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

four or five days, andrigged, ammunitioned, armed, and
prepared in the course of another week. What then be-
comes of the treaty ? Suppose there is the most rigid,
exact, and scrupulous observance of the treaty, all that
Turkey gains is at the most an advantage in case of war
of three or four weeks. But if that happens which is sure
to happen—if Russia declares war, or manages; as she
usually does, that Turkey shall declare war 'when Russia
is quite ready and prepared for her—why, of course, you
have a Russian fleet in the Black Sea before ;the diplo-
matic note is drawn up which can remonstrate against
the violation of the treaty. It requires, therefore, but
common forethought and prudence on the part of Rtissia
to enable her to have in case of war a fleet in the Black
Sea without sending to the United States for any of
those 130 gun ships of which we have heard so much. I
think there are good reasons why the war should be con-
tinued ; but, according fo the terms of the Government,
war is to be waged indefinitely because the Russian Go-
vernment will not agree to a condition which, totally
irrespective of its impolicy, is utterly inefficient. (Hear,
hear.) Suppose Russia should send troops, as she did
before, to Scezepoli and Bourgas. If a fleet belonging
to the Western Powers had passed the Bosphorus in
1818, the communications of the Russian troops at those
places would have been cut off, and the whole army
must have capitulated. I think that this propo-
sition, which the noble lord made the mainstay of
his diplomacy, was also most impolitic ; because nothing
can be more unwise than to insult an enemy with
whom you wish to make peace—nothing more un-
wise than to humiliate a power which you recognise
as an important and necessary element in the European
sy,tern. The right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle
vindicated the noble lord from some observations which
I had made, on the ground that the noble lord was quite
justified in all the arrangements in considering the ho-
nour of Russia. I did not blame thenoble lord for making
that an element of his system of negotiations. What I
blamed him for was for making the great and unneces-
sary admission that he would consider the honour of
Russia, and thereby giving an excuse to Russia to avoid
commencing the negotiations, and to answer every pro-
position which was made by alleging that the honour of
Russia was concerned, of which Russia was the only
judge. The noble lord has regulated the whole of his
conduct apparently, on this question, by the treaty of
Utrecht. I believe the noble lord was the author of the
proposal of limitation.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I made it in conjunction with my
colleagues.
Mr. DISRAELI—ExactIy. I remember that at the end of
July last, the noble lord reminded me in discussion of the
case of Dunkirk, which was to be his guide on this ques-
tion. The dismantlement of Sebastopol could not be in-
sisted upon, because the cause of the war did not warrant
the demand, and it was that proposition which took the
more qualified share of thelimitation of the fleet. Butdoes
the noble lord forget the material difference which existed
between the case of Dunkirk and the present. By the third
article of the treaty of Utrecht, the destruction of the har-
bour of Dunkirk and its fortifications was secured, but the
allies made it a condition that the King of France should
have an equivalent, and that which was fixed upon was
not a slight one. The King of France demanded Lille and
Tourney, and the great city of Lille was yielded up to him
so that this natio.,, prostrate in fortune and exhausted
in resources, submitted to such a condition as was now
proposed for Russia only in return for a complete equiva-
lent. (Hear, hear.) But was the condition a successful
one ? No sooner was it made than it was evaded. In the
words of an authority whom I quote the more gladly that
he is opposed to me in politics, " In order to evade the
stipulation of the treaty with England, which compelled
Lewis to fill up the port of Dunkirk, ho made a canal at
Mardyke, and persisted in continuing the work in spite of
all remonstrance." At a spot, one league from Dunkirk,
with a more capacious basin, and materials for a stronger
position. he immediately commenced his second Sebasto-
pol. Who is my authority for this ? I take the passage
from the "History of England since the Peace of Utrecht,"
by Lord J. Russell. (Cheers.) The noble lord, though a
distinguished statesman, and unfortunately also an un-
successful negotiator, is till, I am sure, proud of being a
man of letters, and lie will excuse me for quoting his own
words, in order further to show the condition to which
France under Louis XIV. had been redUced at that mo-
ment. " The treaty of Utrecht," says the noble lord,
" secured a peace only wrung from Louis XIV. when the
nation was utterly exhausted by the expenses of a ruinous
war, when his recruits had been conducted to the frontier
chained like malefactors, when by that peace Louis XIV.
