« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
he had previously attained in the service of his country.
Mr. Malins having obtained this recognition of Sir C. Napier's merits, then, at the suggestion of Sir John Walsh, withdrew his motion. On the 29th of March, the House of Commons was again occupied by a discussion upon the proceedings of the Black Sea fleet. It originated in a motion of Mr. Scott for copies of instructions to the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean and Black Sea, and correspondence relative to the attack on Odessa. He arraigned the whole policy pursued towards that port, and argued that the occupation of it last year would have prevented many of the calamities which occurred to our armies; and in support of this argument, he went minutely through the history of the war. He replied by anticipation to the objections which might be offered to the production of the papers, and declared that it was only fair to Admiral Dundas himself that the orders under which he acted should be fully made known.
Sir C. Wood said the same reasons which induced him to object altogether to the motion precluded him from replying to any portion of the speech of Mr. Scott which had the slightest reference to his motion. If there had been any correspondence or instructions upon this subject, to produce them would at once disclose to the enemy the views and intentions of our commanders as to the probability or the reverse of an attack on Odessa; the disclosures of the newspapers were bad enough, but Mr. Scott's motion went further, and asked the Government to disclose its own secrets. Some further discussion ensued, in the
course of which Sir G. Pechell defended Admiral Dundas.
Mr. Stafford observed that the papers would amply vindicate the admiral, whose silence, he remarked, contrasted favourably with some examples.
Lord Palmerston said the character of Admiral Dundas stood high as an officer of Her Majesty's naval service, and there was no part of his conduct while employed that had not done honour to him.
Mr. Scott having disclaimed any intention of casting the slightest slur upon Admiral Dundas, then withdrew his motion.
On the 19th of March, in reply to inquiries from Mr. Stafford, Mr. Peel made some statements as to the authority of authentic reports received within the two previous days from the hospital commissioners sent out by the Duke of Newcastle. As many as 20 per cent. of the force under Lord Raglan's command had been at times in the regimental hospitals; but the numbers were less then. The great defects were not in the number of surgeons but in the want of houses; then every regiment had a hospital hut. At the Balaklava hospital, the chief cause of confusion was overcrowding; that had been obviated by the erection of huts. With respect to the transports for the sick, there were then five vessels fitted up expressly for that service, with an abundant supply of medical comforts on board. The purveyor's department at Constantinople had been placed on a sound footing. To remedy the overcrowding at Scutari, an arrangement had been made to provide wooden huts for 1000 persons immediately, and for 4000 as soon as possible.
Mr. Peel, at some length, and
reading from official reports, showed that the site of the hospital at Smyrna was not unhealthy, but peculiarly suitable for hospital purposes. In a letter dated March 5, a gentleman from the War Office stated that the best results had been obtained from the hospital at Smyrna, and that the greater part of a body of invalids who arrived there on the 14th of February were then on their way back as convalescents. Orders had been issued to establish convalescent stations at Tenedos and Corfu.
Lord Palmerston made some additions to these statements. Dr. Sutherland, Dr. Gavin, and Mr. Rawlinson, recently sent to the East, were instructed to inspect the arrangement of barracks, hos
pitals, and transports, and to suggest such measures of improvement as they deemed fitting. Lord Palmerston had written to request Lord Stratford, Lord Raglan, and Lord William Paulet, to see that their suggestions should be carried into effect immediately, without reference to any professional jealousy or any professional obstacles; what they recommended should be done forthwith; and, whether it depended upon communications with the Turkish Government, or upon arrangements to be made by medical officers in Her Majesty's service, no impediments whatever would stand in the way of effecting such changes and new arrangement as those gentlemen might consider desirable.
Lord Lyndhurst on the Vienna Negotiations-His remarkable speechThe Earl of Clarendon's reply-The Treaty with Sardinia-VIENNA CONFERENCES-Questions by Mr. Bright in the House of Commons, and the Earl of Malmesbury in the House of Lords - Replies of Lord Palmerston and the Earl of Clarendon-Statement by Lord John Russell as to the proceedings at Vienna-Further questions and replies--The Earl of Clarendon's statement-Observations of the Earl of Derby and the Marquis of Lansdowne-Mr. Disraeli's remarks on the non-production of papers-Lord Palmerston's reply— The subject again mooted by Mr. Disraeli-The formal close of the Conferences announced to both Houses-Discussion on the Conferences and conduct of Austria originated by Lord Lyndhurst - His speechHe is answered by Lord Clarendon-Resolutions of the Earl of Ellenborough condemnatory of the conduct of the war-His speech-He is supported by the Earls of Hardwick, Winchelsea, and Derby, and opposed by Lord Panmure, the Earls of Elgin and Granville, the Duke of Newcastle, and the Marquesses of Clanricarde, Londonderry, and Lansdowne-The resolutions are rejected on a division-Debate on Earl Grey's resolutions-Speeches of the Earls of Clarendon, Malmesbury, and Derby, the Dukes of Argyll and Newcastle, Lord Lyttelton, and the Bishop of Oxford.
N the 20th March Lord Lynd
weeks of having completed the eighty-third year of his age, brought forward his motion respecting the position of Prussia with regard to the war, and the negotiations in progress at Vienna, and again displayed in the House of Lords his unrivalled and unimpaired mental and oratorical powers. For upwards of an hour, with an unbroken lucidity of discourse, he riveted the attention of his audience. The arrangement of his subject was so masterly, the series of facts so particular and complete, that the charge against the court of Prussia grew and gathered strength as it
went along, till it reached its con
irresistible force. His
speech indeed was so full of matter, that it scarcely admits of abridgment. He said he should speak with the more freedom, because, not being a Minister, nothing that he might say would embarrass the Government.
