Karl Marx 
Debates in Parliament 

New-York Daily Tribune. 
Nr.4022, 9. März 1854 

Debates in Parliament. 

From Our Own Correspondent. 

London, Tuesday, Feb. 21, 1854. 

The military and naval estimates have been laid before Parliament. In the 
army, the total number of men asked for the current year is 112,977, an 
increase upon last year of 10,694. The total cost of the land forces for service 
at home and abroad, for the year ending on the 31st of March, 1855, ex- 
clusively of the Australian Colonies, and of the charge transferred to the East 
India Company, is £3,923,288. The gross total amount is £4,877,925, which 
will provide for 5,719 officers, 9,956 non-commissioned officers, 
126,925 rank and file. The naval estimates for the year ending March 31,1855, 
show a total for the effective service, of £5,979,866, an increase upon last 
year of £1,172,446. The charge for the conveyance of troops and ordnance 
stands £225,050, an increase of £72,100. The grand total for the year amounts 
to £7,487,948. The force will consist of 41,000 seamen, 2,000 boys, 
15,500 marines; the total, including 116 men in the packet service, 58,616. 

Mr. Layard had given notice that he should call attention to the Eastern 
question on last Friday evening, and he seized upon the very moment when 
the Speaker was to leave the Chair, in order that the House might consider 
the navy estimates. Shortly after 4 o'clock all the galleries were overcrowded, 
and at 5 o'clock the House was full. Two long hours, to the visible morti- 
fication of the members and the public, were killed with indifferent con- 
versation on minor topics. So intensely excited was the curiosity of the 
honorables themselves that they delayed dinner till 8 o'clock, to assist at the 
opening of the great debate—a rare occurrence this in the parliamentary Ufe 
of the Commoners. 

Mr. Layard, whose speech was continually interrupted by cheers, began 

Karl Marx 

by stating that the government had placed them in so extraordinary a position 
that they were at a loss to know how they really stood. Before they could 
vote the demanded advances, it was the duty of the governmentto state what 
their intentions were. But before asking [the] government what they were 
about to do, he wished to known what they had already done. He had said 

last year that if the government had adopted a tone more worthy of this 
country, they would not have been plunged into war; nor, after a careful 
perusal of the voluminous blue books lately issued, had he found cause to 
change his opinions. Comparing the contents of various dispatches on var- 
ious sides, he argued that the Ministry had overlooked the most obvious 

facts, had misunderstood the most unmistakeable tendencies, and trusted to 
the most evidently fallacious assurances. Declaring that the tragedy of 
Sinope impeached the honor of England, and required ample explanation, 
he drew evidence from the published documents to show that the Admirals 
of the united fleets might have prevented the catastrophe, or that the Turks 

by themselves have averted it, if ithad not been for the timorous and vacillat- 
ing instructions sent out by the British government. He inferred from their 
recent language that they would still treat on the basis of the status quo ante 
bellum, which presumed step he condemned. He calledupon the government 
to do their duty, inthe certainty that the people of England would do theirs. 

Sir James Graham, with his notorious effrontery, answered him that they 
must either put their confidence in Ministers or turn them out. But "mean- 
while don't let us potter over blue books." They had been deceived by Russia, 
who was an old and faithful ally of Great Britain, but "dark, malignant 
suspicions did not easily take root in generous minds." This old fox, Sir 
Robert Peel's "dirty little boy," the murderer of the Bandieras, was quite 
charming with his "generous mind" and his "slowness to suspect." 

Then came Lord Jocelyn and Lord Dudley Stuart, whose speeches filled 
the papers the next day, but emptied the house on this evening. Mr. Roebuck 
next commenced by defending the ministers for their conduct in a delicate 
situation, but ended by declaring that it was now time for the ministry to 
declare clearly what they intended to do. Lord John Russell, on the plea of 
answering this question, rose, gave an apologetic recapitulation of the 
history of the late differences, and when he had convinced himself that 
this would not do, feigned to be willing to tell them "what they intended 
to do;" a thing he himself may not have been quite sure of. According to 
his statement they had entered into some vague sort of alliance with France, 
not by means of a treaty concluded, but of notes interchanged. England and 
France were now proposing to Turkey also a sort of treaty, by virtue of 
which the Porte should not sue for peace without their consent. They had 
been cruelly overcome by the incredible perfidy of the Czar. He (Russell) 

