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

TEE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 25, 1855

...................... e••••••••
eetied ini the spirit of that of the right hon. i
members
for Manchester ; and the great object I have to-n ht i
to obtain if possible, from the first minister a declaration
to that effect. (Loud cheers.) But the right hon. mem-
,ber, acting in a perfectly Parliamentary manner, and quite
a onsistently with his nigh character and eminent talents,
'neve that notice, and I must say that I heard of his doing
so with perfect satisfaction, because I felt that the gues-
tiote would fairly be brought before the house, and that we
should have the opportunity of entering at length into the
disc/lesion of a subject which I believe to .be of the utmost
Ira' par ance to the honour and interests of the country.
t
(gear.) And, although I would not have supported the
eight hon. member for Manchester this motion, I should
have been grateful to that gentl. e., . giving to me and
my friends an opportunity of ox', ... ree. my views on the
subject, and of taking a course which would have elicited
an opinion the expression of which is, I believe, absolutely
necessary for this country. I never for a moment supposed
that the discussion would not take place. Isthere a gentleman
en this side of the house who for a moment suppo
hat it would not? (L the
sedoud opposition cheers.) Not he
lightest hesitation was made on the part of the Government
hen the notice was given. True it is that the right h.
'ember for Manchester had not the power of commandingn
a day in order to bring his question before thean house, but-
t
who could doubt, considering the magnitude d impor
ance of the subject, the feeling of the people oetfitllbeincflouunentreyee,
and the sense of propriety which I suppose
a British minister in the House of Comensbwutentlhdathpervie-
vilege would be waived, and that no
:_, obstacle
full and l y
intervened to prevent the discussion b
The noble lord fair ,
with
carried on? And so it turned out.
an impulse that was not wholly unexpc.-.cterl, took an op-
portunity of facilitating that discussion, by giving up
,a day
for that purpose, and at last. we had an address to the Crown
placed on the paper by a privy councillor, which would have
brought forward the whole question of the war. A day was
fixed, Parliament assembled in an unusually fall house, and
the whole attention of the nation was fixed on the House of
Commons, because it was believed that after the dreary
interval of suspense the house was at last going to give
some symptoms of a return to political and Parliamentary
life. (Bear.) But to our great surprise, and the surprise,
I take it, of any one not in the secret—and the secret was
well kepte--(cheers and laughter)—the expectations of Par-
liament, and I may say of Europe, were completely baulked,
and there appeared no possible chance, pending the most
momentous transactions for this country since the peace of
'l5, of raising a question which, strange to say, not only
deeply interests the feelings, but absorbs the passions of
the people of England. (Hear.) I need not recal what
occurred in this house on Monday night, when the right
hon. gentleman's resolution was to have come on for dis-
cussion. The scene was too vivid and dramatic to be
easily forgotten. A right hon. gentleman, recently the
colleague and I suppose still the friend of the noble lord
at the head of the Government, suddenly rises, whether
actuated merely by political motives, or by more social in-
fluences, as some suppose—(a laugh) —and that right hon.
gentleman, turning to some papers which had long been
lying on the table of the house, and which we all had read,
turns over a well-thumbed passage, and asks the first Mi-
niiter whether it is a fact that there is still some possibi-
lity of renewed negotiations on the great subject of peace
or war. To do the noble lord justice, I must say that he
showed the most uncompromising courage on that occa-
sion, for he did not inform the right hon. gentleman that
there was the slightest ground for thinking anything of the
kind. But nothing would satisfy the appetite for suppres-
sion that characterised the conspirators on that occasion.
