The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-25 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 25. 1855

had the noble lord made the declaration that, in the eyes
of Europe and of the allies, the best and indeed only ad-
missible terms of peace were those most in harmony with
the honour and dignity of Russia, than
" Prince Gortschakoff, while congratulating himself on
the conciliatory disposition with which this question had
been hitherto touched upon in the confpreuce, said that he
was prepared to discuss the means of execution which
should be proposed by the plenipotentiaries, but that he
did not consider himself in a position in which he ought to
take the initiative on the subject as Count Buol had sug-
gested. Appreciating at the same time the sentiments of
courtesy and conciliation which, according to the unani-
mous language he had just heard, seemed to have inspired
this proposition, he declaredhimself ready to take it ad re-
ferendum, reserving to himself to make known to the con-
ference
the answer which he should receive from his Court."
M. de Titoff spoke to a similar purport. Aarif Effendi,
however, who appears to me to have been the only man of
of sense present—(laughter)—
" While declaring that he was not authorised to take the
initiative in propositions relating to the third point, ex-
pressed a hope that his Government would accede to those
which the plenipotentiaries of France and of Great Britain
have reserved to themselves to make on this subject."
Prince Gortschakoff immediately referred to his Court,
using those bland expressions which, of course, induced the
Minister of England to believe that he was only going to
refer to his Court for fresh powers to make those proposals
which it was expected he would make. Well, sir, delays
went on, and it way not until the 17th of April—the ad-
mission of the noble lord having been made on the 26th of
March that; in the eyes of the allies, the best and only ad-
missible conditions of peace were those most in harmony
with the honour and dignity of Russia—that Prince Gorts-
chakoff received instructions from St. Petersburg. What
were those instructions, or rather, what was the result of
them ? On the 17th of April Prince Gortschakoff declined
taking the initiative, and begged the allies to do so. He
did so, no doubt, with a feeling of confidence that, as the
allies had laid down the principle that the best and only
admissible conditions of peace were those most in harmony
with the honour and dignity of Russia, propositions brought
forward by them would be conceived in a more agreeable
spirit than the Russian plenipotentiaries themselves would
display. To prove that such was the case, let sue for a
moment refer to the circular note of Count Nesselrode,
and let me see how that most experienced of living states-
men treats this subject. The statesman has produced a
diplomatic paper of the greatest ability, in which he takes
a survey of the transactions at the Vienna conferences,and
examines with the most critical eyes in existence the con-
duct of European statesmenl and on whose conduct did he
fix ? Upon that of the English Minister, and more espe-
• cially upon the fatal admission of the 26th of March.
Count Nesselrode refers to what he terms " la definition
fort reinarquable" of the noble lord, which was to serve
as a solution of the problem, and in that circular note he
says :

" Lord John Russell, recalling the declaration made at

the opening of the negotiation by Prince Gortschakoff,that
he would consent to no condition incompatible with the
honour of Russia, maintained that, in the eyes of Eng-

