The Sun.
London, England, 1854-04-01 00:00:00

mate and more unconstitutional than that—or if I might use
the language of the Emperor of Russia—l would say more un-
gentlemanlike. (Laughter.) I remember some few years ago,
when the present First Minister of the Crown, with the aid,
as we are informed by the present leader of the House of
Commons, who I am sure is a gentleman that would never
make a statement without due authority, of foreign conspira-
tors, prevailed ou the First Lord of the Admiralty, sitting
opposite to me, to impeach, as it were, a Secretary of State,
also sitting opposite to me. I remember I bad occasion,
both publicly and privately, to protest against a course which
I thought so unjustified and uprecedented. It was my opi-
nion that there was not the slightest evidence of any diffe-
rence of opinion, so far as the Cabinet was concerned, between
the noble lord the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
and his colleagues, and that nothing could be more unjust,
unfair, and unparliamentary to make an attack against that
noble lord, as distinct and isolated from his colleagues. No
circumstance had ever transpired, which, for a moment, jus-
tified the belief that the foreign policy of the Government
of the noble lord, the member for London, was not fully ap-
proved of by all the members of the then abinet; and though
I highly disapproved of it, and especially of the insurrec-
tionary mission to Italy, I took the opportunity of stating
in the most distinct manner, that my disapprobation was
disapprobation of the policy, of the Cabinet and not of the
policy of an individual. (Hear, hear.) I stated on that
occasion that no circumstance had transpired authorising
the belief that the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
and the other members of the Cabinet had any difference of
opinion with respect to foreign policy. But is that the case
at the present moment ? The hon. member for Aylesbury
has called attention to the strange contradiction in expression
and conduct which prevails in the present Administration,
and on another occasion I have myself alluded to it. We have
a member of the Government who tells us that the indepen-
dence and integrity of Turkey are facts of the utmost impor-
tance • and we have also other members of the Government
who declare that the independenee and integrity of Turkey are
not facts, but phantoms and phrases. (Hear, hear.) We have
a Secretary of State in the other house of Parliament, and of
the most important department, so far as the question of
foreign policy is concerned, telling us that it is the interest
and intention of England to secure for the Christian subjects
of the Porte equal privileges with the Mussulmans; and we
have the noble lord opposite, the member for London, most
judiciously informing this house to-night that the present Ad-
ministration has no intention to insist on such terms. (Hear,
and laughter.) The war in one house is called a blessing, and
in another place it is denounced as a curse. It is said in one
place that we are about to embark in a war, the future of
which to the most prescient must be involved in obscurity;
and yet we have the Foreign Minister of the country announc-
ing publicly in the Senate, or rather in a despatch read in the
Senate, that we may succeed in crippling Russia, but that the
irretrievable destruction of Turkey is the most probable of
events. (Hear, and laughter.) I say, then, that it is a fact,
that there has ben a difference of opinion in the present
Cabinet on the policy which we ought to pursue; nor is this
wonderful. There have always been two opinions on that im-
portant subject, which, in common phrase, is called the Eas-
tern question; and each has been maintained by statesmen of
great eminence. There are statesmen who are of opinion that
there is vitality in Turkey ; and that, so far from being exhaust-
ed, it is a country full of resources, which hitherto have been
only imperfectly developed. There are statesmen, and the noble
lord the member for London is one, who believe that it is a
country not only capable of being independent, but absolutely
capable of being progressive. Statesmen of this kind, holding
these opinions, have been of opinion that, with wisdom and
firmness Turkey might form a substantial real barrier to Rus-
sian aggression. (Hear, hear.) Well, there is the other
school, who believe that there is no vitality in Turkey—that
it is decrepit and decaying, that its resources, always imper-
fectly developed perhaps, are now virtually exhausted, and
that it is totally impossible for Turkey long to exist as an in-
dependent, or quasi independent community. Those states-
men, not wishing to hand over this rich prey to its powerful
neighbour, have been of opinion that by encouraging the en-
franchisement of the Christian subjects of the Sultan, and by
advancing the civilisation and the rights of those classes, you
might in time prepare a population in Turkey which would
prevent that intermediate state of anarchy which would
otherwise elapse between the fall of a great empire and the
rise of a new Power. These are two opinions which may be
conscientiously entertained by men of very great ability ; but
it is a notorious fact that the present Prime Minister of this
country has never concealed that he was the disciple, or
rather the professor' in this country, of the second class of
opinion. He never has pretended to believe in the vitality of
Turkey, or that it could be an independent State, and of
course he could not believe that it could he a progressive one.