Although the noble lord did not give the slightest ground
for believing that a discussion would interfere with any
negotiations whatever, another noble lord, influenced also
possibly by those social feelings to which I before alluded
—(a laugh)—with a naivete and simplicity which cannot
be sufficiently admired, gave the house the very necessary
information that he had engaged to second the motion
of the right hon. member for Manchester, but that
really after, the question of the right hon. member for the
University of Oxford, although it remained unanswered
by the Prime Minister, it would be totally impossible for
him to fulfil his promise. (Laughter.) Well, in a very
short time it was found out that there was to be no debate
on the great question of peace or war before the Whitsun-
tide holidays which were then impending, and I, still in-
fluenced by the convictions which I have on the subject,
believing that the conduct of her Majesty's Ministers in
respect to this question is open to suspicion and distrust,
and that if not vigilantly watched and carefully controlled,
it may lead to consequences most perilous to the honour
and interests of this country, I felt it my duty to give that
notice, which now, sir, I shall have the honour of placing
in your hands. (Hear.) These are the simple reasons for
giving that notice. It is a notice limited to the issue at-
tempted to be expressed in the resolution, and if it be one
involving a question of confidence or censure on the Go-
vernment, let it not be sail that it has been hastily given,
or that honourable members have not had sufficient no-
tice. The motion has, on my part, arisen from. the cir-
cumstances of the hour ; the Government offices have had
the same notice as my friends, because I should be ashamed
if I had attempted to take her Majesty's Ministers by sur-
prise. Not having confidence in the Government on any
subject, the nearness of the Whitsuntide holidays would
alone have impelled me to give a notice of a comprehen-
sive character, and of this notice, which has arisen from
the circumstances of the hour, I shall now briefly attempt
to explain the purport. I think that the conduct of the
Government, with respect to the question of peace or war,
has been uncertain, while their language has been ambiguous;
and I think that that uncertainty and doubthas been occa-
sioned by a peculiar combination of circumstances, which
I shall endeavour to point out to the house to-night ; and
if the house be of my opinion, I hope it will join me in ar-
restinga course of policy which, if it continue, must fall most
injuriously on this country. But I ask them to do something
else. I ask them, when uncertainty of conduct so prevails,
when ambiguities of phrase are so rife, that it shall, in a
manner which may not be mistaken, declare to the country
that'lvjth regard to this war their opinions have not
changed, nor is their spirit daunted. (Loud cheers.) I
trust that, while they disapprove of the language and con-
duct of Government—while they are resolved if possible to
destroy what, is the cause of this ambiguous language and
this uncertain conduct, they are at the same time ready to
carry on this war until its great object has been secured
and an honourable peace attained, and with the view that
such-feelings may be expressed I shall attempt to-night to
obtain a clear expression of the opinion of the House of
Commons, and also if possible—although with less hope—
one from her Majesty's Ministers. (A laugh.) Having
made these observations on the cause and objects of my
proposition, let me, before I enter into severer research, re•
vent to the observations made by the noble lord on a former
evening .when I gave this notice. The noble lord made a
good-humoured to quoqus—and a to poque should always
he good-humoured because it has nothing else to recommend
it - (alaugh)—on the fame which was performing, intimating
to the house that there was some concert between me and
the hon. member for Aylesbury, because he relinquished
to me the place for which he had a prior claim. Now, I
beg_to say that I had no communication whatever on the
subject with the hon. gentleman. I cannot say that, if I
had casually met him in the lobby, I should have refrained
from communicating with him, as hon. members have
often given up their notices in cases of this kind, but it
so happened that I did not meet him. I say this because
Ido not want it to be thought that there was anything
extraordinary in my having communication with the hon.
