The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-13 00:00:00

Opposition was thus, at a nonplus when, on Friday
last, the speech of Lord John Russell was made the op-
poitiinfty for a final attempt on the part of the himssry
for office. Lord John's speech has been seised upon and
twisted front its true meaning, and on Lord Palinerstou's
offering correepondenee to the house, explanatory of the
conduct of our envoy .at Vienna, and asking for time to
allow it t i be read, he is accused of shuffling. and of an
attempt to avoid the censure that inevitably will be
passed upon the ministry if the opposition can contrive
it. Mr. Disraeli and his ally, Mr. Roebuck, want to
hurry matters on with undue haste, and with Lord
Palmerston, we can only "applaud their discretion and
their appreciation of the caseethey havelsaargete' "If
ealterees hir'triiiiiiortant it is for their case that the House
should come to a decision before it knows anything
whatever about the matter."
We have already stated, and we repeat that the cor-
respondence shout to be produced will throw a new
light upen the matter and tend to alter the judgment
that swede people hare in baste arrived at.
Lord John Russell himself asserts that very erroneous
inferences have been drawn from his speech. He says :
—" It has been supposed that, because I stated these
propositions might have been assented to, that I thought
within these propositions lay the foundations of a
peace. Such a supposition is entirely erroneous." Lord
John, we presume, imagined that our assent to these
propositions would secure the co-operation of Austria
and not peace with Russia. He adds, "My belief is,
now, that nothing remains but a vigorous prosecution
of the war, in order that we may obtain a just and
honourable peace." Still more will it be apparent,
when the further correspondence is published, that the
transient blindness of Lord John, his individual error,
so far from shaking the confidence of the country
in Lord Palmerston's Government, ought, on the con-
trary, to strengthen it, as all the influence and talent of so
eminent a man as Lord John Russell was utterly inade-
quate to chancre their firm purpose for one moment, or
to cause Lord Palmerston to swerve one iota from the
strict line of duty to his country, and of the thoroughly
English policy on which he is bent.
But before the House of Commons is favoured with
Sir Bulwer Lytton's oration upon the subject of Lord
John Russell's recent diplomatic mission, it may be well
to examine closely the terms of the motion, and deter
mine upon what grounds a decision respecting it may be
come to. That the graces of rhetoric, and all that can
adorn the hon. baronet's eloquence, will be brought to
the occasion is quite certain ; but even these command-
ing accessories will, we think, fail to make that reason-
able in appearance which is egregiously unreasonable in
its nature. Let us then take a plain and straightfors
ward view of the subject, before it becomes enveloped in
the 'clouds of mystification which Parliamentary discus-
sion is certain to conjure up about it. The house is
asked to record its opinion that " the conduct of a Mi-
nister during the recent negotiations at Vienna has
shaken the confidence of the country in those to whom
its affairs are entrusted."
The first thing that strikes one on reading the motion
is the exceeding comprehensiveness of the terms used.
Indeed they are more, than comprehensive—they are
equivocal, and very opposite conclusions might be logi-
cally argued from them, unless some further interpretra
tion be given to narrow down their signification. What
is wanting in the motion will, we presume, be supplied
in the speech, or at least elicited by the discussion. But
we need neither one nor the other to show the purpose
in view, which is simply to get rid, if possible, of the
present Ministry, and set up instead thereof a Ministry
under Lord Derby. The question to be decided is,
whether "the conduct" alleged in the Motion ought to
be followed by snob a change. The charge against Lord
John Russell, which he repudiates, is, that he saw in
the last proposition of Count t uol a clue to the conclu-
sion of an honourable peace. Now, about what an
honourable peace is there may be, and there is, a great
diversity of opinions. What the country means is a
peace justified by the accomplishment of the objects for
which we went to war--viz., the limitation of Russian
aggression in general, and the defeat of that aggression
in relation to Turkey in particular. But there are per-
sons both in and out of Parliament—few indeed in num-
ber, but influential in station—who think that those ob-
jects aro to a great extent accomplished, and only need
the ratification of some such proposal as that of Austria
to be conclusively stopped. Lord John Russell did not,
however, commit either himself or his Government to the
espousal of these views. Nobody was fettered by his ex-
pression of opinion ; and when he came home, and his
views received no confirmationfrom colleagues, the whole
matter dropped, sad no one was either better or worse.
When many persons act together for a common object,
as Cabinet Ministers dos it must often happen that an
individual member holds strongly some particular opi-
nions upon the common policy which, if everything
rested thith himself, he would gladly see prevail, but
which he does not press in deference to the superior
wisdom, or longer experience, or united counsels of the
rest. Where this happens, neither is the individual in-
consistent in remaining with his colleagues, nor are they
prejudiced by retaining him. Men are often outvoted,
and then work heartily with the majority that defeated
them. It would be hard if, in that case, the majority
were declared unworthy to be trusted on the very matter
on which they had spoken out and shown their strength.
Apply this to the Cabinet. The moment Lord John's
views were broached they were discountenanced. Had
there been any weakness, or wavering, or any the least
substantial division in the Cabinet, he might have at-
tempted to direct it against the continuance of the war,
and in favour of the course he advocated. But his
counsels were unanimously set aside, and:the policy of
the Government has gone on with as much energy,
unanimity, and general effect, as though the fertile brain
of Count Buol, or the eaey acquiescence of our Colonial
Secretary, had never created this frail opportunity for
the Derby party.
Before it can be said that the Cabinet is compromised
by the presence of Lord John Russell, it must be shown
either that his momentary espousal of the Austrian pro-
posal has actually carried evil consequences, or that of
necessity it must do so before long. But all the facts
tend the other way. His views were disapproved the
moment they were proclaimed. Nothing came of them.
They died in their birth, like many other plans of the
same person. They are now dead and buried. There
is no reason to anticipate their resurrection. But should
they by the remotest accident escape from their present
limbo, the powers and the persons that frowned them
out of life when first held up to view, will frown them
down again ; and if not, the country will know how to
come to the rescue of its own honour. As to the pro-
bability of future evils arising from Lord John's recent
rather than present views on this question, if the House
of Commons desires to see him out of reach of the means
of, impressing them upon the country, they have a very
simple security in their own hands. They have but to
negative Sir Bulwer Lytton's motion, and give a manly
and generous support to Lord Palmerston's Cabinet,
and the thing is done. So far, then, from the Cabinet
having incurred the distrust of the country, it has, in
our opinion, increased its claim to public confidence. By
instantly disowning the returned Envoy's opinions, they
purged themselves of any complicity therewith ; while
Lord John Russell, by consenting to retain office under
a Minister who so totally differed from him on this point,
pledged himself not to obstruct, by the interposition of
his objectionable views, the opposite policy of the Cabinet.
We hold, then, that the motion before us breaks down,
and that, since the conduct of the Minister during the
recent Conferences at Vienna—in so far as relates to
the last Austrian proposal—hae not been confirmed by
the Cabinet, it cannot be said that the confidence of the
country in those to whom its affairs are entrusted is any
way shaken.

