out this case against Lora John Russell, Mr. Disraeli ;proceeded to show, by reference to the recent language of Lord Palmerston .and Lord Granville, the uncertainty, the inconsistencies of Ministers as 'to the state of negotiations. Condemning the attempt to carry on war simultaneously with morbid negotiations, and demanding an explicit ac- count of the real position of affairs, he proclaimed that the time for nego- tiation is past. " I am against this principle of leaving the door open' ; I say—abut the door, and let those who want to come in knock at the door, and then we shall secure a safe and honourable peace." Ministers have carried on an aggressive war and a protective diplomacy ; they have appealed to Austria as a mediator, and vainly expect her to be an ally. It was a great error to depart from the protection of Turkey and rashly attempt an invasion of Russia. He called upon the House to say that the time for negotiation is past, and to put an end to the distrust I that reaches our allies, our generals, our officers, our aristocracy. He alluded to the amendment to be proposed by Sir Francis Baring,—a shabby amendment, "cribbed from my thoughts and clothed in my lan- guage' : but that amendment, though it copied five lines of his own re- :solution, omitted those words which would pledge the House to put an end to " diplomatic subterfuge and Ministerial trifling." Mr. BARROW seconded Mr. Disraeli's motion.

Sir FnaNcrs BARING said, he had stolen the language of the resolution because it was free from ambiguity. Until Mr. Disraeli proposed a mo- tion which could not be met by a direct negative, because it proposed to support her Majesty in carrying on the war, there bad been no necessity for the House to express its opinion on the negotiations. In making

that motion, Mr. Disraeli had, with his usual dexterity, mixed up in a " shabby " resolution an address to the Crown with an attack on the Government. But if he had specific charges to make, why did he not frankly state them ? What concealment has there been, except what was for the good of the country and the interest of peace ? Can negotia. tions even in private life be carried on if all the world knows what is taking place ? The motion, whether technically so or not, wasreally a vote of want of confidence ; and the reckless course adopted by Mr. Disraeli, in mixing up an attack upon Government with an address to the Crown, had never before been taken by any party. They were asked to shut the door to negotiations ; he appealed to those gentlemen opposite, as anxious for peace and as desirous of maintaining the honour of the country as those who sat near him, whether they were prepared to adopt the responsi- bilities of that course. Sir Francis moved as an amendment- " That this House having seen with regret that the conferences of Vienna have not led to a termination of hostilities, feels it to be 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 this country a safe and honourable peace."

Sir WILLIAM HEATECOTE, who intended to propose the insertion, after the word "hostilities" in Sir Francis Baring's motion, the words "and still cherishing the hope that the communications in progress may arrive at a successful result," &c., explained the reasons that would induce him to submit it to the House at a future stage. He held that a chance of peace ought not to be thrown away; that we have already achieved the main avowed objects of the war ; and that little is left to settle between the two countries, certainly not more than can reasonably be expected to be accomplished by negotiation. If Sir Francis Baring would adopt his amendment, he would readily vote with him.

Mr. lisat Szystan was prepared to vote with Mr. Disraeli, although perhaps in a party point of view a good moment had not been chosen for bringing it forward. Had Lord Palmerston declared distinctly that he would meet Mr. Gibson's motion by a direct negative, he would have stood well with the House. Mr. Seymer argued, that a peace must be won by the bravery of our troops. The failure to take Sebastopol would add to the aggressive power of Russia in the Eastern parts of Europe and in Asia. And it was because Mr. Disraeli proposed to win a peace by war, while Ministers proposed to obtain a peace by negotiation, that ho supported the motion.

Mr. WI atfesoe and the Marquis of GRANBY announced their intention to vote against Mr. Disraeli ; the latter because he could not agree that the door of negotiation should be shut and those alone admitted who knock at it, and because he would weaken the power of the Government not only in this country but in foreign nations.

Mr. ROBERT PRILLIMORE advocated views subsequently embodied at greater length in the speech of Mr. Gladstone ; and censured Mr. Disraeli for having no aim but war simply for what is called the honour and glory of England.

