The Press.
London, England, 1855-06-09 00:00:00

b t /

No. 110.—VoL. 111.

gke dress.

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 9, 1851

IT is pitiable to note the state to 'which the

Government is reduced through the want of a
little plain-dealing. Founded on false pre-
tences at the first, and destitute of any
elements of real strength, it has maintained
its existence by trick, and endeavoured to
cloak its weakness by falsehood. The ambi-
tion of the Premier is just sufficiently power.
ful to blind him to his position, and throw
a little extra bluster into his tone, and that is
all. It has no influence to change the condi-
tion of affairs. Ho took office without princi-
ple or following, and ever since his action has
more resembled the frantic efforts of a sinking
man than the considerate policy of a Minister
who possesses sure grounds of confidence
within himself. A fair statement of the course
he intended to pursue would have rallied a
majority to his side, or have arrayed it against
him. But, rather than put his fate to the
touch, he preferred a precarious tenure of
office, and made a joke of honesty by syste-
matic evasion.

His first difficulty was to form an Adminis-
tration at all. The Ministerial side of the
House was divided on the question of peace or
war. Equally indifferent which way the
question was carried, he endeavoured to pro-
pitiate both parties in much the same way
that a penniless debtor endeavours to stave
off duns lie cannot satisfy by giving promises
to pay which he never means to redeem.
Some of his late colleagues were bribed to
support him by a promise that the negotiation
at Vienna should proceed ; Lord JOHN Res
SELL had his vanity gratified by an appoint-
ment for which he was totally unfit, and in
which it was morally certain he must fail ;
and the war party were for the moment
appeased by some empty boasts of " vigour "
in the prosecution of hostilities, backed up by
the nomination of Lord PANMURE to the War-
office, and by the estimates being intrusted to
the tried ability of Mr. FREDERICK PEEL.
It is a proof of Lord PALMERSTON'S skill in
fence that he should have been able to carry
on this delusion for three months. While the
negotiations continued he was safe, for he
could blow hot and cold, play at see-saw with
Mr. BRIGHT and Mr. LAYARD, without positively
committing himself. The return of his Pleni-
potentiary did not immediately disconcert him.
It is useful to remember the language which
he held on the evening of Mr. MILNER GIBSON'S
motion, the 22nd of May, when it still seemed
possible to uphold the juggle a little longer.
In answer to Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT, whether
all means of solution were exhausted—whether
Austria still looked for means of accommoda-
tion—whether the Conference was dissolved,
he replied in a manner favorable to the views
of the peace party on all three points
Her Majesty's Government certainly do not consider all
the modes of solving the questions at issue as exhausted.
We do consider that Austria is still charged, by her own

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 9, 1855.

voluntary assumption—with the consent, of course, of tho
allies—with the task of endeavouring to discover s means

of bringing about an accommodati-on between the con-
tending parties. The Conference, although at present
suspended, is not yet finally closed, and if any proposals
should be made which was considered to be likely to con-

duce to a satisfactory result, the Conference would be
ready to reassemble. I can only add that it would be oon.
sidered by her Majesty's Government to be their duty to
give the moat favorable considerations to any proposals
which may come to them from or through Austria, with a
view to a safe, honourable, and satisfactory termination
of the war.

Can we wonder that, holding this language,
the Noble Lord should have succeeded iu

staving off the threatened motion, and in sa-
tisfying for the time that party which looked
to the negotiations at Vienna for means of
pacification?
Mr. DISRAELI, contrasting this tone with that
previously held by the Noble Premier and by
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, declared that the lan-
guage of the Goverment was " ambiguous,"
and its conduct " uncertain." His motion

was brought forward, and the Government
was saved solely by the " ambiguity and
uncertainty " which he declared to exist.
His motion was in effect affirmed by the very
majority which defeated it • for if the am-
biguity had been removed—had the Govern-
ment dared to take an open, straightforward
course, it would in vain have looked for the
majority it hailed with such rapture. Its
triumph was its shame. The verdict which
acquitted it, fixed the brand of falsehood on
its brow.
What followed? When the House reas•
sembled last Monday, for the first time after
that division, Lord PALMERSTON, in answer to
Mr. DUNCOMBE, declared :

It is perfectly true that her Majesty's Government ex-
pect that the Conference at Vienna was to assemble at one
o'clock to-day, for the purpose of being finally closed. The
consent of the Governments of England and France to
such closing has been conveyed to their respective Minis-
ters at Vienna, and I believe it was the intention of the
Austrian members of the Conference to declare that the
Conference was closed.