Debates in Parliament 

despaired of peace being preserved. They were likely to enter on war. He 
consequently wanted some £3,000,000 more than last year. Secrecy was 
the condition of success in war and therefore he could not tell them just 
now what they were to do in that war. As the latter, or theatrical part of his 
speech was performed with great force and with much moral indignation at 
the Czar "the butcher," the applause was immense, and the House, in then- 
enthusiasm, were on the point of voting the estimates, when Mr. Disraeli 
interceded and succeeded in adjourning the discussion to Monday evening. 

The debates were resumed yesterday evening and only concluded at 
2 o'clock, A.M. 

First rose Mr. Cobden, promising to confine himself strictly to the practical 
question in hajid. He took great pains to prove from the blue books, what 
was denied by nobody, that the French Government had originated "this 
melancholy dispute," by the mission of Mr. Lavalette respecting the Holy 

Places and the concessions it wrung from the Porte. The French President, 
who, at that time, had some expectation of becoming Emperor, might have 
had some wish to make alittle political capital by making these demands upon 
Turkey on behalf of the Latin Christians. The first movement of Russia, 
therefore, was traceable to the proceedings of France, in this matter. The 

non-signature of the Vienna note had been the fault of the allies, not of the 
Turkish Government, because, if it had been threatened with the withdrawal 
of the fleet from Besika Bay, the Porte would immediately have signed it. 
We were going to war because we insisted upon Turkey refusing to do that 
by a note to Russia which we intended to ask her to do for ourselves, viz.: 
to give us a guarantee for the better treatment of the Christians. The vast 
majority of the population in the Ottoman Empire was looking with eagerness 
to the success of that very policy which Russia was now prosecuting, (as 
now exemplified in Moldo-Wallachia). From the blue books themselves he 
could show that the evils and oppressions under which that Christian popula- 

tion lived, could not be tolerated—referring principally to dispatches of Lord 
Clarendon, ostensibly written with the view to make out acase for the Czar. 
In one of these dispatches Lord Clarendon writes: "The Porte must decide 
between the maintenance of an erroneous religious principle and the loss of 
the sympathy and support of its allies." Mr. Cobden was therefore enabled 
to ask: "Whether the House did think it possible that a population like the 
fanatical Mussulman population of Turkey would abandon its religion? And 
without total abandonment of the law of the Koran, it was absolutely 
impossible to put the Christians of Turkey upon an equality with the Turks." 
We may as well ask Mr. Cobden, whether with the existing State Church and 
laws of England, it is possible to put her working-men upon equality with 
the Cobdens and the Brights? Mr. Cobden proceeded then with a view to 

Karl Marx 

show from the letters of Lord Stratford de Redcliff e and the British Consular 
agents, that there reigns a general dissatisfaction through the Christian 
population in Turkey threatening to end in a general insurrection. Now, let 
us again ask Mr. Cobden whether there does not exist a general dis- 
satisfaction with their governments and their ruling classes, among all peo- 
pies of Europe, which discontent soon threatens to terminate with a general 
revolution? If Germany, Italy, France or even Great Britain had been in- 
vaded, like Turkey, by a foreign army, hostile to their Governments and 
appealing to their insurrectionary passions, would any of these countries 
have as long remained quiet, as the Christian population of Turkey have 
done? 

In entering upon a war in defense of Turkey, Mr. Cobden concludes, 
England would be fighting for the domination of the Ottoman population of 
Turkey and against the interest of the great body of the people of that 
country. This is merely a religious question between the Russian army on 
the one side and the Turkish on the other. The British interests were allon 
the side of Russia. The extent pf their trade with Russia was enormous. If 
the export trade to Russia amounted to only £2,000,000, this was but the 
transitory result from Russia still laboring under the Protectionist delusion. 
However their imports from Russia amounted to £13,000,000. With the 
exception of the United States, there was no one foreign country with which 
their trade was so important as with Russia. If England was going to war, 
why were they sending land forces to Turkey, instead of exclusively using 
their navy? If the time had come for the contest between Cossackism and 
Republicanism, why were Prussia, Austria, the rest of the German States, 
Belgium, Holland, Sweden, and Denmark remaining neutral, while France 
and England had to fight single handed? If this were a question of European 
importance, was it not to be supposed that those who were nearest to the 
danger would be the first to fight? Mr. Cobden concluded by declaring that 
"he was opposed to the war with Russia." He thought "the best thing was 
to fall back upon the Vienna note." 

