But, to continue Lord John's own account 1:

At this point Count Buol made a strong endeavour to keep alive the negotiation which seemed about to expire. Frequent communications ensued between the Ministers of the belligerent powers and those of Austria. . . . After much discussion and repeated attempts to overcome obstables, Count Buol proposed the following scheme :

1. In case of the increase of the Russian fleet beyond the number actually existing, Turkey to have power to maintain a force equal to that of Russia; and England and France each to have a naval force in the Black Sea equal to half the force of Russia. Should this plan not be acceptable to Russia, an alternative to be proposed, viz., that Russia should engage not to increase the number of her ships actually afloat in the Black Sea.

2. A triple treaty of alliance to be formed between Austria, France, and Great Britain, engaging the three powers to defend the integrity and independence of Turkey in case of aggression. . . .

...

In considering these propositions, I endeavoured to represent to my own mind what would be the condition of Great Britain and her allies in three different cases: (1) If the terms should be refused by Russia; (2) if the terms, modified in London and Paris, should be accepted by Russia, and form the foundation of a treaty of peace; (3) if the terms should not be approved in London and Paris and the war should continue.

Ist. If the proposed terms had been refused by Russia, Austria would have withdrawn her Minister from Petersburg, and would have been ready to conclude a military convention with France and Great Britain. . . . 2nd. In the second case a peace would have been concluded by which all the concessions would have been on the side of Russia, and none on the side of Great Britain and France, . . . I cannot conceive how such a peace could be called humiliating or dishonourable. It might have been called insecure and, indeed, the real objection to the plan of pacification was not that it would leave to Russia the preponderance in the Black Sea, but that Russia and her rivals would be brought continually in presence -in short, that such a peace would be nothing more than an armed truce. The answer to this objection, which I felt as strongly as

1 The careful memorandum from which these extracts are taken, I have reason to think, was written by Lord John (probably at Florence) in 1856. The official account of the Austrian proposal will be found in Lord John's despatch of April 21, or in Lord Clarendon's despatch of May 8 (Eastern Papers, pr. xv. P. 14).

any one, is that war begets hostilities, animosities, and violence, while a state of peace produces forbearance, conciliation, and mutual concession. The league of Austria with England and France to resist aggression upon Turkey would have been a powerful restraint upon any monarch less ambitious of military glory than Charles XII. or Napoleon.

After all, the security of the Porte is not with England a vital question like the independence of Belgium or of Portugal. It is a European object, to attain which Great Britain is bound to contribute her full share, but no more. To call upon this country to carry on war 3000 miles off, at an immense cost, and with a yearly drain of her best blood, would be on the part of her Government a lavish waste of her resources and an improvident application of her mighty powers.

With these views, therefore, I stated to Count Buol that I should be prepared to recommend to my Government the acceptance of the Austrian proposals to send her alternative to Petersburg, and make the continuance of an Austrian mission at that Court contingent upon its favourable reception. But I told him at the same time that I did not expect my Government would approve of the plan proposed.

It is evident from this memorandum that, while Lord John thought the new proposal was of inferior convenience to the original project for limitation, he concluded that, with Austrian aid, it might afford adequate security for the integrity of Turkey. Austria, in his judgment, held the key of the situation; and he remained consistent in his desire-whether peace or war prevailed-to bring Austria into active co-operation with the allies. Thus thinking, he forwarded to Lord Clarendon the heads of the new proposal, and added—

Should the Government of her Majesty, in concert with that of France, be of opinion that such a peace can be accepted, they will instruct Lord Westmorland accordingly. If not, I hope to be allowed to be heard personally before a final decision is made. And leaving Vienna on the 24th, he set out for London. Two days before he started, M. Drouyn de Lhuys wroteParticulière] VIENNE: le 22 April, 1855. 8 heures du soir.

MY DEAR LORD JOHN,-Je reçois votre billet daté d'aujourd'hui 4 heures 40, et je vous en remercie.

Je vous envoie la rédaction du projet dont nous avons parlé ce matin. Ainsi que nous en étions convenus, j'ai vu le Comte Buol : il gouta fort ce projet que je lui ai remis confidentiellement, et il croit que l'Empereur François Joseph y donnera son assentiment.

Comme Plénipotentiaire et d'après mes instructions actuelles, je ne puis ni le proposer, ni l'accepter, ni le discuter officiellement, mais je puis le recommander à ma Cour, et c'est ce que je vais faire.

Je me place au même point de vue que vous, et je dis, 'If Russia is a standing danger, an alliance with Austria must be a standing guarantee.'-Yours very sincerely, DROUYN DE LHUYS.

VIENNA: April 24, 1855.

DEAR LORD JOHN,—Monsieur Drouyn de Lhuys has just been with me. He has received an answer from his Government to the messages of the day before yesterday, which is against his project. He is now more convinced than he was before of the value of this project, and he consequently leaves Vienna to-morrow morning for Paris that he may personally support it. He will try to see you on his journey but he earnestly requests you will telegraph to London your own views, desiring that, if they make a favourable impression on our Government, a telegraph to that effect may be sent to the French Government so as to meet him (D. de Lhuys) on his arrival at Paris. He is anxious you should reach London as early as possible in order to give your personal support to his project with your colleagues.

I send the messenger Haviland with this letter to catch you at Leipzig, and he will then go straight on to London, so that you may send by him any communication which you wish should reach London before yourself. . . .-Believe me, dear Lord John, yours most sincerely, WESTMORLAND.