One word more. This motion is an attempt to sub-
stitute Lord Derby for Lord Palmerston—the man of
many words for the man of many deeds—the man of
many failures fur the man of many successes—the man
who could not and would not form a Ministry in a criti-
cal and trying moment of public affairs, for the man
who could and did--the man who has never yet tried
his hand at war, for the man who has not only tried,
but has succeeded. Let it be remembered that all the
improvements in the army, all the military successes,
all the definite blows against the enemy that have
taken place since the British army was an almost anni-
hilated thing, have been done since the present Govern-
ment came into power. We put it to the country
whether it is prepared to transfer its confidence from the
men who have done so much, to those who have never
yet proved that they can do anything at all ?

(From the Times of this dcey.)

In the course of a very short speech Lord John Rus-
sell last night committed two inaccuracies'so remarkable
as to suggest a suspicion that his lordship has lost some-
what of his usual clearness by his abortive attempt at
diplomacy. The first of these was in his reply to Mr.
Disraeli, who had asked whether his lordship had ob-
tained her Majesty's consent to the statement he made
last Friday night with respect to the proceedings of the
Cabinet. It was notorious, Lord John Russell observed,
that he had brought proposals from Vienna, which, as a
matter of course, the Cabinet would look at ; and, as it
was also notorious that the negotiations had come to a
close, and we were still at war, it followed, as a matter
of course, that the Austrian proposals had been rejected.
So what had his lordship now told more than everybody
knew ? The question was a bold one, for it admits of a
prompt reply, We are indebted to Lord jolm.