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

TEM SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 25 1855

Government entirely with the policy of Lord Aberdeen—
that no difference whatever would be for a moment thought
of in the conditions upon which peace would be sought in
the approaching conferences at Vienna; and the right hon.
gentleman, to mark bow completely satisfactory he consi-
dered the noble lord's assurance, declared that he received
the noble lord's statement with the most perfect satt,fac-
tion, and that, under the circumstances, he should con-
scientiously abstain from all factious opposition. (" Hear,
hear," and a laugh.) Well I remember that; but strange
to say, the plenipotentiary, after a certain. time, returns
frustrated—(hear)—the plenipotentiary who represented
the policy of Lord Aberdeen returns bootless from the con-
ferences of Vienna, and the protocols in due time are laid
upon the table. But, as I have said, the noble lord does
not fulfil his duty as the Minister of the Crown in moving
an address to the Sovereign, but allows another-member of
this house to set him the example, and a motion is placed
upon the table which means, if it means anything, disappro-
bation of the conduct of our plenipotentiary at Vienna—
that the conditions of peace insisted upon were unreason-
able, and that the conditions offered ought to be accepted.
(Hear, hear.) It would be an insult to the right hon. gen-
tleman, the member for Manchester, to suppose that he
meant anything else. (Hear.) What then do we find?
We find that the right hon. baronet himself (Sir J. Gra-
ham), and his two right hon. friends (Messrs. Gladstone and
S. Herbert) were to be the principal supporters of the right
hon. member for Manchester's motion. They rose, it is
true, at the last moment, to throw their shield over the
coming conflict; but unless I am much misinformed, in
vindication of the motion of the right hon. member for
Manchester, in support of the declarations therein declared,
that galaxy of.eloquence and intellect which had seceded
from the Cabinet of the noble lord was to exercise its
highest faculties and its choicest and fiercest rhetoric in
the attempt to influence the opinion of Parliament. What,
then, are we to suppose ? That,there was some change in
the conditions upon which peace was to be solicited ; that
there was some uncertainty of conduct (for it is tot to be
supposed that the noble lord was not faithful to the pledge
he had given to the right hon. hart.), and that the noble
plenipotentiary who, according to the noble lord, has so
ably carried his instructions into effect, has been guilty of
some act which justifies the right hon. baronet and his
right hon. friends in giving their support to a motion
that ,directly challenged the propriety of that inoble
lord's conduct, and declare in this house that the con-
ditions of peace upon which the Government insisted
ought not to have been urged. It was on the
24th of February, 1855, that the inquiry to which I have
alluded was made by the right hon. baronet, of the, noble
lord, and this leads me for a moment to go back from the
return of the plenipotentiary to the critical period when
that noble individual was appointed to the office—for on
tliat appointnient and upon the conduct of the noble lord
while at Vienna much depends—much occurred which gives
cause in my opinion, for the suspicion, the distrust, and the
dissatisfaction which undoubtedly prevail in the country
—and much was indicated which oughtto induce the house
to take such a step such as I at the last moment before we
adjourn for the holidays am attempting to induce them to
adopt. The appointment of the plenipotentiary ddes not
at bite first blush appear to have been a very happy one.
The noble lord is so distinguished that I find it of Icourse
difficult to fix upon any subject or any part of his life ikAwhich
he has not in some way or other rendered himself remark-
able ; brat speaking only of a recent period, I know nothing
by which the noble lord has been more distinguished than
by his denunciation of the power and ambition of the Em-
peror of Russia. It is -to the noble lord I think that
we may mainly trace the deep and enthusiastic feelingwhich
has been avowed in favour of a decisive struggle with the
colossal empire of Russia. For nearly two years—while we
were either at war or " drifting " tom.' ds war, the noble
lord occupying then an eminent post in the Government
(more eminent, I am sorry to say, than he occupies now)—
the leader of the House of Commons addressed from the
Treasury bench, addressed to the people of England, not
only fervent but inflammatory harangues, the object of
which was th show that war with Russia was they para-
mount duty of the country—that that war oughtlo be
carried on in no hesitating spirit—but that it was a war in
which we should not engage bat with a firm determination
of realising the most considerable results. The noble lord
then said—

"The British inn ry and nation would be the most silly
of mortals if they were to sign an iusecure peace, which
would leave it to their present enemy to bide his dole—
(cheers)—until, by the dissensions of the other Powers—
until, by the weakness of some of those Powers—he should
find a better opportunity of accomplishing his design."
(Cheers.) If you cheer that, you will cheer still more at what
I am about to read, The noble lord said, a little later :
"The power and ambition of Russia are dangerous to
Europe's independence, and incompatible with Europe's
future security; therefore no insufficient, no insecure, peace
is to be made, and England cannot lay down its arms until
material guarantees are obtained—(loud cheers)—which, re-
ducing Russia's power to proportions innocuous to Europe's
liberties, will afford perfect security for the future.",
((.hears.) That is a brave spirit. When the noble lord
goes to war, he knows what he is going to war about ; he
wants to reduce the proportions of the Russian empire; he
wants material guarantees for peace. These are designs
which some may think rash, but which all must at least
respect as great.,l am obliged to refer to these circumstances
in order to show the character and the antecedents of the
noble lord who was appointed our plenipotentiary to obtain
peace. It was a happy choice. I am also obliged to refer
to them to show that there was some insincerity in the con-
duct of the noble lord in this matter. There was a tremen-
dous plunge towards the end of 1854, and the noble lord,
having frightened the country—l should not say the:coun-
try, for it was then ready for anything—but having fright-
ened the diplomacy of Europe with those announcements
that her Majesty's Ministers were going to reduce the pro-
portions of the Russian empire, and were going to com-
mence a war which was not to terminate until we obtained
material guarantees for peace, naturally called up in the
other House of Parliament another noble lord, whom, al-
though living, I think I may venture to call illustrious.
Thus it was that Lord Lyndhurst, no advocate of a craven
policy—Lord Lyndhurst, who in a green old age has shown:
a manly vigour in vindicating the high character of this
country—Lord Lyndhurst, who, although an orator and a
patriot, is still a lawyer and a statesman—asked this ques-
tion. He demanded an explanation as to the consistency
of such statements as reducing the proportions of the Rus-
sian empire and taking material guarantees. Lord Lynd-
hurst asked whether such expressions were not incon-
sistent with the protocol of the sth of December, 1853, to
which France and England were signataries, which stated—
" The present war cannot in any case lead to territorial
diminutions or modifications of the Russian empire."