Lord John Manners considered that the Government were to blame for 
their supineness and false security. The communications originally made by 
Lord Clarendon to the Governments of Russia, France and Turkey, in which, 
instead of acting in accordance with France, Lord Clarendon persisted in 
refusing so to cooperate, and made known to the Government of Russia that 
England would not cooperate with France, had induced the Emperor of 
Russia to give Prince Menchikoff the orders which led to the whole 
catastrophe. It was no wonder that when England at last announced her 
intention to interfere actually at Constantinople, the Government of France 
should entertain some doubt as to the sincerity of her Majesty's Government. 

Debates in Parliament 

It was not England that advised the Porte to reject Prince Menchikoff's 
ultimatum, but, on the contrary, the Ministers of the Sultan acted upon their 
own responsibility, and without any hope of the assistance of England. After 
the occupation of the Principalities by the Russians, the prolonged diplomatic 
negotiations of the British Government had been very prejudicial to the 
interests of Turkey, and very serviceable to those of Russia. Russia had taken 
possession of the Principalities without a declaration of war, in order to 
prevent those treaties which were her real instruments of oppression toward 
Turkey from falling to the ground. Consequently, after Turkey had declared 
war, it was not wise to insist upon the renewal of these treaties as a basis 
of negotiation. The main question really in hand now was, what were the 
objects which the Government contemplated in entering upon this tremen- 
dous struggle? It was generally announced that the honor and the inde- 
pendence of Turkey were to be maintained; but it was essential that there 
should be some understanding of afar more specific nature as to what was 
meant by this announcement. 

Mr. Horsman endeavored to refute the fallacies propounded by 
Mr. Cobden. The real question was not what Turkey is, but what Russia 
would become with Turkey absorbed in her dominions—a question whether 

the Emperor was to be Emperor also of Turkey? With Russia there was but 
one object recognized, the advancement of the political power by war. Her 
aim was territorial aggrandizement. From the monstrous mendacity of the 
first step taken in this matter by the Russian Autocrat, down to the atrocious 
massacre of Sinope, his course had been one of ferocity and fraud, of crimes 
that would be conspicuous even in the annals of Russia, a country whose 
history was all crime, and which were rendered still more fearful by that 
blasphemy which dared to invoke the Christianity whose laws it so flagrantly 
violated. On the other hand, the conduct of the intended victim had been 
admirable. Mr. Horsman then took great pains to excuse the oscillating 
course of the Government by the difficulties which they found their position 
surrounded with. Hence their diplomatic hesitation. If all the Cabinets of 
Europe, if the most experienced diplomatists had been engaged in opposition 
to the Autocrat, it would have been impossible to place him in a position 
of greater difficulty and embarrassment and from which he could not ex- 
tricate himself without difficulty and loss, than that in which either by the 
blunders of our own Ministers or the adroitness of his own, he was now 
placed. Six months ago the Emperor Nicholas was the chief supporter of the 
order and legitimacy of Europe; now he stood forward, unmasked as the 
greatest revolutionist. Foiled in his political intrigues, unsuccessful inthe war 
in Asia, and well thrashed by the Turks on the Danube, the Czar had really 
shown an alacrity in sinking which was quite refreshing. It was now the duty 

Karl Marx 

of the Government, if hostilities should commence, to take care notto secure 
peace except upon such terms as would involve ample and certain security 
against any future repetition of similar aggression. He trusted that one of 
the conditions for the restoration of peace would be that Russia should 
indemnify Turkey for the expenses to which she had been put, and that 
Turkey should receive, as a material guarantee, the restoration of territories 
of which she had been deprived. 

