The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-10 00:00:00

LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S CONDUCT.

( From the A ssemblee of yesterday.)
Lord John Russell has at length felt the neces-
sity of entering into explanations on the conduct
he followed at Vienna as negotiator, and in Lon-
don since his return as member of the cabinet—of
which Lord Palmerston is the head. This did not
take place without a fresh provocation to it en the
part of Mr. Milner Gibson ; but, as must be agreed,
if the explanations of the noble lord have been slow
of production they are at least very clear, and are
presented with all the characteristics of a sincere
and complete confession. The resume which the
private telegraph transmitted us yesterday is neces-
sarily very concise, but it is perfectly exact, and
leaves us scarcely anything to add. Placed anew
in presence of the circular in which the Austrian
Minister for Foreign Affairs declares that the two
plenipotentiaries, French and English, at the con-
ference at Vienna, M. Drouyn do l'Huys and Lord
John Russell, had given their adhesion to the last
propositions of the Austrian Cabinet for the ar-
rangement of the third point of guarantee, and
engaged to use all their influence to procure their
adoption by their respective Governments, Lord
John acknowledged that that declaration was en-
tirely correct. Like his colleague, the French
Minister, he had, before leaving Vienna, given his
personal adhesion to the Austrian proposition.
He perceived in them the means for terminating
by an honourable peace, offering sufficient guaran-
tees for the interests compromised in the oriental
conflict, a war which had already cost so much
treasure and so many men. In certain respects
these explanations do not tell us anything new.
We already knew what Lord John Russell declares
so precisely to-day, and since the month of May
we have so stated it on repeated occasions. But
on seeing him remain a member of the Cabinet by
which the proposals at Vienna were rejected, and
above all after the part which he took a month ago
in the debate in the House of Commons upon these
same negotiations in which he had played so im-
portant a part, it must be confessed we had come
to doubt of the exactitude of our communications.
Between the conduct and the opinions of the Eng-
lish Plenipotentiary at the Conferences of Vienna
and the language of the Colonial Minister in the
bosom of Parliament there was something irrecon-
cileable. It seemed impossible it should be the
same man. Lord John had given his assent to
the last propositions of Austria, and had engaged
to support them with his Government. What he
promised he has performed ; he has done his
best to decide his colleagues for tho acceptance of
these conditions as the bases of a treaty of
peace ; but not having been able to succeed in
procuring the adoption of his opinion, he has
nevertheless thought it proper to remain Minis-
ter, and concur as administrator, as orator in-
vested by his functions with a double authority is
the House of Commons, in the continuation of a
war of which he did not approve. He has sub-
mitted to combat the opinions of those who spoke
in favour of a peace which he approved.. . . .
From the moment that he could not bring over his
colleagues to the opinion which he had maintained
at Vienna as negotiator, and in which he persisted,
there was but one step to take—to retire from the
Ministry, and make known the motives of his
secession to the country. Honour, the traditions
of Parliamentary Government, equally made it his
duty, and this duty was in some sort rendered im-
perative by the example set before him in France
by M. Drouyn de l'Huys. Lord John Russell has
rather chosen to sacrifice his opinion—we should
even have the right to say, to give the lie to his
convictions—and keep his portfolio."