thought, the deep meditation, the unrivalled learning, of the greatest statesmen of Europe. Here is the summary of what they believe to be the cause of the most important event of the present day.

'Russia in renouncing the pretension to take under an official protectorate the Christian subjects of the Sultan of the Oriental ritual, equally renounces, as a natural consequence, the revival of any of the articles of her former treaties, and especially of the treaty of Koutchouk Kainardji, the erroneous interpretation of which has been the principal cause of the present war.'

By whom was that erroneous interpretation made? Was it by the noble lord, or by the Emperor of Russia? If by the Emperor of Russia, it was assented to by the minister of England. What right have we to interfere in this quarrel when the united wisdom of all these statesmen has found out that the erroneous interpretation of the treaty of Kainardji has been the principal cause of the war'-and the erroneous interpreter is sitting before me. And the very statesman who lashed on the passions of this country to war, when we had a springtide of national feeling in our favour which might have been directed to great ends, is sent by the First Minister as plenipotentiary of peace to the Conference of Vienna ? But we are only at the commencement of the extraordinary mistakes, the fatal admissions, the disgraceful demeanour of that noble lord who displayed, we are told, consummate ability, though unsuccessful. Why did you not give us an opportunity of examining the conduct of your unsuccessful Plenipotentiary? Why did you not move an Address to the Crown, congratulating Her Majesty on the admirable manner in which the negotiations have been carried on, while at the same time expressing a determination to prosecute the war with vigour? I am not at all surprised that you have avoided discussion. There have been before now unsuccessful negotiations and unsuccessful negotiators; but it is equally true that ministers have been overthrown and branded by the verdict of an indignant Parliament for having acted and for having spoken in a manner similar to that which has been done and said by the noble lord. The right honour

able gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty laughs: it is not the first time I have been met with a laugh by the right honourable gentleman. He is a merry soul; but if he can answer what I am saying, let him do so. The noble lord arrived at Vienna early in March, and the first Conference, I think, was held on March 15. At first everything went on swimmingly, and subjects were discussed and settled about which in reality no difference of opinion existed, and then an admirable opportunity was afforded to the Russian envoys of making conciliatory sacrifices.

The Conference went on from March 15 to the 26th of that month, and then commenced the real business. Five or six meetings of the Conference had taken place, at which, as I have said, nothing of the slightest importance was settledin fact, all that was settled might just as well have been settled by the post. There was no controversy about the first or second point, but at last, on March 26, the real difficulty arose; then was made apparent the real reason why the noble lord was sent to take part in the Conferences. Then came the discussion of the third point, and then it was that the noble lord was expected, among others, to obtain the admission of the Turkish empire into the European confederation, and to decide upon the manner in which the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea should cease to exist. Then commenced the real business of the Conference; but the noble lord before he touched upon the real point-remembering the mission of his life as much as his mission to Vienna-threw in a word with regard to representative Government for the Principalities, and, I believe, even hinted at something like a new Reform Bill for these countries. Prince Gortschakoff smiled, and naturally replied that that was not exactly the point that they had met to settle; and he hinted that a new Reform Bill for the Danubian Principalities might be postponed, as a new Reform Bill for a more important place had been postponed, and that it might be as well to get on a little with the real business of the meeting. The noble lord then rose and made the following unprecedented declaration, in reference to a very commonplace statement of Prince Gortschakoff at the commence

ment of negotiations, and which was not referred to while. the Conference was engaged on those articles which produced no controversy :—

'Lord John Russell, recalling the declaration made by Prince Gortschakoff at the opening of negotiations, that he would consent to no condition incompatible with the honour of Russia, maintained that, in the eyes of England and of her allies, the best and only admissible conditions of peace would be those which, being the most in harmony with the honour of Russia, should at the same time be sufficient for the security of Europe and for preventing a return of complications such as that the settlement of which is now in question.'