Mr. Drummond believed that we are going to engage in a religious war, 
and are about to enter into another crusade for the tomb of Geoffrey de 
Bouillon, which is already so broken that it cannot be sat upon. It appears 
that the author of the mischief from the very beginning has been the Pope. 
England had not the least interest in the Turkish question, and awar between 
this country and Russia could not be brought to a successful termination, 
because they will fight each other for ever and never do each other any harm. 
"All that you will gain in the present war will be hard knocks." Mr. Cobden 
had some time ago offered to crumple Russiaup, andif he would do so nowit 
would save them a world of trouble. In fact, the present dispute was, whether 
the milliners should come from Paris or from St.Petersburg to dress the 
idols of the Holy Sepulchre. They had now found out that Turkey was their 
ancient ally, and quite necessary to the balance of power of Europe. How 
in the world did it happen that they never found that out before they took 
the whole kingdom of Greece from her, and before they fought the battle 
of Navarino, which he remembered Lord St. Helens having described as a 
capital battle, only that they knocked down the wrong men. How came they 
not to think of this when the Russians passed the Balkan and when they might 
have given Turkey effectual aid by their fleet? But now, after they had 
reduced the Ottoman Empire to the last stage of decrepitude, they thought 
to be able to uphold this tottering power on the pretense of the balance of 
power. After some sarcastic remarks on the sudden enthusiasm for Bona- 
parte, Mr. Drummond asked who was to be Minister of War? All of them had 
seen enough to show them that there was a feeble hand at the helm. He did 
not believe that the character of any general or of any admiral was safe in 
the hands of the present Administration. They were capable of sacrificing 
either to please any faction in the House. If they were determined to go to 
war, they must strike their blow at the heart of Russia, and not go wasting 
their shots inthe Black Sea. They must begin by proclaiming the reéstablish- 
ment of the kingdom of Poland. Above all, he wanted to be informed what 
the Government was about. "The head of the Government," said Mr. Drum- 
mond, "prides himself on his powers of concealment, and stated in another 
place that he should like to see any one extract information from him which 
he was not inclined to afford. That statement reminded him of a story which 

Debates in Parliament 

he heard once in Scotland—a Highlandman had gone to India, and on his 
return to England broughthome aparrot as apresent to his wife, whichtalked 
remarkably well. A neighbor, not wishing to be outdone, went to Edinburgh 
and brought his wife home a large owl. On its being remarked to him that 
the owl could never be taught to speak: 'Very true,' he replied; 'but consider 
the power o' thocht he has in him.'" 

Mr. Butt stated that this was the first time since the revolution that a 
Ministry had come down to the House and asked for a war supply without 
stating distinctly and fully the grounds for such a proposition. In the legal 

sense of the word, they were not yet at war, and the House had a right to 
know, on voting these supplies, what was delaying the declaration of war 
against Russia? In what an equivocal position was their fleet at the Black 
Sea put! Admiral Dundas had orders to send back Russian vessels to a 
Russian port, and if, in the execution of these orders, he destroyed a 
Russian ship, while being at peace with Russia, were Ministers prepared to 
justify such a state of things? He hoped it would be explained whether 
assistance was to be given upon those humiliating terms—that Turkey was 
to place herself in the hands of England and France in making peace with 
Russia? If that was to be the policy of England, then Parliament was now 

called upon to vote an additional force, not for the independence of Turkey, 
but for her subjugation. Mr. Butt betrayed some doubt whether Ministers 
were not merely making a parade of those military preparations for the 
purpose of arriving at a dishonorable peace. 

Mr. S. Herbert, the Minister of War, made the most vulgar and silly speech 
that could possibly be expected even from a Coalition Minister at such a 
momentous crisis. The Government was placed between two fires, and they 
could not find any means of ascertaining what opinionthe House itself really 
entertained upon the question. The honorable gentlemen opposite had the 
advantage of coming to facts; they were criticising the past; but the Govern- 

ment had no facts to deal with—they had only to speculate as to the future. 
They were inclined to embark in this war not so much for the purpose of 
defending Turkey as of opposing Russia. This was all the information the 
House could get from poor Mr. Herbert, "as to the future." But no; he told 
them something very new. "Mr. Cobden is," according to Mr. Herbert, "the 
representative of the feeling of the largest class of the people of this 
country." This assertion being denied in all parts of the House, Mr. Herbert 
proceeds to state: "If not the largest class, the honorable member was a 
representative, at any rate, of a great portion of the working classes of this 
country." Poor Mr. Herbert. It was quite refreshing to see Mr. Disraeli rise 
after him, and thus to have the babbler supplanted by a real debater. 