member or any one else in the house, for so long as I sun a
member of this house, I hope to maintain that frank com-
munication with any member of Parliament which, what-
ever may have been my errors, has always distinguished
my conduct. (Hear, hear.) So far as the hon. member
for Aylesbury is concerned, I have known him from child-
hood, and always have had the greatest confidence in his
abilities and character. His abilities have since be-
come European, and his fame has justified my
opinion, and I have no doubt that whatever may
be the unfortunate circumstances that have prejudiced
many against him in this house, which I deplore, and of
which I disapprove, the time will come when, with his
talents and disposition, he will have outlived those pre-
judices, although I will say frankly to him that I believe
they have a fair fouudaien. Neither the hon. member nor
the house will misunderstand my observations. I should not
have made them but that I have heard he is about to vote
against my motion. I hope, however, that no genlernan
will vote against my motion until he has heard the debate
which is about to ensue. (Laughter.) I think that the sub-
ject is a little too grave and important for the leaders of
party on either side to count noses with accuracy. We ate
about to-night to discuss no common subject. We are
going to scrutinise and examine the conduct of high per-
sonages, who are entrusted with most solemn duties, and
on whose performance of those duties depends the great
ness of this country, and the happiness and prosperity of
its people. (Cheers.) He would not be a bold, he would
be a shameless man, who could say before this discussion
closes that his vote was registered for any man or for any
party. (Opposition cheers.) I shall now recal to the recollec-
tion of the house circumstances which will require no great
exertion of the memory. Ia n not going to ask them to
go back to the passage of the Pruth or the declaration of
war. My criticisms to-night on public transactions will
refer to recent dates, although I admit that without know-
ledge of the circumstances that preceded them it would be
impossible to form a correct or solemn judgment. But,
although my canvas is so small, I shall commence at the
installation of the chief minister opposite in office—that
glorious epoch for the country. (A. laugh.) One cannot
but remember the triumphant cheer of the nation, and
the crown of Parliamentary laurel which encircled that
reverend brow. There was the Minister at last who could
vindicate the honour of the country; there was, at
last, the Minister who could carry on war like Chat-
ham, and maintain his principles in this house like
Pitt ; there was the man who, backed by an enthusiastic
people, was to redeem the falling State. (Opposition
cheers.) I remember on that occasion, when the first fer-
vour had a little subsided—when men began to cease as it
were to feel, and to commence to think—that a member of
this house rose in his place, and asked a significant inter-
rogatory. lam sure the house could not for a moment
anticipate who would be the first--whose would be the
sagacious mind that would anticipate the fast dissipating
enthusiasm—who would be the first man in this house who
would begin to occupy that future position in which he
was to save the country, or disturb the Minister. The
right honourable member for Carlisle rose to ask a question.
(Loud laughter.) The right hon. gentleman in a moment
of thoughtlessness—(laughter)—had forgotten to leave the
Cabinet
.when Lord Aberdeen retired, but it was one of
retZamutioments of amiable weakness to which all are sub-
paron., readily
which persons in opposition will most
took his gut the right honourable gentleman, when he
scene throtrhin the gangway, when he surveyed the
years of ~„iirale? sagacious eye, after those thirty-seven
evening, nat0,...„, forrtune, which he appealed to the other
avvning,
very few ~1173 remembered that a few years back—but
who were now sittrck—assisted by his eminent lieutenants
Minister of the Cirovnnear him, he had impeached the First
foreign affairs. The noel- account of his conduct in our
anaewlord was then, if not a traitor,
at least a firebrand,
rnorable Parliamentary conket al rahili ererefedeetdlyinretchael triumph
mmpeh-
of the noble lord—a trium ,
sir,
th.le:round to say, not at-
tained so much by the number oM
right hon.
friends as by his own
gentleman
distinguished prowess. Well
rose, and remembering all this, remembering
policy was the weak point of the noble lord, that foreign
too, that he had failed in turning the noble ' ren3enaberi
lord out n''
Cabinet (which was a duty reserved for the noble ' 0f,t113:
site, his colleague, who in an adjourned debate, effect,lih-0
object which the right hon, gentleman did not succeed in
accomplishing), the right hon. gentleman, remembering the
past, rose in his place, and in a not very full or very atten-
tive house, he having just left that seat in the Cabinet
which is now so worthily filled by his right hon. successor
(Sir C. Wood), and which was still warm with the ample
presence of the right hon. baronet—(a laugh)-7addressed an
Nyislre. -EillagnirY to the noble lord, whether in the new Coyernment
. .