Mr. GLADSTONE began by commenting on the different motions before the House. If Sir Francis Baring would insert the word " yet" in his motion, he thought there would be little difference between them. But he preferred the amendment of Sir William Heathcote, because it ex- pressed, in the mildest and most prudent form, the desire of the House that the negotiations, which have afforded an admirable opportunity of putting probably, if not certainly, an end to they horrors of war, should lead to a settlement of the question. He maintained that the war was just; that the objects of the war have been gained ; but that if the war was just while those objects were unattained, it becomes unjust after their attainment. Either you should bind a power by treaty to the observance of the required stipulations, or dismember it and grind it to pieces. But the plan of dismembering Russia is impossible ; and no plan can be more false and dangerous than, for the sake of mere military success, to inflict upon Russia indignity without taking away strength. He maintained that the question properly before the House, the difference between the various methods of putting an end to the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea, is entirely a question of terms. Russia has contrived to make her advances by treaty and violence, each step covered by something previously acquired and approximating to a right. Thus, the diplomatic interference of the late Emperor of Russia was covered by the treaty of Kainardji. Under this cover, Russia made her last aggressive advance; and war was declared because these aggressions were not compatible with the security of Europe. But the original objects of the war have completely vanished from view ; and under the circumstances of an European war, we now forget what we were interested in two years ago. What now is the position of Russia? When the four points were first sent to the Court of St. Petersburg, in August last, what did that haughty Power reply ? That the four points were terms to which Russia could not consent except at the end of a desperate struggle and a long series of defeats. Yet, in December 1854, after the battles of the Alma and Inkerman, the Emperor did not refuse to meet the Allies, but promised an unreserved acceptance of the very points he had contemptuously rejected in August, and on the 7th January he accepted the four bases of negotiation. Now how do we stand? We have got the first and second point, and we are quarrelling for a moiety of the third. That moiety relates to the preponderance of the Russians in the Black Sea. But that is a question of great and indeed of insurmountable difficulty, and no suggestion which has yet proceeded from the wit of man constitutes a perfectly satisfactory ar- rangement. Every suggestion is open to objection ; all the plans are imperfect. He and his friends were responsible for the limitation pro- posal, but he had always regarded it as defective; and the only reason he could give why the arrangement, now proposed by Russia, had not been proposed by the Allies is, that it so manifestly gives Turkey an absolute control over the Straits, that had any other power proposed it Russia would have raised unanswerable objections. The House would bear " this in mind, that the Russian agents have in these conferences pointed out, with no small appearance of fairness, that the plan of limitation, if Russia had only aggressive objects in view, would fall in better with those ag- gressive objects than the discretionary powers which she would confer on Turkey." But, supposing the question were not, as he contended it was, a ques- tion of terms, what would they do ? Carry on a war of nationalities— alone; which they would have to do, for neither Austria nor France would embark in that struggle. If not a war of dismemberment, nor a war of nationalities, what then ? Some gentlemen of high character and

humanity said that more blood must be shed for the sake of military emc- ees:1. But, doing full justice to the deeds of our armies,—contending that the discredit that has fallen upon England is nothing in the world except the echo and reflection of our own exaggerations,—he strongly deprecated carrying on the war for mere military success, when all the terms we demanded have been substantially conceded.

War for military success "is hideous—it is immoral, inhuman, and anti- Christian ; and you have no right to make war for success. If when you have obtained the objects of the war, you continue it in order to obtain military glory, because—observe the distinction there is between the objects of the war and success in your military operations,—if you persist in the war for the sake of military glory, I say you tempt the justice of Him in whose hands the fates of armies are lodged as completely as the fate of the infant in the cradle, you tempt Him to launch upon you Hia wrath. I dare not, for one, enter upon such a course." The Duke of Wellington, if he were alive, would not be a party to war for the sake of humiliation. Mr. Gladstone dwelt much on the character we should lose in Europe if we broke off from negotiations. He spoke of the great losses the Allies have sustained in men-1000 a day ; and argued, that if we attain the success sought, Russia will not offer better terms. He implored the House to take the initial step in putting an end to the awful scourge of war, and do what it could to open to Christendom the gates by which happiness and peace may return. (Loud cheers.)