He has been called on in the course of his career as a public
man to act when this great Eastern question, as it is called, has
been placed before him for his solution or management. The
year 1829 will not easily be forgotten, and we have it on
record that Lord Aberdeen, then Secretary of State for Fo-
reign Affairs, under the Duke of Wellington, agreed with the
Russian Government that the Turkish ports of the Mediterra-
nean should be blockaded, and, if that blockade had been
established, Turkey probably could not have maintained her.
self during the first of her two campaigns. I may be told
that the Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister, and respon-
sible; but the fact is known that he repudiated the agreement
of Lord Aberdeen, his Secretary of State, who consented to
the blockade, and owing to the Duke of Wellington it was
that the blockade was not carried out. I also heard it from
the lips of a most illustrious statesman--and no doubt others
in this house heard it likewise—that Prince Metternich never
would have encouraged Turkey to make those two campaigns
of 1829 if he had not had the moral conviction that the Bri-
tish fleet would have entered the Black Sea ; and we know that
Lord Aberdeen prevented that. I do not say he did not
act from what he considered his sense of duty. He thought it
no doubt, on the whole, much better to temporise and to
patch up the existence of a state which he considered in a
condition of rapid decay and ultimate dissolution. But if he
be wrong, it must be recollected that he is the statesman who
at the present moment presides over the fortunes of the coun-
try, when there exists a still more trying exigency, and when
the same materials are in question and the same result at issue.
I must now call attention to that mysterious document, refer-
ring to the year 1844, which no one has hardly referred to,
and which having been laid on the table without explanation
has hardly attracted the attention it deserves. I can assure
the house that it is one of the most important documents
probable ever submitted to Parliament, and I venture to say
that nothing but the unprecedented circumstances that have
occurred, unforeseen and unexpected, which must indeed •
have confounded any Cabinet when made known, could have
brought this document under the consideration of the House
of Commons. This document is dated 1844, and called " The
Memorandum of Count Nesselrode." Ten years have elapsed
before that is made known to the House of Commons. The
document, in the whole tenour of its expressions, alludes to
an agreement, end is composed in a spirit which assumes that
there is an agreement entered into between the then Govern-
ment of England and the Emperor of Russia, during his visit
to this country. Now what are the points en which this
agreement is founded ? The first point is neither more nor
Less than the proposition of the partition of the Turkish em-
pire made by the Emperor of Russia to the English Govern-
ment. It is not proposed to enter upon the partition to-day
or to-morrow ; but the very fact that the suggestion is made,
and the subject dwelt on, shows that the tine! is not consi-
dered far distant for the partition. The very first point of
agreement is that there should be a partition, when it be-
came necessary, of the Turkish empire ; and how is that to
be effected ? By Great Britain, Russia, and Austria alone.
•This document is an agreement between Great Britain,
Russia, and Austria, with the studied and expressly inten-
tional omission of France. The noble lord who has just
addressed the house, speaking on a subject of which he is
a complete master, and giving the house all the reasons which
have led to the present lamentable state of affeirs, tells us that
he has no doubt that the catastrophe has beenhastened by
the circumstance of the Emperor of Russia having au idea
that the good feeling which now exists between England and
France would not be of long duration. When the present
Government came into office, ho knew that the noble lord at
the head of it bad in 1844 entered into an agreement for the
ultimate partition of Turkey without the knoteledge of France.