His

Lord John arrived in London on Sunday, April 29. own memorandum will supply the continuation to the story.

I found that neither Lord Palmerston nor Lord Clarendon considered the plan of counterpoise, together with the defensive treaty of alliance between France, Great Britain, and Austria, would furnish a sufficient security for the independence and integrity of Turkey. . . . The opinion of the Emperor of the French, accepting the principle of the Austrian proposal, but not the details,1 was communicated to Lord Clarendon by Count Walewski and to me by M. Drouyn de

1 Lord John, in this respect, understated his case. The Emperor modified

Lhuys. Lord Palmerston, however, thought that further reference should be made to the Emperor for his final views on the proposal before us. What happened in the interval which then ensued I am not able precisely to say.1 I know that Lord Cowley used his utmost efforts to induce the Emperor not to adopt the advice of his Minister. It is said that Lord Palmerston employed very strong language through Count Walewski to the same purpose.

What I know is that on Friday morning I heard from Count Walewski the contents of a telegraphic despatch from M. Drouyn de Lhuys informing the Ambassador that the Emperor refused to accept the Austrian propositions, and recurred to the conditions communicated to Russia at the Conferences of Vienna.

the details of the arrangement, but agreed to its details as modified. Here is M. Drouyn de Lhuy's account :—

Particulière et confidentielle]

MON CHER CO-PLÉNIPOTENTIAIRE,-Je maudirais l'interruption des conférences, si elle me privait du droit et du plaisir de m'entretenir directement avec

vous.

J'ai eu ce matin avec l'Empereur une conversation de trois heures. Voici une rédaction modifiée que j'ai faite sous ses yeux et qui a son entière approbation. Sous cette forme Sa Majesté est prête à accepter l'arrangement. Cette nouvelle forme conserve toutes les garanties officielles, évite la désagréable mention du statu quo ante bellum, et consacre l'alliance perpetuelle de l'Autriche, pour défendre la Turquie contre les aggressions par terre ou par mer. Je ne prévois pas d'ailleurs d'objection sérieuse de la part de l'Autriche, dont cette rédaction ménage les scrupules. Je suis plus que jamais dans les idées que je vous exprimais à Vienne, et dans lesquelles je vous voyais vous-même me marquer la voie. Je compte avec une ferme confiance sur votre puissante action pour les faire prévaloir. Créer à l'ambition russe un éternel ennemi, n'est-ce donc rien ! Yours very sincerely, DROUYN DE LHUYS.

PARIS: 1ère Mai, 1855.

J'envoie à Walewski cette nouvelle rédaction, Je vous laisse juger de la mesure dans laquelle vous croirez convenable de parler de la communication confidentielle que je vous fais.

Lord John replied

MY DEAR COLLEAGUE,-I congratulate you on the successful interview you had with the Emperor. This plan has been made much more simple and less objectionable. We shall, however, deliberate and decide to-day upon the propositions of your Government. It is the highest satisfaction to me that we have agreed and, I trust, shall continue to agree upon the great principles upon which the future system of Europe is to be established.

1 The curious on this point may satisfy their curiosity by referring to Mr. Kinglake's account, Hist. of Crimean War, vol. viii. p. 346, seq.

M. Drouyn de Lhuys at once tendered his resignation to the Emperor, and thus announced it to Lord John :

MY DEAR LORD JOHN,-Ce n'est plus comme votre collègue que je reçois la lettre que vous m'avez fait l'honneur de m'écrire hier, but as a private individual, car j'ai donné ce matin ma démission à l'Empereur, J'espère que vous me permettrez, sous ce nouveau titre, de continuer à vous exprimer quelque fois mes sentimens de haute considération et d'attachement sincère.

PARIS: 5 Mai, 1855.

DROUYN DE LHUYS.

Lord John thereupon wrote to Lord Clarendon

PEMBROKE LODGE: May 6, 1855.

MY DEAR CLARENDON,—I was at Panmure's when your box arrived here, and did not get back till past eight. I am very much concerned at the removal or resignation of Drouyn. I cannot separate myself from him; and, having taken at Vienna the same view which he did, his resignation entails mine. I am very sorry for this, and wished to avoid it. But I have in some measure got Drouyn into this scrape, for at first he was disposed to advise the Emperor to insist on a limitation of ships, and I induced him not to give any advice at all to the Emperor. Afterwards we agreed very much; and, if he had stayed in office there, I might have gulped, though with difficulty, the rejection of my advice here. However, I shall wait till Colloredo has made a definite proposal, and then make the opinion I shall give upon it in the Cabinet a vital question with me. It is painful to me to leave a second Cabinet, and will injure my reputation-perhaps irretrievably. But I see no other course. Do as you please about communicating to Palmerston what I have written. I fear I must leave to you and Hammond to judge of the papers to be given. . . . But I hope you will not tie your hands or those of the Government by giving arguments against what the nation may ultimately accept. I hold that a simple provision, by which the Sultan would reserve the power to admit the vessels of powers not having establishments in the Black Sea, through the Straits at his own pleasure at all times, . . . and a general treaty of European alliance to defend Turkey against Russia, would be a good security for peace. If the Emperor of the French were to declare that he could not accept such a peace, of course we must stick by him, but that does not prevent our declaring to him our opinion. Walewski spoke to me very strongly at the Palace in