And on the next day the Premier announced
that the Conference was closed on Monday,
as he had anticipated it would be. We cannot
learn that any circumstances have occurred in
the interval between these two declarations
to justify the contradictions they exhibit.
There has been no negotiation to lead us to
conclude that those means of solving the ques-
tion at issue, which existed only a fortnight
previously, have been exhausted since—no
circumstances to account for the sudden
abandonment by Austria of her mission—no
reason why the Conference, which was only
suspended then, should be finally closed now.
Must we suppose that on the 22nd of May
Lord PALMERSTON had not the least idea what
aspect the negotiation would assume on the
4th of June; that he was so tctally destitute of
all power to guide the course of the negotiation
that he held out in sincerity hopes of a pacific
solution at the former date, which he was
forced to acknowledge were entirely without
foundation at the latter? Or shall we rather
say that in the declaration of the 22nd May
there was intentional deceit practised purely
for party purposes.
The question before the House this week has
been substantially the same as that debated
previous to the recess, though raised upon a
different issue. The vote of censure has been
rejected—will a vote of confidence be affirmed?
Lord PALMERSTON has suffered more from
the indiscretion of his friends than the hos-
tility of his opponents. The resolution of

PRICE SIXPENCE.

Mr. LOWE has, through the closing of the
Vienna Conference, assumed a shape which
directly sanctions the policy of the Govern-
ment in declaring that the principle of the
limitation of the Russian fleet was the only
sound basis of negotiation. It was on this
point that Lord JOHN RUSSELL, as the repre-
sentative of the Government, made his stand
—it was on this point that the negotiation
was broken off—it is to enforce this point that
we are now at war. The question to be deter•
mined is, whether such limitation really did
afford a satisfactory basis of negotiation? Mr .
LowE's resolution affirms that it did.
recognises the principle, and approves the
conduct of the Ministry ; yet they abjectly
shrink from voting for it because they dare
not submit their conduct and their principle
to the judgment of the House. They attempt
to justify their refusal by a Nisi Prime quibble,
though the Premier himself has expressed
his perfect agreement in the substance of the
resolution.
Plausible as this principle of the limitation
of the Russian fleet appears, it will not bear
examination. It has been demolished over
and over again in the debates of the week.
As a safeguard against a Russian invasion of
Constantinople it would be futile. Merchant
vessels might convey troops and arms to the
city of the Sultan even more commodiously
than ships of war ; gun-boats might be built
in the Russian rivers ; *zid the ingenuity
of an artful enemy might. invent a thoomind
devices for defeating the spirit while keeping
the letter of such a provision. It would:9ll3
the pride without lessening the power of
Russia, and would rather prove a stimulant to
war than a guarantee of peace. The conclu-
sion of Lord JOHN RussELL, that the refusal of
this stipulation by Russia is an evidence of
her bad faith, is so far from being well-founded
that the reverse would be more reasonable.
Had Russia assented to this protocol it would
have supplied a strong presumption that she
did so only with the object of waiting a favor-
able moment for springing upon Turkey as
the seeds of war would lurk within the treaty
of peace she signed.
The Government, may for the moment,
escape an adverse division, but it cannot
escape scrutiny. Its conduct throughout the
negotiation must, in some shape or other,
come before the House, and be stamped with
its approval or branded with its censure. We
have yet to learn why the Conference was
opened at all, if the Government had secretly
adopted an ultimatum which it was morally
certain would not be accepted, or if accepted
would not have proved satisfactory. And,
further, we must know what new circumstances
have occurred since the 22nd of May which
destroyed that prospect of renewed negotia-
tions which Lord PALMERSTON then stated to
exist. No severer condemnation can be pro-
nounced against any Government than that it
makes questions momentously affecting. th e
interests of the world depend on its necessities,
and that it is ready to declare peace or war,
or to affect zeal for both at the same moment,
that it may catch a few votes, and so prolong
its precarious existence.

THE RECENT VICTORIES.
BRILLIANT as are our recent successes in the
Sea of Azoff, in the Caucasus, and before
Sebastopol, we must not deceive ourselves by
an exaggerated ides of their importance.