The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-24 00:00:00

L 7

~~t

l~

Mtiv
~‘
•
• ,
. .
"AZI str . • 41:411.4( /
•-• • 1
41Z., ' -1,, •
4.4 ,
•
\-4 - 7 • „.„_, • • • • •
,• • • , - - - - 1 '
.". " A 4 "j":4* '''111011:1" • 14:
2 11
44,t.
•
• "iN' ) 111 , • ..
'

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 24, 1854.

LORD ABERDEEN'S IMPEACHMENT

hear,' and laughter). I cannot, however, help thinking, as
I have before stated, that the speech of my noble and
learned friend would have been more appropriate before we
became engaged in this war."

pets in the hands of the latter) were, by the instinct
of self-preservation, driven to fight the battle of national
independence in Europe against the first Napoleon. But
no sooner was Napoleon overthrown—less by their hos-
tile efforts than by the defection of the European peoples
—than the Emperor of Russia and Metternich changed
sides, and became the most inveterate enemies of inde-
pendent nationality in Europe. Metternich and two
successive Russian Emperors have devoted all their
energies to the crushing of "nationality" in Europe.
No means of accomplishing their object have been
too base for them to grasp at. The deliberate and pal.
pable lies by which Nicholas has within these few months
shocked the moral sense of Europe, are not grosser than
those to which Metternich had recourse in 1822 to blacken
the characters of the constitutionalists of Germany.
Since 1815 the Russian Emperors and Metternich have
been the relentless foes and persecutors of those inde-
pendent nationalities of which, for a few short months—
in the period of their adversity—they affected to be the
champions. Vet Lord Aberdeen—not contented with
his previous puling eulogiums of the Czar—took upon
him, in the debate raised by Lord Lyndhurst, to main-
tain that the professions of Austria are worthy of credit
and reliance, because they are inspired by Metternich
--by Metternich, whose whole career has proved him
destitute of the sagacity which taught Talleyrand that
diplomatic falsehoods injured only those who uttered
them—by Metternich who has sowed lies broadcast
round him during his whole career. Since Lord Aber-
deen has shown himself so besotted as still to pin his
faith to Metternich, it becomes more and more incum-
bent upon Englishmen to be ever wakeful to avert the
danger of England being entangled in the trammels of
some insidious treaty, and led captive to fight for govern-
ments against nationalities. When Ministers proclaim,
with unction and emphasis, that the task at present on
hand is simply to repel the aggressions of Russia and
secure the independence of the Ottoman State, they pro-
claim a part of the truth. The re-adjustment of the
political balance between nationalities and governments
in Europe is not yet on the Lapis, and it is not therefore
for practical statesmen—for men in office—to deal with
it. But no man of average common sense can fail to see
that this wider question is about to emerge out of the
special controversy between Russia and Turkey, Turn
where we will we see new indications rising up. The eager-
ness of Austria to purchase, by feigned compliance, the
sanction of France and England to the permanent extinc-
tion of Italian and Hungarian nationality; the ominous con-
vulsive movements in the fettered body of Poland ; nay,
the puny attempts of the little kinglets of Germany to
assert their Lilliputian dignities against the offensively
coarse dictatorial language of Austria and Prussia—all
point to what is coming. It is not for the Governments
of France and England to act or speak prematurely.
Time will mature events better than Cabinets can ; but
it is for the publics of France, and England, and of all
Europe, to fix their thoughts on the great events that
are impending, in order that when the time comes, they
may be able to acquit themselves like men ; and it is for
the journalist, untrammelled by the responsibilities of
office or the formalities of etiquette, to act up to his
high vocation by inviting his fellow-citizens to such pre-
paratory studies.

