The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-17 00:00:00

AUSTRIAN SUBSIDY.

Mr. S. KNOX asked the First Lord of the Treasury
whether, at any time during the recent negotiations at
Vienna, a subsidy to the Austrian Government had ever
been entertained by the Government of this country ?

(Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—No, sir ; never. (Hear and
laughter.)

EXPLANATION OF LORD J. RUSSELL, AND
THE VOTE OF CENSURE.
Upon the Clerk proceeding to read the order of the
day,
Lord‘J. RUSSELL rose and said—Sir, my noble
friend has given notice of a motion to postpone the order
of the day for the purpose of allowing the hon. baronet
opposite, the member for Hertfordshire, to bring on the
motion of which he had given notice. Sir, as that
motion refers both to my conduct at Vienna, and also
to my continuance in office since my return from Vienna,
I think it right to state to the house that which has
has bearing bearing on the motion about to be brought
on. I have to state to the house that, having on
Thursday evening informed my noble friend the First
Lord of the Treasury my wish to retire from the ser-
vice of the Crown, her Majesty has been graciously
pleased to accept my resignation, and therefore I now
only hold office until my successor shall be appointed. I
should be disposed to rest satisfied with this declaration,
were it not that recent events have been of so
complicated a nature in themselves, and also
been so perverted by malice—(hear, hear)—that I
think it is desirable to place before the house some
account of my conduct in those recent and very diffi-
cult transactions. It has been stated in a circular which
has been often referred to—that I informed the Aus-
trian Minister for Foreign Affairs, before I left Vienna,
that I would use any influence which I might possess
to procure the acceptance of certain Austrian proposi-
tions which were to be an ultimatum. Sir, I do not
dispute the general correctness of that assertion. It is
not true, as has been stated, that I engaged to state to
the Cabinet the views I entertained, but it is true I pro-
mised to lay those propositions before the Cabinet in the
most favourable manner. I did so in conjunction with
other persons of great weight and authority. Besides
the three resident Ministers of France, Great Britain,
and Turkey, there were at the time in the capital of Aus-
tria Ministers of Foreign Affairs of France and the Mi-
nister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey. After many and
repeated discussions there was at length a proposition
made to us which both the Ministers for Foreign Affairs
of France and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Turkey—a person certainly less well known in this
country, but who is a man distinguished for his intelli-
gence, sagacity, and knowledge el the affairs of Europe,
thou ht might be accepted as the foundation of a propo-
sitionlo be made for peace. I concurred in those opinions,
and, after a confidential interview with M. Drouyn de
l'lluys, we agreed to bring it before our Governments.—
I verbally, he making a written communication. I will
not now enter into the nature of those propositions,
although I may have something to say about that by and
by. I brought these proposals to London. I arrived
on the night of the 29th of April. On the 30th there
was a Cabinet Council on the subject of the recent nego-
tiations. I have stated that the result of the discussions
of the Cabinet was that those propositions were not
adopted by the Government of this country ; but, sir,
I think I should state, to complete what I then said,
that there were circumstances which arose in the course
of these discussions which made it appear to my mind
impossible to urge the acceptance of those propositions.
There was, therefore, at the end of that week a con-
currence of all the members of the Cabinet that those
propositions could not be adopted. I should say the
circumstances to which I allude were circumstances
quite independent of the merits of the propositions 'them-
selves, and did not alter my opinion of the merits of
those propositions. Sir, this agreement having been
come to, Lord Clarendon wrote a despatch which is on
the papers recently presented to Parliament, and dated
the Bth of May. Now, sir, a few words with regard to
the merits of those propositions ; not that I wish to
enter upon them at all completely, but I do so in con-
sequence of an observation which was made by the right
hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire (Mr.
Disraeli.) The right hon. gentleman said that those pro-
positions were such as to convince the people of this coun-
try that if those propositions were received there was no
great issue at stake which justified the exertions which
this country was making to carry on the war. Now,
sir, it was because I thought the war necessary—
because I thought those exertions should be made—
that I became the bearer of those propositions, and
thought they were fit to be accepted. I conceived the
magnitude of the peril of Turkey to be such—l con-
ceived both the power and the projects of Russia to be
such, that it is necessary, if possible, to unite all the
great Powers of Europe out of Russia in order to com-
bine against her efforts in war, and afterwards to give
Turkey security in peace. Such, therefore, was the foun-
dation of my opinion—an opinion certainly not formed
on the merits of the earlier of those propositions ; be-
cause the house will find—at least those hon. members
who have rend the papers recently printed will find—
I objected to that which is the main principle of these
propositions—viz., the principle of counterpoise. But
when these propositions came to be enforced—which