What happened then? I would not refer to Lord Claren-
don if he were not still Secretary of State,. for I shill en-
deavour, as much as I can, not to touch upon the policy of
the illustrious corpses belonging to the Aberdeen Adminis-
tration. (A laugh.) I will refer only to existing and re•
sponsible Ministers, although it is not to be supposad
that any man who is a Secretary of State now would,
do anything so mean and pitiful as to say that hp was
no: responsible for the deeds of the defunct Govern-
ment. (Hear, hear.) Well, what did Lord Clarendou
say ? Lord Clarendon last year was indignant at this
inquiry. He said that the language quoted by the
noble and learned lord might be the will of Austria
and of Prussia, but it was not the will of England and
of France. (Cheers.) Therefore, towards the end pf the
session, notwithstanding even the protocol signed by
France and England, which declared that, whatever the
result of the war might be, the territory of Russia should
not be diminished in extent, the English Government by
the bead of its diplomacy stated in the highest House of
Parliament that they would' not be influenced or con-
trolled by the protocol that they had signed. (Hear.) I
have shown that the noble lord who was selected for a
plenipotentiary to obtain peace was unquestionably an ad-
vocate of war, and of war on a great scale. (Hear.) It is
of infinite importance, when we have to investigate the
conduct of the noble lord at this important emergency,
that we should clearly understand what were the antece-
dents of the noble lord and his qualifications for the, office '
that I think he rashly undertook. The house, will remem-
ber that it was only forty-eight hours ago that the First
Minister of the Crown said that, although these negotia-
tions had been unsuccessful, they had been conducted with
consummate ability. The noble lord (Palmerston) nods
his head. (Cheers.) I accept that ceremony as if the noble
lord threw down his glove—(a laugh)—and I call upon the
Heusi of Commons, without respect to party, to give an
impartial verdict upon the conduct of the noble lord in
diplomacy. Do not let it be said that I am making com-
ments upon the conduct of the noble lord because I am a
member of a different political party. (Ministerial cries
of " Oh, oh !") Well, is there any person who would
suffer such insane observations to affect his public opinion?
If I show that the noble lord was totally incompetent for
the office that, in my opinion, he fatally accepted—if I
show that his conduct at that conference led to conse-
quences prejudicial to the public weal, it will be my duty
to bring these things forward, because the public interests,
totally irrespective of political organisation, require that
we should consider the consequences of the acts of public
men. (Cheers.) It was not enough that the noble lord made
this speech to which I have referred, and which I have read
that I might not mistake, but he, the plenipotentiary of
peace, distinguished himself in this house by the very high
tone he assumed with regard to Russia and the rulers of
Russia, and, although then the first Minister of the State
in this house, he did not hesitate to denounce the con-
duct of the Emperor and his Minister as false and
fraudulent. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord did more. As
the session advanced—as the noble lord's blood grew more
warns in a moment of excitement (it was in the month of
July)—the noble lord revealed the secret policy of the pro-
found Cabinet of which he was a member to the House of
Commons, and we then learnt the authoritative informa-
tion that war was to be carried on and peace obtained by
the conquest of provinces and the destruction of that
stronghold that threw its frownine, shadows over the waters
of the Black Sea. The noble ford made an explanation
afterwards of the words he used, bat, as Voltaire has well
said, " Apologies only account for that which they do not
alter—the words remain, bat the explanations are forgot-
ten." When the noble lord told us of the invasion of the
Crimea and the destruction of Sebastopol, I said for my-
self that I had listened to that statement with dismay.
These were the qualifications of the plenipotentiary of
peace whose selection did so much credit to the admirable
judgment of the First Minister of the Crown, who, called
to power by the enthusiasm of the people, and determined
to put the right man in the right place, sends a Minister to
negotiate' peace who had proclaimed an internecine war.
(Cheers.) But these were not all the qualifications of the
noble lord. It was not enough that he had distinguished
himself byaddressing inflammatoryharangues to the House
of Commons. It was not enough that he had denounced
the conduct of the Emperor and his Ministers as false and
fraudulent. It was not enough that, in a moment of out-
rageous and fatal indiscretion, he revealed, as one might
say, the disasters of his native country. The noble lord
boyotiaantoryth. erTetpleoit
noble before
lor h
d destroyedewentto
make peacea
signalised hifmorsehlfis
Cabinet. (Cheers and laughter.) He tripped up his Prime
Minister because he was notearnest enough in prosecuting
(Continued laughter.) These were the
the war. antece-
dents, and these were the qualifications of the Minister
Plenipotentiary to whom was consigned the fulfilment of
the most important duties that have ever been delegated to
a subject of the Crown since the great Congress of Vienna.
This was the dove sent out to the troubled waters.
(A
augh.) The house will find that the main cause of the
dangerous and difficult position in which I hope I shall
succeed in showing you this country has been placed has
arisen
iu
noble lord was ft o in the diplomatic proceedings and the proceedings
this house in which the noble lord has been the chief
actor. It has been said of the noble lord—l think very un•
poon at tiseec°ndlY'
lastly—by a high, although anonymous, authority, tha.t, the
compensated for in the first not calculated for the post of plenipotentiary,
opinion of the PT
matiat asird) ace, because he was not an eminent diplo-
lengthwnetd
e Wabnetcoafuse he did not take that leading
the
in this country which might have
diplomatic experience in the
not that the noble lord has had a great,
because shall show
Court. That was, I think, unjust,
thou
He was once at the experience of diplomatic affairs.
tu that capacity Performedinfluenced
feats of no mean cha-
are at this moment influencing subsequent events, and
A country; and, although it is ing the fortunes of this
quite tree that when the

noble lord was cslled upon by his Sovereign to form a Go-
vernment he could only find one gentleman to serve under
him—anti, strange to say, that gentleman is the present
First Minister—(a laugh)—and although that noble lord,
with his great position, and with all his genius, which I
admire, finds himself in the disagreeable predicament of
twice filling a subordinate position under Prime Ministers
who are not Whigs (laughter), still that noble lord is the
leader of the great Whig party, and small collection of
great families who still rule this country in defiance of a
tree aristocratic element, and govern by the principles of
an oligarchy masked by the language of a democracy ; and
therefore the noble lord, whatever office he may fill, will
always be a very considerable man. But now let me call
the attention of the house to a most important event in
the career of the noble lord, and I do it only because it is
the key-note of the transactions which occurred when the
noble lord was chief of the diplomacy of the country.