land, and of her allies, the best and only admissible con-
ditions of peace would be those which, being the most in
harmony with the honour of Russia, should at the same
time be sufficient for the security of Europe, and for pre-
venting a return of complications such as that the settle-
ment of which is now in question. After this declaration,
made formally in the conference of the 26th of March,
Lord John Russell cannot be surprised that the proposi-
tions made on the 19th of April were not judged by the
Imperial Cabinet as ' the best and only admissible ones,'
to quote the words of the English plenipotentiary."
And what were the propositions made by the noble lord ?
I have already told the house of great feats of history and
diplomacy in connection with that celebrated despatch to
which I-have already referred, and here the noble lord fully
sustains the character and position he had exhibited in con-
nection with that famous despatch. He made as fatal an
admission as he had made in his despatch respecting the
protectorate, and the noble lord supported his position by
a historical illustration equally infelicitous, but much more
insulting. (Hear, hear.) Here is the noble lord uselessly
going out of his way to announce that the bust and only
possible conditions of peace, in the opinion of England,
were those most compatible withthe honour of Russia, and
at the same time sufficient for the security of Europe.
Having made that admission, the noble lord proceeds, on
the 17th April, to do what? To propose the most humiliat-
ing condition that could be made to any Government, and
that humiliating condition ho supported by a precedent
which appears to me the most unhappy that could possibly
have been brought, forward. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord
appeals to the treaty of Utrecht and the destruction of the
fortificatious of Dunkirk. Now, under what circumstances
were the treaty of Utrecht and the negotiations for the
destruction of the fortifications of Dunkirk made? After
a series of the most splendid victories achieved by the arms
of Marlborough and Eugene—after a series of the most
humiliating reverses on the part of a once great King—at
the end of a long reign, when her resources were exhausted,
France—high•spirited France—submitted to the greatest
humiliation that her history records. (Hear, hear.) And
this is the precedent which is produced by the noble lord,
who commences with an admission which makes the honour
of Russia an essential qualification in any conditions of
peace that may be made. (Hear, hear.) I ask again, who
made the noble lord the judge of the honour of Russia?
( Hear.) What business had he to think of the honour of
Russia? (Cheers.) The noble lord had to think of the
honour and interests of his country; and surely Prince
Gortschakoff and M. Titoff were capable enough to deal
with the honour of Russia. (Laughter.) The admission
made by the noble lord was the real cause of these confer-
ences being broken off. That I consider a very minor evil,
according to my view of the nature and character of the
conferences ; but that admission—as I will afterwards
show, was such as, in my opinion, may embarrass this
country, and involve it in a position from which it will re-
quire all the patriotism of this house and the high spirit
of this country to extricate it. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord himself confessed that the admission he had made was
the cause of the rupture of the negotiations. That is
actually the admission of the noble lord at the time when
he professes his regret at Russia not taking the initiative.
On the 17th, after the extraordinary illustration to which
I have referred had been repudiated by Prince Gortscha-
koff, he himself adds—" Since the Court of Russia has de-
clined to take the initiative on this subject, the chances of
success attending the negotiations for peace appeared in
his eyes much diminished." (Hear.) By his own admis-
sion, therefore, the chances of peace were much diminished.
I say, therefore, that the noble lord has placed the possi-
bility of peace by negotiation almost out of the question
by his conduct at the conferences at Vienna. (Cheers.)
The noble lord allowed the conference for a considerable
period to waste its energies in settling circumstances
which required no arrangement ; and when Russia had the
appearance of conciliating public opinion by apparently
considerable concessions about nothing at all—when he had
placed Russia in a position toobtain the favourable opinion
of the Congress, the noble ;ord then came to the point,
and so managed the conference that it appears that,
because Russia would not consent to one single point, we
had, in fact, been deprived of that peace which otherwise
might have been obtained. (Hear, hear.) What a handle
does the noble lord give to any Peace Society, or to
any doubtful airy when he allows Russia to say, " Here
are twenty points which we concede, and the only one
point we insisted on is not conceded by England, so
that the horrors of war are to continue?" (Hear, hear.)
And what is that one point? The English Minister pro-
poses that Russia shall consent to a most humiliating act,
and he illustrates it by a reference to the most himiliating
occurrence in the history of Europe. Was the noble lord
justified in visiting Russia with this humiliation after he
had laid it down as a principle of negotiation that she was
not to be humiliated? (Hear, hear.) I say, then, that
the third point, according to all rules of diplomacy, inas-
much as it contained the real business of the question,
ought to have been taken first. If the negotiators had
met and said, " W e all know that the difficulty is on the

