The last of the Vienna conferences had already taken place, and was attended for Austria by Count Buol-Schauenstein and Baron Prokesch-Osten; for France, by Baron Bourqueney; for Great Britain, by the Earl of Westmoreland; for Russia, by Prince Gortschakoff and M. de Titoff; for Turkey, by Aali Pasha and Aariff Effendi. Count Buol stated that, as a last resource, Austria was prepared to make another proposition intended to settle by way of compromise the disputed point of the limitation of the naval forces of Russia in the Black Sea. In the eleventh conference, held on the 19th of April, M. Drouyn de Lhuys had suggested that, as Russia peremptorily objected to treat with the other great powers on the limitation of her own naval forces, an expedient might be found to meet this difficulty, by bringing about a direct arrangement between Russia and the Porte to adjust the balance of their respective forces, which arrangement should have the same validity and effect as the general acts of the conference. To this was added Lord John Russell's very inopportune declaration of the 19th of March, that the best and most admissible conditions of peace would be those which should be most consistent with the honour of Russia, as well as with the security of Europe. Upon these hints the Austrian cabinet set to work to construct its final scheme, to the following effect:-It proposed, in the first place,

VOL. III.

177

that the great powers should distinctly agree to respect the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and should bind themselves to consider every act or event of a nature to infringe upon it as a question of European interest. Secondly, that the plenipotentiaries of Russia and Turkey should propose by common agreement to the conference the equal amount of the effective naval forces to be kept up by them in the Black Sea, such amount not to exceed the number of Russian ships now afloat in that sea, and that this agreement should form an integral part of the general treaty; the straits to remain closed, but each of the other powers to be authorized by firman to station two frigates in the Black Sea, and in case of attack, the sultan to open the passage to all the naval forces of his allies. A considerable amount of diplomatic contention ensued, the result of which was that Prince Gortschakoff admitted that he found in the general principles of Count Buol's project the basis of a possible solution of the third guarantee. The English and French ambassadors both declared that their instructions were exhausted, and thus the matter ended for the time, though it was renewed earlier than had been expected.

The Crimean committee of inquiry, which had been largely attended, and to obtain admission to which crowds were daily in waiting, had brought its sittings to a close. The evidence was, as we have seen, conclusive as to the incapacity of the former administration of affairs in some of the departments most essential to the maintenance of the army and the prosecution of the war. The Duke of Cambridge had perhaps given the most damaging particulars, for he stated that while a cabinet minister was assuring the House of Commons that the number of men fit for duty amounted to thirty thousand, the real number was only twelve thousand. It will be remembered, however, that little information was obtained from the reports and despatches of Lord Raglan, and, as we have seen, the evidence related rather to what had been done under another administration, than by that in existence at the time of the inquiry. This may have been the reason that the report of the commission,

54

when it was presented, on the 18th of June, seemed to have little force in it. If it did not exhibit a "lame and impotent conclusion," it at all events appeared to reassert, without any immediately practical application, what had been said in far more forcible language a hundred times before. Indeed it rather provided excuse for previous failures, and wound up with a couple of patriotic platitudes. After describing the condition of the army, and reviewing the evidence given before the committee, it ended as follows:

The

"Your committee report that the sufferings of the army resulted mainly from the circumstances under which the expedition to the Crimea was undertaken and executed. administration which ordered that expedition had no adequate information as to the amount of forces in the Crimea. They were not acquainted with the strength of the forces to be attacked, or with the resources of the country to be invaded. They hoped and expected the expedition to be immediately successful, and as they did not foresee the probability of a protracted struggle, they made no provision for a winter campaign. The patience and fortitude of the army demand the admiration and gratitude of the nation on whose behalf they have fought, bled, and suffered. Their heroic valour and equally heroic patience under sufferings and privations have given them claims on the country which will doubtless be gratefully acknowledged. Your committee will now close their report with a hope that every British army may in future display the valour which this noble army has displayed, and that none may hereafter be exposed to such sufferings as have been recorded in these pages."