The noble lord was Secretor' of State_ for Foreign Affairs

during a brief period in tie year 1853—two or three
months ; but, though the period was brief, the most im-
portant communications which have ever been made
to this country, at any period of its history, were made
when the noble lord was Secretary of State, It fell on the
noble lord to meet that great difficulty, to cut that Gor-
dian knot. ITron the noble lord fell the responsibility, at
that moment, of deciding the course of England, when vast
events Were near us, when a dark destiny was impending
over Europe, and when the conduct of the English Mini-
s t,ry might have averted that fate and changed the conse-
quences of a great conflict. (Hear.) A whisper, a rumour
was heard that secret communications of a very different

character from those which were laid on the table of this
house had taken place between the Court of St. Petersburg
and the English Government. They were denied, not by
the Government, but by those who seemed to have autho-
rity to deny them. I extorted myself from the noble
lord the Secretary of State in this house the admission
that those documents existed. Such was the feel-

ing of the country—though I admit I cannot justify the
conduct of any Government in producinc,' those papers—
they were produced; they are on the table; they are
among the most precious records of the most important
events in the history of the age ; and there we learnt, from
the lips, as it were, of the late Emperor of Russia himself,
his resolution to accomplish the partition of Turkey; and
that partition was to be accomplished mainly by assuming
the right of protectorate over the Christian subjects of the
Porte, which, in the last despatch of the Russian Minister,
we hear, as a protectorate, never existed. What was the
conduct of the noble lord the chief of the diplomacy. of
England under those circumstances? Observe this im-
portant phase of these transactions, and you will find, as
I will show you, the key-hole of disaster in recent ne-
gotiations, and the probable cause of the greatest
difficulties and dangers to this country. The noble
lord, after ample time, wrote a secret and confidential
despatch to Sir George Hamilton Seymour, upon the
propositions of the Emperor of Russia, and upon the ge-
neral tenour of the confidential communications which
wore then taking place. I must invite the attention of the
First Minister, who admires the ability of his colleague so
much to these remarks. (Ironical cheers.) The noble lord
(Lord J. Russell) wrote a despatch which was much ad-
mired when it first appeared. The despatch was partly
historical and partly diplomatic, and I beg the house to do
me the honour of bearing in mind that distinction, be-
cause it is important for subsequent consideration. The
noble lord dues not agree that the Sultan was in the same
state as the Spanish King in the time of Louis XIV., or
the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Certainly those Sovereigns
had no children, and the Sultan had as many wives as the
wisest monarch, and so many children that he is obliged
to marry them to his Ministers. (Laughter.) Therefore, the
noble lord, I think, was not very happy in comparing the
Padishah to the barren and fruitless bed of Medici. With
all that display which, while it is unaccompanied by any-
thing injurious, reflects great honour upon the country
producing such statesmen, the noble lord proceeded :
" To these cautions her Majesty's Government wish
to add, that in their view it is essential that the Sultan
should be advised to treat his Christian subjects in confor-
mity with the principles of equity and religious freedom
which prevail generally among the enlightened nations of
Europe. The more the Turkish Government adopts the
rules of impartial law and equal administration, the less
will the Emperor of Russia find it necessary to apply that
exceptional protection which his Imperial Majesty has
found so burdensome and inconvenient, though, no doubt,
prescribed by duty and sanctioned by treaty."
Not to taunt the noble lord with an error (though probably
the most gross error ever made by a Secretary of State)
not to twit the noble lord with a fatal admission (for every
one gets into a scrape sometimes, and we, who are a popular
assembly, know that duties press so upon public men
which they can only half fulfil, and that all sometimes
make mistakes, though a Secretary of State who in a
secret and confidential despatch makes a mistake is leas en-
titled to the charity of men than mere iudividuals)—l
will remind the house that I called attention, when that
despatch was so much admired, to this !fatal admission.
(Cheers.) The noble lord never made the slightest answer.
He could not make any answer„and I should never have.
brought it forward again but ,f6r the remarkable cause I
am about to place before the"bouse, and which the house
will in a moment see is exercising a most fatal influence
on this country. The mistake of the noble lord was to
acknowledge the protectorate of Russia over the Christian
subjects of the Porte, which Count Nesselrode has just said
to us does not exist—(hear)—and not only to acknowledge
but to tell us " its exercise is prescribed by duty and sanc-
tioned by treaty." (Cheers.) When the noble lord told the
house some time ago that every body knew what the four
points were I took an opportunity of sayinc, I, for one, did
not know what the four points were. Up to the moment the
protocols were placed on the table we never had a formal and
authentic statement of what the four points were; but at
last, the papers were laid on the table, and the four points
aro now in the hands of the Parliament of England, of
those hon. gentlemen who will sanction or oppose the reso-
lution which lam about to submit. (Cheers.) Here we
have, at last, the four points, and I beg you to tarn to the
fourth point, bearing in mind the noble lord's famous his-
torical despatch, and in the interpretation which he put
upon the treaties of Kainardji and others, acknowledging
a protectorate, and declaring its exercise to be not only
legal but obligatory. What do we see in the fourth article
of Congress of Vienna? Remember, this has been pro-
duced by the prolonged thought, by the deep meditations,
by the unrivalled learning of the greatest statesmen of
Europe. Here is the summary of what they believe to be
the cause of the most important transaction of the preient
day : .

"Russia, in renouncing the pretension to take under an
official protectorate the Christian subjects of the Sultan of
the Oriental ritual, equally renounces, as a natural cense-
quense, the revival of any of the articles of her former
treaties, and especially of the Treaty of Koutchouk-Kai-
nartiji, the erroneous interpretation of which has been the
principal cause of the present war."
By whom was that erroneous interpretation made? (Hear,
hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Was it by the noble
lord, or by the Emperor of Russia? If by the Emperor of
Russia, it was assented to by the Minister of England.
(Opposition cheers.) What right have we to interfere in
this quarrel, when the united wisdom of all these states.
men has found out that "the erroneous interpretation of
the treaty of Kainardji has-been the principle cause of the
war ?" and the erroneous interpreter is sittins, before me—
(loud Opposition cheers)—and the „very statesman who
lashed on the passions of this country to war, when we
have a springtide of national feeling in favour which may
have been directed to great ends, is sent by that gifted man
the First Minister, as plenipotentiary of peace to the Co-
nference of Vienna. (Cheers.) We are only at the com-
mencement of the extraordinary blunders the fatal admis-
sions, the disgraceful behaviour, and, as I believe, to this
country, the calamitous consequences of the appointment of
that noble lord who displays we are told consummate ability,
though unsuccessfully. Why did you not give us an op-
portunity of examining the conduct of your Plenipoten-
tiary ? Why did you not move an address to the Crown
congratulating her Majesty on the admirable manner in
which the negotiations have been carried on, while at the
same time expressing a determination to prosecute the war
with vigour? lam not at all surprised that you have
avoided discussion. This is only the key-note to what is
coming—to a scene the most disgraceful, the most awful in
its consequences to this country and ,to the character of
public men, as competent to deal with public affairs, which
the history of England has ever afforded. It is true that
unsuccessful negotiations have before now been carried on,
but it is equally true that Ministers have been overthrown
and branded by the verdict of an indignant Parliament
for having acted and for having spoken in a manner si-
milar to that which I hope I shall be able to show his
been adopted by the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) I see that
the right honourable gentleman the First Lord of the Ad-
miralty laughs; well, it is not the first time I have been
met with a laugh by the right hon. gentleman. He is a
merry soul, but if he can answer what I am saying let him
do so. (Laughter.) I now come to fresh feats of history
and diplomacy—feats which I am almost ashamed to notice,
but in which, unfortunately, I find the cause of the weak-
ness of the position in which we are now placed. The
noble lord arrived at Vinnna early in March, and the first
conference, I think, was held on the 15th of March. At
first everything went on swimmingly, and in the first few
conferences subjects were discussed and settled about which
in reality no difference of opinion existed, and thus an ad-
mirable opportunity was afforded to the Russian envoys of
making most conciliatory sacrifices. (Hear, hear.) The
conferences went qn from the 15th of March to the 26th
of that month, and then commenced the real business.