they were only the day before I left Vienna, or, per-
haps the very day—by a declaration of the Emperor of
Austria, through his Minister, that he was ready both
to present those terms as an ultimatum, to St.
Petersburg, and, after conclusion of a treaty,
to enter into an alliance—a defensive alliance
with France and Great Britain— to prevent and
to resist any future aggression on the part of Russia
against Turkey, then I did think that thereby security
would be obtained for the future peace of Europe, which,
whatever might be the services of the arms of France
and Great Britain, and however glorious their efforts
might prove, they would scarcely place Turkey in it
secure position if Austria did not combine with us,
or if she should at a future period participate in the
designs of Russia. In stating these opinions I should
hardly expect to hear any different views expressed by
the hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire, because,
speaking, as he always does, with great eloquence and
great ability, he pointed out the advantage of having
Austria as an ally, and the importance of her position
in the centre of Europe. Such, then, were the general
grounds on which I thought that these propositions
might be accepted. I have said already that they were
not accepted, and that the Cabinet, some for one reason,
some for another, concurred in the despatch of Lord
Clarendon which rejected these propositions. Now, sir,
that despatch was written upon the Bth of May,
and upon the 16th of May Lord Westmoreland wrote a
despatch containing the views of the Austrian Govern-
ment, in which he stated that the Austrian Government
conceived that by proposing an ultimatum they had ful-
filled the conditions of the treaty of the 2d of Decem-
ber, and they proposed only that they should in con-
ference lay down some proposal for the limitation of the
Russian fleet, declaring at the same time to France and
Great Britain that, having complied with the terms of
the treaty of the 2d of December, if that proposition
were rejected by Russia they did not mean to make it a
casus belli, and would break up the conference and re-
tire. When we received that proposition there was no
doubt on the part of her Majesty's Government—and I
think that there could not well be a doubt—that it was
not worth while to go into conference to support a pro-
position of that kind, it being a proposition less favourable
to the allies than the condition which bad been proposed
by M. Drouyn de l'Huys and myself, when it was nearly
certain that Russia would reject it, and quite certain
that Austria would not support it to the extent of
going to was, or even of making any further prepara-
tions for wig. Instructions were accordingly given to
Lord Westmoreland that if such a proposition were made
in the conference he should not discuss its merits—that
he should not enter into any further debate, but should
declare that in the views of her Majesty's Government
it was desirable to put an end to the conference. Simi-
lar instructions were given to the Minister of the Em-
peror of the French. Now, sir, that proposition of
Austria to which I have referred arrived here on the 19th
of May ; from that time, therefore, there was altoge-
ther an end of any negotiation with Austria for the pur-
pose of proposing an ultimatum to Russia, and there
could be no longer any doubt whatever that the war
must be continued in order to obtain the object of the
allies. The third point declared that the effectual ar-
rangements for carrying that point into effect must de-
pend upon the events of the war. I will, however,
take the liberty of reading to the house the very term s
of that third point :---
" The revision of the treaty of July, 1841, must have for
its object to connect the existence of the Ottoman empire
more completely with the European equilibrium, and to
put an end to the preponderance of Russia in the Black
Sea. As to the arrangements to be taken in this respect,
they depend too directly on the events of the war for it to
be possible at present to determine the bases ; it is suffi-
cient to point out the principle."
We had reverted, therefore, to that condition of things
in which it was necessary to carry on the war, in order
to obtain a solution of the third point, which solution
we had not been able to obtain by negotiation. This
refers, therefore, to the first part of my conduct—
namely, to what I stated to the Minister of Austria con-
fidentially at Vienna, and the conduct that I pursued
when I came home in my acquiescence in the deci-
sion that was arrived at. and my concurrence in car-
rying on the war. Well, sir, the next period is
when the right honourable gentleman opposite, the
member for Buckinghamshire, made a motion in this
house which my noble friend at the head of the Go-
vernment told him was made before the negotiations
could be said to be formally closed, but which he per-
sisted in, and which ended in this house giving the as-
surance that it would support her Majesty in the prose-
cution of the war. It has been made a reproach to me
by the right hon. gentleman and by others that in that
discussion I took part, and spoke in favour of the vigo-
rous prosecution of the war. I think the right hon.
gentleman said that I was the uncompromising advocate
of the war. Well, Sir, on reflecting on my conduct
upon that occasion I do not really see what else I could
possibly be. The Government had determined that the
negotiations must be put an end to, the conferences were
closed, and what other means were there to' obtxacueipt
solution of the third point, and to obtain peace,e then
by the prosecution of the war ? The main question
diacusoed—indeed, the oily propositivpropositionsdiscu.rod Wer.e.