- -
(From the Daily Xelos.)
Mr. Layard, last night, having intimated that he will
on Thursday next move a resolution to the effect that the
language recently held by Lord Aberdeen in the House
of Lords is of a nature to disturb the public mind on the
subject of the war, and lessen the prospect of an honour-
able and durable peace, the noble President of the Coun-
cil rose—in the same hot haste, in which Sidney Smith
was wont sneeringly to allege that he would take com-
mand of the Channel fleet,—to declare that precedence
would be given on Thursday to the motion. A feature
in Lord John Russell's character is the chivalrous
promptitude with which he on all occasions rises in sup-
port of a colleague who may be attacked. There are
men who can be leagued in office with others for a life-
time, and yet in the event of any attack being made upon
them, pause to calculate how their own position is likely
to be thereby affected ere they hasten to the rescue ; if
indeed they do not, as Rochefoucauld has it, betray
something like pleasuzo at the mishaps of their "best
friends." There is no such temporising in Lord John's
disposition ; a colleague in a scrape is sure of assistance
from him. Even the excessive indulgence of such a dis-
position is a fault that leans to the side of virtue ; and
yet, regard being had to its consequences, it may be
occasionally a grave fault in a statesman notwithstand-
ing. The peremptory baste with which Lord John last
night rushed forward to lift the gauntlet .thrown down
by Mr. Layard is calculated to excite uneasy misgivings.
It is to be hoped that between this and Thursday cool
reflection will have enabled Lord John to recollect that
in his position other duties devolve upon him than to
champion a l'outrance any blundering or offending
colleague. Lord John is at this moment the chief
member of the Ministry to whom the anti-Russian
party look with confidence : it is his presence in the
Cabinet that supports the hopes of true Englishmen
when depressed by the anile twaddle of the Premier.
It is a duty Lord John owes to the Government of
which he is a member, to his country, and to the great
cause in support of which the country is now putting
forth its military strength, to beware of doing anything
that can compromise his character in this respect. Let
him on Thursday, if be likes, make out as good a case
for the Cabinet as he can ; but let him beware of com-
mitting himself to all the follies of his chief.
The language indulged in by Lord Aberdeen, in the
debate on Lord Lyndhurst's motion, admits of no ex-
cuse. It was a laboured eulogium pronounced upon a
lawless despot with whom the country is now at war,
by the Minister to whom the conduct of that war has
been entrusted—it was a vindication of the shuffling
policy of which Austria is more than suspected -the
policy of affecting to join in the pursuit of the Czar in
order to gain an opportunity of retarding his pursuers
and favouring his escape. If Lord Aberdeen really en-
tertains the opinion of the Emperor of Russia, and of
that monarch's conduct in the Turco-Russian difficulties,
which his lordship expressed in the debate on Lord
Lyndhurst's motion, it is disgraceful in him to occupy
the high post he now holds. If Lord Aberdeen really
holds these opinions, he ought to be opposed to the war
in which we are engaged ; and, being so opposed, he
ought to have resigned as soon as the Cabinet resolved
to wage war. If Lord Aberdeen really approves of the
hollow and equivocating policy by which Austria seeks
to assist the Czar to escape scatheless from the scrape
into which he has run himself, the presumption is that
he will exert all his official power and influence to pro-
mote that policy—that, in other words, he will try to
thwart the national resolve which has decreed that the
Czar shall be so effectually punished as to secure Europe
from a repitition of his offence. If Lord Aberdeen's wm ds
are anything more than empty wind he is on the very verge
of existence, directing a war of which he disapproves, for
the merely selfish purpose of retaining his grasp of power
—and he is as false to his country as to his own consci-
ence, inasmuch as he is watching for an opportunity to
befriend the Czar in violation of the trust reposed in him
by the country. On the assumption that Lord Aberdeen
sincerely and earnestly meant what his words imply, he
is all that has been here said of him ;- on the assumption
that he did not mean what his words imply, the man who
could expose himself by meaningless and discreditable
talk, in Parliament, when a weighty and animating
question was under discussion, must have reached the
period of life at which it is dangerous to entrust men
with the management of business. At a perilous crisis
like the present, it is not to be tolerated that the reins
of government should be left in the hands of one who is
either a traitor or a dotard.