Let us see to what that admission led. The noble lord states that, in the eyes of Europe and the allies, the only admissible conditions of peace were those most in harmony with the honour of Russia. What, I want to know, had the noble lord to do with the honour of Russia? I apprehend that the noble lord was not sent to Vienna to take care of the honour of Russia. No, Sir, the noble lord was sent to Vienna to take care of the honour of England. What happened under these circumstances? At that time-I am stating what I admit does not appear formally on the protocols, but I am stating what no well-informed person will for one moment contradict, and which is matter of general notoriety—at that time there did exist an understanding to which Russia was not, I believe, bound by any formal instrument, but still an understanding did exist, that the Russian plenipotentiary, Prince Gortschakoff, and M. de Titoff, should take the initiative, and offer a plan which might lead to a satisfactory solution of the question how the preponderance of the power of Russia in the Black Sea might be made to cease. I do not think that the noble lord will deny that, although the Russian ministers were not bound by the understanding, still their feeling had been felt upon the subject, and it was clearly understood that they should take the initiative and propose some plan which they believed would afford a satisfactory solution to the difficultythe preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea.

No sooner, however, had the noble lord made the declara

tion that, in the eyes of Europe and the allies, the best and, indeed, only admissible terms of peace were 'those which should be most in harmony with the honour and dignity of Russia,' than

'Prince Gortschakoff, while congratulating himself on the conciliatory disposition with which the question had been hitherto touched upon in the Conference, said that he was prepared to discuss the means of execution which should be proposed by the plenipotentiaries, and that he did not consider himself in a position in which he ought to take the initiative on this subject.'

(Lord J. Russell: As Count Buol had suggested.

Mr. Disraeli: I did not say as the noble lord had suggested.' I would not misrepresent the noble lord, but anyone who thinks the correction of the noble lord makes any difference in my argument is entirely mistaken.)

'As Count Buol had suggested. Appreciating at the same time the sentiments of courtesy and conciliation which, according to the unanimous language he had just heard, seemed to have inspired this proposition, he declared himself ready to take it ad referendum, reserving to himself to make known to the Conference the answer which he should receive from his Court.'

M. de Titoff spoke to a similar purport. Aarif Effendi, however, who appears to have been the only man of sense present—

"While declaring that he was not authorised to take the initiative in propositions relating to the third point, expressed a hope that his Government would accede to those which the plenipotentiaries of France and of Great Britain have reserved to themselves to make on this subject.'

Instead of taking the initiative, Prince Gortschakoff immediately referred to his Court, using those bland expressions which, of course, induced the minister of England and the other ministers to believe that he was only going to refer to his Court for fresh powers to make those proposals which it was expected he would make. Well, Sir, delay after delay occurred, and it was not until April 17-the admission of the noble lord having been made on March 26 that, in the eyes of the allies, the best and only admissible conditions of peace were those

most in harmony with the honour of Russia-that Prince Gortschakoff received his instructions from St. Petersburg. What were these instructions, or rather what was the result of them? On April 17, Prince Gortschakoff at the Conference of that date said:

'That his Court, though fully appreciating the reasons which had prompted the members of the conference to surrender to the cabinet of St. Petersburg the initiative of the proposals respecting the third point, did not feel it incumbent on itself to take the initiative which had been offered to it-'

6

And must now beg the allies to take the initiative, feeling of course confident that what the allies had laid down by the mouth of the noble lord, that the best and only admissible conditions of peace would be those which were in harmony with the honour of Russia,' must be conceived in a spirit much more agreeable to Russia than Russia herself could possibly devise. Is there a doubt about it? To prove that such was the case, let me refer to the recent circular note of Count Nesselrode, and let me see how that most experienced of living statesmen treats this subject. That statesman has produced a diplomatic paper of great ability, in which he takes a survey of the transactions at the Vienna Conference and examines with critical eye the conduct of European statesmen: and on whose conduct did he fix? Upon that of the English minister, and more especially upon the fatal admission of March 26. Count Nesselrode refers to what he terms la définition fort remarquable of the noble lord which was to serve as a solution of the problem, and in that circular note he says:

'Lord John Russell, recalling the declaration made at the opening of the negotiation by Prince Gortschakoff, that he would consent to no condition incompatible with the honour of Russia, maintained that, in the eyes of England and her allies, the best and only admissible conditions of peace would be those which, being the most in harmony with the honour of Russia, should at the same time be sufficient for the security of Europe, and for preventing a return of complications such as that the settlement of which is now in question. After this declaration, made formally in the Conference of March 26, Lord John Russell,