Five or six meetings of the conference had taken place,
at which, as I have said, nothing of the slightest import-
ance was settled—in fact, all that was settled might
have been settled just as well by the post. There
was no controversy about the first or second point,
but, at last, on the 26th of March the real difficulty arose;
then was made apparent the real reason why the noble lord
was sent to take part in the conferences. Then came the
discussion of the third point, and then it was that the noble
bold was expected, among others, to obtain the admission
of the Turkish empire into the European confederation, and
to decide upon the manner in which the preponderance of
Russia in the Black Sea should cease to exist. Then com-
menced the real business of the conference, but the noble
lord before he touched upon the real point—remembering
the mission of his life as much- as his mission to Vienna—
threw in a word with regard to the representation of the
principalities, and, I believe, even hinted at a now reform
act. Prince Gortschakoff smiled, and naturally replied that
that was not exactly the point they had met to settle. The
now reform bill for the Danubian principalities might be
postponed, as a new reform bill for a more important place
had been postponed, and it might be as well to get on with
the real business of the meeting. The noble lord then
rose and made the following unprecedented declaration :
" Lsrd J. Russell, recalling the declaration made at the
opening of this negotiation by Prince Gortschakoff that he
would consent to no condition incompatible with the honour
of Russia, maintained that, in the eyes of England and of
her allies, the best and only admissible conditions of peace
would be thos e 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 preventing a return of
complications such as that the settlement of which is now
in question."
Let us see what that admission means. The noble lord
states that, in the eyes of Europe and the allies, the only
admissible conditions of peace were those most in harmony
with the h, mour and dignity of Russia. What, I want to
know, had she noblo lord to do with the honour of Russia ?
( Hear.) I apprehend that the noble lord was not sent to
Vienna to tat .e care of the honour of Russia. (Hear, hear.)
No, Sir, the
noble lord was sent to Vienna to take
care of the honour of England. (Cheers.) Whathappened um ler these circumstances ? There did exist an
understandin g to which Russia was not, I believe, bound
by any forma 1 instrument, but still an understanding did
exist that tilt Russian plenipotentiaries,
initiative, and offer
Prince Gortscha-
koff and M. Titoff, should take the
a plan as to cc .nditious which might lead to a satisfactory
solution of the question how Turkey was to bentir
mately connect ed with the European system,
thea Black Sea
preponderance of the power of Russia in claToewi at
the
ic;
might be ana.clie to cease. Ido not think the noble lord
will deny 'that, although the Russian Ministers were not
bound by zany formal obligation, still a general understand-
ing did exist that they should take the initiative, and pro-
factory solutl on of the difficulty. No sooner, however,

had the noble lord made tho declaration that, in the eyes
of Europe and of the allies, the best and indeed only ad-
missible terms of peaco 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 conference, 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 Buel had sug-
gested. Appreciating at the same time the sentiments of
courtesy and conciliation which, according to the unani-
mous language be 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 antliorisedto 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 was 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 ine 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 statesmen. 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 remarquable " 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
I a h;storical illustration equally infelicitous, but much more
insulting. (Hear, hear.) Here is the noble lord uselessly
going out of his 'way to announce that the best and only
possible conditions of peace, in the opinion of England,
were those most compatible with the 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 he 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
fortifications 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 groat 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?
(Rear.) 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 po-iition from which it will re-
quire all the patriotism of this house and the bigh spirit
of this country to extricate it. (Rear, 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 to obtain the favourable opinion
of the Congress, the noble lord 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, iu fact, been deprived of that peace which otherwise
mighthave been obtained. (Hear, hear.) What &handle
does the noble lord give to any Peace Society, or to,
any doubtful ally when he allows Russia to say, "Here
are twenty pointy 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, bear.)
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 humiliating
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. (Rear.) 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-
sibly 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,
kno th a
t(
it is my solemn opinion diplomacy can no longer .solve the
noble I
lord must h
has
smpprroecsese
de
uponii i
nthe h
ehsoeues
conferences
n recol-
lectrto
ence
in the same manner in which he proceeded, as Secretary'
of State, with reference to the - confidential communica-
Htheear
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 exaotly 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 the 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 perp!exity and some discontent, may bo 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.) lam 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 honour of Russia was to be one of the
principal elements of peace, his language in my opinica is
feeble and incautious. If the noble lord was not sincere,
and did not moan what he said, then I think his language
is liable'to the charge impliedly made against it by Count
Nesselrode— 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 lam told that there has been no
ambiguity of language and no uncertainty of conduct.
Now, this is a grave q uestion, and we must fully and com-
pletely eater 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 p;oposition should be made by Rus-
sia, or by Austria on behalf. of Ras9ia, which might ap-
pear to offer a fair 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,
d •
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 language 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
leagues in the passages I have just quoted. On May 21,

that noble lord Bade:—
"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 establised."

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 yen 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 Governmen.t. 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-
vernment 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 whore there was no real business to con-
clude ; that, he said, was 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 languago 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 floor 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 notgoink
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 brave 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 Abulpharagius.
whostated that he was witness of a certain fact. But
who, asked Gibbon, will be witness for Abulpharag,ins.
(Laughter.) The noblelord 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 heit 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 au 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, fruit-
less, and iliglorious war. The noble lord told me the other
night that, 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, apparently very much to his owlq
satisfaction. Now, there I join issue altogether with the
noble lord. (Hear.) I deny that you can carry on war
effectively simultaneously with this morbid state of nego-
tiation. (Hoar.) Here, I think, lies the whole fallacy of
the noble lord'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 be
found in this principle on which the noble lord, and the
Government which preceded him; of which he was a mem-
ber,-have acted—that it is possible at the same time to
make war and to negotiate for peace. (Cheers.) It is pretty
apparent, I think, that the noble lord has a false and
limited idea of the manner of making war. I deny that all
you have todo to make war is to levy taxes and to fit out
expeditions. There is something else equally, and perhaps
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.
