HC Deb 13 February 1854 vol 130 cc485-9
MR. LAYARD

I rise to ask the noble Lord the Member for the City of London two questions of considerable importance. Before I put the first of these questions, I trust the House will permit me briefly to advert to some circumstances connected with the subject to which it refers. I beg to call the attention of the House to a despatch which has appeared in the newspapers, and which was addressed to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office (the Earl of Clarendon) by Lord Cowley, our Ambassador at the French Court. That despatch is dated Dec. 5, and in it is stated that M. Drouyn de Lhuys had made inquiries of Lord Cowley with respect to the nature of the instructions which had been given to our Ambassador at Constantinople, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, in reference to the fleets. It appears that at that time some disagreement had taken place between Lord Stratford de Redcliffe and Admiral Dundas upon the subject. Lord Clarendon, in reply to the despatch of Lord Cowley, stated that no instructions had been issued by Her Majesty's Government to our Ambassador at Constantinople but those which were in the possession of the French Government, and that those instructions were that Admiral Dundas was "to comply with any requisition in regard to the movements and operations of the fleet under his orders which he may receive from Her Majesty's Ambassador." It appears, therefore, that so far back as the 5th of December last some disagreement occurred at Constantinople between our Ambassador at the Court of the Sultan and Admiral Dundas; that the disagreement in question had become matter of public notoriety, and had led to the production of some very painful impressions. A few evenings ago the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) addressed a question to the noble Lord with reference to the return of the fleet to the Bosphorus. It seems that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe had ordered the fleet into the Black Sea; that Admiral Dundas had since returned to Constantinople, and that on his return he had met a steamer which had been despatched by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, and whose captain conveyed orders to the Admiral to remain in the Black Sea. Admiral Dundas, it is stated, declined to comply with those instructions, and went into the Bosphorus. Now, in replying to the question which was put to him by the hon. Member for Roscommon, the noble Lord confirmed the truth of these reports, and declared it to be his opinion that the conduct of Admiral Dundas—though an explanation of it had been demanded by our Ambassador at Constantinople—would be found to deserve the approbation, both of Her Majesty's Government and of the country. I conceive that that statement contains a severe reflection upon Her Majesty's representative at Constantinople, and I therefore take the liberty of asking the noble Lord whether our fleet has been placed under the orders of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, or whether Admiral Dundas has received instructions of a nature distinct from and opposed to those which have been conveyed to our Ambassador? I also have to ask the noble Lord whether he is as yet prepared to submit to the House any information with respect to the result of Count Orloff's late mission to Vienna? and, if not, whether its absence arises from any unwillingness upon the part of the Austrian Government to communicate, or from any neglect upon the part of Her Majesty's representative at Vienna to obtain, such information?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

With respect to the first question which my hon. Friend has put to me, I have to state that when I was asked the other evening a question which, although I do not suppose it was so intended, was calculated, if I had faltered in replying to it, to have conveyed a very serious imputation upon a gallant Admiral who is now serving upon a foreign station, I deemed it necessary, therefore, to answer that question at once; but in the manner in which that answer was given, I do not conceive that there was any ground for supposing that I attached any blame whatever to the course which Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople had deemed it desirable to adopt. I then said that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe had thought fit, in the position in which he was placed, to ask for an explanation; and I conceive that nothing could be more natural or more proper than that he should do so. With respect, however, to the orders given to Admiral Dundas, they are, accurately speaking, orders emanating, not from our Ambassador, but from my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. By the orders of the Secretary of State, the Admiral is called upon by the Ambassador to perform certain services that may be required of him. The hon. Gentleman will, however, see that in performing such services, Admiral Dundas, or any other naval servant of the country, must pay regard to the means which he possesses of carrying the orders which he may receive into effect, and also to the dangers he may run by a rigid adherence to those instructions. Admiral Dundas, when he went into the Black Sea, found that the anchorage at Sinope was not such as it had been represented to be, and that in consequence of the very long nights, and also the density of the fogs which prevailed in the Black Sea during the day-time, the ships were liable to the occurrence of frequent casualties. He was of opinion, therefore, that if he were to remain for two months cruising in the Black Sea, the condition of the fleet would be so impaired as to prevent him from rendering with efficiency those services which he was so anxious successfully to perform. Such being the case, he returned to Constantinople from Sinope. Some explanations took place between him and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe with respect to this step, and some difference of opinion prevailed with reference to its propriety. That difference of opinion was, however, entirely of a professional, and not of a political character. Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Emperor of the French have had to consider the representations which have been made to them with reference to the nature of the services to be rendered, and both Governments have given similar instructions with respect to the performance of those services. The Admirals are to take instructions from the Ambassadors, but with respect to the mode in which those instructions are to be carried out, much must be left to their own discretion. Now, with reference to the second question of my hon. Friend, which relates to the mission of Count Orloff, I have to state that mission terminated on no later date than the 8th of the present month. I believe Count Orloff left Vienna upon the 9th. There have been communications with regard to his mission between the Austrian and the English Governments; but I believe it is not usual, though, no doubt, it is sometimes done, to present an account of the communications which take place between two foreign Governments in such a shape as it would be necessary to give them if I were to lay copies of the papers connected with Count Orloff's mission upon the table of the House. I do not believe that my noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) has any reason to complain of concealment upon the part of the Austrian Government; and with reference to the mission of Count Orloff, so far as it may be presumed that it had for its object to obtain the assistance of Austria by inducing her to bind herself down to follow a course of conduct which Russia prescribed for her adoption, that mission has entirely failed. As to any further information in connexion with those important subjects, I may mention that our despatches have only arrived to-day, and I beg to assure the House generally, as well as my hon. Friend, that as the Government has already produced very full information upon the position of our foreign relations, they will be ready to lay still further information upon the table of the House as soon as the papers are ready. It is obvious that to return answers to despatches requires some time, and that certain information cannot be rendered at all complete until further despatches in reply to those answers have been received. As soon, however, as any communications can be made to this House, Her Majesty's Ministers will take care that the most ample information shall be furnished.

MR. LAYARD

The noble Lord seemed to me to have conveyed some imputation by the words which he used upon a former oc- casion upon the conduct of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

I meant to cast no reflection whatever upon Lord Stratford de Redcliffe.

SIR H. WILLOUGHBY

asked the noble Lord whether any despatch had been received in answer to the instructions forwarded by the Earl of Clarendon to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe on the 8th of October, 1853 [No. 134], ordering, "that Admiral Dundas should inform the Russian Admiral at Sebastopol that if the Russian fleet should come out of that port for the purpose of landing troops on any portion of the Turkish territory, or of committing any overt act of hostility against the Porte, his orders are to protect the Sultan's dominions from attack?"

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that Her Majesty's Government had received official information that the instructions alluded to, as forwarded by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe had been duly received. Our Ambassador had not thought it necessary to give the orders in the precise terms stated; but directions to the same effect had been given to Admiral Dundas, and had been by him sent to the Russian Admiral at Sebastopol. We have been further informed that the service in question had been most efficiently performed by Captain Drummond, of the Retribution.