had not to dread the presence of the enemy in his capital, or
the cruel alternative of being obliged to dethrone his grand-
son by his own armies." So that the noble lord's his-
torical illustration offered at the Vienna conferences had
two great merits—first, it humiliated Russia by impliedly
stating that its monarch was in the forlorn and pitiable con-
dition I have just described in the nervous and picturesque
language of the noble lord ; and again, the noble lord made
a suggestion of conditions for the treaty, which perfidious
Russia, as the noble lord deems her, might learn from his
own pages instantly and successfully to evade. (Hear.)
The noble lord and his colleagues are apt to consider the
qnestinn of preponderance as if it were something new in
politics—some phenomenon recently introduced, the solu-
tion of which could hardly be counted upon from our want
of experience in matters of this kind. But, after all, the
history of modern Europe is the history of attempts to
check and control the preponderance of a strong State over
some contiguous weak one. We have heard most fa -Inning
harangues respecting the designs of Russia from the law
,fliers of the Crown to-night. I do not suppose Russia is
more free from ambitious designs than other great coun-
tries ; but have we not heard of the designs of France
noon the low countries, prosecuted for more than a cen-
tury by individuals of as groat genius !and energy as any
Russian sovereigns, by Cardinal Richelieu, Lone XIV.,
a-,1 Napoleon? Yet thnsl designs were baffled, and at
no period of her history had the approsriation of Belgium
been less a feature of French policy than at the present
moment. Belgium is a neutral State, and was so created
under the sanction and protection of united Europe; but
I do not find that the noble lord and his colleagues have
at any time started the idea that the neutrality of the
Principalities should be established. The neutrality of
Switzerland also wee established by the Conference of
Vienna in 1815. What I complain of in the negotiations
of her Majesty's Government is, that I see no evidence
or a recurrence to those methods by which statesmen
of-great ability and unquestioned reputation have at •
tempted to solve such difficulties as encounter us on the
present question. What would be the effect on Turkey if
tho Principalities were declared a neutral state, like Bel-
g,i'arn and Switzerland ? It would reduce her most ex-
posed frontier, that of the Danube, which is her worst
noint of danger. Suppose Russia tried to pass that liver, if
she succeeded in doing so,,,she must plunge into the fell and
pestiferous swamps of the Dobrutscha. On her left she
would have Sehuml I, Varna, and the great fortress of Si-
listria, altogether presenting obstacles of such a gigantic
character, as would require an age for her to surmount. I
do not sayyou could in Asia favour diplomacy so efficiently
as on the Danube; but if you have not natural barriers the
noble lord will not pretend that there are not means of
making artificial barriers. There are means, and those not
offensive or humiliating to Russia, which might have placed
Turkey in a position which for a longtime would have secured
the peace of Europe, and rendered her an efficient member
of the European Confederation. There is another most im-
portant point which the house ought never to allow for a
moment to escape consideration, and that is the condition
of the eastern coast of the Black Sea. At this moment
every fort on the Black Sea below Anapa, with the excep-
tion of two in the possession of the Turks, is destroyed.
When peace is concluded, if you restore that coast to Rus-
sia, you have a right to stipulate that these forts shall not
be again raised. That is not a stipulation which would
humiliate the feelings or injure the honour of any power,
however great, but it would consolidate the power of Tur-
key and secure the possessionof Constantinople to the Otto-
man empire. It is of the greatest consequence that when
these crude schemes of the Government are placed before us
—when they tell us peace could not be obtained, according
to their own principles, because of the inefficient and useless
methods that were employed at the conference—it is our
duty to denounce a policy so inefficient, and to awaken the
country to the great means by which the great question of
modern politics can in my opinion be alone solved. The
right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle has asked
what shall be done when the Turkish empire shall dis-
solve, which, he said,'is inevitable? I cannot agree with
the right hon. gentleman in that. I believe there aro the
elements in Turkey, if it were fairly treated—which it never
has been, and especially within the last two years—of se-
curing what is to us of vital interest, securing Constanti-
nople from being an appendageof apygreat militarypower.