(Cheer's.) 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 impending,
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 an 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? (Hear.) 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 timeyou
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.) Ido 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 guided 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
country which he has more than once 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-
milietion to that Power. If in 1828 the opinion of Prince
Metternich had prevailed, if the policy which he recom-
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 I made that remark. It is in human nature
that the moment you ask a person to occupy the position
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 BUS". In one case you may invade her provinces,

despoil of her terzitories, push her back to the north, and
reconstruct, in short, the map of Europe. If there wore
a young Miuister full of genius and energy, backed by the
enthusiasm of the people, unembarrassed by any public
debt, and fortunate enough to possess as a colleague a
general, young, energetic, and able as himself, I do not
say that that is not a career which I should recommend
to his attention. I do not presume to predict what the
result of such a struggle would be, but I think few will
deny that the hair of the youngest member present would
grow grey before its termination arrived. There is an-
other mode of waging war with Russia—an essentially
protective mode. In adopting that mode your object
would be to protect your ally, to take care that her terri-
tory wastot violated, that her fortresses were secure, and
to check the preponderance of Russia by increasing the
power of Turkey. That Was the war in which, from your
declarations at its commencement, I thought we had em-
barked But what have you done? Having embarked in
a war to protect the Turkish empire, you suddenly re-
solved to invade the Russian dominions—(hear, hear)—
and while you were I,protecting Turkey you engaged in
diplomatic transactions which were to carry out a protec-
tive policy. You have thus combined, therefore, an ag-
gressive war with a protective diplomacy; and to this
incoherent, inconsistent union I trace and attribute the
dangers which are surrounding us, and which, in my opi-.
nion, unless you terminate that union, must increase
until they perhaps overwhelm you. A Conference at
Vienna may cope with such questions as the government
of the Danubian Principalities, as to the course and free
navigation of a river, or as the security of the rights of
the Christian subjects of the Porte. But Conferenzes
at Vienna cannot cope with such subjects as the invasion
of Russian provinces, the destruction of Russian fortresses,
' or the fortunes of accumulated hosts on the sterile terri-

tory of a proud foe. (Hear, hear.) While, therefore, you
are wasting your time at Vienna in this protective diplo-
macy, all that you can do is to devise schemes which will
apply to the objects of the war. But the eril consequences
upon the objects of aggressive war are easily traceable, be-
cause by these conferences and this morbid diplomacy you
not only check and destroy the spirit of the nation, upon
which, after all, you must rely, but by these very confer-
ences you are paralysing your allies, and preventing that
energy and exertion on the part of the European Powers
which may be necessary for you to carry on your aggres-
sive warfare, an'd to extricate you from the dangers which
you must meet. (Hear, hear.) Sir, it wry have been a
great error—as T frankly confess I believe that it has been
—to depart from the protection of the Turkish empire to
undertake that invasion of Russia which you most rashly
and, as I think, thoughtlessly decided upon; but, having
once entered upon that course, you must now meet the
consequences of the fatal policy you have pursued. You
cannot, however, extricate yourselves from these conse-
quences by conferences at Vienna. (Hear.) You will only
increase your difficulties and augment your dangers if
you trust to diplomacy. Your position is one that is en-
tirely deceptive ; and yon never can carry on war with
success unless, on the one hand, you are supported by an
enthusiastic people, and unless, on the other, you can count
upon allies—if you have allies—who know that you are
determined to support them. I have said, sir, that there
was at least one object in my making this motion—not a
solitary, but a main object—viz., that I want the House of
Commons, by its vote to-night—l want those who are the
most favourable to peace, provided, I suppcse, that it is
made upon honourable terms, and is likely to be permanent
—for I trust that no hon. member would advocate any
other kind of peace--,--I want this house, by its decision, to
put an end to that vicious double system by which we have
so long carried on an aggressive war and a protective diplo-
macy. I want the House of Commons to-night to say in
distinct language that the time for negotiation has passed.
No man, I think, will be inclined to deny that proposition
who has read Count Nesselrode's circular.. If I thought
that there was even a chance of obtaining an honourable
peace and of extricating this country from the difficulties
by means of negotiations, I might still have the weakness
to cling to it ; but I am convinced that further negotia-
tions, instead of securing a peace, will only aggravate the
dangers and distresses of the war. lam confident that, if
negotiations are continued, the Government may be pre-
vented, indeed, from making a disgraceful peace by the
still latent spirit of England, but the Government, if it
persists in its present policy, will only substitute for such
a peace a lingering, fruitless, and inglorious war. I ask
the House, therefore, to support this motion, because one
of it: main objects is to put au end to this fatal union be-
tween diplomacy and aggressive war. Sir, it has been said
that the motion which I am about to make expresses a
distrust of her Majesty's Government. Be it so. Is there
any man out of this house who does not feel a distrust of
her Majesty's Government ? (Hear.) I beg the noble lord
to understand that Ido not say this by way of taunt. I
know full well—and it is a most sorrowful thing—that this
distrust is not limited to her Majesty's Government ; and
that it has been occasioned by the policy of this country
for the last two years. That distrust reaches our generals,
although they are victorious—it reaches our officers,
although during this war they have achieved deeds of un-
precedented valour, and maintained among their troops
unexampled discipline—(hear)—it reaches our aristocracy,
although they have poured out their bloodl ike water in the
conflict. (Hear.) Amid the dark suspicions that have,
alas, been rife, that distrust has oven reached the prac-
tical working of our administrative system ; and will
you, then, hesitate to support me tonight in this
the first effort to breathe souse feeling of life into this
House, in the dangerous circumstances in which, be-
lieve me, the House of Commons is placed? (Hear, hear.)
Further forbearance on our part cannot be submitted to by
our constituents. I speak frankly ; I say that silence is.
by them considered to be an abnegation of our functions.
(Hear.) You must say "Ay" or "No" to this motion.
I cannot believe that you will allow any miserable amend-
ments to evade the issue which I am going to place before
the House of Commons. (Cheers.) That issue is this :
" Will you put an end to this diplomatic subterfuge, and
this Ministerial trifling l" and it will be so looked upon, I
believe, here and elsewhere. I find, sir, that a right hon.
gentleman has done me the honour of adopting five lines
of my composition. (A. laugh.) I must congratulate the
present Ministry upon its good fortune in always having
a Privy Councillor to rush to its aid; and certainly it
ought to be a wise Government that has so many amateur
and veteran colleagues. (Laughter.) I read that Sir F.