The aim of his speech was to make out that no reliance could be placed on Prussia, and practically to enforce the proposition that she ought to be excluded from the Conferences at Vienna, where she could but act as the ally, the instrument, nay almost the slave, of Russia. Two recent facts, he said, had occurred bearing upon this important ques
tion-one, the dying message of the late Czar to the King of Prussia; the other, the manifesto of the new Czar, and the declaration of his intention of following out the policy of Peter, Alexander, and Catherine. He read an extract from despatch of Count Nesselrode, issued immediately before the last war, and which seemed to be almost prophetic of the present policy of Prussia. Count Nesselrode said that "If Russia should undertake alone to put in execution these coercive means (that is to say, coercive means against Turkey), there is every reason to believe that the Court of Berlin would not in any manner oppose us. But, on the contrary, her attitude, at once unfettered and friendly, would operate as a powerful check to other States, and bring them to submit to results suited to the dignity and the interest of Russia." The diplomatist added, that Prussia should be let into the confidence of Russia, and would be convinced that the part assigned to her was for her advantage. Lord Lyndhurst then detailed the history of the Prussian negotiations. Prussia had, it was true, joined in the protocols of January and April of last year, but what else could she do? She could not openly side with Russia; she could not remain in a state of isolation; she had no other alternative. What was her subsequent conduct? Baron Manteuffel, her Prime Minister, declared that he did not conceive that Prussia was called upon to go any further, or that German independence was involved in the question; yet Prussia had already declared that a great wrong had been committed; she was bound by treaties to redress that wrong; and then considers that she has nothing
further to do than to express her indignation at its commission. Lord Lyndhurst then commented, in indignant language, upon the supposition that German interests were not involved in the question. "Ger man interests not involved in this question! Why, my Lords, I have said on former occasions, and I now repeat, that the interests of Germany are more closely involved in this question than the interests of the Western Powers, which have made such large sacrifices, and are still continuing to make sacrifices, for the purpose of promoting German interests, establishing German independence, and defending the cause of civilisation throughout the whole world. (Cheers) If, in saying that German interests are not involved, she means commercial and material interests, how is it possible that such an assertion can for a moment be maintained? Is not the freedom of the navigation of the Danube a question essentially connected with German interests? It is true that, as far as Prussia is concerned, her immediate interests are not very much involved in the Danube, for all the rivers of her territory flow northward, and that is the direction of her commerce; but with respect to central and southern Germany, the great channel of their trade outward and homeward is by the Danube. How, then, can it be said that, even in this limited sense, her interests are not affected by the contest that is going on, and by the encroachments of Russia ? It may be deemed necessary to refer to authorities on this subject, and I can refer to the authority of Prussia itself to the authority of Baron Manteuffel, expressed in a document to which I referred on a former occasion, and which I will
now read to your Lordships. It states: The interests for which we are labouring amid impending complications are, from their very essence, the interests of entire Germany. (Hear, hear!) Referring to the navigation of the Danube, it then goes on to state: That a well regulated state of affairs in the countries on the Lower Danube is of essential importance to the material interests of Germany.' How can we reconcile these statements with the policy of Prussia as expressed by the high authorities to whom I have referred? They have stated, -We are of opinion that a grievous wrong has been committed. We do not think it necessary to go further. We do not think it necessary to take active measures, which we are bound to by treaty and by successive obligations, to prevent this wrong, for we do not think that either the interest or independence of Germany is involved in this question. But, my Lords, were the Czar once to establish himself at Constantinople, it would be quite idle to talk of German independence or interests. They must succumb to the superior Power. (Hear!) How can the conduct of Prussia be explained? I can only explain it by stating that some secret and overpowering influence is brought to bear on Prussia, which has neither the wish nor the power to resist the influence, perhaps, of a strong and of a powerful mind over one of a weak, fluctuating, and feeble character. There are, my Lords, circumstances connected with this part of the question which, though insulated, I must bring before your Lordships. At the Committee to which I have referred, on the loan bill in Prussia, the late Minister of War,
either as a member of the Committee, or having received permission to be present and to speak, made a statement which may be considered of a formal character. He said what my noble Friend. opposite has often stated, that it was impossible that Prussia could co-operate with Russia on a question of this kind; that it would be an act of parricide towards the States of Germany.' What was the consequence of this statement
what followed it? This Minister of the Crown was welcomed in the usual way by his Sovereign, almost embraced by him; he was complimented for his long and active services, for his talents, for his devotion to his Sovereign. So the conversation was for some time carried on, but at last it was intimated that it was inconvenient to the Government that he should hold the office of Minister of War. (A laugh.) What was the result? Two days after he sent in his resignation. This is an insulated fact, but there are others which correspond with it. The representative of Prussia in our own Court, a man of great learning, great talents and attainments, (Hear, hear!)-a profound statesman, well conversant with the interests of the country, and of Europe,-( Hear, hear!') finding the course pursued by Prussia was inconsistent with the opinions he had expressed as to the policy which it ought to pursue, and not desiring to be an agent to carry into effect that which he disapproved, or to defend that which he had condemned, resigned his office, and is now pursuing his literary labours at Heidelberg. This is in the same tone with the other instance I have cited. At a more recent period, towards the close of last year, the King of