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

LORD JOHN RUSSELL _AGAIN !

( From the Times of this day. )
Among the innumerable questions of duty, of
honour, of fgood sense, and of good faith, of the
limits which separate the powers of Plenipoten-
tiaries from the responsibilities of Cabinet Minis-
ters, and whatever other problems in political
ethics Lord John Russell's speech of Friday night
has raised, there is, perhaps, some danger that the
substantial proposition itself, to the support of
which he in an unhappy hour committed himself,
should pass without the notice it deserves. There
is something so much more attractive in specula-
ting on the wonderful career of a man who, placed
in 1850, partly by his own merits, partly by a high
family connexion, partly by a concurrence of favour-
able circumstances, at the head of the political
world of this country, has prepared for himself a
uniform and gradual descent, till men, comparing;
what lie is with what he has been can hardiy re-
cognise in the political Marplot of every combina•
tion and the scapegoat of every miscarriage the Par-
liamentary leader of a quarter of a century, who
measured swords with Canning and divided the
respect and admiration of the country with Pcel.
There is something so much more attractive in

all this, the personal side of the question, that we
are afraid the proposition itself, which converted
Lord John at once from the most ravenous of the
dogs of war into the very tamest partisan of peace,
should pass without sufficient observation. Let
us take the proposition in the words of Count
Buol, as quoted by Lord John Russell :—" Un-
doubtedly the best security you can have is the
limitation of the Russian fleet. But there is ano-
ther solution, and that would be, instead of weak-
ening Russia, to strengthen Turkey. It is the
opinion of the Austrian Government and of the
English Secretary of State for the Colonies, that
the Third Point may be carried into effect either
in the one way or in the other. The proposal you
make is, undoubtedly, the best ; we should be
very glad to see it assented to by Russia ; in the
Conference we shall give it every support ; but we
will not say that we do not reserve to ourselves
the power of proposing the other mode—namely,
instead of a limitation of Russian force, to have a
counterpoise on the part of the Allies." To this
proposition Lord John Russell is candid enough to
see some objections. In the first place, it might
entail considerable expense upon us; in the second
place, it would put Turkey under our immediate
protection ; and, in the third place, the appear-
ance of these rival fleets in this narrow sea would
look extremely like a competition for predomi-
nance. Nobody can say these are not good reasons,
but Lord John argues against the proposition as a
friend. He smites it amicably and reproves it,
but takes especial care that the precious balm of
his wisdom should not break the head of his con-
sistency. We are not obliged to be so delicate,
and shall therefore take the liberty of urging some
reasons against the proposition, which Lord John
either overlooked or did not find it convenient to
state.

In the first place, it is very doubtful whether
such a proposition comes within the words of the
third point at all. The third point stipulated
that an end should be put to the preponderance of
Russia in the Black Sea, clearly meaning the exist-
ing preponderance over Turkey ; while the propo-
sition which received the assent of Lord John Rus-
sell, so far from putting an end to the preponder-
ance of Russia over Turkey, recognises its existence,
and seeks to counteract it by calling in aid the
allies, instead of putting an end to it. Thus, had
England and France acted on the suggestions of
their metamorphosed Plenipotentiary, they would
have set the example to Russia of wandering from
those very bases of negotiation which it had cost
them so much trouble to establish, and a strict
adherence to which contained at that moment the
only guarantee for peace. Dismissing this view,
we will next observe that Lord John Russell would
have had the allies concede to Russia a right and
control over their proceedings never, so far as we
are aware, claimed over France and England by
Russia or any other Power. Independently of
treaties, the Black Sea would naturally be free to
all Powers to navigate with whatever force they
please, the only limitation to that right being the
rights of the country whose consent was necessary
for the passage of those fleets into those waters.
The Hellespont and Bosphorus are the very heart
of the Turkish empire—they form part of its
internal navigation, and could not be passed with-
out its consent. Thus Turkey had a right to
forbid the entrance of the Black Sea to all nations,
and to defend that entrance by arms if it were
attempted to be forced. With this right Russia had
nothing to do, and those vessels which the Porte
allowed to pass the Dardanelles might occupy the
waters of the Black Sea without giving Russia any
cause of just offence. Then came the treaty of
1841, by which Russia, unwarrantably encroach-
ing on the natural rights of Turkey, obliged her to
consent that it should be a casus NW if she ad-
mitted foreign vessels of war within the Straits.
But this casus bell7l was only against Turkey, and,
though Russia extorted by this treaty the right to
go to war with Turkey if she admitted foreign ships,
it was as against Turkey alone that she gained it.
She might quarrel with Turkey for letting us in,
but had no right to quarrel with us for entering.
This state of things Lord John Russell proposes to
abolish, and, instead, to give Russia a power to ob-
ject—a power which, till now, she has never en-
joyed—to the number of ships which we shall
choose to send thither. The increase of Russia's
navy is to be unlimited ; ours is to be limited by
her. The initiative is to be with her, and we are
only to follow her lead. Instead of limiting her
force, we should by such a treaty limit our own.
It is a new thing for this country to be thus placed
at the disposition of another, and more especially
when that other is a Power which dares not face
us on the open sea. What a conclusion to be gained
for all our blood and all our treasure