That Mr. Roebuck considered the result not quite in accordance with the threats which had originated and accompanied the inquiry, may be inferred from the terms of the motion that he almost immediately brought forward, "that this house, deeply lamenting the sufferings of our army during the late winter campaign in the Crimea, and coinciding with the resolution of their committee, that the conduct of the administration was the first and chief cause of those misfortunes, hereby visits with

its severe reprehension every member of the cabinet whose counsels led to such disastrous results." This resolution was discussed on the 17th and 18th of July, and dawdled along until it was got rid of by the usual expedient of moving and carrying "the previous question." Thus the inquiry was after all extinguished. It had done little or nothing more, after causing the retirement of three able ministers, than confirm the reports which had been published in the newspapers, and with which the country was already familiar.

The censure upon the government, and much depreciation of the manner in which the war was conducted, had to some extent been mitigated, however, and this result was partly attributed to a speech made by Prince Albert at the annual banquet at the Trinity House on the day after the closing of the debate on Mr. Lowe's amendment, when crimination and recrimination had run so high. The speech had been well thought out beforehand, and it was certainly telling, not only on account of the gravity with which it was spoken, but because of the serious representations which it contained-representations, the truth of which was afterwards largely acknowledged. It was in proposing the toast of her majesty's ministers that the prince said:

"If there ever was a time when the queen's government, by whomsoever conducted, required the support-ay, not the support alone, but the confidence, good-will, and sympathy of their fellow-countrymen, it is the present. It is not the way to success in war to support it, however ardently and energetically, and to run down and weaken those who have to conduct it. We are engaged with a mighty adversary, who uses against us all those wonderful powers which have sprung up under the generating influence of our liberty and our civilization, and employs them with all the force which unity of purpose and action, impenetrable secresy, and uncontrolled despotic power give him; whilst we have to meet him under a state of things intended for peace and the promotion of that very civilization-a civilization the offspring of public discussion, the friction of parties, and popular

and was of opinion that the war could not terminate in a treaty between that power and the allies, but rather in a general treaty, in which all the great powers of Europe must take part and give their security for maintain

It was at this time, that by an order in council, candidates for the public service were ordered to be subjected to educational tests, and this was afterwards extended to a more public and competitive examination.

But a still more important parliamentary event had occurred before the disposal of the report of the commission of inquiry, and the motion that arose out of it. Lord John Russell had again resigned-unwillingly this time, and in consequence of the false position in which he was discovered to have placed himself, and of a severe resolution which was brought forward by Sir E. L. Bulwer.

Mr. Milner Gibson had on the 6th of July asked the government for some further explanations of what had really been done at Vienna, for an avowal of their candid opinions and their true designs. He, as a representative of those who desired peace, had understood that Lord John Russell had gone to Vienna in order to make peace; but his colleagues seemed to have thwarted him. It appeared to him that, assuming Count Buol's statement to be correct, Lord J. Russell, when he was calling upon the house to continue the war, must have known that proposals had been made, likely to lead to a peaceful solution of the question at issue. If this were so, the house should be informed of the fact.

The answer given by Lord John, though it showed that he was not at one with the ministry which had appointed him as their representative on a mission of the utmost importance, and was therefore exceedingly damaging to the government, might have been less remarkable but for his former warlike and uncompromising speeches, delivered after his return from Vienna. He said he had never under

the case he thought it of the highest importance to secure the co-operation of Austria, to which government he attributed no bad faith whatever. He thought the proposition emanating from Count Buol, combined with one by which there should be a counterpoise to any force which Russia might have in the Black Sea, did afford a basis for a treaty of peace. That proposition was, that a treaty should be entered into between the powers,France, England, and Austria,-guaranteeing the integrity and independence of Turkey. He was not authorized to agree to this; but he told Count Buol that he would communicate them to his government. Those propositions were deliberately considered by the British government, which came to the conclusion that they did not offer a safe basis for a peace. The French government came to the same conclusion-Austria still declaring that she thought the third point admitted of more than one solution, and that she was not therefore bound to go to war with Russia. He was of a different opinion, although Austria had represented that her proposition should be made an ultimatum to Russia. If he had left office on the decision of the government he would be assuming as a plenipotentiary a course of conduct which could not be justified by such a position; while on the other hand, as a minister of the crown, he felt it his duty not to embarrass a government placed in the difficult circumstances which surrounded that of his noble friend. On the contrary he felt that he ought to support his government, and he was open to the censure of those who entertained a different opinion.

