LORD JOHN RUSSELL AND THE VIENNA CONFERENCES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 317, 14 November 1855, Page 3

LORD JOHN RUSSELL AND THE VIENNA CONFERENCES.

(From the summary of the debate in the " Times," July 7)

Mr. M. GißSon asked for explanations from the Government relative to the opposition of Her Majesty's ministers to the views of their colleague, the late British plenipotentiary at the Vienna Conferences, in reference to the plan proposed by Austria to be submitted to Russia for the purpose of putting " an end to Russian preponderance in the Black Sea," as staled in the circular addressed by Count Buol to the diplomatic agents of Austria, dated Vienna, May 25. He complained that, in the decision upon Mr. l/.ivard's motion, the house was not put in possession of all that had occurred at Vienna ; that if it had been known that the British plenipotentiary differed from the Prime Minister, in consequence of which a proposition which the former thought a safe solution of the question as to the third point was not submitted to Russia, the decision might lme be^ii different. The house, therefore, he thoaght, was entitled to a frank and candid avowal of the opinions of the administration, of what was the policy they were pursuing in the East, and of

what were the objects they sought to accomplish. He read a passage from Count Buol's circular, and expressed his belief that Lord J. Russell went to Vienna with a bona fide intention to make an honourable peace ; but that his colleagues appeared to have entertained different views, and to have desired to avoid the chance of peace. How could he, then, reconcile the retention of office with the sentiments he had declared at Vienna ? If he had changed hia opinion, let him frankly avow it. He cautioned the first minister that a day of retribution would come ; the administration had, be said, sacrificed the flower of the British army, as well as millions of the public money; they had concealed from Parliament facts material to guide its opinion, and the course they had taken was calculated to bring'sjreat disasters upon the country, which would visit them upon their heads. Lord J. Russell said -he was glad that Mr. Gibson had brought forwaid his censure upon the Government upon this fit occasion, and owned that he was fully entitled to the explanation he asked. After observing that, so far from being, as Mr. Gibson supposed, disappointed at the events of the war, its success had far exceeded his hopes, he insisted that the object of the war, instead of being obscure, was well understood, even by the labouring men of the country; but he admitted that he had always thought its accomplishment was a work of much difficulty, owing to the enormous power of Russia. The end of the war must, he considered, not be merely a treaty between the allies and Russia, but there must be a general treaty, by which all the Powers of Europe entered into an engagement to secure the integrity and independence of Turkey. Lord John then referred ,in detail to the consultations at the Congress respecting the mode of solving the third point, in which Count Buol admitted, he said, that the best mode was to obtain from Russia a limitation of her force in the Black Sea ; but he suggested that there was another mode—that of strengthening Turkey, iustead of weakening Russia. Ultimately he proposed that there should be a stipulation for a counterpoise of forces, whereby if Russia increased her naval power in the Black Sea beyond its then dimensions, England, France, Austria, and Turkey might augment theirs in proportion ; and, further, that there should be a treaty by which Austria, Great Britain, and France guaranteed the independence and integrity of Turkey, Russia being made a party to that guarantee. It appeared to him, he said, that these provisions did not contain a security for Turkey, and he bad not changed his opinion. The Austrian Government had offered to send to Russia the alternative either to consent to this proposition, or to limit her naval power m the Black Sea, and that if Russia refused, it should be considered a casus belli. His colleagues in Her Majesty's Government, however, came to the conclusion that the proposition did not afford a safe basis for further negotiation. To the question why, after this, he remained a member of the administration, he replied that if he had left office on this decision he should not have acted consistently with the rule which had always guided his conduct ; and that, whatever might be his sentiments upon* this great question, he thought it to be his duty to continue tv give his support to the present head of the Cabinet, and not, by quitting office, weaken its stability. Mr. Cobdkn expressed his grief and surprise at the speech of Lord J. Russell. The complaint was that when he returned from Vienna he promised to do his best to induce the Government to agree to a proportion which he approved, and that he had not informed the House that the terms submitted by Austria had his approval. lustead of telling the house frankly what was his opinion as to the great question of peace or war, lie had made speeches denouncing the encroachments of Russia, the effect of which was to make the country believe that he had come away from Vienna despairing of any terms of peace, while he knew right well that he had come buck bringing a proposition which he had told Count Buol be would advocate in his cabinet. Lord John had, he considered, abandoned his tiust hy not resigningollice when he found he could not carry out his views, and he looked upon his conduct with the more regret from the danger to which his example exposed the cause of lepresentativo govern. men I. Directing bis attention to the obje C | s and the conduct of the war, he m.itrnified th e 'difficulties and the risks of the contest, w;,j c j.