When we took up arms the treaties between Rus-
sia and Turkey were abrogated, and we might,
without incurring the penalty of war, navigate the
Euxine with armed ships. Now, Lord .Tohn Rus-
sell proposes that, by way of curbing the power of
Russia, we should renounce the right we had when
we began hostilities, and, while we leave her an
absolute discretion as to the number of her ships,
should undertake to guide ourselves by that dis-
cretion. If we aro really sincere in the objects of
the war, to what end should we make a peace
leaving the Russian naval power in the Black
Sea unlimited ? The only use that Russia
has for ships in the Black Sea must be
to overawe, and, ultimately, to conquer Turkey
—the very thing we took up arms to prevent.
Russia we may weaken, but Turkey for years to
come we cannot strengthen. Sebastopol, Lord
John has told us, is a " standing menace," and
none the less a menace when we shall have assented
to its being filled with any number of ships the
Emperor of Russia pleases. Lord John Russell,
one of the principal authors of the war, may be
prepared to make peace ou terms so abject and hu-
miliating, and at the same time so onerous, giving
us not the sligthest semblance of advantage and
saddling us with burdens never before undertaken
by this couutry—the maintenance of a permanent
fleet to watzh an enemy whom we have not been
strong enough to humble; we know not with what
disasters we may be visited, we know not by what
Ministers we may be governed, but wo firmly be-
lieve that there is no disaster within the range of
probability which could drive us to such concessions
and no Minister except Lord John Russell who is
likely to prcpose them for our adoption.

(From the Morning .Herald of this day.)

The revelations and confessions of Friday night
last have cleared up the mystery connected with the
rejected Austrian proposal, and have disclosed a
state of things in the Cabinet that fully accounts
for the ruinous indecision which has marked the
policy of Lord Palmerston's Administration.
Lord John Russell's disclosure is not more fatal
to the Government of which he is yet a member,
than it is fortunate for the country. We now un-
derstand, upon authority not likely to be called in
question, that upon the great question of peace or
war—call it rather the ()Teat question of England's
existence as a first-rate power—the responsible
advisers of the Crown are at issue ; that they have
all along been a divided Cabinet ; and that we
have very narrowly escaped for the present the
conclusion of an ignominious peace. The conse-
quences of these divisions—the half-hearted mea-
sures, and insecure policy resulting from them—in
the late and present Administrations, have cost
the country 100,000,0001. and a noble army.
These are losses, great though they be, which the
nation can yet repair, and will yet repair, under a
vigorous and honest Government ; but the peace
contemplated and all but concluded, the settlement
of the Eastern question on the terms proposed by
the Austrian Minister, would have added to our
losses the additional bitterness that they had been
incurred in vain, and that the interests of England
had been betrayed by those to whom in an evil
hour they had been confided.
Lord John Russell has made a clean breast of it;
he had accepted Count Buol's proposal, " and I
gave an assurance," he adds, " which I authorised
Count Buol to communicate to the Emperor, that
I would lay the propositions before the Cabinet of
this country, and would use my best endeavours
to put them in such a light that I might hope for
their acceptance." It is but just to say that in
adopting this course Lord John Russell was at
least consistent. To the proposal of M. Drouyn
de Lhuys of the 10th April our plenipotentiary had
consented. The late proposition of the Austrian
Minister went as far, perhaps, of the two, farther
--with the principle of limitation ; but neither
contained—we say it advisedly—the provisions of
a safe and honourable peace. They might have
been—they would have been, as we pointed out at
the time—readily evaded by Russia ; they were
thoroughly worthless as a basis for the settlement
of the great question to which we are committed.
The proposition of the 19th of April emanated
from the French Envoy, and Count Buol had suf-
ficient address to make it appear in the last Confe-
rence that the latest proposition rested upon cer-
tain suggestions thrown out by M. Drouyn de,
Lhuys. But now comes the gist of the whole mat-
ter. M. Drouyn de Lhuys returns to his Govern-
ment, and finds that his views have been so little
in accord with those of the Emperor, that ho
instantly tenders his resignation. Lord John
Russell also returns home ; in due time the Aus-
trian proposition is presented to the British Go-
vernment and rejected. Lord John kept his word
with Count Buol, we can well believe, and no
doubt pressed his proposals, but he failed to carry
the Cabinet with him. Does he resign ? By no
means ; the " circumstances of the time" forbade
such a course, and no man understands better than
Lord John Russell the time for an exhibition of
that virtue ; but the " unsuccessful negotiator"
vouchsafes a, further ex.pla.nation of his conduct.

