The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JULY 9 1855,

has disclosed to him a state of things which may in some
degree account for the extreme reluctance of the Aus-
trian Cabinet to encounter the forces of an enemy.
But, although the Austrian Government admit that
they have made what they term a halt in the course of
policy they had hitherto pursued, they are anxious to
persuade us that they have not made any retrograde
movement ; and, while they do not agree with
the Western Powers in their resolution to carry
the war to the limits which may be hereafter determired
by the success of our arms, they profess to abide by all
the conditions for which they have hitherto argued. We
regret to say that even this explanation of their conduct
and position will not support discussion, and that the
humble position they now claim to occupy is as much
beneath their former professions as it is above their pre-
sent actions. The Emperor Napoleon told them the
other day in plain and forcible language in his speech
from the throne that the meaning of the treaty of the 2d
of December was, that Austria would enter into offensive
and defensive engagements with the other belligerent
Powers, if the negotiations which were then about to
open did not arrive at a successful termination. Not
only is that engagement implied in every line of the
treaty, from the preamble down to that article which
exacted from Prussia her active co-operation, but tho
same intention was expressed in repeated public declara-
tions of Count Bird. For instance, as long ago as Sep-
tember last the Cabinet of Vienna stated officially that
the restoration of peace upon terms which should secure
the future tranquillity of Europe was a necessity for
Austria, but Austria could not expect to obtain
that result by the sacrifices and exertions of other
Powers. Again, at the opening of the Conferences in
March, Count Buel emphatically assured the assembled
Plenipotentiaries of Europe that the Emperor of Austria
was resolved at all risks to abide by his engagements to
the belligerent Powers, and to persevere in the policy he
had adopted until it was brought to a successful issue.
No language could be stronger or more precise, and as
long as there is meaning in words these declarations will
remain on record, to prove that the Austrian Govern.
ment had at that time formed and expressed an inten-
tion to which it has not subsequently given effect. It
has been fully acknowledged by Austria that the
Vienna Conferences failed by no fault of ours, but
because Russia refused to submit to the application
of the third point in the four bases which she had pre-
viously professed to accept. In the very article of the
Vienna official journal to which we are now referring it
is admitted that the third point was not adjusted, and
that the fourth point, which the Austrian Government
now considers to be one of equal if not still greater diffi-
culty, was not entered upon at all. It is therefore clear
to demonstration that the objects contemplated by Aus-
tria have not been attained, and in making a halt at the
moment when her active co-operation became necessary
she virtually receded from an engagement. We are
therefore entitled to say that Austria has done either too
much or too little, and that the position in which she now
stands is precisely that which it is least easy for her to
defend or to retain. If she was not firmly resolved to
persevere in a policy designed to reduce the power of
Russia by adverse and even hostile measures, she should
not have signed repeated protocols and treaties to that
effect, and it was absurd to lavish a year's revenue on
military preparations without an object. If, on the con-
trary, she had formed a resolution to adhere to that
policy which would have been, as we firmly believe, the
cheapest, the most honourable, and the most useful to
her in the end, then she should have made the limita-
tion of the naval power of Russia her cases bdli. Instead
of this she pursues a policy which is adverse to Russia
without being identified with that of the Western Powers,
and which neither intimidates one party nor conciliates
the other. Tho Austrian journalist argues that the ad-
vance of an Austrian army into Poland would not have
altered the course of events in the Crimea ; that may be
questioned ; but Austria had it in her power to act in
Bessarabia, and, after investing Ismail, to conclude the
campaign at Odessa.

1.4-ord 'John Russell states positively that if the Western
Powers had assented to the last Austrian proposition,
and Russia had refused it, the Austrian Minister in St.
Petersburg was to have retired in 48 hours, the mili-
tary convention with France was to be signed, and the
Austrian army was to be placed in such a position that
it could commence a war at any moment. Yet, even
then it seems an immediate declaration of war was not
stipulated for or agreed to by the Cabinet of Vienna.
Austria appears even in this case to have relied, as she
has done throughout, on the possibility of obtaining by
a demonstration what can only be secured in reality by
combined action. That is the weakness of her case,
and the reason why her policy, after promising so much,
has achieved so little. She had in her hands a few
months ago, by reason of her geographical position,
her military strength, and her independent attitude,
the best cards which any of the great powers possessed,
for she might at no great sacrifice have claimed the
merit of restoring peace to Europe, and to a great ex-
tent of determining its conditions. But she has flung
away an opportunity which does not often recur in the
reign of a Sovereign. If the Western Powers triumph
in the present contest, Austria, and with her the whole
I of Germany, has forfeited her claim to take part in the
negotiations or conditions of peace, while, if the efforts
of the Western Powers are unsuccessful, and Russia is
able to withstand their combined strength, it is certain
that Austria and Germany will be wholly incapable of
opposing any serious resistance to the influence of Rus-
sian policy or the force of Russian arms. If Lord Jelin
Russell had held at Vienna language worthy of a Bri-
tish Minister, or if he bad even been able to express
himself in the language of diplomacy with vigour and
precision, we still believe that these arguments might
have prevailed. His utter failure in the performance of
the duties he undertook, in order to retrieve, if pos-
sible, his damaged reputation, has proved not only dis-
creditable to himself and injurious to his country, but
mischievous to the general interests of Europe ; and,
after hearing his speech on Friday night, no one can
wonder that Lord John Russell's appearance at Vienna
excited the astonishment and derision of all those who
were engaged in these important transactions.