Lord JOHN RUSSELL admitted that Mr. Gladstone had discussed the question in a manner worthy of himself; whereas Mr. Disraeli had totally lost sight of the great question that ought to occupy the House, and, in most ambiguous language, had entertained them for two hours and a half with party attacks and hacknied sarcasms. After once passing the Ru- bicon of war, the object must be to obtain a peace which affords grounds of safety and duration, by taking security for the future. The first and second points adequately disposed of the danger to the Principalities. The third point would have attached Turkey to the balance of power in Europe, and would have put an end to the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea. Mr. Gladstone saw a fulfilment of that provision in the propositions of Russia ; although, so long as Russia retains a fleet say of twenty sail of the line in Sebastopol, she may, as Marshal Marmont has shown, take possession of the Bosphorus, land an army at Constantinople, stand at the gate of the Sultan's palace, and impose what terms she thinks fit. That which would have been impossible under the treaty of 1841 would have become possible and easy to Russia under the proposi- tion for opening the Straits. Under the second Russian proposition she would remain closed ; Turkey being able to call the fleets of her allies to her assistance. But the Sultan can do that without any revision of the treaty of 1841 ' - and in such an attack everything depends upon priority.

"1 think that to have said the third article was fulfilled by provisions so futile and nugatory as either the first or the second alternative offered by Russia, would have been an attempt to deceive Europe, in a manner quite unworthy of two such nations as England and France.

Mr. Gladstone deprecated a military success. Lord John showed that if security had been obtained for peace, it would have been possible to have withdrawn an army of from 160,000 to 200,000 from the Crimea ; but to withdraw them without obtaining that security, would add failure in arms to failure in diplomacy—would add not only to the prepon- derance of Russia in the Black Sea, but also to her preponderance all over the world.

Very calmly adverting to Mr. Disraeli's more personal criticism, Lord John said, he had felt, that being more accustomed to Parliamentary life than to negotiations, he was not the fittest person for the office of pleni- potentiary ; but it was urged upon him by Lord Clarendon, with the concurrence of Lord Palmerston and the approbation of the Queen. Lord John defended the course he took at Vienna. He showed that the Emperor of Russia had by treaty a right to interfere for the protection of Christian subjects in Turkey; but that Prince Menscbikoff went beyond the treaty rights, and that when Sir Hamilton Seymour wished the Rus- sian Government to point out the specific passage in the treaty of Kainardji which justified the interference, the Emperor referred him to Count Nes- selrode, and Count Nesselrode said he was not familiar with the treaty. Lord John showed the menacing advance which Russia has made in the face of treaty restraints. She has extinguished the separate nationality and incorporated the army of Poland. She has erected in Poland six or seven fortresses of a strength at least equal to that of Sebastopol. Since the commencement of the present war, Sir Charles Napier discovered plans of fortifications which would have given her the command of the Baltic. "In Germany she is connected with many of the smaller Princes by marriage. Many of the Princes of Germany, I am sorry to say, live in great fear of what they think the revolutionary disposition of their subjects, and rely on their armed forces for protection. But what are those armed forces ? The officers of those forces are seduced and corrupted by the Russian Court. That Court distributes rewards, orders, and distinctions among them; and in some cases, where the receipt of money to pay debts will be accepted, money has been liberally given by the Russian Court ; and that Germany whiCh ought to be in a state of independ- ence—Germany, which should stand forward for the protection of Europe— has been corrupted, and has been undermined in its vital strength and inde- pendence by Russian arta and Russian means." The dangers arising from the treaty of Adrianople were seen too late to remedy them in 1829 ; but now that we are at war we ought not to forget the lesson.