Have you nothing else, however, except this exclusion of
France ? You have another point intimately: connected with
the subject of the present discussion. What is the agreement
of 1844 ? What does ,the Emperor of Russia propose, and
what does the British Government agree to? The Em eror
of Russia states that Turkey is not yet reek' for partition,
but that the Turkish Government have a habit of endeavour-
ing to escape from the performance of their engagements under
treaties, but that, if those Powers to whom they were under
engagements endeavoured to compel a performance of them,
there was always a degree of jealousy exhibited by the other
Powers, and that, therefore, it would be wise to agree that,
if any Power to which the Turkish Government were under
engagements should insist upon their fulfilling that engage_
ment, no other Power should interfere. That is agreed to by
my Lord Aberdeen, but is there nothing more ? The Ere_
peror goes on to state that it is of importance to vindicate
the rights of the Christian subjects of the Porte. Well, sir,
what does this amount to ? It amounts to this—that Russia
say, has
with
hertehde into an
peringmaegemminenistterof England—first, that
with England—that is to
when the proper time arrives there shall be a partition of
Turkey, that partition to be effected by England, Russia,
and Austria, without the interference France ; secondly,
of
ituhteatrftehree Ewmitphetrhoer
Gofevßernussmiaenmt ofay Turkeyat any time
under pretence of
time he thinks fit,
engagements under treaties, and that no great Power
like England or Austria is to question him as to his
proceedings ; and, thirdly, to give him a further pretext
for interfering, he is to be allowed to vindicate the right
of the Christian subjects of the Porte. Then we are told
that this document is not an agreement--that it is only
a memorandum of Count Nesselrode s. This document,
which was never heard of till the St. Petersburg Gazette
mentioned it, is certainly not signed by Lord Aberdeen ; it
is not a convention ; it is not a protocol ; it le, in fact, merely
an understanding between two gentlemen. (Hear, hear, and
laughter) —and these two gentlemen are old friends. (Hear,
hear.) We have the sort of instrument the Emperor of Russia
prefers employing, for we have had evidence on that subject;
but let the house ask if there be any one with courage suffi-
cient to declare that this document was not an agreement be-
tween two gentlemen. What was the answer given when this
memorandum was sent from St. Petersburg ? The English
Minister was waited upon by the Russian Ambassador, who
gives him, with great pomp and ceremony, this document,
which is in effect an agreement between the present Prime
Minister of England and the Russian Government. (Hear,
hear.) I understand that we are to be told that there was no
agreement; but what are the facts of the case? A Minister
of the Crown received a document; he left that document to
his successor invested with every circumstance which might
cause it to be considered one of the great State secrets. That
Minister does not consider himself bound by that document
now ; but I ask him, did he at that time consider himself
bound to answer it ? Did that minister write and say, " I
have received a memorandum which affects to be an agree-
apuirde u
there ought to be a
agree-
ment into which I have entered, and which refers to certain
conversations which are alleged to have taken place. I have
entered into no agreement of any such charaecter,pinaendtof such
no such
magnitudec onver s ta t i
ao
sn st
hhea
theve
partition
ever
empire
no mistake, and therefore I send this memorandum, to state
that no such conversations as are referred to in the memoran-
dum sent to me ever took place ?" If this document be only
a memorandum, where, I ask, is the answer to Count Nes-
selrode? As I have never heard of any answer, I am bound
to believe that no answer was ever sent, but I am forced to
believe that this document was accepted in the same spirit in
which it was offered, and 'I look upon it as an agreement be-
tween the two Governments in the year 1844. This agreement
was, as I have already stated, an agreement which provided
for the ultimate paitition of Turkey, which tended to render
justifiable interference in the affairs of Turkey, which allowed
unchallenged, unquestioned interference, either on a pretence
of engagement under treaty or of vindicating the rights of the
Christian subjects with the prerogative of the Sultan. Let us
now consider whether this document of 1844 is not mate-
r a
affairs ; but first I I
lly a
should ftwei affecting
ntgo notice ficetraeonbt pser:astiitoionns ofof the noble lord, who,
I thought, put the whole question as regarded the personal
intentions of the Emperor of Russia very fairly, and also as
misapprehensionregarded
the
polie
existsyfhiscou intli7p, and I think that conside-
rable on that subject. I think
that nothing g
otheinteg cwoaldhebeeaumsecele pie extravagant
aro taught to think thatravagaut than that England
any foreign potktate has not behaved with sufficient open-
ness to this country, or because the policy of any foreign
Power may show a spirit of aggression ; these are not causes
for which the country should be called upon to stake the
blood and treasure which we are now called upon to stake.