We pass by, as utterly unworthy of notice, the stupid
attempt at wit which found its ponderous ebullition in
the repetition of a joke of some man of wit, with whom
Lord Aberdeen gravely assures us he was once ac-
quainted. Upon such a point Lord Aberdeen is at last
safe from a retort ; no one ever will mistake his lordship
for a colonel of dragoons, or for any other character that
requires either courage or manhood.

But let us seriously ask, is this state of things to con-
tinue ? Here we have the Prime MLaster asserting, in
the House of Peers, that a philippic against Russia is a
grave offence ; that to excite the military ardour of the
people is indecorous and improper. Is it not a waste of
words to ask whether such a man is fit to preside over
our councils when we are engaged in a war in which it
may be—nay, in which it is—necessary to excite all the
military ardour of the nation in defence of its liberties
and rights ?
This is the speech of a friend of Russia. The words
involve an accusation of little less than treason. But
who, but a friend of Russia, would now complain of
attacks upon the policy of that power? Who, but a
traitor to England, deprecate and sneer at arguments
which establish that the cause of resistance to Russia is
the cause of human freedom ?

The sneer was as absurd as it was impertinent. Lord
Lyndhurst was deprecating the attempt to patch up a
peace with Russia without exacting securities for the
future. To this, the object of his speech, every one of
hip arguments were directly relevant. He showed the
necessity of such securities by exposing the constant and
invariable policy of Russia to be one aiming at the sub-
jugation of continental Europe.
Now, we cannot help thinking that ifs is just because
it did demonstrate this, that Lord Aberdeen denounced
the speech of Lord Lyndhurst as inopportune. We are
quite sure that Lord Aberdeen not only contemplates,
but is pledged, to a peace which will not exact from
Russia securities for the future. Let any man, if he
can, assign any other reason for the condemnation of
the speech of Lord Lyndhurst— a speech of which the
only fault could be that it conclusively established their
necessity.
But upon this subject we are not left to conjecture.
Lord Aberdeen distinctly told the British House of Lords
that he did not believe the success of the enterprise of
Nicholas would endanger the security of Europe. Again
we must quote his words. After stating the usual cant
about the "integrity and independence cf the Porte,"
he proceeded to observe that Ministers would endeavour
to obtain "so far as reasonable (!) what is called (! !)
the security of Europe." But here are his words :
" All I can say is this, that at all times we shall direct our
efforts to the obtaining of the great objects which we have
in view—the security, the integrity, and the independence
of the Porte, and, as far as is reasonable, what is called
the security of Europe, which, however, I cannot say I
feel is very much endangered by the chance of the success
of Russian aggression. Let me remind my noble and
learned friend, that even by that disastrous treaty of Ad-
rianople, to which he has referred—a treaty signed when
the Russian troops were within 50 miles of Constantinople
—let me remind him that even by that treaty, most one-
rous and most disastrous as I admit it to have been, Russia
made no fresh acquisition of Turkish territory. (Marks of
dissent.) I know that Russia acquired two or three small
posts in Asia by the treaty, but she did not gain one inch
of territory in Europe. ( The Danube, from a noble
lord.) There is the case of the Danube, no doubt. I have
already said in this house that I believe nobody has de-
scribed the treaty of Adrianople as more disastrous than I
have done myself. But I say, that considering the position
of the Russian army, almost at the gates of Constantinople,
that was a treaty which certainly did not show any great
desire for territorial aggrand sement. And what has hap-
pened since? That treaty was signed 25 years ago; and
since that time has Russia acquired a single inch of
Turkish territory ?—has Russia been engaged in any hos-
tilities at all with Turkey ? None in the world. The
only interference Russia had with Turkey was to save the
existence of the Turkish empire, by sending a Russian
army to Constantinople to protect it against the Egyptian
invasion. That is all that has happened since the treaty of
Adrianople. Now, give me leave to say that the treaty of
Adrianople was signed 25 years ago, and no war, no aggres-
sion, has taken place ; but, on the other hand, signaser-
vice has been rendered by Russia to Turkey. I think that
if wo can secure the same result for 25 years to come we
shall not do amiss, and that, I believe, is the object
which we ought to have in view."