. v °a- e'liree, he had himself been so recently amemb.e., there
foreign policy
e' • tee-.. 1! ee , . - --. '-'- any change in the principle of their _
,it.
.41 e :s
,! ', : ' - . the policy recommended and adopted bby Logi
F'
~,Niiiligac,
„tea:braet was to be followed out, and, e otvermasl 47
!..; .sdiAid... , "frt.. er,w4lere was to be any change in the e
~..i
peace
we
aptl e
.v.n
ii pe
no
nt eal i aTr yh
ewrai sg
.......0‘,..`
;7v-0:7,7n ::: .i. 41-eltiitte_ era
lehlisichfotrh: insist
btotbon.
„at , tail, uspictearhad some suspicion upon the subject,
.4.:,....n01ge. . , roes and rts i2l, a moment dispelled when the
1.4 1 1 - - - "4"'44.h9.identifiethimeelf and his
_ . .

.~

Government entirely with the policy of Lord Aberdeen—
that no difference what.ever 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 how completely satisfactory he consi-
dered the noble lord's assurance, declared that he received
the noble lord's statement with the most perfect satisfac-
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 prom 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'rnember 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 Lot to be
supposed that the noble lord wr.s 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 noble
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
that appointment 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 does not
at the first blush appear to have been a very happy one.
The noble lord is so distinguished that I find it of course
difficult te. fix upon any subject or any part of his life in which
he has not in some way or other rendered himself remark-
able ; but 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 feeling which
has been avowed in favour of a decisive struggle with the
colossal empire of Russia. For nearlj two years—while we
were either at war or " drifting " towards war, the noble
lord occupying then an eminent post in the Government
(more eminent, I am sorry to se.y, 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 to show that war with Russia was the para-
mount duty of the country—that that war ought to be
carried on in no hesitating spirit—but that it was a war in
which we should not engage but with a firm determination
of realising the most considerable results. The noble lord
then said—
" The British Ministry and nation would be the most silly
of mortals if they were to sign an insecure peace, which
would leave it to their present enemy to bide his time—
(elners)—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
lam 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-
ci ucing Russia's power to proportions innocuous to Europe's
liberties, will afford perfect security for the future."
((,heers.) 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. Those are designs
which some may think rash, but which all must at least
respect as great. I 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. lam 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, ii 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 shall 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 reer only to existing and re•
sponsible Ministers, although it is not to be supposed
that any man who is a Secretary of State now would
do anything so mean and pitiful as to say that he was
not responsible for the deeds of the defunct Govern-
ment. (Hear, hear.) Well, what did Lord Clarendon
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 of 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
House 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 lam 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 1 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
warm 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 frowning shadows over the waters
of the Black Sea. The noble lord made an explanation
afterwards of the words he used, but, as Voltaire has well
said, " Apologies only account for that which they do not
alter—the words remain, but 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 by addressing 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
signalised himself by another exploit before he went to
make peace for his country. The noble lord • destroyed a
Cabinet. (Cheers and laughter.) He tripped up his Prime
Minister because he was notearnest enough in prosecuting,
the war. (Continued laughter.) These were the 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
'ugh-) 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
aiisen from the diplomatic proceedings and the proceedings
in this house in which the noble lord has been the chief
actor.
It has been said of the noble lord—l think very un-
i JeAly—by a high although anonymous, authority, that the
position at t
noble lord wasl nocalculrited for the post of plenipotentiary,
compensated
mathe first
st ; and, place, because he was not an eminent diplo-
leecondly, because he did not take that leading
opinion of the °r
because I shall
forar moment in this country which might have
though not length:nate
the want of diplomatic experience in the
siiilosian Court. That was, I think, unjust,
hat the noble lord has had a great,
He was once at the•he.Xperienee of diplomatic affairs.