" I think that if I had left office under the circum-
stances I have mentioned, I should not have been
acting in consistency with what I have repeatedly
declared as a rule to guide my conduct—l mean
that in the end, and as a last resort, the question
whether the propositions should be received or
not, was for the two Governments to determine,
and not for a Plenipotentiary ;" but surely Lord
John had laid down his functions as Ambassador
on his return, and had resumed his seat in the
Cabinet as a Secretary of State. The Conference
at which Count Buol made his last proposal was
held on the 4th of June, Lord John Russell had
returned in May. It was the substance of that
proposal to which he had assented, and which he
exerted himself on his return to press upon the
Government. What may have passed at those
Cabinet meetings at which the Austrian proposals
were debated and finally rejected we shall never
know ; this much is certain,—the French Emperor
had resolved upon their prompt rejection ; the
Cabinet knew his determination, and we can un-
derstand the effect of that knowledge on their
divided councils.

The unexpected disclosure for which we aro in-
debted to Lord John Russell has come upon the
country in an hour, as it seems to us, of extreme
peril. Like the flash of lightning that reveals to
the traveller the precipice towards which lie was
advancing in the thick darkness, the announce-
ment and confession of Friday night open up, as if
by accident, to the perception of the nation the
real danger of its position. For ourselves, we have
watched the Cabinet of Lord Palmerston with even
more suspicion than that of Lord Aberdeen, inas-
much as it was guided by a more dexterous, and,
therefore, a more dangerouv, chief. We have not
watched, nor, we trust, warned in vain. The po
sition of the British army in the Crimea, for want
of men and the means of transport, is, perhaps, the
best comment upon the truth of our reiterated re-
marks. The country understands why it is that it
has never yet been asked by the Government to put
forth its strength—and that is, because neither this
Government nor its miserable predecessor ever de-
sired to prosecute the war in earnest—because
their councils were ever divided, and never vigor-
ous. Here is the prolific source of all our disasters
and of all our shame—confessed, pointed out by
one of the party themselves, who has, for the
second time within the last eight months, turned
approver, and each time with increasing loss of re-
putation. Lord John Russell, as a last resource,
appears to have accepted the leadership of the
peace party—he will, perhaps, break up the Go-
vernment of which ho is a member, but he mistakes
the people of England if ho imagines they will
tolerate a Peace Administration. We accept Lord
Palmerston's estimate of the language and prin-
ciples of the opposition on the great question of
the age—they have had too sorrowful an experi-
ence of a vacillating and hesitating policy not to
cling to the belief that, if we are to come out of
this death grapple in which we are engaged with
life, it must be by a display of indomitable energy
and unconquerable vigour.

RAILWAY TRAFFIC RETURNS.

TRAFFIC RETURNS FOR THE PAST WEEK.