With reference to the personal conduct of the Emperor, I

) can only say that, having read these secret and confidential
despatches, I feel it my duty to state that I entirely acquit
the Emperor of anything like duplicity. The Emperor in-
forms us not only of his future plans, but also of his present
intentions, and, indeed, I should ' say that a very remarkable
frankness is the characteristic of his correspondence. When
letteri are published in this manner, there may, of course, be
details calculated to convey an unfavourable opinion of the
writer, and I do not think that any gentleman in this house
would like his confidential correspondence to be suddenly
published and his character gauged and ascertained by the
expressions whiCh might appear iu such correspondence.
With regard to the desire of aggrandizement on the part of
Russia, there exists a little too much prejudice against
Russia on that account, and it is pretended that Russia is
animated by an extraordinary and immoral propensity for
increase of territory. I don't think that it becomes any great
European Power to bring any such charge. against Russia. I
don't understand how France can come into court with a
clear conscience and bring such a charge that Russia from a
desire for territorial aggrandizement has seized two provinces
of the Turkish empire, when France herself has seized the
most considerable province of Turkey—Algiers. I don't
think that England, remembering the Indian wars, and the
recent occurrences in Burmah, can bring such a charge; nor
would it even become the United States of America to
bring such a charge, considering that they have recently
absorbed Texas. Why we oppose the policy of Russia is
because we believe that, if Russia obtained possession of Con-
stantinople, she would exercise such a preponderance
over European politics as to be fatal to the civilization
of Europe and injurious to the interests of this country. The
class of politieians represented by the noble lord, who believe
that there is still more vitality in Turkey, can reasonably talk
of the independence and integrity of Turkey ; but that other
class of politicians represented by the Minister to whom the
hon. member for Aylesbury has referred, and whose position
I have illustrated by the document of 1844,—that is a class of
politicians of whom I cannot conceive how any one of them
can with any confidence come forward and ask us to support
them in a struggle to maintain the independence of a country
which they believe incapable of remaining independent. You
are placed in the position you now occupy by a divided Cabi-
net representing discordant opinions. We know the opinions
of that portion of the Cabinet which Lord Aberdeen represents
by his Servian policy in 1842. We have it, too in this docu-
ment of 1844. And now I ask the house to consider how
that notorious policy of the Prime Minister has acted upon
the present position of the country. lam bound to say, that
after the fall of Sir Robert Peel, when the noble lord the mem-
ber for London was Prime Minister, there was no trouble
about any plans for the partition of Turkey. (Hear, hear.)
When Lord Derby acceded to office no plans for the partition
of Turkey were suggested, although there were some conver-
sations upon other matters, which were received in a manner
which prevented any repetition of the subject. It was so
notorious that it was the determination of the late Govern-
ment, as I hope it is of the present, to maintain a cordial un-
derstanding with France, that these schemes of partition
slept. (Hear, hear.) It was settled in 1844 that the Minis-
try then in power would be of 20 years' duration, and the
Emperor of Russia believed the policy of Catherine was about
to be fulfilled. That Ministry fell sooner than was antici-
pated, and there appeared no prospect of the fulfilment of
that policy. Within 48 hours of the retirement of Lord
Derby news was unexpectedly received that Lord Aberdeen
was Prime Minister. The Emperor, with unbefitting haste
and undignified restlessness, immediately sent for the British
Ambassador and referred to the position which he had occu.
pied in 1844. (Hear, hear.[ The circumstances under which
Lord Aberdeen acceded to office were rather remarkable.