But if you carry on the war for that end, you must do sd
with a more definite object, and by means more matured.
We can only judge of your policy, your resources, and your
ability to deal with those great difficulties from the records
which you have placed on the table of theresources and con-
.:he
gar
ntewlnnti
con-
duct of your Government ; records more barren, and more
calculated to impress me with the melancholy convictionof
the incompetency of the statesmen dealing with the subject
before re, never yet met my eye or engaged my study.
The noble lord may feel, though he may defy the words of
those sitting opposite to him in this house—though he may
be proud of the majorities collected, God knows how, and
voting, God knows why—(a laugh)—that he and his
colleagues are pursuing a course without sufficient know-
ledge, without ideas sufficiently clear, without a resolution
sufficiently firm ; but if there is any wavering in their
counsels—if there is any hesitation—if at this moment
when they meet they have not a definite idea of the object
for which they are struggling, and the means by which
they are to accomplish the avowed object—namely, the
preservation of Constantinople to the Ottoman Porte—we
may rest assured that the utmost confusion and consterna-
tion will fall upon the Cabinet of which he is a member,
te Ministry
notc dmepa
el
•
hsiuchstathine;
onngdfurcotme d
handin tt
oh this
on countryth, fhomeromuirng affairsexpedients
comps-
tent; ; and if they are conducting our foreign affairs as they
ts:neamkonmoownto,f
wthiteipnroecmedaitnugreads well as tnhoe pdreetseernmtinGeo-d
o
g
ieneeoxuhuaturys t iibe
ee
fruets:ruer resources
gloom
osm4tpooor support
terribleth the
for
for the oote 1 sonFtlga_orrnel Parliamentary
conducted
transactions en t r y power e
tr canw
ml future)rpimosaeogil. ntnition to contemplate. (Cheers, and an ironical
laugh.)
Lord PALMERSTON—The right hon. gentleman has ad-
verted to the motion which he made before the late brief re_
cess, and stated, in the first place, that it was far from bell).g
his intention to imply that if carried ho wished the Govern.
ment to abandon their position ; and he mentioned a similar
case of Lord Londonderry, in which that nobleman did not
resign. If we are to judge of the accuracy of the right hon.
gentleman's information on these great subjects by the cor_
rectness of his memory on the point I have mentioned, I am
not much disposed to adopt his conclusions, for if the right
hon, gentleman, will refresh his memory by reference to the re-
cords of the transactions to which ho has alluded, he will find
that the house upon that question came to no division, and
Lord Londonderry retained office out of deference to the feeling
of the country. But I must own that the observations of the
hi m ,con tra stsomewhatsltrangelywith the language be held before
right bon. gentleman, and the criticism which has fallen from
the late recess. What was the ground on which he proposed the
resolution on which the house came to a decision He said,
" I call upon the house to interpose, because I am convinced
that if the Government le allowed to go to this proposed ten
days' recess without cheek, they will during that time con-
the papers before him he made that charge upon the Govern-
elude a disgraceful and ignominious peace." (Hear.) With
ment. What has he told us to-night ?He has told us that the
Government has insisted upon terms too bard to be imposed
upon Russia. (Hear, hear.) The whole of his speech has
amounted to this, that we were demanding some limitation
of her fleet which in honour she could not agree to. (Hear.)
With regard to the amendmentewhich we are called upon to
discuss, I confess that, though the right hon. gentleman has
repudiated my agreement with him, and seems to be uneasy
when we happened to concur in opinion, I, though perhaps
not for exactly the same reasons, concur with him in the re-