I saw Cowley for a moment yesterday. He told me the Russians refused any conditions which imposed loss of territory or limitation of naval forces, and they declined to offer any counter project, though they are ready to discuss anything we propose. He therefore considers the continuance of the war unavoidable, and does not believe Austria will join in it, though Drouyn de Lhuys still writes his own expectation that she will. He said they had never said or done anything which bound them to join, and that their diplomacy had been much more adroit and successful than our's, but that this was principally the fault of the French, who never would consent to take a peremptory course so as to compel them to be explicit. The consequence of this is, that it will be impossible to produce the diplomatic correspondence, and its retention will put Parliament and the press in a fury, and expose the Government to attacks which they will find it very difficult to repel or to silence. They cannot give the reason why, and their enemies and detractors will believe, or at least insist, that they do not dare disclose their own share in the transaction. I asked Clarendon how it was that the French Government in their last paper in the 'Moniteur' said so positively that they had secured the cooperation of Austria if the last conditions were refused by Russia; he replied that he supposed they said so in order to make it the ground of an accusation against Austria when the Conference broke up and she refuses to declare war. Clarendon thinks we shall get the better of Russia, but that it will be by blockading her ports and ruining her commerce, and not by military operations, and that this may take two or three years or more, but is certain in the end.[1] [Footnote 1: The failure or suspension of the negotiations for peace at Vienna was formally announced to Parliament on May 21, and the protocols of the Conference laid upon the table.] THE SEBASTOPOL COMMITTEE.