DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16615#0007
Vol. XXVIII.]
INTRODUCTION.
[January to June, 1855,
I'AGE
distance from the place, sent the cutter in under the command of Lieutenant
Geneste with the seven Russian prisoners, and an ordinary boat’s crew. A
flag of truce was displayed at least half an hour before they reached the jetty.
Nobody, however, was seen but a single man, who ran away. The officers
and prisoners landed, and put upon the jetty the baggage of the prisoners,
the men remaining in the boat, when a body of Russian soldiers, thought to
be -300 or 400 strong, came down to the jetty, upon which the British officer
waved the flag of truce, and explained why they had come on shore ; the
Finnish captain also took the flag of truce from the lieutenant, and tried to
explain, both in English and Finnish, the purpose for which the boat had
come on shore. The officer in command of the Russians not only understood
English, but spoke it, stating that they did not care for the flag of truce, they
would show how the Russians could fight, whereupon some hundred
Russian soldiers immediately fired on the officer and the Finnish prisoners
on the jetty, killing them all, and then fired into the boat until every man
fell. They then rushed into the boat, threw some bodies overboard, dragged
one wounded man out, and bayoneted him on the jetty, and retired, leaving
five bodies for dead in the boat. The boat not returning, later in the day
the gig was sent, but could only ascertain from a distance that the cutter was
moored by the side of the jetty, with some dead bodies in it. In the night
one man—a black man—who was wounded by two balls, one in the arm and
the other in the shoulder, contrived to cut the fastenings of the cutter and
scull her from the jetty ; and, in the meantime, the Cossack, which was
standing in, in order to ascertain what had become of the crew of the boat,
and to claim the men, supposing them to have been taken prisoners, picked
up the single survivor, upon whose statement the truth of the circumstances
which I have detailed to the House must necessarily rest, he being the only
one of the boat’s crew left living.’ ”
Satisfactory explanations or redress were sought for in vain
from Russia!
The public dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war had
given rise to political agitation out of doors, and the Asso-
ciation for “Administrative Reform” (a phrase first used by
Mr. Disraeli) had held meetings at Drury Lane Theatre.
Mr. Layard also brought forward resolutions on the subject
in the House of Commons, and much personality was intruded
into the debate, for which see Hansard. Mr. Layard’s reso-
lutions were rejected by 359 to 46.
An event occurred which created the greatest excitement
throughout the country. In order to make this circumstance
intelligible, it is necessary to refer the reader to a circular
note of Count Nesselrode the Russian Chancellor, and in
which he reviewed at considerable length the deliberations
which had taken place at Vienna. (See Hansard.) After
discussing in chronological order the different plans which
had been brought forward, the note gives a summary of the
four points of the Russian propositions :—
“ The first was one of political rivalry. The Emperor took the most
exalted view of it; he resolved it in the interest of the welfare of the Princi-
palities, the Prosperity of which Russia had promised to guarantee. She
has kept and will keep her promise.
“ The second was connected with the general interests of commerce. The
Emperor has decided in favour of the free trade of all nations.
“ The third concerned not only the general balance of power, but touched
nearly the dignity and honour of Russia. It was that our august master
judged it. The national sentiment of the whole country will respond to his
decision.
“ The fourth point was one of religious liberty, of civilisation, and social
order for all Christendom. In the eyes of the Imperial Cabinet it is that
which ought one day to be placed at the head of a treaty of general peace
worthy of being invested with the sanction of all the Sovereigns of Europe.
The Plenipotentiaries of France and England refused to touch even this
question of religious interest before that concerning the navigation of the
Black Sea had been settled.”
It was now rumoured that Lord John Russell had re-
turned from the Vienna Conference in favour of the Austrian
proposal of peace, and the Nesselrode Circular was confirm-
atory of that statement. Mr M. Gibson, therefore, on the
6th of July inquired why Lord John still retained his place
in a Cabinet pledged to war with Russia.
Lord John stated in reply, that on his return from Vienna,
all the Austrian proposals were considered by the Cabinet.
