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

Trig SUN,

Government entirely with the policy of Lord Aberdeen—
that no difference wha,,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 bow completely satisfactory he consi-
dered the noble lord's assurance, declared that he received
the noble lord's statement with the most perfect satl-tac-
tion, and that, under the circumstances, be 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?
Wo 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 not to be
supposed that the noble lord was not faithful to the pledge
he had given to the right hon. bart.), 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 ought to 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
tlifficult to fix upon any subject or any part of his lifein 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 nearly 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 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 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 iusecure peace, which
would leave it to their present enemy to bide his time—
(o'aEers)—until, by the dissensions of the other Powers—
until, by the weakness of some of those Powers—he should
fin-I 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."
(Gheers.) 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 East
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. 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 au 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-
hurs.; asked whether such expressions were not incon-
sistent with the protocol of the sth of December, 1853, to
which France and England were signatories, 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 suppcsod
that any man who is a Secretary of State now would
ado anything so mean and pitiful as to say that he was
no.; 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 head 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 sours 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 glovo—(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 I am making com-
ments upon the conduct of the noble lord because I am a
member of a different political party. (Nlinisterial 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
thaltl 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-
I 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 ford 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
Ihimself 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 not earnest 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
.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
az isen 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-
j u.tly —by a high, al though anonymous, authority, that the
position' and,
!','nob.le lord was not calculated for the post of plenipotentiary,
mattiLeth.riit place, because he was not an eminent diplo-
matist
of the
secondly, because he did not take that leading
.orne at the moment in this country which might have
l'aa for the want of diplomatic experience in the
though not awßtisian Court. That was, I think, unjust,
Se was once
because I shall that the noble lord has had a great,
in that capacity
at lengthened,the head
experience of diplomatic affairs.
perfad of the diplomatic body, and
racter, which greatly molimed feats of no mean cha-
are at this moment influencing the fortunes of this
15 quite true that when 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-
stry 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 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 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 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 wero; 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 turn 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
dthe 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
Europa. 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 Caristian subjects of the Sultan of
the OriLntal ritual, equally renounces, as a natural cones-
quen,!o, the revival of any of the articles of hsr former
treaties, and especially of the Treaty of Koutchouk-Kai-
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
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 sitting 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 giftedman
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, thecalamitous 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 havingacted and for spoken in a manner si-
milar to tat 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.) Know come to fresh feats of history
I 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 wont 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 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
lord 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 new reform
act. Prince Gortschakoff smiled, and naturally replied that
that was not exactly the point they had met to settle. The
new reform bill for the Danubian principalities might be
postponed, as a new reform bill for a mere 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 ird J. Russell, recalling the declaration made at the
opening of the negotiation by Prince Gortschakoff that he
would consent to no condition incompatible with thehonour
of Russia, maintained that, in the eyes of England and of
her allies, the best and only admissible conditions of peace
would bo 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 ?
( Hear.) I appr eheud that the noble lord was not sent to
Vienna to take 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.) What
happened under these circumstances ? Thera did exist an
understanding to which Russia was not, I believe, bour!c,
by any formal instrument, but still au understanding did
exist that the Russian plenipotentiaries, Prince Gonic•itsocffhear-
koff and M. de Titoff, should take the initiativse,
a plan as to conCdtions which might lead
anion inti-
ttoo be
tisfactory
solution of the q uestion how Turkey was
mately connecter l with the European system, and how the
preponderance o f the power of Russia in the Black Sea
might be made to cease. Ido not think the noble lord
will deny that, isithough the Russian Ministers were not
bound by any for mal obligation, still a general understand-
ing did exiit that they should take' the initiative, andapr9s:
pose some plan as hich they believed would afford a s
factory solution of the difficulty. No sooner, however, ,