third point ; let us solve that difficulty, and, if we solve
it, all the rest is plain sailing," that would have been a
wise and intelligible proceeding. (Hear.) But you car-
ried on your negotiations day after day with dissimulating
courtesy, and because you put off to the last the real busi-
ness that dissimulating courtesy is followed by increased
irritation. (Hear.) In these circumstances I cannot look
on the conduct of the noble lord, as her Majesty's pleni-
potentiary at Vienna, with that satisfaction with which it
has been spoken of by the noble lord the First Minister.
I think I have shown to the house some reason to hesitate
before they agree that the noble lord has shown great ability
in these negotiations. 1 think the noble lord, instead of
showing great ability in the conduct of these negotiations,
has committed every blunder which a negotiator could pos.
silely. accomplish. (Hear, and laughter.) I think he made
fatal omissions at the commencement, and that he had re-
couse to dangerous illustrations to support his position.
(Hear, hear.) I think he dealt with the wrong part of
his material first, and that he has so managed the really
important element that, so far as negotiation is concerned,
it is my solemn o pinion diplomacy can no longer solve the
knot. (Hear.) I most impress upon the house to recol-
lect that the noble lord has proceeded in these conferences
in the same manner in which he proceeded, as Secretary
of State, with reference to the confidential communica-
tions of Russia. He met them by a diplomatic and his-
torical move conjoined, and, guided by history, he has
made a diplomatic mistake. (Hear, hear.) At last the
protocols so anxiously looked for and so long sought were
laid on the table. The noble lord the First Minister de-
clines to address the Queen. We read those protocols;
and the language of the Ministry seemed to be as ambigu-
ous as his conduct was uncertain in the conduct of the ne-
gotiations, and exactly opposite conclusions were drawn re-
garding this by different parts of the house. The right
hon. gentleman the member for Manchester says, the nego-
tiations authorize peace. That is also tho opinion of the
member for Carlisle, and his friends. Another party
thought they necessarily included war. We are, there-
fore,extremely anxious to obtain the opinion of the Minis-
ter upon the question, so that the country, in a state of
great perplexity and some discontent, may be guided in
their opinion by the Government. What is it their repre-
sentatives inquire of the Government? We want to
know what is the position of the country ? Is there to
be peace, or is there to be war ? (Cheers.) Do you wish
there should be peace, or that there should be war ?
(Hear, hear.) In what condition do you wish the
country to be placed? (Cheers.) Then, we ask , in what
spirit are you going to carry on the war ? (Cheers.) We
do not ask the noble lord to let us know the precise and
actual conditions on which peace ought to be obtained.
The noble lord the other night, with his usual happy power
of perversion, seemed to represent that to the house as our
wish ; but no man is so silly asto have any idea of that kind.
We trust to the discretion of the Government in such mat-
ters, as any Government ought to be trusted, and especially
as we have to deal with an ally whom we love and respect.
(Hear.) But we want some general and explicit statement
as to what our position is ; and it is my object to obtain
it, while it is also my object to show you what is the cause
of this perplexity. (Hear.) I am bound to show her Ma-
jesty's Ministers how ambiguous has been their language,
and how much more ambiguous has been the language of
their negotiations, in first stating the honour of Russia to
be an element in the conditions of peace, and then to pro-
pose conditions of peace which the strongest advocates of
war could not suppose Russia would accept. (Hear.) Is not
that ambiguity of language and uncertainty of conduct ?
(Hear, hear.) If the noble lord was sincere when he said
that, above all, the lion air of Russia was to be one of the
principal elements of peace, his language in my opinion is
feeble and incautious. If the noble lord was not si ,cere,
and did not mean what he said, then I think his language
is liable to the charge impliedly made against it by Count
Nesselrodo— namely, that of duplicity. (Hear, hear.) The
noble lord must choose between two qualities. Well, the
protocols being here, the First Minister of the Crown will
not fulfil his duty by moving an address to the Sovereign
in respect to them ; and a right hon. gentleman who at-
tempts to do that gives notice of a motion, which is sup-
pressed. We, the members of this house, endeavour to
extract some opinion from the Government, and what is
the answer we receive ? I am told that there has been no
ambiguity of language and no uncertainty of conduct.
Now, this is a grave question, and we must fully and corn-
pletely enter into it. therefore, let me call attention to the

words of the First Minister of the Crown, recently deli-
vered. He said :