Lord John briefly recapitulated the progress of the war by which Russia was driven back from the Danube, the Principalities placed under the safeguard of Austria, and the enemy subjected to pressure in the Crimea. He showed that the Russian Plenipotentiaries had acted under the instruction of the late Czar ; that they were to make no proposals on the subject of the third point ; that Russia might have given up the fleet in the Black Sea, which she has been obliged to destroy, without parting with any material portion of her strength ; and that, as a person of high authority remarked to Lord John, "if she objected to reduce her navy, it would be a proof that she intended aggression." The Russians, copying the late Czar, believe that it is the interest of Russia to take Constanti- nople as a means of forestalling France and England iu the seizure ; for they regard the fall of Turkey as certain.

"After all that I have heard against the project of limitation, in the posi- tion of affairs in which we were placed, I see no better security than that limitation, or the plan to which Russia was more opposed—that of making the Black Sea a commercial sea altogether, and not admitting any ships of war in that sea. This, therefore, is my defence with respect to this proposal. The right honourable gentleman has asked what it signifies whether Russia has four or eight ships more or less in the Black Sea. Well,. but then, he goes on to say that we ought to defend Turkey when Russia is prepared to

attack her. But this brings us to one of two oonclusione,—either that we must be there perpetually to defend Turkey and to make perpetual war ; or that we must be contented with leaving Turkey as she is, and that on Russia consenting to say, as she has said, that she is prepared to respect the inte- grity and independence of Turkey, we should withdraw our forces, make peace, and have no security, whatever beyond that which Russia has con- sented to give. That was the plan of my right honourable friend (Mr. Gladstone) ; but he manfully avowed it. He brought it forward before the House of Commons and supported it. But the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) says, do not end the war, but end the negotiations. There- fore he proposed that we should have no success in war and no security for peace, and at the same time proposes a continuance of war. Can anything be more inconsistent or extravagant than the proposal of the right honoura- ble gentleman ?

" I own that Austria has not given us all the support which she might. As far as support could be given in the conferences, she has given that sup- port ; and with regard to this last proposition, of calling up the forces of the Allies when Turkey was in danger, she said, That is no security ; it is leaving the preponderance of Russia unlimited till the moment when the danger becomes intolerable.' I must say, Sir, that I do not expect, however, that Austria is prepared, in the present state of the question, to take an im- mediate part in the war against Russia with us. I believe that she would have consulted her own interests and her own dignity better if she had, some time ago, joined us in that war ; but, at the same time, there are very ova- siderable and very powerful motives which influence her to maintain peace. In the first place, her capital is not in the situation of London or Paris, free from any danger of incursion from a Russian army. She has no sufficient fort- ress in Galicia, to prevent a Russian army, if it should gain even one victory, marching at once to Vienna. She has no secure alliance on this subject with Prussia ; and that I hold to be one of the main motives which have deterred her from takingan active part in this war. Prussia, her great rival, not only op- poses her on this question, but is constantly canvassing the smaller States of Germany against her upon this question : so that Austria feels, that unless you can show that there is a predominant motive to induce her, she would not bo justified in the present position of Germany, in entering. into war. I tell this fairlir to the House, because I think not only that justice ought to be done to Austria, but likewise because I do not wish to hold out any hopes which may not be verified that she will immediately take part in this war. I do think, however, her position is such, and her treaty engagements with us are such, that if the war continue she will find it necessary, in order to meet and vanquish that preponderance of Russia, to take part in the war ; and of this I feel sure, that the part which Austria has played, not taking a share in the spoils of Turkey, as may have been expected, lint joining with us in all measures and proposals we have thought necessary, will never be forgiven by Reside, and that her only safety has in building up such alliances as shall secure Turkey and Europe against Russian aggression." (Cheers.)

Lord John here closed the foreign question ; but he made some further remarks on the party question. He intimated that administrative reform had been sufficiently carried out in the organization of the War depart- ments; and pronounced Mr. Disraeli's attempt to catch up the feeling of the moment before the holidays "a false move." Mr. WHITESIDE moved the adjournment of the debate.

THE BALLOT QUESTION.