.n that capacity perfor ef the diplomatic body, and
subsequent events, and
racter, which greatly ant fdeats of no mean cha-
are at this moment infitteuec
n 4 the fortunes of this
eountry; and, although it is gaits
-troA4hat whe -the

noble lord was called upon by his Sovereign to form a Go-
vernment he could only find one gentleman to serve under
him—and, 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
free 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 Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
during a brief period in the 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. Upon 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-
cry might have averted t hat 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 producing 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
were 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 does 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 less en-
titled to the charity of men than mere individuals)—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 for the remarkable cause I
am about to place before the house, and which the house
will in a moment see is exercising a most fatal influence
on this country. The mistake o 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 saying 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 ware laid on the table, and the four points
are 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 tern 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 the 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
Europs. Here is the summary of what they believe to be
the cause of the most important transaction of the present
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 conse-
quen !e, the revival of any of the articles of h-r former
treaties, and especially of the Treaty of Kontchouk-Kei-
nardji, 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
Ruscia, 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 sitting before me—
(loud Opposition cheers) —an d 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 cones m mate 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 has
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 lam 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 Vienna 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 fe .v
conferences subjects were discussed and settled about which
in reality no difference of opinion existed, andthus an ad-
mirable opportunity was afforded to the Russian envoys of
making most conciliatory sacrifices. (Hear, hear.) The
conferences went on 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 aboat the first or second point,
but, at last, on the !6th 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
lord was expected, among others, to obtain the admission
of the Turkish empire into theEnropean 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 new reform
act. Prince Gortschakoff smiled, and naturally replied that
that was not exactly the point they had net 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 :
" L )rd J. Russell, recalling the declaration made at the
opening of the negotiation by 'rinse 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 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 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 honour and dignity of Russia. What, I want to
know, had the noble lord to do with the honour of Russia ?
v.( Hi
ee
na rn.a) t
0I
takea apprehend
careehen d
of tthhaet
htohneo
unro bofl e
Rluo
srd si
aw a( saneoatr
,s ehne ta
rt.o)
No, Sir; the noble lord was sent to Vienna to take
care of the honour of England. (Cheers.) What
which Russia was not,
did
by any formal instrument, but still an understanding.
iularipdperesnteadmulin:rtothese circumstances ? Threbreeicileicvleci,xbiostuannd
existk o
ff a tnhda
M.
t.hdeoßTui
a plan as to conditions which might lead to a satisfactory
stsoiffa,nshpoleunlaiptostkenettihareieist,iiPtiaritnivcee,4so.frot
solution of the question how Turkey was to be moreinti-
mately
noble lord
might be made to cease. Ido not thirik.t e .
preponderance
01. withthe
poser
eEreorfopiteaunsssiyastienmindil:cokw
Sea
bwoiluinddebnyy
athnyatioramlthaloouggatthieonß,
stilluss
ing did exist that they should take the initiative, and pro-
pose some plan which they believed would afford a satis-
iaangMenienrsislteurns
factory solution of the, difficulty.. No goner, homer,
understand-
ing

says :

had the noble lord made the declaration that, in the eyes
of Europe and of the allies, the best and indeed only ad-
missible terms of peace were those most in harmony with
the honour and dignity of Russia, than
" Prince Gortschakoff, while congratulating himself on
the conciliatory disposition with which this question had
been hitherto touched upon in the 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 Buol had sug-
gested. Appreciating at the same time the sentiments of
courtesy and conciliation which, according to the unani-
mous language he had just heard, seemed to have inspired
this proposition, he declaredhimself ready to take it ad re-
ferendum, reserving to himself to make known to the con-
ference the answer whichhe should receive from his Court."
M. de Titoff spoke to a similar purport. Aarif Effendi,
however, who appears to me to have been the only man of
of sense present—(laughter)—
" While declaring that he was not authorised to take the
initiative in propositions relating to the third point, ex-
pressed a hope that his Government would accede to those
which the plenipotentiaries of France and of Great Britain
have reserved to themselves to make on this subject."