had never been popular, he said, in France, and was now odious there, and insisted upon the folly of perseveiing in the attempt upon Sehastupo!, which every military authority, he said, pronounced hopeless. He advised the house not to be frightened at the prospect of a change of ministry; he would infinitely prefer that the other side should be in power, and he looked with regret at the vote he had given which displaced the ministry of Lord Derby, a change which had cost the country, in his opinion, 100 millions of money, and thousands of lives. Lord P.A.I.MERSTON said, he could understand that Mr. Cobden, having views of his own, and wishing to forma party that might place him in a position to admiuister the affairs of the country, should do all hepould do to realize his assertions ; but he (Lord.'-.Piilmersion) denied 1 is allegations as to the character of public men, who had not, as Mr. Cubden pretended, lost the confidence of the country. He defended the conduct of Lord J. Russell, and 'the course taken by him, and, with reference to the proposal of Austria, the Governments of England and France, he said, had given to it their most anxious and earnest consideration, and had decide:!, not hastily or upon light grounds, that it did not furnish that real security for peace for which they were bound to look. He reviewed the transactions of the war on the Danube, in the Baltic, in the Black Sea, and in the Sea of Azov, observing that the result was that the territory of our ally had been evacuated, and we occupied an important position in that of Russia. With regard to the regret expressed by Mr. Cobden that the Government was not in other hands, he felt assured, he said, that the country would support no administration that would not carry on the war with vigour and conduct it to a successful issue. Mr. Ruebuck observed that there were two mailers involved in this discussion—one the character and conduct of Lord J. Russell, the other the wisdom of the war. On the first he concurred with Mr. Gibson and Mr. Cohden ; on the second, he agreed with Lord Palmerston. He examined the conduct of Lord J. Russell in relation to the Austrian proposal, considering it to be-inconsistent with the perfect honesty of a pubic man. As to the war, the object of "which Mr. Gibson could not understand, its immediate cause was, he said, a flujrant breach, —and not the first, —of the'aw of nations. In commencing the war, which was a just and necessary one, we bad done wisely, and, in his opinion", it would have been wiser to have commenced it earlier. Lord C. Hamilton thought the House should insist upon having from the Government a clear and definite statement of the object of the war, the means by which it was to be attained, and the terms of peace. Mr. DisBAELT. said, that evening would be memorable for the unexampled revelation made by Lord J. Russell, who had admitted that, employed in the high position of .Minister Plenipotentiary to negotiate on the subject of peace or war, and having arrived at a solution of the difficulty,and accomplished a result that would secure peace to the country, he returned to England, and, strange to say, finding no sympathy on the part of his colleagues, who determined upon the prosecution of'a war, which in his o'-inion, ought to have terminated, acceded to (heir suggestions, and remained, in a Cabinet of war, a Minister of Peace. The reasons he had given for this extraordinary course were no less singular than the cuirse itseif. The country, however, ought to consider the nul question, whether we were to have peace or war ; the question ought not lo be an open one in the Cabinet, which, in either case, ouirht t(J he unanimous, or there could be no chance of vigour or efficient action. The effect of that im slit's debate -would have an e\ii tendency. The impression in th% Cabinets of the continent jniiM bitve been that when our Plenipotentiary aceepsed the Austrian proposition he represented !ue m'uv\ and policy of his own cabinet. Wliv di<! not his cdleagnes ratify hi- labours? When a Minister of the Cabinet was sent to negotiate a peace, and succeeded, and, although ?,i s J a . boms were not ratified, remained in the Cabinet, ib* House had a right to expect from a Government so^sitnaled a fr.mk explanation of the reasons which induced them not to accept the resuit of his labours, Bir G. Geky complained of the erroneous construction put by Mr. Di,radi upon the e!;i;.Mue!it of Lord J. Russell, who had not said, as had been assumed, that he had brought

over a proposal assented to by Russia ; on the contrary, the principle of that proposal, involving a limitation of the naval power of Russia in the Black Sea, Russia bad declared she would never accede to. He denied that tho Cabinet was a divided one. They were unanimous in considering the war just and necessary, and in the prosecution of it they were a united Cabinet. An explanation took place between Lord Godkkicii and SirG. Qre7 as to the effect of the rejection by Russia of the Austrian proposition, if it had been offered to the former. The House then *vent into a Committee of Supply, but the Chairman immediately reported progress. Several hills were read a third time and passed ; others were advanced a stage, and, the remaining business haviug been disposed of, the House adjourned.'