Mr. Disraeli, alluding to the theatrical declamations with which Lord John 

Karl Marx 

Russell had terminated his speech on Friday evening, commenced with this 
statement: "I have always been of opinion that any nation, and this one in 
particular, would be much more prepared and much more willing to bear the 
burdens which a state of warfare must induce and occasion, if they really 
knew for what they were going to war, than if they should be hurried into 

a contest by inflammatory appeals to the passions, and be carried away by 
an excitement which at the first moment might be convenient to a Minister, 
but which in a few months after would be followed by the inevitable reaction 
of ignorance, or perhaps ignorance and disaster combined." Thus it had been 
with the war of 1828—29, when they took part on the side of Russia and not 

on that of Turkey. The present perplexed position and the recent prostrate 
condition of Turkey, were entirely to be ascribed to the events of that war, 
in which England and France were united against Turkey. At that time there 
was not a member of the House who really had any idea why they went to 
war, or what was the object they intended to accomplish, when they leveled 

a blow at the power of Turkey. Therefore they must clearly comprehend the 
cause and the object of the present war. This knowledge was only to be 
obtained from the blue books. What had been the origin of the present state 
of affairs they must learn from the words written in these very dispatches 
lying on the table. The policy there developed was preparing that future 

which, according to Ministers, alone was to absorb their attention. He 
protested, therefore against the doctrine of Sir James Graham. Mr. Herbert 
had just protested against the reading of isolated pages from those dis- 
patches. He however could not promise to read these blue books through 
to the House; yet if they admitted the validity of the right honorable gentle- 

man's objection, this would seem to be the only course open to him. It was 
the received opinion of all that were well acquainted with the Eastern ques- 
tion, and his own opinion, that Russia had no intention whatever of forcibly 
conquering the Ottoman Empire; but that, by adroit policy and by improved 
means, she intended to obtain and to exercise such an influence over the 
Christian population of the Turkish Empire, that she would obtain all that 
authority which would have been the result of her possessing, perhaps, the 
seat of the Sultan's empire. At the outset of these negotiations Count Nessel- 
rode himself, in his dispatches dated January, 1853, and June, 1853, distinctly 
and explicitly described the policy of Russia. Ascendancy to be obtained over 

the Turkish Empire by exercising a peculiar influence over 12,000,000, who 
compose the large majority of the Sultan's subjects. By the Russian dis- 
patches addressed to the British Government, not merely is that policy de- 
fined, but the British Government is no less candidly informed of the mode by 
which it is to be accomplished—not by conquest, but by maintaining treaties 