In bringing on his annual motion for leave to introduce a bill to pro- vide for the taking of votes at Parliamentary elections by ballot, Mr. HENRY BERKELEY occupied somewhat new ground, derived from the events of the day and the popular cry for administrative reform. Now, above all other times, is it necessary that the People's House should be freely chosen by themselves, was his answer to the argument that he had fixed an inopportune moment for bringing on his motion. No better state of things than now exists can be reasonably hoped for without a change in the Government departments, and no improvement in these without a change in the electoral system. The disasters of the war have arisen from plain causes. Government has become the hereditary property of a class. All that the people know of a change of Ministry is, that "one set of aristocrats, and squires, and lawyers, eject another, who go out • triate affficti' ; while the other set of aristocrats, and squires, and lawyers, manopere gaudentes,' succeed them and grope their way into office." Thus there is a change of men but no change of system ; nor can there be, because the heads of departments are selected, not for their merit, but because they be- long to families so powerful as to make or mar a Ministry. The aris- tocratic factions fight desperately for place ; but if places could be found enough for both, the House of Commons would become a vast cage for Whigs and Tories—political cats fraternizing with political rats. The coun- try is sick of Governments selected from the Red Book, and of Ministers chosen from Burke's Peerage. All this demands inquiry : yes, but what is the use of inquiry ? There is the Sebastopol Committee, what attention will be paid to its recommendations, if they interfere with the monopolists of power ? Why, the Bribery Committee of last session erased all that was calculated to prevent corruption and intimidation from the Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill ; and the old gentlemen in the Upper House were perfectly delighted to pass a bill that looked like a reform bill yet did not interfere with their corrupt practices. The only way to secure real practical good is to destroy the rottenness at the heart of the House of Commons ; and the first step would be to enable every elector freely to exercise his constitu- tional vote.

To strengthen his argument by evidence, Mr. Berkeley road some an- swers to questions circulated by the Ballot Society, received from Abing- don, Barnstaple, Promo, Liverpool, Malden, Norwich, Portsmouth, and Sunderland, showing that bribery and intimidation still prevail in spite of the new act ; and described the recent proceedings at Cavan and Cork, to show that intimidation is rampant in those counties.

Mr. FIELDEN seconded the motion.

Lord SEYMOUR expressed surprise to hear Mr. Berkeley's remarks about the aristocracy, recollecting as he did when the house of Berkeley was called the Ameers of Scinde !

The essence of the representative system is publicity ; but Mr. Berkeley's theory is that the production of a Member of Parliament is to be concealed. "He is to be hatched in the dark ; nobody is to know how he is produced ; something or other is to go into a ballot-box, and a Member of Parliament is to come out ; but we are not to hear who gives the votes or who is re- sponsible for the result." ("Hear, hear ! " from Lord John Russell,) And who are the persons to be exempt from publicity ? The ten-pound householders, the retail-traders. Talk of the aristocracy ! why, the retail- trader is the man who corrupts every article of food—who, according to the Radical editor of the Lancet, practises fraud wherever there is a possibility of concealment. Mr. Azernua GORDON said he should vote for the motion, because he believed it would tend to diminish the evils of the electoral system. The most perfect system that can be devised will not entirely eradicate bribery; but it would check it. He supported the motion, however, chiefly

for the sake of those men who could not give a conscientious vote because it would ruin their families. Intimidation exists in as great force as ever. Only during the last general election, this letter was written : "Mr.

I understand you are doubtful which way to vote. I desire you to vote for Mr. —. if you do not do so, you will leave my farm." He did not be- lieve that the retail-dealers, of whom Lord Seymour spoke so offensively, are corrupt as a body,- but if they are, the more necessary is it to take tempt- ation from them. It has been said that the electors are indifferent to their privileges : they are not indifferent, but they are afraid to vote as their con- licence dictates.

Amidst manifest signs of impatience, Mr. BENTINCK, and Sir S. BIG-. now, spoke against, and Mr. PATRICK O'Bitues, Mr. BLAND, and Sir JOZIN FITZGERALD, in favour of the motion.

Dr. MICHELL caused great amusement by proposing as an amendment, that, in order to do away with " the patronage-feeder " in that House, votes of Members should be taken by ballot. The House of Commons, he said, requires the ballot more than any constituency he had ever seen ; for the whippers-in can always obtain a majority so long as they go about with pockets full of places.