The Ministry of Lord Derby was of short duration, for
there was a patriotic feeling among different sections of
the house, and men who had sympathy together
and no party feeling came to the determination
to secure peace, and measures of Parliamentary reform, and
other blessings of that character. (Laughter.) No time was
to be lost, and it was perfectly clear that by turning us out
and making Lord Aberdeen Prime Minister large measures
upon those subjects alone could be procured and peace alone
could be maintained. (Cheers from the Opposition.) The
Emperor of Russia, then reverted to his old plans. (Hear,
hear.) It is said that the Emperor has been guilty of dupli-
city, and exception is taken on the subject of tho mission of
Prince Mensehikoff; but what do I find in the secret de-
spatches on that subject—in those despatches which range
over barely the first three months of the year ? In the first
place, propositions are made for the partition of Turkey in
the same spirit as the memorandum of 1844; but with regard
to the mission of Prince Menschikoff, the Emperor stated that
he was at Constantinople to obtain the consent of the Turkish
Government to certain proposals, and that, if the Porte con-
tinued to refuse its consent, he was determined to employ
force. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Aylesbury has
given the house so accurate a narrative of all that has taken
place that I need only refer to those strange events to com-
plete my argument, not to fill up my picture. A communi-
cation on the subject was made to the noble lord the member
for the City, at that time Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The
noble lord is one of those who have faith in the vitality of
Turkey—that is to say, he is a professor of British, not Rus-
sian politics; but the noble lord took tho seals of office with-
out any serious iutontion of long retaining them. The noble
lord, however, wrote a despatch upon the subject, some por-
tions of which I am bound to say I should have thought
would have been referred to by the noble lord in his opening
statement this evening. This is what may be called an his-
torical despatch. In it the noble lord refers to the Succession
War and the decease of the dynasty of Medici. I dare say
the Emperor of Russia had heard of the Succession War, but
of the last of the Medici it was probable he would derive his
knowledge only from those poetic historians whom the noble
lord once figured among. (A laugh.) But when the noble
lord referred to the Succession War, as he often does, and
always with vigour and accuracy, and when he adorned his
despatch with the felicitous recollection of the last of tho
Medici, I could not help wondering why, as the noble lord
wished to make an impression on the mind of the
Emperor of Russia, he did not resort to an illustration which
would have been far more apposite and instructive. The two
instances to which he referred have no analogy to the parti-
tion of Turkey. They are both cases of the possible dismem-
berment of an empire contingent on the extinction of a dy-
nasty. This is not the care here. The Sultan is alive; he is
a young man, and has a great Many wives and a great many
children. (Laughter.) Suppose the noble lord had said,
" There is one case of an instructive:character to which I
will venture to refer at this perplexing moment. If your
Majesty recollects what has occurred to England, to Europe,
and even to Russia in particular, from the partition of
Poland, you may perhaps see cause to hesitate before you
embark in an undertaking of a similar nature." But of
Poland the noble lord said not a word. (Hear, hear.) The
noble lord said in the same despatch that there was not suffi-
cient evidence to prove that the Sultan was not able to
govern his dominions; but the noble lord's successors soon
took especial care that, as far as depended upon the iistruc-
tions which he sent to our ambassador at Constantinople,
the Sultan should not be able to govern his dominions.
There was, however, one passage in the noble lord's despatch
to Sir H. Seymour, which excited my astonishment. The
passage to which I allude is this,—

" 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 burden-
some and inconvenient, though no doubt prescribed by duty
and sanctioned by treaty "
•

These are remark.able words. (Hear, hear.) The Emperor is
told that he has not only a right but a duty to perform.
(Hear.) A man may hesitate to enforce a right. Some men
have a right of free-warren ; but no wise man in the present
day would exercise it. A duty, however, a man is bound to
perform. And it is stated to be a duty beyond doubt.
(Hear, hear.) This is a remarkable admission. (Hear,
hear.) I want to know where the treaties aro which sanc-
tion the right and prescribe the duty? The noble lord
is a dexterous hand at a schedule. No statesman has
ever placed more schedules on the table of the house than
he has, and if he would' only add more to his perform-
ances in that way by t giving us a schedule of the
treaties which prescribe the Emperor of Russia's duty,
and sanction his right to a protectorate over the Sultan's
Christian subjects, I think it would be ono of the most in-
structive diplomatic documents which could be submitted to
our consideration. I read to-day, in one of those organs that
sometimes do an iujury to statesmen by vindicating their con-
duct and defending their characters (laughter), that the pro-
tectorate referred to by the noble lord was applicable only to
Moldavia and Wallachia. Unfortunately for this argument,
the noble lord's observation was an answer to one made by
the Emperor of Russia. The Emperor said :
" In that empire (Turkey) there are several millions of
Christians whose interests I am called upon to watch over
(surveiller), while the right of doing so is secured to me by
treaty. I may truly say that I made a moderate and sparing
use of my right, and I will freely confess that it is one which
is attended with obligations occasionally very Inconvenient ;
bat I cannot recede from the discharge of a distinct duty.
