§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, "Whether Her Majesty's Govern- 460 ment have communicated by telegraph with the British Consuls at Taganrog and Kertch with regard to the " effective" nature of the Turkish blockade in the Black Sea, and have now obtained information as to the presence of a sufficient Turkish Naval force to maintain a permanent blockade; whether it is the case that many Greek ships have left Taganrog since the proclamation of the blockade, and that some have passed through the Dardanelles, and that many are now loading, and that Russian trading steamers are plying regularly and on fixed days between Odessa and Nicolaieff; if he will state what answer has been received to representations made by the Government to the Turkish Government on the subject of the ineffective nature of the blockade; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to continue to recognise, to the detriment of English trade, a blockade apparently not in conformity with the Treaty of Paris?
§ MR. BOURKESir, in reply to the first Question, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government have not communicated with the Consuls at Taganrog and Kertch on the subject. They had followed the course usual on such occasions of communicating with Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, and they have had a great number of communications from the Ambassador on the subject. It will be in the recollection of the House that some time ago I mentioned that the Consul at Odessa had reported that a Russian company had re-opened their service, which is a coastal one, and had begun to run their steamers again between Odessa and Nicolaieff. Subsequently we heard from the Consul at Taganrog that a Greek vessel had entered and cleared from that port since the blockade had been declared. We afterwards heard, from several communications which reached the Foreign Office from private persons, a corroboration of both those statements. Mr. Layard was directed to address representations to the Porte on the subject; and on the 21st of June he reported the reply he had received from the Porte —which was in substance that the Porte considered the blockade strictly efficient within the meaning of the Declaration of Paris. Then on the 13th July Lord Derby received a deputation at the Foreign Office on the subject, when it 461 was represented that Greet vessels were allowed to enter blockaded ports, to the injury of British commerce. Subsequently, at the request of Lord Derby, gentlemen who were members of that deputation sent to the Foreign Office statements of their agents with regard to these facts. On receipt of those statements Lord Derby telegraphed to Mr. Layard on the 17th, 19th, and 21st of July, transmitting the substance of the information which had been forwarded to him. On the 25th of July Lord Derby received a despatch, dated the 15th of July, from Mr. Layard, enclosing a further reply of the Porte, the substance of which was that the blockade was in strict conformity with the Declaration of Paris, that the fact of a coasting trade being carried on in email vessels between one Russian port and another, and inside the line of blockade, does not affect its validity. The telegraphic reply of Mr. Layard to Lord Derby's telegrams of the 17th, 19th, and 21st, arrived yesterday, and is to the following effect:—
I have just received an answer from the Porte to my representations about blockade. It states in substance that the fact that vessels have been engaged in coasting trade within the line of blockade does not affect its efficiency, the Declaration of Paris only requiring that there should be sufficient force to prevent access to the enemy's territory. It is admitted that one or two passes have been given to ships under the Greek flag, and that the proceeding was irregular. Measures have been taken to prevent the repetition of this irregularity, and assurances are given that it was never the intention of the Porte to show a preference to the flag of any particular nation.The attention of the Porte was called to the continued running of steamers, and the reply was that it was only carried on under a small existing trade and that they are small vessels. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to hold that the blockade is not in conformity with the Declaration of Paris.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESome passages in my Question were unanswered by the hon. Gentleman. He has given us the answer of the Porte, but he did not say whether it is the fact that those ships have been allowed not only to pass the blockade, but also to go through the Dardanelles. I also asked, whether the Government had taken any steps, besides asking the Porte, to assure themselves whether the blockade is efficient.
§ MR. BOURKEAs to the first point —namely, the passage of the vessels referred to through the Dardanelles, we have no information. As to the second, it is the duty of Consuls to report, and they have both at Odessa and Taganrog reported these facts to the Government, and therefore they will continue to do so, and no doubt Mr. Layard will see that this subject is reported upon.