(From the Morning Fierald of this day.)

Eleven years ago we stated that "the want of high
and noble feelings amongst almost all classes of the
community is one of the worst symptoms of the fatal
disease which seems to be gradually extinguishing that
noble character which it was once the boast of England's
people to value above all earthly possessions."
At that time we were scoffed at, and called " wild
politicians ;" but we fancy that the course of events since
the year 1844 up to the present time has shown to many
within this land that the evil which we then foresaw,
and the toleration of which we denounced, has produced
most of the misfortunes which wo anticipated, and that
if it be not checked, and that right suddenly and sharply,
worse will come of it.
We think, without going back to the details of the
melancholy and disgraceful chicaneries, treacheries, ex-
posures, and recriminations which have marked the last
ten years of our Parliamentary history, the present po-
sition of affairs may serve to show to what a condition
of things this utter want of high principle in public men
and of proper appreciation of its necessity among the
people at large, has brought what once was the highest-
minded nation upon which the sun shone.
The question now arises, is it impossible to redeem
the time ? A very short while since we should have
answered, with the Roman, "It is too late." At pre-
sent, however, some few symptoms are abroad that those
who have hitherto been careless and insensible to warn.
ings aro beginning to arouse themselves to a conscious-
ness of the fearful peril in which the country is involved.
The first of these favourable symptoms is the utter re-
probation into which are fallen the followers of the great
apostle of dishonour, he who first introduced into Eng-
lish public life the abominable doctrine that there were
two standards of morality. In other words that a man
might betray his friends, deny his principles, falsify
every word and deed of his former life, and yet remain
perfectly trustworthy, if it were only in his public capa-
city that he enacted a part which in private life would
have consigned him to well-merited infamy.
The English nation tacitly assented to this destruc-
tive abnegation of truth and honesty, and verily
they are now reaping their reward, for succeeding states-
men have not failed "to better the example" of Sir
Robert Peel.

Let us now see how matters absolutely stand at the
present moment with regard to the character of public
men, and, worse still, of the House of Commons itself,
which inevitably shares the want of reverence which
attends the conduct of the majority—of the members of
which it is composed.
As a beginning, we have only to mention th• names of
Lord Aberdeen, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Sidney Herbert,
and Sir James Graham, and ask, in what language can
an expression of the national opinion of these gentlemen
be couched which would not have been legally libellous
before Lord Campbell's act permitted the justification of
libel ? We are a loss to answer the question.
The disclosures, however, of Friday night have
caused the delinquencies of these persons "to pale their
ineffectual fires" before the singular audacity of the an-
nouncements of Lord John Russell.
We premise that one of the worst features of the
gradual moral degradation of public men has been the
amazing increase of the practice of allowing of the ex-
istence of what, in Parliamentary slang, are called
" open questions" in the Cabinet. This system, already
too prevalent, was brought to its culminating point by
the experiment of the Coalition Cabinet. We need say
no more, The public are at length aware of what the
necessary effect must be of such a moral anomaly as that
agglomeration of discords.

ocooos/t.
-The vote which brought the Coalition into existence
andnigh 7.0 t 00, haveooo
twhaes
nstaattieedu by,,Msor;oCooobßdernitioehn Flrivideasy
sterling." We only hope the hon. member for the West
Riding did notlunderstate the case—for we believe we
are only now at the beginning of the losses and misfor-
tunes which have taken their rise from that miserable
transaction. Open questions in the Cabinet in former
days were considered to be allowable in affairs which in-
volved only slight differences of opinion, and in matters
of mere expediency. The Duke once said England could
not have a " little war," how the veteran would have
stared had any one told him that the time would come
when a war with the greatest military power in the
eunir,tieiiinve ae
tt:
world would be considered a "little " question,
and this
not from the magnanimity and powers of England, but
from the fact that in the minds of her statesmen every-
tlei ig, n
ut
to
ohn
thea ifostnihnai
gls
lae
En
cdue
gnp
leeai rdus
edo
rn
la,
it liaehunohenafodku
ler
a,e
tphe i
lanydg
two
place
.
and holding a faction together. '
table examples. The first, when the
venerable Lord
Lansdowne, being supposed to act aS adviser to her
Gracifidous Majesty, in loco parcntis,
took advantage (as
is conently asserted) of his position to recommend the
prevent Primier not to join Lord Derby upon any terms,
" for that if he did the Whigs could never again hope to
resume office !"

- -
The s,:cond was on Friday night, when Lord John
Russell stated in effect that although perfectly convinced
that the Atntrian propcitiote Were just and ought to