Everything Lord John stated had due weight, and was fairly
placed in opposition to the disadvantages of such a peace. The
Government came to the conclusion that the peace proposed
would not be a safe peace, and that they could not recommend
its adoption. It was not correct to say that the Emperor of
the French was disposed to accept the terms. Before he
knew the decision of the English Government, the Emperor
had determined to change his Minister and to reject the
Austrian proposal, as not affording a sufficient foundation for
peace. Mr. Gibson had asked why Lord John continued in
the Government which rejected his counsel; but as a plenipo-
tentiary, it was for him to submit to the decision of his
Government; as a member of the Cabinet, it was his duty to
consider the circumstances of the time—the failures of himself
and of Lord Derby to form a Government that promised sta-
bility—the attacks to which Lord Palmerston himself was
exposed, for no other reason than that he held a place of
authority. Now though, out of office, he might have given
every support to his noble Friend, he felt that his resignation
would have increased the instability of his Administration,
and would have been considered the symptom and precursor of
other changes. Within the Cabinet, it was the duty of the
minority to yield to the majority, if there was a majority and
a minority—for an individual to defer to the sentiments of
the Cabinet in general, and to leave it to the House of Com-
mons to decide whether or not they were to be trusted with
the conduct of public affairs.
Mr. Cobden, in a speech of great force, blamed severely the
course Lord John had pursued, and regretted the vote he had
given on the motion which changed Lord Derby’s Govern-
ment, for it had cost the country one hundred millions of
treasure, and between twenty and thirty thousand good lives.
Lord Palmerston defended his colleagne, and declared that
all the speeches of the Members for the West Riding and for
Manchester would not break the manly and determined spirit
of the people, whose wishes the Government had only fu.lfi.lle i
in rejecting the Austrian propositions. Mr. Disraeli made
a bitter onslaught on Lord John, and on the 10th of July, Sir
E. B. Lytton gave notice of a vote of censure in the following
terms :—“ That the conduct of our Minister in the recent ne-
gotiations at Vienna has, in the opinion of this House, shaken
the confidence of this country in those to whom its affairs are
entrusted.” But Lord John relieved the House of Com-
mons from the disagreeable adoption of such a proposal by
resigning.
In announcing the step he had taken, he said that he had
been reproached for being “ an uncompromising advocate of
the war ” since his return from Vienna. After the rejection
of the Austrian propositions he had no other course, and he fell
back upon his former opinions, and that for that reason he was
considered to be no longer capable of serving Her Majesty.
He was not of that opinion, but finding now that his presence
in the Cabinet would be disadvantageous, he had pressed his
resignation, which had been tendered once before. For the
conclusion of his eloquent speech, see Hansard.
Sir E. B. Lytton and Mr. Disraeli replied very bitterly,
and then the motion was withdrawn.
In our next Volume we shall conclude our summary of the
Session.
PA3E
INTRODUCTION.
[January to June, 1855,
I'AGE
distance from the place, sent the cutter in under the command of Lieutenant
Geneste with the seven Russian prisoners, and an ordinary boat’s crew. A
flag of truce was displayed at least half an hour before they reached the jetty.
Nobody, however, was seen but a single man, who ran away. The officers
and prisoners landed, and put upon the jetty the baggage of the prisoners,
the men remaining in the boat, when a body of Russian soldiers, thought to
be -300 or 400 strong, came down to the jetty, upon which the British officer
waved the flag of truce, and explained why they had come on shore ; the
Finnish captain also took the flag of truce from the lieutenant, and tried to
explain, both in English and Finnish, the purpose for which the boat had
come on shore. The officer in command of the Russians not only understood
English, but spoke it, stating that they did not care for the flag of truce, they
would show how the Russians could fight, whereupon some hundred
Russian soldiers immediately fired on the officer and the Finnish prisoners
on the jetty, killing them all, and then fired into the boat until every man
fell. They then rushed into the boat, threw some bodies overboard, dragged
one wounded man out, and bayoneted him on the jetty, and retired, leaving
five bodies for dead in the boat. The boat not returning, later in the day
the gig was sent, but could only ascertain from a distance that the cutter was
moored by the side of the jetty, with some dead bodies in it. In the night
one man—a black man—who was wounded by two balls, one in the arm and
the other in the shoulder, contrived to cut the fastenings of the cutter and
scull her from the jetty ; and, in the meantime, the Cossack, which was
standing in, in order to ascertain what had become of the crew of the boat,
and to claim the men, supposing them to have been taken prisoners, picked
up the single survivor, upon whose statement the truth of the circumstances
which I have detailed to the House must necessarily rest, he being the only
one of the boat’s crew left living.’ ”
Satisfactory explanations or redress were sought for in vain
from Russia!
The public dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war had
given rise to political agitation out of doors, and the Asso-
ciation for “Administrative Reform” (a phrase first used by
Mr. Disraeli) had held meetings at Drury Lane Theatre.
Mr. Layard also brought forward resolutions on the subject
in the House of Commons, and much personality was intruded
into the debate, for which see Hansard. Mr. Layard’s reso-
lutions were rejected by 359 to 46.