that exist, and by extending the spirit of those treaties. Thus, from the very 

Debates in Parliament 

beginning of this important controversy, the base of the diplomatic campaign 
was found in a treaty—the treaty of Kainardji. By that treaty the Christian 
subjects of the Porte are placed under the especial protection of the Sultan; 
and Russia, in interpreting that treaty, states that the Christian subjects of 
the Sultan are placed specially under the protection of the Czar. Under the 
same treaty representations may be made by Russia in favor of her new 
church—a building in the street called Bey Oglu—the Russian interpretation 
of that article of the treaty is, that Russia has the power of interfering in favor 
of every church of the Greek denomination, and, of course, in favor of all 
the communities of that faith in the Sultan's dominions, who happen to be 
the large majority of his subjects. This was the avowed Russian interpre- 
tation of the treaty of Kainardji. On the other hand they might see, from a 
dispatch of the 8th of January, 1853, from Sir Hamilton Seymour, that Count 
Nesselrode informed Sir Hamilton, who informed Lord Clarendon, "that it 
was necessary that the diplomacy of Russia should be supported by ademon- 
stration of force." According to this same dispatch, Count Nesselrode's 
belief that this question would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, rested 
upon the "exertions which were to be made by Her Majesty's Ministers at 
Paris and Constantinople." Russia, then, at once declared that the demon- 
stration of force was only a demonstration; but that the object was to be 
peaceably attained by the exertions of the English Ministers at Paris and 
Constantinople. "Now, Sir," continued Mr. Disraeli, "I want to know, with 
that object expressed, with those means detailed, and with that diplomacy 
to deal with, how the Ministers encountered such a combination?" It was 
unnecessary to touch on the question of the Holy Places. That was, in fact, 
soon settled at Constantinople. Even Count Nesselrode, at a very early 
period of these negotiations, expressed his surprise and satisfaction, and 
stated his acknowledgment of the conciliatory spirit of France. But all that 
time the forces of Russia were accumulating on the Turkish frontiers, and 
all that time Count Nesselrode was telling Lord Clarendon that his Govern- 
ment would ask an equivalent for the privileges which the Greek Church had 
lost at Jerusalem, but inthe settlement of which his Government had not been 
disturbed. Even the mission of Prince Menchikoff was mentioned at that 
time, as proved by various dispatches from Sir Hamilton Seymour. Lord 
John Russell had told them the other night that the conduct of Count Nessel- 
rode was fraudulent. On the other hand Lord John Russell confessed himself 
that Count Nesselrode kept saying that his Imperial master would ask an 
equivalent for the Greek Church; but on the other he complained that Count 
Nesselrode never told them what he wanted. "Wicked Count Nesselrode ! 
(Laugther.) Fraudulent duplicity of Russian statesmen! (Laughter.) Why 
could the noble Lord not find the information he wanted? Why is Sir Hamil- 

Karl Marx 

ton Seymour at St. Petersburg, if he is not to ask for the information that 
is desired?" If Count Nesselrode never told Mm what he wanted, it was 
because the noble Lord never dared to ask. At this stage of the proceedings 
it was the duty of the Ministers to put categorical questions to the Cabinet 
of St. Petersburg. If they could not define what they wanted, thenit was time 

to declare that the friendly offices of the British Government at Paris and 
Constantinople were to cease. When Lord John Russell had relinquished the 
seals of office, and was followed by Lord Clarendon, there was a different 
character in the diplomatic proceedings—a bias in favor of Russia. When 
Lord Clarendon was made Minister of Foreign Affairs he had to draw up 

instructions for Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, the Queen's Embassador, re- 
pairing to the seat of action. Now what were these instructions? At the 
moment of her utmost need and her utmost exigency, Turkey is lectured 
about internal reform and commercial reform. It is intimated to her that the 
conduct of the Porte must be distinguished by the utmost moderation and 

prudence, viz: that it must comply with the demands of Russia. Meanwhile 
the Government continued not to demand an explicit explanation of what 
was meant on the part of Russia. Prince Menchikoff arrived at Con- 
stantinople. After having received most agitating missives from Col. Rose, 
and warning dispatches from Sir Hamilton Seymour, Lord Clarendon 
in a letter to Lord Cowley, the British Embassador at Paris, denounced 
Colonel Rose's order in calling up the British fleet, regretted the order given 
to the French Admiral to sail to the Greek waters, favoring France with 
contemptuous dogma, "that a policy of suspicion is neither wise nor safe," 
and declared he placed full reliance on the Emperor of Russia's solemn 
assurances that he would uphold the Turkish Empire. Then Lord Clarendon 
writes to his Embassador at Constantinople, that he feels quite sure that the 
objects of Prince Menchikoff's mission, "whatever they may be, do not 
expose to danger the authority of the Sultan, or the integrity of his domin- 
ions." Aye! Lord Clarendon went out of his way to accuse their solitary ally 

in Europe, and stated that their only grounds for now apprehending em- 
barrassment in the East, was the position for some time occupied by France 
with respect to the Holy Places. Accordingly Count Nessehode com- 
plimented Lord Aberdeen upon the beau röle (translated in the blue book 
"important role,") that he had played, by having left France "isolée. "On 

the 1 st of April, Colonel Rose informed this country of the secret convention 
which Russia demanded from Turkey. Only ten days after Lord Stratford 
arrived at Constantinople and confirmed every thing that Colonel Rose had 
stated. After all this, on the 16th of May, Lord Clarendon writes to Sir 
H.Seymour, "that the explanations offered by the Emperor of Russia," 