Prince Gortschakoff immediately referred to his Court,
using those bland expressions which, of course, induced the
Minister of England to believe that he was only going to
refer to his Court for fresh powers to make those proposals
which it was expected he would make. Well, sir, delays
went on, and it 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 conceivel in a snore agreeable
spirit than the Russian plenipotentiaries themselves would
display. To prove that such was the case, let sae 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 couferences,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 noblelord, which was to serve
as a solution of the problem, and in that circular note he

" 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. Afterithis 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 recede lord fully
sustains the character and position he had exhibited in con-
nection with that famous despatch. He made as fatal an
admissioa as he had made in his despatch respecting the
protectorate, and the noble lord supported his position by
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 withthe honour of Russia, and
at the same time sufficient for the security of Europe.
Having made that admission, the noble lord proceeds, on
the 17th April, to do what? To propose the most humiliat-
ing condition that could be made to any Government, and
that humiliating condition 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 great King—at
the end of a long reign, when her resources were exhausted,
France—high-spirited France—submitted to the greatest
humiliation that her history records. (Hear, hear.) And
this is the precedent which is produced by the noble lord,
who commences with an admission which makes the honour
of Russia an essential qualification in any conditions of
peace that may be made. (Hear, hear.) I ask again, who
made the noble lord the judge of the honour of Russia ?
(Hear.) What business had he to think of the honour of
Russia ? (Cheers.) The noble lord had to think of the
honour and interests of his country; and surely Prince
Gortschakoff and M. Titoff were capable enough to deal
with the honour of Russia. (Laughter.) The admission
made by the noble lord was the real cause of these confer-
ences being broken off. That I consider a very minor evil,
according to my view of the nature and character of the
conferences ; but that admission—as I will afterwards
show, was such as, in my opinion, may embarrass this
country, and involve it in a position from which it will re-
quire all the patriotism of this house and the high spirit
of this country to extricate it. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord himself confessed that the admission he had made was
the cause of the rupture of the negotiations. • That is
actually the admission of the noble lord at the time when
he professes his regret at Russia not taking the initiative.
On the 17th, after the extraordinary illustration to which
I have referred had been repudiated by Prince Gortscha-
koff, he himself adds—" Since the Court of Russia has de-
clined to take the initiative on this subject, the chances of
success attending the negotiations for peace appeared in
his eyes much diminished." (Hear.) By his own admis-
sion, therefore, the chances of peace were much diminished.
I say, therefore, that the noble lord has placed the possi-
bility of peace by negotiation almost out of the question
by his conduct at the conferences at Vienna.. (Cheers.)
The noble lord allowed the conference for a considerable
period to waste its energies in settling circumstances
which required no arrangement ; and when Russia had the
appearance of conciliating public opinion by apparently
considerable concessions about nothing at all—when he had
placed Russia in a position 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, in fact, been deprived of that peace which otherwise
might have been obtained. (Hear, hear.) What a handle
does the noble lord give to any Peace Society, or to
any doubtful ally when he allows Russia to say, Here
are twenty points which we concede, and the only one
point we insisted on is not concededl by England, so
that the horrors of war are to continue ?" (Hear, hear.)
And what is that one point? The English Minister pro-
poses that Russia shall consent to a most humiliating act,
and he illustrates it by a reference to the most 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, hey.) I say, then, that
the third point, according to all rules of diplomacy, inas-
much as it contained the real business of the question,
ought to have been taken first. If the negotiators had
met and said, " W e all know that the difficulty is on the
third point ; let us solve that difficulty, and, if we solve
it, all the rest is plain sailing," that would have been a
wise and intelligible proceeding. (Hear.) But you car-
ried on your negotiations day after day with dissimulating
courtesy, and because you put off to the last the real busi-
ness that dissimulating courtesy is followed by increased
irritation. (Hear.) In these circumstances I cannot look
on the conduct of the noble lord, as her Majesty's pleni-
potentiary at Vienna, with that satisfaction with which it
has been spoken of by the noble lord the First Minister.