Nobody supported this amendment, and of course it fell to the ground.

Lord PALMERSTON set forth a string of old "arguments" against the motion—that the ballot would screen no elector, and degrade the national Character: and he regarded Dr. Michell's proposition as far more logical than Mr. Berkeley's. If individuals are to be screened from inconvenience, why not Members of the House of Commons, whose duties are beyond comparison more important than those of any elector. " Will any man tell me that the Members of this House always act according to their own opinions ? Will any man tell me that votes are not frequently given here in compliance with the pressure of constituencies, rather than from a Member's own sense of what is best for the public interests ? Why, we all know that it is so ; and therefore, if it is any argument why an elector should be allowed to record his vote in secret that it would enable him better to discharge his duty to his country, I say that that argument carries with it tenfold force when it is applied to the case of Members of this assembly. But I should be sorry, Sir, to see any such innovation as this introduced into the practice of this House." He would not withdraw the political acts of any person from public responsibility.

The House divided—For the motion, 166 ; against, 218; adverse ma- jority, 62.

DIPLOMATIC ESTABLISHMENTS.

Mr. Wein, in moving, as the opinion of the House of Commons, " that the complete revision of our diplomatic establishments recommended in the report of the Select Committee of 1850 on Official Salaries should be carried into. effect," complained that the report still remained a dead letter. Its first recommendation was, that first-class Missions, instead of

Embassies, should be sent to Paris and Constantinople. Now he ad- mitted that our position at these cities is different from what it was in 1860, and that the salaries of the Ambassadors have been reduced from 10,0001. to 800W. But the hotel of the Embassies at Paris has cost since the peace 117,000/. ; the hotel of the Embassy at Constantinople, 86,6501. since 1831. These facts require investigation. Russia sends only first-class Ministers to the leading Courts, and her diplomatists are quite ae successful as ours„ The second recommendation was, that in- stead of the expensive Missions to the smaller German Courts—Hanover, Dresden, Stuttgardt, Munich, each costing 20001. a year—we should send. a central Mission to Frankfort, and Ministers to Vienna and Berlin. The. Committee also recommended that the Mission at Florence should be united with one of the Italian. Missions; and that no diplomatic salary should ex- ceed 50001. a year. The Diplomatic and Consular expenditure has averaged 334,0001. per annum since 1840, and the Committee of 1850 were •right in recommending revision. Mr. Wise commented disparagingly on the general character of diplomacy, which is only another word for dupli- city ; but he guarded himself from applying that remark to our diploma- tists. Adverting to the subject of selection to appointments and promo- tion, he recommended the abolition of paid attaches, and the application of a teat of efficiency by examination to candidates for the diplomatic service.

Mr. EWART seconded the motion, and urged the propriety of establish- ing an educational test for candidates.

Lord PALMEEBTON made a general reply. He took Mr. Wise to task for raking up old accusations against a meritorious body of public servants and likening them to spies. In these days of newspapers and electric telegraphs, it would be throwing money away to spend it in paying spies.

He believed that "every column of the Times, is reprinted at St. Peters- burg, by means of electric telegraph, within twelve hours of the time when it appears in London." He defended our Consuls in the East, and said that he was not aware that any improvement could be effected in our Consular system. With respect to the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1850, that no salary should exceed 50001. a year, it has not been found desir- able to carry that invariably into effect. The truth is, that, generally speaking, the salaries paid are under what they ought to be. The sala- ries of the Ministers at Paris, Vienna, and Constantinople, exceed 50001.