Our religion, as established in this country, came to us from
the East, and there are feelings, as well as obligations, which
never must be lost sight of."
This is what we are going to war about. We are not going
to war to insure the evacuation of the principalities ; for the
Emperor had declared twenty times dyer that he was ready to
evacuate them if Turkey would only give him the protecto-
rate he required over her Christian subjects. When we are
told that every modification of falsehood has been exhausted
by Russia when the passions of the people are excited in be-
half of a war, the cause of which is still obscure, and its end
even darker, I must ask whether there is any foundation for
these statements ? What did the charge of :fraud apply to ?
You cannot say that the Emperor of Russia is guilty of fraud
when he pretends to be the protector of the Christian popu-
lation in Turkey, lam of opinion that the Emperor has not
the least right to assume such a protectorate under the treaty-
of Kainardji or any other; and, on a former occasion, I en-
deavoured to satisfy the house that a more monstrous claim
could not be set up. But what does the Emperor of Russia
care for my opinion ? He has the opinion in his favour of the
noble lord —a Minister of the Crown, with whom he holds
secret and confidential correspondence, and on whose advice
the Queen of England declares war against All the Russias.
(Cheers and laughter.) The Emperor has your despatch, in
which you tell him that to exercise a protectorate over
millions of the Christian subjects of the Porte is his right
and his duty, and therefore I do not wonder that his Majesty
felt a little nettled when he found the very Minister who made
this frank and complete admission was the first person in the
British House of Commons to denounce his claim as fraudu-
lent. (Cheers.) Notwithstanding this unfortunate paragraph
in the noble lord's despatch, I agree with the hon. member for
Aylesbury in thinking that the tone in which that document
was written contrasts favourably with that employed by his
successor. It is evident that there has been in the Cabinet a
conflict between British sentiment and Russian sentiment,
and that this has brought us into the position in which we
now are placed. I say that the despatches show that the
question of the partition of Turkey was entirely set aside by
the Emperor himself at au early period of the negotiations.
Now, having pointed out to you the agreement of 1844, and
having shown you how the Emperor of Russia constantly
referred to this agreement with an almost fatal frankness, I
ask the Government how they acted with regard to the views
and policy of the Emperor ? In doing so, I entirely acquit
.
the noble lord the member for London of agreeing with et
intending to countenance the political and territorial aggres-
sion
to-
tally different line of policy was pursued. If the proper
line of policy had been pursued in these negotiations and cor-
respondencea with Russia, in the face of all these despatches
now before the house, I fearlessly ask, whether this war might
,beem toar.) There are, in fact,
have been adopted
sir,
hatwvoe
sbeysetnemspreovfepnotelidcy?
which seem hiecah
by Government in reference to the Eastern question ; the first
of which may be called " British policy," as represented and
State advocated by the noble lord t
oe
d shouldy memberthe
es supported
po
pp for tnd in
the city
aht T. e o
resist-
ance Turkey
key
Lon-
don
and the noble lord the Secretary of for the Home
Department,shoul
to
()
bRe Russia;
be
sn sdi
aeap;nednt
hd
ewe
independent
ccaohnndd embody
system
may
be called " Russian
policy," as advocated and supported by the noble earl the head
of her Majesty's Government, and which always presupposes
that Turkey, as a nation, is exhausted, and which contem-
plates with serenity the occupation of that country by the
Russians. (" No, no !" and cheers.) I repeat again, that the
First Minister of the Crown has, by all his actions, proved him-
self a supporter of this Russian policy. He proved it in 1844,
and he has proved it ever since, showing in every way that
he could that he was favourable to a limited partition of the
Ottoman empire, and the immediate interference of Russia
with that country. (Hear.) Why did not the Emperor of
Russia endeavour to press his views upon the English Minis,