§ Lord Beaumontrose to ask a question of the noble Earl, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with respect to Servia. Circumstances had there taken place which he feared would be drawn into a precedent by Russia, and would be used in an exceptionable manner. Their Lordships were aware that the Sublime Porte, having been abandoned by the other powers of Europe, was obliged to consent to the terms proposed by Russia, and the late election of Prince Georgewitch was declared null and void. The governing vizar was recalled, and another election was to take place, according to the rules and regulations of the constitution of that country. The Porte consented to these terms, not disguising the humiliation it had undergone. Hamil Pacha was recalled, and a Circassian sent in his place. The firman of the Porte was read openly at Belgrade. The Servians would not consent to some of the terms; they refused to submit to the provisional government, and they denied that the original election was void or contrary to their wishes: but knowing that the Porte had acted contrary to its own wishes with reference to Prince Georgewitch, they consented to the re-election. To any other terms they would not assent. The people refused to allow the minister who was recalled to proceed to Constantinople as had been demanded by Russia of the Porte. The election was appointed for the 17th, and it took place on the 27th, ten days afterwards. That election must have falsified all the expectations of the noble Earl, for Prince Georgewitch, a man of 40, although it was thought he was only a boy of 20, again met the people and was unanimously re-elected, and so proved that his former election was not opposed to the desires of the people. Nor were the two ministers dismissed, although the noble Earl had unfortunately described their characters in not the most flattering terms; they proved to have been the faithful and confidential servants of 1382 the prince whom the people elected, who also trusted the servants themselves. At that election, however, circumstances occurred which were contrary to former fir-mans granted by the Porte. There were present at the General Assembly two Russian commissaries, and their right to be present was not found in any treaty between Russia and the Porte, or in the fir mans granted by the Porte to Servia, under none of which had Russia a right to interfere with the internal relations of Servia. After the election the prince had to refer the choice to Constantinople. Servia and the Porte had relations with each other, but there was nowhere a mention of any right for Russia to interfere. The presence of these commissioners, however, led parties to imagine that Russia had a right, and, as a consequence, that she had the same right in Servia as in Moldavia and Wallachia, which were under the joint protection of Russia and the Porte. The question which he had to ask was, whether, in consequence of the recent events in Servia, and the diplomatic relations between the Porte and Russia, the noble Lord now acknowledged or disavowed the exclusive right of the Porte, or allowed that Russia had a right directly to interfere with the internal affairs of Servia, or whether he still maintained that Servia was an integral part of the Ottoman empire, and that Russia had no exclusive right to interfere, and no right except in common with other neutral powers, to give advice?
§ The Earl of Aberdeenreplied, it certainly was true that an election had taken place of a prince in Servia. as alleged by the noble Lord, the result of which gave him (the Earl of Aberdeen) quite as much satisfaction as it did the noble Lord. Perhaps it would not be wise to examine too curiously the proceedings of that election, unanimous as it appeared to be. They knew enough of popular elections to be aware that it was not very easy to ascertain the precise amount of corruption or of intimidation by which they were brought about. With the result however, he professed that he was as perfectly satisfied as the noble Lord. As to the question itself the noble Lord was quite as well able to answer it himself as he (Lord Aberdeen) was. The pretensions of Russia were founded upon treaties which had been laid upon the Table of the House, and the hatti-sheriffs of the Porte had 1383 also been communicated to the House. On those the pretensions of Russia rested. How far the claim of Russia, with respect to interference in the internal affairs of Servia, were correct, he could not say: there certainly was a difference in this respect between Servia and the relations with Moldavia and Wallachia, but the extent of her obligations and of her rights in consequence of treaties, it was for Russia to interpret. He apprehended that Russia, like other independent states, would interpret her own engagements, and would not submit to any interference of third parties. England was no party to those treaties, nor was she interested in them, except so far as their execution might affect British interests, or the general state of the tranquillity of Europe. If the Russian interpretation of those treaties should lead to any thing affecting those interests, undoubtedly this country would be called upon to interfere. But if the noble Lord thought that Russia had no more right to interfere than neutral states, the assertion was unfounded, because Russia had treaties, and as we had none, we of course could take no part whatever. It appeared to the noble Lord, because Russian commissaries were present at the election, that therefore, this country was called upon to interfere, but he thought we had matters of much more importance to attend to than any such occurrence. With respect to the question as to the relation between Russia and the Porte, with respect to Servia, whatever they might be, they were entirely different from the relations of the same country with respect to Moldavia and Wallachia.