" With respect to the question whether negotiations are
entirely broken off, my answer must be the same as I gave
on a former evening—namely, that the elements of con-
ference permanently exist at Vienna, there being in that
capital the representatives of the British, French, Turkish,
Russian, and, of course, Austrian Governments. If, there•
fore, at any time any proposition should be made by Rus-
sia, or by Austria on behalf of Rossi.), which might ap-
pear to offer a Lir prospect of prosecuting negotiations to
a successful issue, there are means and elements in Vienna
for resuming the negotiations."
Is is not quite clear that there are, in every capital in
Europe almost, the representatives of the British, French,
Turkish, Russian, and Austrian Government? and there•
fore, if at any time any propositions should be contem-
plated, they could be made in any European capital. But
there is no proof whatever of any special negotiations going
on, or of any reason why we should not investigate the con-
, duct of her Majesty's Government, and give our opinion
upon these records of our unsuccessful plenipotentiary.
(Hear, hear.) What was the language in another place by
Lord Granville on May 22? That noble lord said
" With regard to the state of negotiations at Vienna, it
is not true, as has been supposed, that they have been
finally closed. The Government are ready to receive any
propcsitions that may lead to a safe and honourable peace,
and they also leave themselves open to decline any terms
which may lead to a contrary result. Certainly the con-
ferences are not closed ; and under the circumstances of
the case it is for the noble lord himself to consider what
course he ought to adopt."
I gave my comment on the lariguage of the First Minister
about a week ago, and I will now communicate to the
house the comment of Lord Lyndhurst on the language of
Lord Granville. Lord Lyndhurst said :
" The noble earl says the negotiations are not closed ;
but are they going on ? They may remain open for a
twelvemonth. Have any propositions been made which
are still under consideration, or have they been rejected ?
Is there any probability of any further propositions being
made, and if so, within what time ; or have the Govern-
ment made up their minds as to the period at which there
is any probability of the conferences being concluded ? I
never heard anything more vague."
Are we, then, with these statements, made in this and the
other House of Parliament, to be told that there is nothing
vague, uncertain, or ambiguous in the language of Mini-
sters in reference to the great question of peace and war?
(Hear.) Let me now call your attention to a statement
made by the noble lord opposite, the unsuccessful negotia-
tor, -totally contrary to everything said by both his col-
leagues in the passages I have just quoted. On May 21,
that noble lord said :

"Certainly my opinion is that, whether the proposition
lead to peace or not—because upon that question I feel
myself incompetent to give an opinion—the Austrian Go-
vernment will, before the conferences are finally closed,
make some proposition to the members of those confer-
ences. I imagine that proposition must have one of two
results; either it will be rejected by one—perhaps by
both—of the belligerent Powers, and then the conferences
are broken off, and no do doubt it will be perfectly com-
petent for any member of Parliament to ask this house to
declare its opinion of these negotiations : or, on the other
hand, if that should not be the case, then, again, negotia-
tions will be resumed, and there will be a greater prospect
than there has been of peace being established."
That is a totally different statement from the statements
. made by the First Minister and by Lord Granville. The
latter tell you that there are the representatives of the four
Powers in Vienna (though, as I told you. before, they may
be found also in other capitals), and if any proposition is
made it will be received ; but here the noble lord tells us
most positively that the Austrian Government has
some other proposition to make, and that it is expected by
her Majesty's Government. The noble lord distinctly stated
that one more attempt at negotiation was to be made;
which is quite• a different account from that given by the
First Minister and by Lord Granville. Well, is this the
case, and is another attempt to be made ? The inconsis-
tencies are considerable. Here we have the statement of
the First Minister that there is a permanent condition of
congress, and then we have from the noble lord opposite a
statement that there is going to be a final proposition, and
then the conferences are to be closed. Which is the true
statement? Is another proposition expected, has it been
made, and what are the general expectations of the Go-
veinment as to its character? (Hear.) And what did
Lord Clarendon say ? The noble lord opposite having re-
turned from his unsuccessful mission, Lord Clarendon said
that he should lay before Parliament the official papers as
soon as possible, and went on to say that for his part, he
very much disapproved conferences or negotiations being
carried on where the was no real business to, con-
clude ; that, he said,' vas the present state of things,
though the Government would be prepared to answer
any distinct proposition on the part of Russia. That
was a very proper tone to take, but it was totally diffe-
rent from the ambiguous language held by other Minis-
ters, which had something in it like " leaving the door
open," which I do not understand. I am against this'
principle of " leaving the door. open ;" I say, shut the
door, and let those who want to come in knock at the
door, and then we shall secure a safe and honourable peace.
Then arrived the night for the motion of the right hon.
member for Manchester, to which I need not now advert,
as I have before alluded to it ; and I refer to it only to no-
tice the strange position taken up by the First Minister of
the Crown. That noble lord told us that he was not going
to make an ignominious peace; and that the man who
would do so was a degraded outcast.
_I admired the tone

