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

TEE AUSTRO-BUSSIAN-ENGLISH JEW.

The point of attack in the East is the Crimea ; in
the West, at this moment, it is Lord John Russell.
While legions and generals are contending for the
possession of a tower or a harbour in that famous
peninsula, Governments, Senates, and factions, are
fighting for the possession of the no less famous
Plenipotentiary. The Crimea is altogether au am-
biguous position ; jutting out from one empire—
threatening another ; a debateable ground midway
between'Europe and Asia ; for ages the sport of
conquest, and, like a tool or a weapon, powerful
only in the hands of the skilful or the strong. Lord
John Russell seems of an equally neutral nature,
and a bone of contention between parties, causes,

and States. Lord Palmerston claims him as a
member of the Cabinet, committed to the continu-
ance of the war ; Count Bnol claims him as a con-
verted negotiator, and actual party to a conciliatory
proposal tendered by the Austrian Government to,
the Western Powers, and rejected by them both ;
Mr. Milner Gibson claims him generally as an ad-
vocate for peace, and a dissentient from the war
policy of the Cabinet. He is the weak point in
Lord Palmerston'e argument, the strong point in
Count Buol's and Mr. Milner Gibson's. But, as a
beam is only as strong as its weakest part, so Lord
John is the maximum strength of the Administra-
tion. To the most powerful arguments—oven
Lord Palmerston's—and the most tremendous
philippics—even Lord John's, Russia may now
reply by pointing to the fact that we are prolong-
ing the war against the solemn award of our own
umpire—Austria, and the avowed judgment of our
own Plenipotentiary, still an adviser of the Crown,
and still of the same opinion as to the needless-
ness of the war. In fine, whose property is Lord
John ? Who is the owner of this very conve-
nient and serviceable chattel ! In a dog cause
it is usual to bring the animal into court, and
invite the claimants to practise upon him their
various powers of persuasion. The man sshistles,
and the woman addresses him by some tender
diminutive, while perhaps a third party takes him
up bodily, and appeals to the dog's acquiescence in
the act: Count Buol is whistling across the con-
tinent to his recent Plenipotentiary ; the old ladies
of the peace party are practising all sorts of endear-
ments to move his pacific affections, and Lord Pal-
merston has bodily possession of the prize. But
how long Lord J. Russell will remain in his pre-
sent allegiance is a question we should think of
painful interest to all parties. By his many acts
of compliance and reserve he retains the key of the
position. He has only to avow himself once more
the same that he was three months ago, and he
becomes a peace Minister. Taking advantage of
the happy moment of our reverses, he has pub-
lished to the world his unretracted assent to the
Austrian proposal for peace, a step which immedi-
ately raises a discussion on that proposal and the
grounds of its; rejection. Should matters become
worse—should events happen in the Crimea that
we do not choose to particularise, then Lord John
will of course throw off his present intermediate
phase of tardy profession, and proclaim to the
world with indignant energy his burning convic-
tion as to the wanton and gratuitous character of
the war. On the other hand, should our army
prosper, those convictions can he easily smothered,
as, indeed, they have hitherto been. On the whole,
it is a capital position, but then it requires a power
of conscience to hold it. Nobody would hold it so
well as its present occupant.
In the accounts of the war we read that occa-
sionally an odd figure turns up in the lines held by
the allied armies. He is challenged by the sentries,
and, returning no intelligible answer, is taken into
custody, and passed from officer to officer, for
safe disposal. As his hat, his boots, his coat, his
papers, his physiognomy, and his accent arceunder
observation, the simple soldiers incline to the be-
lief that the stranger is a Russian, an Englishman,
a Turk, a Pole, or a Jew. Lord John Russell has
been challenged, and is now under examination.
What is he ?—an Englishman, an Austrian, a nits-
giant or possibly a man of no nation atoll, a sort
of Don Pacifico, of, any nation, locality, or alle-
giance) as best suits his purpose ? What a thing it
is to be a citizen of the world ! But even this
.
position is fixed and determinate, compared with
that which is only an adaptation to present circum-
stances. Lord John Russell reflects one week the
hues of Austrian and Russian Ministers, the next
those of Lord Palmerston and the British Senate.
It is a common complaint against Englishmen that
when they reside abroad they forget they are Eng-
lishmen ; but then they make it up by the very
slight trace they can show of travel when they re-
turn home. The fact is, that they unlearn much
easier than they learn. They lose their patriotism,
their religion, and their national prejudices, and
when they return home they are so much less than
they were, but have nothing in its place. At this
moment Lord John is certainly not the man that
he went to Vienna, but whether he is the man he:
came back is the great and convenient mystery of,
his position. He allows us to discover that he
still thinks the Austrian proposal a good one, and
that the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea,
might have been destroyed by an arrangement on
that basis. Of course, therefore, he still thinks;
the British Cabinet responsible for all this hor-s
rible bloodshed std the unknown miseries of the
future. For our part, we cannot understand the.
character of the man who retains an opinion so
contrary to the necessities of his position. We
rest simply and comfortably in the belief that we
are fighting for the liberty of Europe against a,
power more formidable in negotiation even than
arms. Lord John is of opinion that we are now be-
sieging a Russian oity, killing and slaying the armed
inhabitants, and destroying the houses and the
food, in spite of a fair, amicable, and genuine pro-
posal made by a common friend in the character of
an umpire. On what narrow basis does Lord John
wage war, and in what capacity does he pronounce
one party in the wrong, and the other a foe ?
Then we are implored vehemently and patheti-
cally to believe Lord John Russell, and all our
British statesmen. We are asked to put faith in
them all, and in everything that the whole of them
say or do. This is political pantheism, and some-
thing more ; for it is possible to believe in an im-
mense variety of things, but not in opposites. We
thoroughly believe Lord J. Russell when he says
that he is still of opinion we ought to have followed
up the opening offered by the Austrian proposal.'
We thoroughly believe him when he expresses his
opinion that we are now in the wrong, and that
the responsibility of the war rests on this impla-
cable nation. But, then, if we believe this, how are
we also to believe the opposite, viz., that all her
Majesty's Ministers are advising her wisely,
honestly, and conscientiously ? If they themselves
tell us their advice is wrong, how are we to believe
them to be honest ? The British nation is not such
a tyrant as to desire servants who shall betray
their compunctions of conscience, protest against
the business put upon them, and then do it from
sheer weakness and timidity. It goes to Lord
John Russell, and invites his co-operation to a
very deadly work viz., the greatest possible
slaughter and devastation of Russia. He obeys,
but answers, like the apothecary, " My poverty
and not my will consents." Romeo, we presume,
placedapnadl in
Palmerston
sttho
ns thew enjoins.il l poorwill, an d
gijo te wretchw paid
thedt
be
thewconfidence
. poverty
By Lord
eurttyis,
that the confidence we usually place in British
statesmen ? It certainly is not, a general distrust
or denial of confidence is much better than a con-
deuce in Ministers that they will do whateversttits
their present purpose, and perform our bloody
errand, even if they think it a crime.—Times.