The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-02-21 00:00:00

THE EASTERN QUESTION.

Mr. LAYARD called attention to the present state of our
relations with Russia and Turkey. He wished to know
from government the position in which we now stood, and
to show, from documents in the Blue Book, that if a more
straightforward policy had been adopted we should not
have been in the condition in which we now were. There
were three points which he would endeavour to establish—
namely, the military preparations of the Rnssian govern-
ment last year, her naval preparations, and the statements
made by the Russian government to that of England. Mr.
Layard then referred to various documents which, as he
contended, proved that, so early as the beginning of Jan.,
1853, the British government were fully aware that Russia
was making great naval and military preparations, while
no protest was made on their part, much less a formal de-
mand, to stop these armaments. Even when the Rus-
sian forces invaded the Danubian Principalities, had
Turkey been suffered to commence hostilities, Omar
Pasha would at that time have expelled them; but no
protest had even been made on our part against their
crossing the Pruth. No exertions had been omitted on
the part of Lord Stratford to open the eyes of the govern-
ment to the dangers which threatened the empire ; but
these efforts and repeated warnings from their own agents
were fruitless. He then considered the course pursued by
the British government, with relation both to the Porte
and to France, arguing that every proposal of an energetic
character had originated with the French government,
whose honesty and straightforwardness he contrasted with
the sluggish and indecisive policy of England. In the
next place, he examined the facts connected with the fatal
affair of Sinope, showing that, but for the vacillating in-
instructions of our government, that catastrophe would
not have occurred, and insisting that the house ought to
have some explanation of the reasons why it was not pre-
vented. He next inquired what the government were
going to do. We were told that, although we were not
at peace, we were not at war; but what were to be the
terms of our negotiations with Russia? If they were to
be based upon existing treaties and the status quo ante
bellum, he hoped that, after what had happened, parlia-
ment would not permit this to be made the ground of
negotiation, which would place the question in a worse
position than before. Until the Principalities were secured
from Russian interference, the Danube was opened to
European commerce, the Black Sea was no longer a mare
clausum, Circassia was opened, and the highway to Persia
through the Caucasus was cut off to Russian encroachment,
he hoped that England would not consent to negotiate, or
submit to terms which, after the calamities suffered and
the blood shed, would disgrace her. In conclusion, he
adverted to the reported disagreements between our am-
bassador at Constantinople and the admiral of our fleet in
the Bosphorus ; and observed, that the country had a right
to expect that something should be done to prevent dis-
sensions, which, he said, had reached a very scandalous
extent.

Sin J. GRAHAM declared that the government had
done their utmost to preserve peace, if that object could
be attained consistently with the honour of the country.
He justified the government from the charge of placing
too much reliance upon Russian assurances, and from
the imputation of a want of energy and decision. It was
not open to the allied fleets to pass the Dardanelles until
the Porte was at war, and he explained the causes which
had retarded the entry of the fleets into the Black Sea
until the disastrous affair of Sinope. Immediately after
the interpretation put by Count Nesselrode upon the
Vienna note, and when the delusion, created by false
assurances, had been dissipated, orders were given to the
fleet to protect the Turkish territory from aggression.
Mr. Layard had asked what results had been gained. We
had avoided war up to this moment; we had cemented a
cordial union with France ; we had combined Austria and
Prussia with us, thereby insulating Russia; and we had
attained a solemn recognition that the interpretation put
by Turkey upon the treaty of Kainardji was correct, and
that contended for by Russia was ill-founded. Further,
this country, as well as France, was prepared for war;
no Russian soldier had crossed the Danube, not a Russian
ship of war could navigate the Black Sea, hitherto a
mare clausum ; and England was determined that the
Principalities should be evacuated, and the independence
of Turkey maintained.
Lord JOCELYN regarded this as a question in which the
liberties of Europe were concerned, and contended that
the moment when Prince Menschikoff made his insolent
demand, or, at least. when the Russians crossed the Pruth,
it became the duty of the Western Powers to interfere.
He condemned the course of policy pursued by the Govern-
ment, which discovered, he said, a want of vigour and de-
termination, and reproached them with suffering them-
selves to be deluded by Russia, while they hazarded a
cordial alliance with France, so much dreaded by the
Emperor of Russia, to whom, had they profited by the
opportunity, they might, he said, have dictated terms.
After some remarks from other members,
Lord Joins RUSSELL said the conduct of Russia towards
' this Government was no doubt deceptive, but while they
gave credit to the assurances of Russia, they were not
blind to the possibility of the R11,55/412 Government's en-