a year, because those Ministers should have the means of maintaining the dignity of the country, and social intercourse with other diplomatic agents; for if they had not those means, they must bury themselves in solitude, and the interests of the country would suffer. The Ministers of Russia receive much higher salaries than are given to the diplomatic agents of England; possessing the higher rank of Ambassador. It may be true that Frankfort, as Napoleon said, is the window of Germany ; but much important information is obtained from the German courts that cannot be obtained at Frankfort, and Napoleon certainly did not confine his agents to Frankfort alone. At Frankfort assemble the delegates of the different States; but they are not the Governments, and communica- tions made to them are not communications made to Germany. The same observation applies to Italy. With respect to the example of the United States, they have recently been compelled to revise their establishments, and in some instances to double the expense to relieve their agents from the painful positions in which many of them were placed. He assured the House that Government had not overlooked the question ; that capa- city is considered in reference to appointments by the Foreign Minister, who has the greatest interest in selecting the best-qualified men ; and that the British Government is as well served by its agents as any Go- vernment in the world. Referring to the minute of Council respecting the civil service, he said that Lord Clarendon has the matter of examination for the diplomatic service under consideration. The emotion cast a cen- sure on the Government it does not deserve.

Mr. WM17,4111.1 Mr. ROBERT PHILLIMORE, Mr. WHITESIDE, and Mr. OTWAY, having Offered observations more or less in favour of the motion, Mr. WISE declared he was ready to withdraw it. Mr. HENRY Bins.rs objected to this, and insisted on a division—For the motion, 112; against it, 57; majority against Ministers, 55.

NEWSPAPER STAMP DUTIES.

Lord CANNING moved the second reading of the Newspaper-Stamp Bill, in a speech that went carefully over the whole question, and expounded the nature of the measure. Lord MONTEAGLE opposed the measure; as involving an unnecessary sacrifice of revenue ; as a concession to a popular cry, not worth the breath wasted upon it, and uncalled for by those who are the most interested, the newspaper-proprietors. But he did not divide the House, and the bill was read a second time.

MARTIAL LAW IN THE PRINCIPALITIES.

In reply to Mr. OTweir, Lord PALMERSTON stated that Lord West- moreland had ascertained from General Hess that Count Coronini had issued an order, not establishing what is commonly understood as martial law, superseding the law of the country, but applying solely to the troops and to any persons who endeavoured to induce them to desert.

MR. PRIMN'S APPOINTMENT.

The Earl of HARDWICKE, without giving notice of his intention, put a question to Earl Granville on Thursday. It was, whether-"a gentleman of the name of Phinn" had been appointed Second Secretary to the Ad- miralty ? Mr. Phinn is a man who has been highly educated at Eton and Oxford; according to Dal, he is a Liberal, in favour of household suffrage and vote by ballot, and Member for Bath. The Second Secre- tary to the Admiralty has always been a non-removable and a non- political officer ; and the late Government considered he should be a naval man. It would-inconvenience the public service if it were made a political office. Earl GRANVILLB said that Mr. Phinn has been appointed Second Se- cretary. The appointment of naval men is the exception. Mr. Barrow; a layman, held the office for thirty years. The qualifications of a highly educated man, and especially of a-lawyer, are likely in a time of war to be particularly useful to the Admiralty. Mr. Phinn has already resigned his seat in Parliament, in consequence of having accepted the appointment.

CAPTAIN CHRISTIE.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM explained, on Monday, two errors in his speech on Captain Christie's case, on the previous Friday. Those errors were, that the first time he ever heard any question as to the fitness of Captain Christie was when Mr. Layard referred to him in that House; and the second, that he ordered an inquiry after the debate in which that reference was made. Those statements were unintentionally inaccurate, and made when he had no opportunity of referring to dates. That the inaccuracy was uninten- tional, was shown by the fact that he had placed the original document,. ordering an inquiry; in the hands of the Sebastopol Committee. The order was issued in December ; Mr. Layard's statement was made in February ; therefore the order was issued before the debate. Mr. Glad- stone had also referred to the order before Mr. Layard mentioned the matter. Sir James made an humble acknowledgment of his error, as the only reparation he could offer ; but he regretted that Mr. Layard should, have asked an explanation in the Times, instead of seeking one in that House. He had done that in a printed newspaper which he could not have done in the House: be hadsaid that " I ought to have known what I. stated to be an absolute falsehood." Sir James appealed to the House, and asked whether they.believed he,could have deliberately attempted to impose upon them .a statement that was untrue. (Cheers.)