§ LORD LYNDHURSTMy Lords, I beg leave to put a question to my noble Friend opposite, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to a document issued from Peterhoff, to which I myself referred the other night. Now, my Lords, I understand that that document was originally put forth in the Russian language, and that the translation in French deviates in a considerable degree from the original, and particular with regard to some important epithets. I wish, therefore, to know from my noble Friend, whether he has a copy of the original document in the Russian language, and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay it upon the table of your Lordships' House? I would also ask permission to call the attention of my noble Friend to some expressions which I made use of with respect to the circular signed by Count Nesselrode, and which has been made the subject of criticism. I beg to state—and I am quite sure my noble Friend will join me in such a statement—that the answer to that document which has come from the Minister for Foreign Affairs in France has completely, both in argument and in fact, borne out the conclusion which I then advanced. And I beg, my Lords, further to state, that as far as relates to the document from St. Petersburgh—that circular document published yesterday—I may leave that safely without any comment. I would, however, call my noble Friend's attention to a particular passage in it. I understand, my Lords, according to my interpretation of that passage, that the Court of Russia has taken upon itself to state, and has pledged itself, that, until the Ottoman Porte has satisfied the Court of Russia with respect to the demands made against it, and until we have withdrawn our fleets from the Turkish waters, the Government of Russia will not abandon the possession of the Danubian principalities. Now, I understand that a noble Lord in another place has stated that he does not put that interpretation upon the 90 document. But as I have read the document with some attention, I must say I cannot think it possible that any other interpretation can be put upon the passage. I wish, therefore, my Lords, also to ask my noble Friend whether he concurs in the interpretation which I have alleged it bears?
§ The EARL of CLARENDONMy Lords, in reply to the first question of my noble and learned Friend, I believe that there are some differences between the Russian document issued for home consumption for the use of the Russian people, and the translation which has been sent abroad—more particularly I believe with respect to the word "perfidious" as applied to the violation of the Sultan's word. I believe that there is a Russian original of this document at the Foreign Office, and, if it will be any satisfaction to my noble and learned Friend to have that document to peruse, I certainly see no objection to laying it on your Lordships' table. I may also state that I entirely agree with my noble and learned Friend upon the great ability and skill of the note which the French Government has issued in answer to the first circular of Count Nesselrode. And with respect to the third question of my noble and learned Friend, I believe that when my noble Friend (Lord John Russell) answered the question put to him in the House of Commons yesterday, he had not had an opportunity of reading the note. I do not entirely take the same view as my noble and learned Friend appears to do of what is stated in that note; but I certainly can have no hesitation in saying that we do not consider that the presence of the British and French fleets in Besika Bay is at all similar, or that it can in any way be compared, to the occupation of the Danubian principalities; and certainly no condition with respect to the departure of the one or the evacuation of the other will be made.
§ Loan LYNDHURSTThe expression I made use of, or rather the interpretation I put upon the particular passage, amounts to this—that as soon as the Ottoman Porte does what he (the Emperor of Russia) requires, and as soon as the English and French fleets quit the Turkish waters, then he will withdraw from the principalities. He does not absolutely say that he will not withdraw sooner, though it implies not sooner.
§ The EARL of CLARENDONI think 91 the answer I gave my noble and learned Friend exactly meets the question. We shall make no condition of that sort.
§ EARL FITZWILLIAMMy Lords, I beg to observe that the expression referred to is a great deal stronger than my noble and learned Friend has stated. The expression is not only "in the Turkish waters," but "within sight of the capital," which, I apprehend, is an expression bearing a very different meaning from "the Turkish waters." The phrase "Turkish waters," as used in the circular, must mean what we call the Ægean Sea, and "within sight of the Turkish capital" must mean the Sea of Marmora. The English and French Governments are also charged with having sent their fleets into the Sultan's dominions. I think that everything passing in the east of Europe must cause considerable anxiety at the present moment; and I trust my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will forgive me if I request his attention while I put a question to him upon a subject lately mentioned in the public prints, and upon which it is desirable to know if the Government have received information. It is not for the purpose of gratifying an idle or individual curiosity that I ask the question, but because it is a matter of deep public importance to know whether the report in question has any foundation in fact, and whether the Government have received any information on the subject. The rumour to which I allude, refers to the alleged passage of the Austrian troops into the Turkish province of Bosnia. I am desirous of knowing whether my noble Friend has received any information confirmatory of or denying that statement, which has been confidently made in the public prints, and which purports to come from the capital of the Austrian dominions?
§ LORD LYNDHURSTBefore my noble Friend answers the question, I must be allowed to apologise for not having been strong enough in the representation of the particular passage to which my noble Friend (Earl Fitzwilliam) has adverted. But my noble Friend has fallen into the same error, and has fallen short of the meaning of the Russian circular. The words are to the effect that "as soon as the British fleet shall remove from within sight of the city of Constantinople we will retire."
§ The EARL of CLARENDONI think my noble Friends have used expressions which are both of them sufficiently strong; 92 but as both have quoted from a statement which is manifestly incorrect, it can be of little importance how strong these assertions are. The English and the French fleets are neither in the Turkish waters, nor are they within sight of Constantinople; and, although that may be asserted in the Russian note, there is certainly no reason for taking precautions on that subject. With respect to the question of my noble Friend (Earl Fitzwilliam), if he had been in the House yesterday when the same question was asked, he would have heard the only information I am able to give to him. I believe that this report has, like many others, arisen from the electric telegraph, which, as I took an opportunity of stating some time ago, now transacts, not very correctly, a great portion of the diplomatic business of Europe. I have no reason to believe that the Austrian troops have crossed the frontier and entered Bosnia, but the contrary. My latest dates from the English Minister at Vienna, which are to the 7th instant, make no mention of it. I have also communicated with the Austrian Minister in this country, who entirely disbelieves the report. He says he thinks it may have arisen from some of the Austrian troops having been sent to their own fortress of Peterwardein, which is about eighty miles from the territory of Turkey.