I think I have shown to the house some reason to hesitate
before they agree that the noble lord has shown great ability
in these negotiations. 1 think the noble lord, instead of
showing great ability in the conduct of these negotiations,
has committed every blunder which a negotiator could pos-
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,
it is my solemn o pinion diplomacy can no longer solve the
knot. (Hear.) I must impress upon the house to yecol-
lett that the noble lord has proceeded in these conferences
in the same manner in which he proceeded, as Secretary
of State, with reference to the confidential communica-
tions of 'Russia. He met them by a diplomatic and his-
torical move conjoined, and, guided by history, he has
made a diplomatic mistake. (Hear, hear.) At last the
protocols so anxiously looked for and so long sought were
laid on the table. The noble lord the First Minister de-
clines to address the Queen. We read those protocols ;
and the language of the Ministry seemed to be as ambigu-
ous as his conduct was uncertain in the conduct of the ne-
gotiations, and exactly opposite conclusions were drawn re-
garding this by different parts of the house. The right
hon. gentleman the member for Manchester says, the nego-
tiations authorize peace. That is also 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 perplexity and some discontent, may be guided in
their opinion by the Government. What is it their repre-
sentatives inquire of the Government? We want to
know what is the position of the country ? Is there to
be peace, or is there to be war ? (Cheers.) Do you wish
there should be peace, or that there should be war ?
(Hear, hear.) In what condition do you wish the
country to be placed? (Cheers.) Then, we ask, in what
spirit are you going to carry on the war? (Cheers.) We
do not ask the noble lord to let us know the precise and
actual conditions on which peace ought to be obtained.
The noble lord the other night, with his usual happy power
of perversion, seemed to represent that to the house as our
wish ; but no man is so silly sato 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 opinion is
feeble and incautious. If the noble lord was not sincere,
and did not mean 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 question, and we must fully and com-
pletely outer into it.gherefore, let ine call attention to the

words of the First Minister of the Crown, recently deli-
vered. He said :
" With respect to the question whether negotiations are
entirely broken off, my answer must be the same as I gave
on a former evening—namely, that the elements of con-
ference permanently exist at Vienna, there being in that
capital the representatives of the British, French, Turkish,
Russian, and, of course, Austrian Governments. If, there-
fore, at any time any proposition should be made by Rus-
sia, or by Austria on behalf of Russia, which might ap-
pear to offer a fir 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 sail
" iVith 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
propositions that may lead to a safe and honourable peace,
and they also leave themselves open to decline any terms
which may lead to a contrary result. Certainly the con-
ferences are not closed ; and under the circumstances of
the case it is for the noble lord himself to consider what
course he ought to adopt."
I gave my comment on the 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 aro not closed ;
but are they going on ? They may remain open for a
twelvemonth. Have any propositions been made which
are still under consideration, or have they been rejected ?
Is there any probability of any further propositions being
made, and if so, within what time ; or have the Govern-
ment made up their minds as to the period at which there
is any probability of the conferences being concluded ? I
never heard anything more vague."
Are we, then, with these statements, made in this and the
other House of Parliament, to be told that there is nothing
vague, uncertain, or ambiguous in the language of Mini-
sters in reference to the great question of peace and war?