Baring is to move an amendment to my motion in these
terms :—' That this house, having seen with regret that
the conferences of Vienna have not led to a termination of
hostilities, feels it to be a duty to declare that it will con-
tinue to give every support to her Majesty in the prosecu-
tion of the war, until her Majesty shall, in conjunction
with her allies, obtain for this country a safe and honour-
able peace." The latter portion of this amendment is
taken from the words of my motion. Is this the amend-
ment of the Ministry ? If it is their amendment, it is an
act on the part of the Ministry which vindicates to a cer-
tain degree the course I have taken, and in every souse
condemns themselves. (Hear, hear.) If the noble lord and
his colleagues think that this house ought, in the present
stet of affairs, in consequence of the failure of these nego-
tiatione, to express their determination to support her
Majesty in the manner I have eescribed, haw can the no-
ble lord reconcile it to himself that he did not himself,
like a loyal Minister of the Crown—(hear, hear)--come
forward and propose an address thanking her Majesty
for the papers which she has so graciously placed on our
table? I can hardly recall the passage, but I remember
_reading of an example in the history of this countrywhich
the noble lord the First Minister might well study in re-
gard to communications of this nature proceeding from
the Sovereign. It is to be found in " Cox's Lifo of Sir
Robert Walpole," where it is stated that the Duke of
Newcastle, then Secretary of State, brought down papers
relating to the threatened invasion of England, and laid
them on the table of the House of Lords, by Royal com-
mand. In consequence of some papers on the same subject
having been previously laid on the table, and the Crown
having been addressed in regard to them, the Duke of
Newcastle said it was not necessary a second time to ad-
dress the Sovereign. I can remember the spirit if I can-
not repeat the words of Sir Robert Walpole on that occa-
sion, when he made the only speech he ever delivered as
Earl of Orford :—" My lords," I think he said, "is the
English language so barren that we cannot find words to
express our gratitude to his Majesty for every act of grace
and condescension to this assembly ? ' And, continuing in
this strain, he so shamed the Ministry that, although the
Government party had a great majority in the House of
Peers, that august assembly rose almost in a body and
decided that it should address the Monarch ; while the
Prince of Wales, 'who was then in Opposition, although
he had not been for some time on speaking terms
with Lord Orford, warmly embraced that nobleman,
and, addressing him, exclaimed, " From this moment
we are friends. I feel that you have vindicated
the honour of the Crown and represented the feeling of the
country." (Hear.) Well, then, here is this amendment
of, the right hon. gentleman (Sir F. Baring). Is it the
amendment of the Government ? Will they have courage
to support this amendment? If they have, it is possible
they may yet take Sebastopol—(hear, and laughter from
the Opposition)—for a more audacious act was never per-
petrated in this country. (A. laugh.) I wish to impress
upon the house the difference between my motion and the
shabby amendment—(laughter)—that has been cribbed,
from my thoughts and clothed in my stolen language.
(Laughter.) What is the difference between them ? It
is this—both the motion and the amendment contain the
assurance which I am sure hon. gentlemen on all sides will
feel it their duty to proffer to the Crown, of their determi-
nation to support her Majesty in the war in which we are
engaged—(cheers) -- but in the amendment there is an omis •
Rion of those words, which, if they be adopted, will ring
through England to-morrow, and will gladden the heart of
many a patriot 'who is now discontented, when he finds
that the House of Commons have come to the issue I have
just described, and have decided by their vote to-night
that there shall be an end to diplomatic subterfuge and
Ministerial trifling. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. BARROW, in seconding the motion, expressed his
concurrence with the right hon. member for Buckingham-
shire in the opinion that the negotiations in progress at
Vienna were inconsistent with the continuance of the war,
and his belief that a large majority of the people of this
country were anxiousthatthe suspense existing with respect
to those negotiations should be terminated. He was fully
alive to the deplorable consequences of war—tcsthe misery
which it inflicted upon private families, and to its injurious
effect upon the commerce and the general interests of the
country • but it was because he entertained this feeling so
strongly that he was anxious to impress upon the house the
necessity of a vigorous prosecution of the war as the only
means of obtaining a secure and honourable peace. He was
satisfied that such a war as was now waged between great
and powerful nations would not be brought to a satisfactory
termination so losig as any irresolution was exhibited on
the part of her Majesty's Government. He remembered
the hollow truce—the peace of Amiens—which for a short
period interrupted the war that was carried on at the com-
mencement di the present century, and he had no desire to
see such an experiment repeated.
The question having been put by the SPEAKER,
Sir F. BARING said that, notwithstanding the formid-
able language of the right hon. member for Buckingham-
shire, he was not at all inclined to shrink from proposin
'
the amendment of which he had aiven notice. Indeed,"
the right hon. gentleman's speech had convinced him of
the propriety of submitting such an amendment. to the
house for that speech plainly disclosed the intention which
he believed had lurked under the right hon. gentleman's
motion. lie (Sir F. Baring) would, in the first place,
state the reasons which had induced him to steal the 'lan-
guage of the right hon. gentleman. (A. laugh.) He had
concurred in the views expressed in that house by the no-
ble lord at the head of the Government, that until the
final and formal close of the conferences at Vienna, there
was no necessity for the expression of any opinion on the
part of the house with reference to the negotiations ; but
the state of affairs was entirely altered when the right hon.
gentleman's notice appearsd upon the paper. The house
was then compelled to pronounce an opinion of some kind
or other, and the right hon. gentleman, with his usual
dexterity, had combined an address to the Crown with an
attack upon the Government. After the right hon.
gentleman had laid upon the table a proposal to address
,her Majesty, stating in proper terms and language, that
Parliament was prepared to support her Majesty until a
just and honourable peace had been obtained, it was, im-
possible to meet such a proposition with a direct nega-
tilfes Non, geutlemau must remember that their discussions

were not merely for England, but for Europe,
Proposal of the right hon. gentleman ford an address i-:
the Crown had been met with a direct negtive, it
othermight
have been supposed out of doors, at all evetts in
ther
countries, that that house was nut prepared to supper
jAit
Majesty in carrying on the war.. Wet, he stole the rEv
gentleman hon. gentleman's words, and he committed that laic?,
because he was anxious it should go forth to Europe.
ion
there was no doubt or difficulty whatever in that 11.7
and if the
with respect to the proposal for tin address, lint that 13),?!„
language s
eoetlehde
trei ghhitmlatohne.
leg eensttl
ee
her Majesty in the same words. He fr owned tops the
address awnao4n both sides were ready to concur in addro ,n,!,
for it was free from any ambiguity ; but the F•
gentleman was mistaken if he supposed that be (61r '''...
ti ol nnavne n
e riat DO.
al part of his motion directly and frankly. 7 .
gentleman had gone into a long narrative of the histol°..,
withieeth
er eesep:lcat
5t00;,0,.
not prepared to meet the remaining and se,'"
these transactions, into which it was impossible to full..
him. The right hon. gentleman had attacked acts anivqr,
gotiations of the Government,• with reference to
c,10..t".
papers had already been laid upon the table, and su
11; i_',„
tacks would doubtless be met by those who had bee e. 4
gaged in the transactions, and who alonewere ableto.*
some of •the right hon. gentleman's assertions. ~t i1.,,,b
right hon. gentleman believed there was reason 10,1*_°,,,,
grave charges against her Majesty's Government,
.?0
_.,,i
.surprised the right hen. gentleman had not frankiy anti
surprised the right hen. gentleman bSd not fra'ikhl dot
fairly brought
mixing them up with chargeswhat appeared to hire—t
.5.t7,4.00,
those before the house,oin,stllbun
righthon. gentleman's own expression-,to 1',"'_.... air
' shabby" resolution. A great part of the right rhioeucoourse
tlercan's speech consisted of an attack 11P(.1' t viearlo
adopted by the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) te t"t for die'
conferences. That was undoubtedly a fair subjeic on is
; but why did not the right h°n•
to
eble ;r3'a
stied of contenting himself with attacking the D.° 'sir F.
conduct in his speech, in what appeared to hii)l'r the,
Baring) ambiguous and unsatisfactory
terms,
solnutioa .
question fairly before the house by a ereiii°,red the 6°.