Miles o,ecelpts.
opened, NAME OF RAILWAY.
1855, 1854. 1855.
....--- --....,
B RI TISH. X £
72% Aberdeen .. a ....... •• •• •• •• •• ••• •• 1,866 2,228
37% Belfast and Ballymena ••••••• • • • • • • • 562 783
17 Belfast and County Down.• • • • • .• • • .. - -
32 Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire 2,579 2,381
26% i Bolton, Blackburn, and West York .... - -
103% Bristol and Exeter .................. 6,537 7,018
189% Caledonian..., ......... .... •. - .... 11,522 12,206
94 % Chester and Holyhead..... • • ...*. .... 5,025 5,639
6% Cork, Blackrock, and Passage ••• • • • 205 230
20 Cork and Bandon .. • • .....• • • • • • • • • 241 230
56 Dublin and Belfast Junction .• .. • ... 913 1,007
63 Dublin and Drogheda• • ...L ......• •• 1,313 1,484
7% Dublin and Kingstown ...:.......... 1,381 1,571
16% Dundee and Arbroath • • .... • ... -• • 492 550
31 Dundee, Perth, and Aberdeen Junction 834 954
25 Dundalk and Enniskillen ••..••• • • • • • 190 285
68 East Ang1ian........................ 794 887
81% East Lancashire ••••.... 6,105 6,100
417 Eastern Counties and Norfolk.. ••.. 3 22,552 26,037
Eastern Union • • • • .. .• • • • • • . • • • • • •
142 Edinburgh and Glasgow ..... ........ 5,450 4,867
78 Edinburgh, Perth, and Dundee ...... 2,923 3,200
6 Exeter and Crediton.. • ..... • • • • • • • • - -
- -
22 Furness Railway •• • ••••••• • • • • • • •
183 Glasgow, and South-Western• ••. •• •.5,952 6,287
283 Great Northern and E. L. •••• - .. - 18,228 20.408
188 Great Southern and Western (Ireland) 6,126 7,399
312 Great Western • • ... ..... .......... 24,157 27,562
25 Irish South Eastern - .• - .......... - --
90 Lancaster and Carlisle • • ............ 6,281 6,151
260 Lancashire and Yorkshire ..... ....... 20,362 22,307
- Leeds Northern ...... • • ............ - -
16k Liverpool, Crosby, and Southport..., 457 348
553% London and North Western .. ..... .. 57,833 58,569
5% London and Blackwall- • ........... 1,741 1,731
174 London, Brighton, and South Coast.. 16,134 17,678
267 London and South We5tern......... 18,509 17,738
GO Londonderry and Enniskillen ........ 554 599
- Manchester, Buxton, and Matlock, &c. - -
171% Manchester, Sheffield,and Lincolnshire 8,260 9,071
9% Manchester and South Junction -.... 745 779
28 Maryport and Carlisle •............. 894 1,045
498% Midland • .... - ....... ..... ........ 27,403 26,57 a
126% Midland Great Western (Irish) .• .... 3,190 3,603
- -
78% Newcastle and Carlisle .............. - -
149 North British ••..••• . • • • • •'• •••• • • .. 4,199 5,223
- North Staffordshire •• • • .... •••• • • • • - -
46% North-Western .... •• • ............. 1,184 999
82% Scottish Central ...... - ............ 2,317 2,749
32 Scottish Midland ••••••••• • .. • • • • .. 803 1,008
29% Shrewsbury and Birmingham ....., 791 1,400
48 Shrewsbury and Chester ............ 2,277 2,521
30 Shropshire Union •.••••••• • • • • • • • • • 8. 2 883
57% South Dev0n.......• . .............. 2,200 2,639
289 South Eastern...• •• • • .............. 18,689 21,067
162% South Wales ...................... 5,024 5,650
97 South York., Doncaster, and Goole .. 1,593 1,804
38 Taff Vale •••• • • - .......• .• • • ...... 3,474 3,755
36 Ulster . • ... ••• • • • ............. 1,213 1,211
77 Waterford and Limerick .... „ „ ..
25 West Cornwall ...... • • ...
12 Whitehaven Junction .• • • • • • . • • • • • • • 345 376
682 York and Newcastle, and Berwick &
York and North Midland & Leeds - -
FOREIGN.
57 k Dutch Rhenish •• • •
262 Lyons and Mediterranean •• .. - - - -
63 Montereau end Troyes - -
63 Namur and Liege .. - - -
445 Northern of Franco
697 Orleans and Central* .. - -
240 Paris and Lyons .................„ - -
82 Paris and Rouen. • • c • • • • • • • • • • • •a •• ••• -.--
392 Paris and Strasburgh •• .• ••••• • .. • • - -
59 Ronenand Havre.• ........ • • • • . - -
157 Western of France •• •• •• •• •• - -