(Hear.) Let me now call your attention to a statement
made by the noble lord opposite, the unsuccessful negotia-
tor, totally contrary to everything said by both his col-
leagues in the passages I have just quoted. On May 21,
that noble lord said :
" Certainly my opinion is that, whether the proposition
lead to peace or not—because upon that question I feel
myself incompetent to give an opinion—the Austrian Go-
vernment will, before the conferences are finally closed,
make some proposition to the members of those confer-
ences. I imagine that proposition must have one of two
results; either it will be rejected by one—perhaps by
both—of the belligerent Powers, and then the conferences
are broken off, and no do doubt it will be perfectly com-
petent for any member of Parliament to ask this house to
declare its opinion of these negotiations : or, on the other
hand, if that should not be the case, then, again, negotia-
tions will be resumed, and there will be a greater prospect
than there has been of peace being established."
That is a totally different statement from the statements
made by the First Minister and- by Lord Granville. The
latter tell you that there are the representatives of the four
Powers in Vienna (though, as I told you before, they may
be found also in other capitals), and if any proposition is
made it will be received ; but here the noble lord tells us
most positively that the Austrian Government has
some other proposition to make, and that it is expected by
her Majesty's Government. The noble lord distinctly stated
that one more attempt at negotiation was to be made;
which is quite a different account from that given by the
First Minister and by Lord Granville. Well, is this the
case, and is another attempt to be made ? The inconsis-
tencies are considerable. Here we have the statement of
the First Minister that there is a permanent condition of
congress, and then we have from the noble lord opposite a
statement that there is going to be a final proposition, and
then the conferences are to be closed. Which is the true
statement? Is another proposition expected, has it been
made, and what are the general expectations of the Go-
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 where 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, bat it was totally diffe-
rent from the ambiguous language held by other Minis-
ters, which had something in it like " leaving the door
open," which I do not understand. I am against this
principle of " leaving the door open ;" I say, shut the
door, and let those who want to come in knock at the
door, and then we shall secure a safe and honourable peace.
Then arrived the night for the motion of the right hon.
member for Manchester, to which I need not now advert,
as I have before alluded to it ; and I refer to it only to no-
tice the strange position taken up by the First Minister of
the Crown. That noble lord told us that he was not going
to make an ignominious peace; and that the man who
would do so was a degraded outcast. I admired the tone
of the noble lord. " The captain is a brava man," but we
want something more thanthe assertionof thenoblelord s s
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.
who stated that he was witness of a certain fact. But
who, asked Gibbon, will he witness for Abulpharagius.
(Laughter.) The noblellord is witness for himself, 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 sefeguard is there that, when Parliament has ad-
journed, you may not have an unwise exercise of that
prerogative, unless by a full dis nission on the state
of affairs Parliament may become well acquainted with the
feelings and views of Ministers? The noble lord the other
night said he would not be forced by me.into making the
house acquainted with the confidential communications
which were passing between her Majesty's Government and
our allies; but no one asks the noble lord for that? It
would be the height of imprudence for any man to ask the
noble lord to tell us the precise terms on which he proposes
to make peace. He must act upon his own responsibility,
in conjunction, of course, with our cherished ally, but that
is no reason why the noble lord should take a course which,
in my opinion, must lead either to an ignominious peace or
to a lingering and fruitless war. That is why I press the
noble lord. We have a right, I maintain—without trench-
ing on the prerogative of the Crown, and without circum-
scribing the Government's liberty of action along with our
ally—to interfere if we think that the noble lord and his
colleagues are pursuing a course of policy which will
either prevent any peace from being concluded, or lead to
the conclusion of an unsatisfactory peace ; or else, which I
think still more probable, will lead to a lingering, fruit-
less, and inglorious 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•own
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. (Hear.) 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, If 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 toSdo 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.
(Cheers.) Now, sir, I deny that you can keep up the
spirit of the nation in a struggle such as that which we
carried on with Napoleon acd 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 time you
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 foreien Power as a mediator that
Power will never be your allay. (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 ram persuaded
that in a struggle with Russia he is not the man, nor are
those who have sat at his feet the men, to counsel base hu-
miliation to that Power. 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 h,ouse that there are peculiar objections to this double
service. Thera are two modes in which you may make
war pa Zuw4al In one %Se you may inn& her provinces,