(Hear.) The right hon. gentleman bad cba'r'veith tsi°s
vernment with unsatisfactory conduct and ' .0_ ,liiCh
ambiguous language with regard to the negotiati
.100gbt
were not yet concluded ; and he (Sir F. Bar tu tett
house o , .
that was a point to which the atfention of the , .ousti.
to be directed. This involved a very considerstbl ',. with
tutional question, and one which was of burr 5,137 bast
reference to the transaction of the great diplore!rof tile
1 ness of the country. As he read the constitall tPthe ue•
country, it was to the executive of the Croft] tile
erfectli
gotiations for nseve •
admitting the entire right of Parliament to chele
sdoit•
peace were entrusted, and while P the
Ministry, when the transactions had closed-- 1,000;
tint the entire right of the house to withdraw ifs"oo,sna
from a Ministry while negotiations were g°i,gnistri to
while admitting it was also the duty of the `-
to 6°lr
give to the house such information prowl
tigue.„, yet -0°
could be given without injury to the public servivaireet r
thought that the house should not, either 1152,1 did 0,101,
indirect resolution, state that the Ministry' tu'„,,.oc---/"",
from day to day, inform them of what was g.';'lwits 11`',
using ambiguous language, or that their colialP,o/. of °,
satisfactory. (Hear.) What bad been the Os' ,ofao
noble and right hon. friends ? Had there be,,,eleliiit Aig
concealment or any •ambiguous language ? 11 ~,t thou,
understood that the conference was suspeniled,,o" oeferysi
suspended was not closed, and that the Austrt!,sted, 1,14
meet did not consider that every effort was o';'ofniest!olTi
the difficulty which had caused the tem Porsrit tbe e° it
was of opinion that means might still be foe
stispeaolo
of the sittings, his noble friend told them 00_40 901
ot
rence was suspended, but throbnegotns
srit issiiiild
progress, and that of course, ile in proirei ~ievers4orea
possible for that house to ask and to be tool Able,, nri•
respecting those negotiations. was
it cettevied`jeir
while negotiations were going forward ea , aces iL With
vate life, to carry them on with any hope of s..,aiuteil
adversaries and all the world were made gigs it nose' 1,.
what was taking place (Hear, hear.) ."eb the b°lteearlf
they could ask to be told the terms on
...i.v/hlbad rep:eoo ea
think i
meet were willing to make 41 treaty. .13e eonclit'e4 DOt
heard hon. gentlemen say, let us know the , io th the
tywo uaswiinl I
accordanceconsent to
either make
forward. When they, moreover,
constitution or the good conduct of a airs, to wits goof
should ask for information on everytbieo i.ilertbA„.t of
should
came t° ce;118`0 with ' 1
were not negotiating alone, but with Ali
tioiesteciisou
they were by arrangements' bound to elloote (Pot of
not, he apprehended, to propound on u Goverlooo,
without such a communication with the .000 pro
France, with which they were on lOst 1 the 'fin3easl-'
fighting the same battles, and acting 0!3, t, ecerY .4rf
cshipoluelsd, wexapsoistefathireawnidshjousstantodtohoenir Allies titlf tbi' .°autioo
for to that it would come—the Governine° uttauv'e °for.
which must be made to it ? (Hear,
fidential co get ber pa
be!ir.). ti; boll rib;
conceived that his noble friend had 'llo,Pirly coine'with
the country all the information whichlie 'l'lliotiOng `with
(Sir F. Baring) apprehended that coni.nir ,ciag OP Bibles
reference to these negotiations Were sti ,t, if po soot,
France and Austria with the view of hleVe Weloior,
the difficulty which, had arisen. Wiil cteri CI peoe'
and when they had either come to a sods 1! bores 0 , the
or, on the other hand, had abandoned l'tiprs to I°,°r tiii'et
then it would be the duty of the 303'4 - the preP bid)
table full information, and then would be
_O,OO iv..,.ird,
for the house to interfere, and declare the ut tiro l'PoiLutlf
would pursue—(hear, hear)—bled,until tO,. ef the e,00,0
he believed that, both as regar „ be eo . i., to ~
as this constant meddling the g°°(l tinfev get
and the interest of peace, nothing conit.l ~,,Lieuti,fi tP,
Dews ;he was going to say for the newsrebeo, bar° 0,
impatience of the country. The Tight
4., 0' e i,
eluded by moving-as an amendnae_ ret O- oflOtto
_this house, having seen 05 reg7;:a. jotiouceitioof
ferencees of Vienna have not led to a ter t will tioe r
titles, feels it e that ' essee• b eel
it to be a duty to declar , ille pr wit 0,
to give every support to her Majeel.
cen-riao
in . Wu eae t
J .weble r 0 :Jo'
the war,
Alli , until her Majesty sliall, ,1 and
CO ''' 04
es, obtain for this try a PO° gh ..' 18 t 0
coun :litho" be be 'bin
Sir W. HEATHCOTE said that, boa i 1 oie
nowno bring forward the amendmen of ni jade;it°,;(*Dl
te.im; s of his resolution, to a great ."01:), he would state the re
were toeresOltiti TV tithe
and pressinge...... to 0
et
coo
submitoN it to the house. There ivere,',, osent. .4,11, i)f ,
gentleman the member for
hon which he was required to give il7_olincishwtiseb tir '
pilaw? ord e.. 13, SO o,
ttohenhahvaed extenuile (sir riconi
00
his speech, had made it impossible that
310,,, Oros rd
cote) should vote with him—(hear) b-ection°,.his, si'Pe‘lo
refs° ~,,t,bere 0 ollqe)
siring to shut the door to future negoti% wbie:;‘,.o.) ~lit
anxious to see the thread taken up PP' WI. l'i 0
okeh• 1 t fromth
br lutiou °
...60
bteeeneersosimdeerwhwahtetahberruptthlye
hon. baronet expressed his opinion. I:l`"te'i,ded lieetbeepre
right hon. baronet's speech that 110 'nisi'. W. there itr
very much the same meaning as hE! ' pad 11 to hooch,
wished to see embodied in the resoldsolution!
object .o,f
.hoped
ttihoeo f righthi s hon.e obdaror oenuett ;
tronsolhrital bola:
1.1
it seemed to him to be somewhat
but es the tbo e I tin
.I°ll, to et the ft th°
ambiguity and uncertainty. In oroe- b otter to. 0,
againstc(Doiimsrmaeul
Disraeli),
tri inoi resolutionn s,fawifvhotiuchrhe
objection,. he should propose to ins° desire et 0.4
" hostilities," " and still cherishing tii!.., 0600 foi4
cessful issue," &c. He should have 0° ' gentle,eatle`e,d
no doubt unanimous in
oil rfthttiheanret I :orrifogi gghthrthetebs cherishing
t.;:litbli 31
eet. jile:::::'::::;1,
amend it to the extent bet recommended.