We have quoted this passage at length. It gives the
people of England fair notice of the treason that exists
in the very bosom of the Cabinet.

A rather curious scene was witnessed in the House of
Lords last night, which it is not easy to dissociate from
Mr. Layard's notice of motion. At a time when some
other business, or no business, was on hand—when cer-
tainly none of the noble lords present were speaking of
Russia and matters therewith connected—possibly none
of them thinking of such matters, Lord Aberdeen sud-
denly rose—visibly in a state of anxious excitement—and
gave notice that on Monday next he would Move for the
p,oduetion of tho despatch formerly addressed by him to
the Russian Government on the subject of the treaty
of Adrianople. As this incident occurred but a short
time after Mr. Layard had given notice of his
Thursday's motion, in the House of Commons—and
as the care taken by Ministers, in either House of Par-
liament, to have early intelligence of anything said
or done in the other that affects them personally is
well known—this intimation on the part of Lord
Aberdeen looks very like a preparation to make an
anticipatory defence before his accuser can be heard.
Such precipitancy looks marvellously like a conscience
ill at ease, or at the least like a consciousness of a totter.
ing tenure of office. What on earth has this antiquated
despatch to do with the question of Lord Aberdeen's
present sayings and doings in relation to the present
war ? Granted that Lord Aberdeen felt and judged the
conduct of Russia in the treaty of Adrianople like a
gentleman and statesman—can that be any extenuation
of his imbecile folly in extenuating its rapacity and
falsehood of the last two years- of his special pleading
to allow it to escape with as light a penalty as possible ?
To every charge of vacillation, insincerity, or incapacity
in his conduct as Premier in relation to the present
war, Lord Aberdeen has never had more than one
answer : "At the time of the treaty of Adrianople I
wrote a despatch so anti-Russian that it would make
your hair stand on end could you but read it." This is
the same plea that one sotnetime hears advanced for
the mitigation of the punishment of a convict—that
though the delinquent has certainly been proved guilty
of a heinous offence, yet he was virtuous (or appeared
to be so) many years ago. The plea is uniformly
scouted in the case of the convict. Will it avail the
Premier ?

The Prline Minister has explicitly declared that he
does not believe the attempt of Russia upon Turkey to
involve the security of Europe.
That he does not believe in the necessity of exacting
conditions of peace which will give us any guarantee for
the future.
That he does not believe that "we will do amiss"—
these are the very words—if we end this war by a
treaty like that of Adrianople, whin7h Russia dictated
at the gates of Constantinople.
On the contrary, he has explicitly said that this is
" the object we all should have in view.
Tuese statements have been authoritatively made by
the Prime Minister, in his place in the House of Peers.
We ask of Lord John Russell, does he assent to them
as a declaration of Ministerial policy ? We ask, are
these his conditions of "a just, a solid, and an honour-
able peace ?" We ask of Lord Palmerston, does he
believe that the aggressions of Russia threaten no danger
to the security of Europe ? We ask of both these
statesmen, can they with honour serve under Lord
Aberdeen, and abhor, as in their hearts and souls they
do, the language in which he, as Prime Minister, has
announced the policy of Government.
We ask a greater question of the people of these
countries--How long will they endure the utterer of
these traitorous sentiments at the head of the councils
of the Queen ?

The speech of Lord Aberdeen has not the merit of
originality ; it is a paraphrase, and a clumsy one, of
one of the dispatches of Count Nesselrode, in which the
Russian statesman attempts to prove the very point
which Lord Aberdeen labours to establish—that Russia
has no designs upon Turkey inconsistent with " what
is called the security of Europe." He uses in that dis-
patch exactly the same arguments which on Monday
night were addressed by Lord Aberdeen to the House of
Lords. Had Count Nesselrode been a peer of Great
Britain, he would have made exactly the speech which,
in his absence, was pronounced for him by his friend and
ally, Lord Aberdeen.