of the noble lord. "The captain is a brava man," but we
want something more than the assertion of. the noble lord as
to whether he is going to make an ignominious peace or
not. The noble lord can advise the Crown to make peace
without first asking this house. Let us, therefore, be well
acquainted with the real character of his policy before he
makes peace, and let us, above all, have a clear and expli-
cit explanation of the real position of affairs. (Cheers.)
There is a sarcastic note in one of Gibbon's volumes, in
which he quotes an Arabic author named Abulpharagins.
who stated that he was witness of a certain, fact. But
who, asked Gibbon, will he witness for Abulpharagius.
(Laughter.) The noblellord is witness forhimself, but who
will be witness for the noble lord ? (Laughter.) It is in
the power of the Minister to advise the Crown to make
peace, without asking the opinion of Parliament. Far be it
from me to interfere with the Prerogative of the Crown ;
but what safeguard is there that, when Parliament has ad-
journed, you may not have an unwise exercise of that
prerogative, unless by a full dislussion on the state
of affairs Parliament may become well acquainted with the
feelings and views of Ministers ? The noble lord the other

night said he would not be forced by me into making the
house acquainted with the confidential communications
which were passing between her Majesty's Government and
our allies; but no one asks' the noble lord for that ? It

would be 'the height of imprudence for any man to ask the
noble lord to tell us the precise terms on which he proposes
to make peace. He must act upon his own responsibility,
in conjunction, of course, with our cherished ally, but that
is no reason why the noble lord should take a course which,
in my opinion, must lead either to an ignominious peace or
to a lingering and fruitless war. That is why I press the
noble lord. We have a right, I maintain—without trench-
ing on the prerogative of the Crown, and without circum-
scribing the Government's liberty of action along with our
ally—to interfere if we think that the noble lord and his
colleagues are pursuing a course of policy which will
either prevent any peace from being concluded, or lead to
the conclusion of an unsatisfactory peace ; or else, which I
think still more probable, will lead to a lingering, frulit-
.