Ord °do "sea
with vigour until a safe and honmerable P:t Ns '
53
tained, and'he rejoiced that this sentiulem ,bob„,
in both the resolutions. (Hear, hear.) We' bt be
eof ri; fro'
Mr. K. SEYMER confessed to be en ,„f 0° a 09 old
pledging itself ..aee c 4vrea
regretted the withdrawal of the naatie°,..Lsose '",or o,°, of
member for Manchester (hear)—not lst dO3areOr 00
from danger, but because be thouoect Jo, the sod 101°0ra
thave been more than counterbalone .1,, "aids 1i,1,1 be oil bi
his country knowing who were on thelf t wool bribe' wit
the side of Russia. (An ironical cheer.; ',,1 bee si,'" la ":. f,
to say that hon. gentlemen opposite 'l, to she t poor
Russian gold, but he trusted to be nh'e„,f tb:forl4r.
degree they had been playing friendame taainbe.g b° `: 00
in them.
(Hear.) When his right hon. tbes iutionso'ol3 ?ion,
inghamsLire first gave notice of hts 1.0b4 :r hi right'Ara°
Seymer) had felt some doubt as to Wn°' pit fort
then test ''_,pol
gentleman had not chosen a gooa rnal:aet the Plo°9loo'
Perhaps in a party point of lot vino.
Auction. He was inclined to think tbil d- ut, or, Diet,
yet ripe, but the proceedings of last Selr' Thereh.eet icrest
ably hastened its maturity. (gear•)this °tie ° gve°
siderations, however, connected with .1 cola ,ict 10,1 DI
far outweighed party motives• V.° evi ' rt 'ill° t env g°`
as that a large portion of the poP volisto s fee 00
ulato• 00 ' iio a°°`
well.grounded. complaint against the i'0,000,,,, oore Col
thought what had taken place had old o,"'a h° 60°
appear tranquil —their,
dissatisfaction out of doom Nothing
() "show a°°' a° so
gerous than that the pe le of EDO° tat tbefor°' - Pf
much, in earnest, and the Parliarnea tbere sob or 00
independent member, thanked the rig f efttresoilitioo
Blicks for affording him an opportunitY ° The' reekiego:
hear)--nol 1'; hoe. °,oiogti,o
opinion on the resolution before thel%plY id 004 0r..1
was not an address to the Crown, but):0)----!°00eg,„" le'
of the House of Corniiions—Par,-oi-earni be noel i 0 V,
time ripe for discussion. (Ilear hen
tutor having been withdrawn frail ' 1 The gre°lo3 rt
the First Minister of the Crown'bo" ~• i'-get)"'t‘ 01.
portance to the co-operation of A©i(Jtr•
pylp-bt o",'
ittoCheo triiifl -101,
very difficult game to play ; but 10,,,. oloa It tio /I'')
think the policy of France and Its of tAto,!,ief ~,
moment to be tied down to the 101 n., 43°'-'oll' IP
Austrian co-operation at this 1:130L0e0" -4.01°4 for ef,
biAl' 1 hotterL.tOf ,t
consist in oppressing the . nann la be - --, oo'
(hear, hear)—and he thought it would i,ettev ivll ,i, ors
allies if Austria took no share in thou thole njett °lOl
(Hear, hear.) The difference betweble gelt'oeici" 'ef,r,'(
on his side of the house and honoura..., vet t , ( Pit,
site was, that the former felt we lizroi'ir aro. wel_„,es
and honourabl the hraverY oht ther_'„nfey,'" ;
hear.) Hon. gentlemen opposite thhVionfia '0 01%, ►l6
chances of peace arising out of tb,e, ii,t prePo‘,l,l o',, Irt,,,
The friends with whom he acted ch" .10 it eh.l‘l vat
0
should always remain at Sebastopol; tibuilt if
siloti, )0
stand, the bugle of trium
be kept in view that Sebastopol re"toe I. I the ettill i'i,
different from that fortress as it now s oti'd to a an 0 sl'
ph wouldfree.st reeiailfoleb, I,
confines of India. (Hear, hear.) li iiim bin, be,,t ,t.l'i
there was nothing on paper which et° vier, 'Ton lie' o ''.,,
keep a treaty. The war was a Ps. b bad . , 00,01
undertaken in defence of a power wblc afferdlevef I›,)te 10
attacked ; and it was necessarY, elsgree,tiensl3vigthelj ! 1:0
means of resisting the dangerous aggro" (a..1.' °COP' fIV et
year contended that Turkey
(Hear.) The hon. member for .ganntilr boo 000.0 Tii,,e 0,
silo
o.acity, 0. the }, r
Vienna note (that note which the 000 well I.'o, till' 'f,
negotiator said would place TurkeY ousel net'. oon i, [0„,
of Russia), or (and here the house f e,at 'te!, 01 tit
rosity of the hon. member's and
end jeti•sioti‘o: 110.0. f
key should fight it out, and if, awe ,houlti 1 14° ur 'br
Turkey had the worst of it, then iffear.g belgi 1 ig,,,
maintenance of the balance of power; _ % 0,5 Porth
,tor , ',O" 0
the hon. member admitted that th r,,s, wag pot .1 ip
power, and then that the balance of
,p :hie .o:4ri,iiis ionot tej
ing for. Throughout the whole o!,ol're, veto eople hil ',!l/
behaviour of our soldiers and sele.` of tbe fon e%Png "'jet
more meritorious than the attituc
ado bait
he.....(a 10003 nod
country. (Hear, hear.) N° WT. eVforlll Clil the Pe i'. ciel
except within the walls of the 1, x
~.,st ut
.., hes,
,0
.rtpe
no boasting had been hazarded et c.i' (gel eogn.,ll bt !,1,041,
gatherings of her Majesty's Micief.,ecrturing ev't,he "_, 7 1,10
laughter.) Amongst the mann ..o..erea hybo II yii,"
classes, who had undoubtedly ~,p.r should,. be f,'. el'A.
only desire evinced was that the.
r,e, bn wt!sti, bbo o!., 10 yiiijl
with vigour —(hear, hear)—and !).(31 „t OW:4 tho 'B'o, r ,f4e
to say that on this subject be 1 ,
' etrui feclihonsrs. „, eel
for Manchester expressed the go! that 00.7: 101
~. 00,,
(Hear, hear.) It had been sul" 4 the i'v?,,,r, boat' 1., ,o°.
country desired the continuan!eor.,,oo. (lie. ,,r.tre, ere
fited by it. He denied that ii,!, tlnce of 0.00,1400 ,11,
farmers did not desire a continll:__ona eSI'., nort,.ol ~ el
knew that a state of war led to iti :.`;011 p, laTe'ferin,io "bo
lens of w.' . ois, 0. coSA' ,° ' bt
thence to increased bur( , beau .ea a ti, „ei 11
thrown upon the land• But ft, deSir.vos of ill ", 00%
trusted, from motives of WI the lOU t oy Vs tp ,e, oj,
the strife. While her esPeet 11, he ref le" tike e' ti ti'
objected to our going to war at
~t, so ..,00001 ow 0
they put the cart before tho Dv
oppress the weak, and the u _ „'"i• woe
principles of our nature reantint,rf (IZtit if„,i1111.0 .91
While he respected the eeh39 v ,