An event occurred which created the greatest excitement
throughout the country. In order to make this circumstance
intelligible, it is necessary to refer the reader to a circular
note of Count Nesselrode the Russian Chancellor, and in
which he reviewed at considerable length the deliberations
which had taken place at Vienna. (See Hansard.) After
discussing in chronological order the different plans which
had been brought forward, the note gives a summary of the
four points of the Russian propositions :—
“ The first was one of political rivalry. The Emperor took the most
exalted view of it; he resolved it in the interest of the welfare of the Princi-
palities, the Prosperity of which Russia had promised to guarantee. She
has kept and will keep her promise.
“ The second was connected with the general interests of commerce. The
Emperor has decided in favour of the free trade of all nations.
“ The third concerned not only the general balance of power, but touched
nearly the dignity and honour of Russia. It was that our august master
judged it. The national sentiment of the whole country will respond to his
decision.
“ The fourth point was one of religious liberty, of civilisation, and social
order for all Christendom. In the eyes of the Imperial Cabinet it is that
which ought one day to be placed at the head of a treaty of general peace
worthy of being invested with the sanction of all the Sovereigns of Europe.
The Plenipotentiaries of France and England refused to touch even this
question of religious interest before that concerning the navigation of the
Black Sea had been settled.”
It was now rumoured that Lord John Russell had re-
turned from the Vienna Conference in favour of the Austrian
proposal of peace, and the Nesselrode Circular was confirm-
atory of that statement. Mr M. Gibson, therefore, on the
6th of July inquired why Lord John still retained his place
in a Cabinet pledged to war with Russia.
Lord John stated in reply, that on his return from Vienna,
all the Austrian proposals were considered by the Cabinet.
Everything Lord John stated had due weight, and was fairly
placed in opposition to the disadvantages of such a peace. The
Government came to the conclusion that the peace proposed
would not be a safe peace, and that they could not recommend
its adoption. It was not correct to say that the Emperor of
the French was disposed to accept the terms. Before he
knew the decision of the English Government, the Emperor
had determined to change his Minister and to reject the
Austrian proposal, as not affording a sufficient foundation for
peace. Mr. Gibson had asked why Lord John continued in
the Government which rejected his counsel; but as a plenipo-
tentiary, it was for him to submit to the decision of his
Government; as a member of the Cabinet, it was his duty to
consider the circumstances of the time—the failures of himself
and of Lord Derby to form a Government that promised sta-
bility—the attacks to which Lord Palmerston himself was
exposed, for no other reason than that he held a place of
authority. Now though, out of office, he might have given
every support to his noble Friend, he felt that his resignation
would have increased the instability of his Administration,
and would have been considered the symptom and precursor of
other changes. Within the Cabinet, it was the duty of the
minority to yield to the majority, if there was a majority and
a minority—for an individual to defer to the sentiments of
the Cabinet in general, and to leave it to the House of Com-
mons to decide whether or not they were to be trusted with
the conduct of public affairs.
Mr. Cobden, in a speech of great force, blamed severely the
course Lord John had pursued, and regretted the vote he had
given on the motion which changed Lord Derby’s Govern-
ment, for it had cost the country one hundred millions of
treasure, and between twenty and thirty thousand good lives.
Lord Palmerston defended his colleagne, and declared that
all the speeches of the Members for the West Riding and for
Manchester would not break the manly and determined spirit
of the people, whose wishes the Government had only fu.lfi.lle i
in rejecting the Austrian propositions. Mr. Disraeli made
a bitter onslaught on Lord John, and on the 10th of July, Sir
E. B. Lytton gave notice of a vote of censure in the following
terms :—“ That the conduct of our Minister in the recent ne-
gotiations at Vienna has, in the opinion of this House, shaken
the confidence of this country in those to whom its affairs are
entrusted.” But Lord John relieved the House of Com-
mons from the disagreeable adoption of such a proposal by
resigning.
In announcing the step he had taken, he said that he had
been reproached for being “ an uncompromising advocate of
the war ” since his return from Vienna. After the rejection
of the Austrian propositions he had no other course, and he fell
back upon his former opinions, and that for that reason he was
considered to be no longer capable of serving Her Majesty.
He was not of that opinion, but finding now that his presence
in the Cabinet would be disadvantageous, he had pressed his
resignation, which had been tendered once before. For the
conclusion of his eloquent speech, see Hansard.
Sir E. B. Lytton and Mr. Disraeli replied very bitterly,
and then the motion was withdrawn.
In our next Volume we shall conclude our summary of the
Session.
PA3E