explanations not contained in the blue books, "had enabled them to disre- 

co 

Debates in Parliament 

gard, instead of sharingin the apprehensions which the proceedings of Prince 
Menchikoff coupled with the military preparations inthe south of Russiahad 
not unnaturally produced throughout Europe." After this Count Nesselrode 
felt free to announce to Lord Clarendon, on the 20th of June, that they had 
occupied the Principalities. In that document Count Nesselrode states "that 
the Emperor will occupy the Provinces as a deposit until satisfaction; that 
in acting as he has done, he has remained faithful to his declarations to the 
English Government; that in communicating with the Cabinet of London as 
to the military preparations coincident with the opening of negotiations, he 
did not conceal from it that the time might yet come when he should be 
obliged to have recourse to them, complimenting the English Government 
on the friendly intentions it had shown; contrasting its conduct with that of 
France, and laying all the blame of Prince Menchikoff's subsequent failures 
on Lord Stratford." After all this, on the 4th of July, Lord Clarendon writes 
a circular, in which he still hopes in the justice and moderation of the 
Emperor, referring to the Emperor's repeated declaration that he would 
respect the integrity of the Turkish Empire. On the 28th of July he writes 
to Lord Stratford, that "France and England, if they set to work in earnest, 
might certainly cripple Russia, but Turkey meanwhile might be irretrievably 
ruined, and peaceful negotiations are the only course to pursue." Why? If 
that was a good argument then, it is a good argument now. Either the 
Government were influenced by a degree of confidence which assumed a 
morbid character of credulity, or they were influenced by connivance. The 
cause of the war had been the conduct of the negotiations during the last 
seven months upon the part of her Majesty's Government. If they had been 
influenced by credulity, Russia, by her perfidious conduct, may have pre- 
cipitated a struggle which, perhaps, will be inevitable, and a struggle which 
might secure the independence of Europe, the safety of England, and the 
safety of civilization. If their conduct had been suggested by connivance, 
a timorous war, a vacillating war, a war with no results, or rather with the 
exact results which were originally intended. On the 25th of April Lord 
Clarendon had made the false statement in the House of Lords that the 
Menchikoff mission was to arrange disputes with respect to the Holy Places, 
although he knew the contrary to be true. Mr. Disraeli next briefly traced 
the history of the Vienna note to show the utter imbecility of the Ministry 
or their connivance with the Court of St. Petersburg. He came then to the 
third period, the period of the interval that took place between the failure 
of the Vienna note and the battle of Sinope. At that time Mr. Gladstone, the 
Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoke in a public assembly in the most depre- 
ciating tone withrespectto Turkey. And so didthe semi-official papers. What 
changed the aspect and fortunes of Turkey, and gave a new tone to the 

Karl Marx 

Cabinet, was the energies of the Turks themselves. But no sooner was the 
battle of Oltenitza fought than the policy of credulity, or the policy of 
connivance, was at its dirty work again. However, the slaughter of Sinope 
operated again in the favor of the Turks. The fleets were ordered to enter 
the Black Sea. But what did they do? Return to the Bosphorus! As to the 
future, Lord John Russell had been very vague in the description of the 
conditions of their alliance with France. Mr. Disraeli disclaimed confounding 
the maintenance of the balance of power with the maintenance of the present 
territorial distribution of Europe. The future of Italy mainly depended upon 
the appreciation of that truth. 

After Mr. Disraeli's splendid speech, of whichI have, of course, only given 
the outlines, Lord Palmerston rose and made acomplete failure. He repeated 
part of the speech he had made at the close of the last session, defended in 
a very inconclusive manner the ministerial policy, and was anxiously cau- 
tious not to drop one word of new information. 

On the motion of Sir J. Graham certain votes for the Navy estimates were 
then agreed to without discussion. 

After all, the most curious feature of these agitated debates is, that the 
House completely failed in wresting from the Ministers either a formal 
declaration of war with Russia, or a description of the objects for which they 
are to plunge into war. The House and the public know no more than they 
knew already. They have got no new information at all. 

Karl Marx.