( From the Daily News of yesterday.)
Lord Dudley Stuart asks for copies of the Serbian
protest against the occupation of the Serbian territory,
by Austrian troops,and of the Austro-Prussian conven-
tion, with its additional article. The request is most
opportune. In good time is the attention of the House
of Commons called to the fact that there are nationali-
ties as well as governments on the continent of Europe ;
and to no hands could the task of thus directing its
attention be more appropriately confided than to him
who has so long, so disintereAedly, and so consistently,
been the advocate and champion of the down trodden
nationalities of Europe. The independent nationality
of the Ottoman Empire has been endangered by
Muscovite aggression and the combined might
of France and England has been put forth, though rather
tardily, to prevent Turkey being added to the list of ex-
tinguished nations—to Poland, Hungary, and Italy ; but
little will have been (rained for humanity if all the exer-
tions of the Western Powers in the Black Sea and the
Baltic are to have no more worthy result than the occu-
pation of the Danubian Provinces by Austria instead of
Russia. It may be said that Austria will be a more
humane foreign administrator than Russia— though this
is a point on which those who have studied the vice-
regal or proconsular history of Austria, from the days of
Gesler to those of Radetzki, may be allowed to remain
sceptical—but that is not the question. It is, whether
the sovereign and subjects in each independent state
shall be left to adjust their own relations free from foreign
interference, or whether some foreign despot shall be
allowed to obtrude his unwi,hed-for services as third's-
man between them and domineer over both ? This is
what the Emperor of Russia claimed to do when he
asserted a right to act as arbiter and umpire in all dis-
cussions which might arise between the Sultan and his
subjects of the Greek Church. This monstrous claim
has been indignantly repudiated by France and Eng-
land ; but where will be the gain if Austria is allowed to
occupy the Principalities out of which Russia is driven
—if Russia is prevented from assailing the nationality of
Turkey by storm or the sap, merely to leave Austria free
scope to perform the feat ? The sovereignty of the Sul-
tan over his Danubian provinces may be weakened or
destroyed by one or other of two agencies : it may be
overthrown by popular discontent from within ; or it
may be overthrown by foreign machinations from with-
out. In the former case no
foreigners can have any
right to interfere ; sovereign and subject make up
the complex idea of a state, and this internal structure
of a state is the affair exclusively of the parties who rear
it. If the Sultan is anxious to perpetuate his power in
the valley of the Danube, and can do so by his own in-
ternal resources, no foreign state or government has a
right to prevent him. On the other hand, if the popu-
lations of the valley of the Danube are tired of the
mastery of the Sultan, and upset his throne by their
own efforts, that too is their affair, with which no fo-
reigners have any title to intermeddle. But when a
neighbour Sovereign seeks, by superior force, to intrude
himself between the Sultan and his subjects in the val-
ley of the Danube—be that sovereign of the House of
Romanoff or Hapsburg, it matters not—it is the right
and the duty of the other states or nations of Europe
to prevent him ;—for what is the fate of Turkey one
day may be their own the next.
The speech delivered in the House of Peers by the
Earl of Aberdeen, apropos of Lord Lyndhurst's motion,
proves that the duty of asserting the cause of nationali-
ties against governments cannot at this moment be too
earnestly or too unremittingly exercised. It is clear
from that speech that at the head of the Cabinet we have
a disciple of Metternich, the most unscrupulous cham-
pion of the cause of governments against nationalities.
Forty-two years, with all their varied and stirring inci-
dents, have passed over Lord Aberdeen and left him
exactly as they found him. He is a venerable political
fossil imbedded in the slimy deposits of 1812, alien alike
inform and substance to the. politics of the present
day. In 1812 the Emperor of Russia and Metter-
nich Vex. the Austrian 'rnenarchs lane been AIM pup.