. . .
less, and inglorious war. The noble lord told me the other
night ti;tat, while I was objecting to the negotiations which
were going on, I seemed to forget altogether the fact
that the Government at the same time were carrying on
war—effectively carrying it on ' • and he insisted on this
point with great vigour, apparentlytly very much to his own
satisfaction. Now, there I join issue altogether with the
noble lord. (Hear.) I deny that you can carry on Ayer
effectively simultaneously with this morbid state of ner-
tiation. (Hear.) Here, I think, lies the whole fallacy of
the noble lard's policy. The cause of all the ill-success
which has attended his efforts and of the discontent and
dissatisfaction now so prevalent in the country may rbe
found in this principle on which the noble lord, and 4he
Government whidh preceded him, If which he was ame -
her, have acted—that it is possible at the same time to
make war and to negotiate for peace. (Cheers.) It is pre ty
apparent, I think, that the noble lord has a false and
limited idea of the manner of making war. I deny that tell
you have to]do to make war is to levy taxes and to fit out
expeditions. There is something else equally, and perhips
I might say more, important even than raising money and
recruiting troops. If you want to carry on.war with vigour
and efficiency you must keep up the spirit of the people.
(Cheers.) Now, sir, I deny that you can keep up the
spirit of the nation in a struggle such as that which we
carried .on with Napoleon and which we may have to carry
on with the Emperors of Russia, if you are perpetually
impressing on the country that peace is impendi4g,
and if you are perpetually showing the people that
the point of difference between ourselves and our op-
ponents is, after all, comparatively speaking, of a very
petty character. Men will endure great sacrifices if they
think they are encountering au enemy of colossal powers
and resources. (Hear.) A nation will not count the sacri-
fices which it makes if it supposes that it is engaged in a
struggle for its fame, its existence, and its power ; but
when you come to a doubled and tripled income-tax, when
you come to draw men away from their homes for military
service, when you darken the hearths of England with
ensanguined calamities—when you do all this, men must
not be told that this is merely a question whether the
Emperor of Russia shall have four frigates or eight.
(Cheers.) I say the principle upon which the Government
of the noble lord and the Government which preceded
him have acted, that of keeping up a state of war and a
state of negotiation simultaneously in action—is a fatal
principle, and that in it may be traced the real 'cause of
our disappointment and partly of our disaster. What,
effect has it had upon your militia? (Rear.) Why, I re-
member when the militia was embodied for war there was
aroused, even in the humblest cottage, that military spirit
which, I think, is natural to the British people. But
what is the feeling now ? The people understand the
question now ; they have read of the conferences 'of
Vienna, they believe, that, after all, the difference be-
tween the contending parties is no very great one—
that it is not• a difference for which their blood should
be lavished. Do you think you would ever have heard a
murmur against increased taxation if, at the same timeyon
were calling for that increase, you had not striven to im-
press on the public mind that you were not engaged in a
struggle for an object worthy of the sacrifice ? Moreover,
if you would carry on war it is necessary not merely to
keep up the spirit of the nation, but also to keep up the
spirit of foreign Powers, but you may rest assured that so
long as you appeal to a foreign Power as a mediator that
Power will never be your ally. (Hear, hear.) I do not say
this with any want of respect for Austria. I think that the
Court of Vienna has acted throughout these transactions
with wisdom, with sagacity, and with prudence, and I am
not surprised that its councils have been guide ::I with so
great ability when I remember that the Minister of that
country is a pupil of the greatest statesmen which this age
has produced. The genius of Metternich still guides the
1 country which he has more than so nee saved, and if the
policy of that great statesman be' pursued I am persuaded
that in a strugg e with Russia he is not the man, nor are
those who have sat at his feet the men, to counsel base hu-
miliation to that Power. Jf in 1828 the opinion of Prince
Metternich had prevailed, if the policy which he reoom-
mended had been adopted by the English Cabinet, this
House in all probability would not at this moment have
been called on to discuss the all-important question of a
war with Russia. Therefore it was with no disrespect to
Austria that t made that remark. It is in human nature
that the moment you ask a person to occupy the positipn
of a mediator he will not necessarily fulfil the duties of an
ally. (Hear, hear.) I say, then, sir, that so far as the
general policy of the noble lord is concerned, I trace want
of energy and its unfortunate consequence ; I trace the
discontent and the dissatisfaction which are prevalent in
all quarters to the continued alliance between diplomacy
and war. As a general principle I think that alliance ob-
jectionable ; but in the present case I think it can show
the house that there are peculiar objections to this double
service. There are two modes in which you may make
war on Russia. In one case you may-invade her provinces,