This statement roused Mr. Cobden to indignant remonstrance. He had never, he said, heard a speech that filled him with more grief than that of the noble lord; for he could not help thinking that he had not dealt with fairness or candour towards the country, nor

181

with a proper spirit in not resigning. Such a course of proceeding on the part of the noble lord was calculated to destroy all confidence in public men. He was of opinion that a change of ministry would give the only chance of an honest party in the house and in the country.

The position of the government was indeed precarious. Lord Palmerston, with his usual loyal pluck, attempted to defend the conduct of his colleague, and declared it to be a novel proposition to say that a minister should retire from a government because he thought terms of peace might have been accepted when his colleagues were of a different opinion. But it was evident that Lord John Russell must resign. Denunciations of his conduct followed from Mr. Roebuck; and Mr. Disraeli with severe irony said that, having arrived at a favourable solution of the difficulties with which he had had to contend, and having in his own mind accomplished measures which would secure peace to his country, all he had to do was to communicate those measures to his colleagues in the cabinet; that having done so and finding no sympathy among them, he had quietly pocketed his own opinions and remained "in a cabinet of war a minister of peace." This was the end of the government, the head of which was to have been a minister of surpassing energy, and no doubt transcendent experience; this the end of the ministry which was to put the right men in the right places; this the end, that even peace and war had become mere party considerations; that the interests of the country were sacrificed to the menace of a majority, and that the tumults and turbulent assemblies of Downing Street were to baffle all the sagacity of all the conferences of Vienna.

On the 10th Sir E. Bulwer Lytton gave notice of the following motion :-"That the conduct of the minister in the recent negotiations at Vienna has, in the opinion of this house, shaken the confidence of this country in those to whom its affairs are intrusted." Two days later Lord John Russell explained to the house that although at the end of April and in the first days of May he thought the Austrian propositions might have been assented to, he

did not consider that they could now, “after the events and proceedings which have since occurred," form the foundation of a satisfactory peace. Neither the house nor the public showed any disposition to accept the statement in mitigation of their displeasure at the position in which they found themselves placed, before their adversary and Europe, of carrying on a war condemned by a leading member of the executive government. The explanation was generally regarded only as making bad worse.

Lord John Russell, anticipating the effect of the coming discussion, announced his resignation, and he was succeeded in the colonial office by Sir William Molesworth; but it was Isaid that he would still have retained office but for the outspoken advice of candid friends, among whom was Mr. Bouverie, the vicepresident of the Board of Trade. The government had a narrow escape, and the comments on the political situation both inside and outside the House of Commons were bitter enough. "There have been many instances of friends and friendships," said Mr. Disraeli. . . . "There is the devoted friend who stands by one like the noble lord (Palmerston); but there is another kind of friend immortalized by an epithet which should not be mentioned to ears polite. We all know that friend. It was, I believe, a brilliant ornament of this house who described that kind of friend;2 and I must say, that, although the devoted friend, the prime minister, must after to-night be allowed to take the highest position, still, for a friend of the other description-candid and not bad-natured-commend me to the president of the Board of Trade." But Dis raeli's satire developed into denunciation: "The foremost of your statesmen dare not meet the controversy which such questions provoke. He mysteriously disappears. With the reputation of a quarter of a century, a man who has reformed parliament, who, as he has told us to-night and often before, is

1 "Sir Fretful," in Sheridan's Critic, says that if one is abused in print "why one is always sure to hear of it from one d-d good-natured friend or another."

2 Canning who, in his "New Morality," wrote: "But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send, Save, save, oh save me from the candid friend!"