EARL GREY AND THE RUSSIAN WAR.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 312, 27 October 1855, Page 5

EARL GREY AND THE RUSSIAN WAR.

It is said to be an ancient practice of the Court of Rome that on a certain festival of the Church a preaching friar mounts the pulpit for no other purpose than to impugn the faith, to distort the truth, 10 degrade what is right, to vindicate what is wrong, and, in short, to defend the cause of the Enemy of Man. A similar ceremony was performed last night in the House of Lords, and the speaker who assumed this strange office of the Devil's Advocate was no other than Lord Grey. The Peers who followed, ami answered with the feeling of statesmen and of Englishmen this interminable and extraordinary harangue, thought fit to pay Lord Grey a compliment on the sincerity of his moiives, as they could find no other pretext for the customary civilities of Parliamentary debate, but it requires an effort to join in even that faint compliment, for it is nut easy to comprehend the sincerity of a man who wanders through a labyrinth of sophisms until he finds himself arrayed on the side of the enemies of his country. The wretched deserter who skulks on a stormy night from the pickets before Sebastopol until he is snapped up by a pulfc of Cossacks is struck with dishonour from the roll of the British army, and incurs the punishment of death if he falls into the hands of the Provost Marshal ; but that military offence may be more venial in its motives and less injurious to the public service than the desertion of a British Peer, hearing a name once illustrious in the public service, possessing great powers of intellect and of oratory, but of so frail a judgment and so perverse n temper, that in the very crisis of a great national contest he throws the whole weight of his authority and example on the side of the enemy of his country. Lord Grey was entirely at liberty, as we all are, in the exercise of that freedom of debate which is the birthright of every Englishman, to criticise and condemn the policy of the Government, to dissent from all the principles on which the Ministers of the Crown have acted, and to deprecate what he conceives to be the effects of this war. On these points we acknowledge the consistency with which he has adhered to what lie terms the cause of peace. But when he was driven by the necessity of his own logic to go further—not only to censure every act of the British Government and its allies, but to justify every act of the Czar,—not only to impute to the men with whom he has hitherto acted during his whole life a criminal blindness of policy and a disgraceful levity in action, but even to pronounce in the British House of peers an elaborate defence of the character, the good faith, and the political conduct of Nicholas of Russia, we are astonished that his own moral sense did not recoil from so monstrous a conclusion. We are perfectly willing to take the argument as Lord Grey has staled it Be it so, that to prove this war unjust and unnecessary each successive step of Russia has been marked by candour, honesty, and the desire of peace: that Prince MenschikofPs mission to Constantinople was the modest cluim of friendship; and that Prince Gortschakoffs proposals at Vienna were fresh leaves cf the Russian olive branch. Is Lord Grey content to try the issue and to take

the verdict mi these facts, and, if they are diss loved v abandon the paradox -Inch he ha Ittempte,l to dress »p in a» vhe dignity of an opinion ? To make out the appearance o( a cU he was compelled not only to misrepresent but positively to invert every incident in these traniaciums/and the moment these successive events are restored to their true form and meanin«r the whole structure crumbles into tbe dust, ifthis were all, and if Lord Grey's reputation as a-statesman were the only sacrifice required in expiation of these absurdities, the result tronid be indifferent to the world. But we cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that, as far as such a speech has any force at all, that force is used either to prolong the war by rendering peace more difficult to be attained, or by causing peace to he purchased at tbe exoense of the honour of the allies. Here, among the people of England we well know that so unnatural a speech will awaken n,« echo but in the indignation of the cojiury. When the public see to what shifts the pauizans of ueace atanv price are driven, what utter indifference they profess to the military honour of England, and how ready they are to plead the cause even of our enemies, public opinion will do justice on their clumsy and injudicious at tempts to withdraw us from this contest. But abroad, on the continent of Europe, and more especially in Russia, tbe effect will be more injurious. There the poison will be circulated without ihe antidote, and the nation to which we are opposed in arms will read its own justification in the language of a British Peer. Accordiu^ to Lord Grey, Russia has made all the concessions that can be required of her; to urge the limitation of her naval forces is to insuh her, to demand securities for the independence of Europe is an offensive and unfounded suspicion ; it is for ourselves, on the contrary, to make concessions and to relax our demands. Lord Grey cannot hare so slight a knowledge .of his own countrymen as to doubt that they would reject with universal scorn so ignoble a proposition ; but he might also have foreseen that this language is precisely that which is most likely to induce the Russian Cabinet to persevere in its pretensions, to reject the last chances of peace, and to fail back on the arguments of Prince Gortschakoff, emiorsedas they are by Lord Grey. The cause of the allied Powers against Russia was hrieflv but forcibly stated by Lord Clarendon, who followed Lord Grey, and by all the other Peers who addressed the House. Nothing1 eoul'i be more striking than the effect of the memorable words quoted by Lord Clarendon-.from a speech *>(.. the late Earl Grey, which sounded like a remoiistrance'from the torn!) against; the recreant language of him who now bears that oner honoured name. The Foreign Secretary stataii dearly and firmly his unabated conviction of the vast designs of .Russia against the independence of Europe, of the enormous preparations she bad made to execute those designs and of toe necessity of adhering without modification ;■> the fills objects we have pursue'! in tins war. These being tbe opinions we have unifortily defended, we heard them with pleasure fr-iru the .Minister most conversant with our fon-j.^u relations and with the negotiations said in W si'li in progress : but, tnkitig our stand un■■• ■ i;i;« bm.id and intelligible basis, 0:1 which w ; j jicc: tii-it Lord Clarendon has phu-e.l the r>o -v >.•;' ih<; Government, it may t'airiy l>e asked -.'>.• si"*i{'i-;iations are at this moment possibly fi i v/!».,»tijer even tbe cvnees>ion >>s' the F--.r P.j'iitv, if it had been made by Russia, w .l 1 :■■ r.'iUv ijave provided against these rlangl-- -iMii anjiii.cd our object? To these ({iiest:-":-; H-ri can only answer, that we prefer the Ci ■- 'if >vir to tiie chances of ne<joiiatii»n -<vi 6U '. jiu-., and that we shall i>e litiitiitely D> :-■ a -.if« and lasting peace after o-se deci--6 •:• iS'ii; •■lne.lt than upon the acceptance of a £ ; iif }ireiituinaries. That we believe to be tL- , inest opinion of Parliament ami of the C<* ■■ ■ .-.Mnfi o;i that principle alone can ilie Go Vi ■. n 'til Ciny an with success the fureigii relat; -■ )i;e Crown and the operations oi war. —-7W,;.