Lords Sitting of 2 February 1854

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Kingston.

AMENDMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW— QUESTION.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that he wished to ask a question of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack. Towards the close of the last Session of Parliament it was agreed, he thought, by their Lordships that the opinion of the learned Judges should be taken with respect to a Bill for the Amendment of the Criminal Law. He wished, therefore, to ask the noble and learned Lord whether those opinions had been taken, and whether he was prepared to lay them on the table of the House, and have them printed for the public information?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that his noble and learned Friend was in error in supposing that it was by direction of that House that the opinions of the learned Judges were to be taken. It was, however, true that a communication had been made to the learned Judges on this subject—under these circumstances. Their Lordships would recollect that one of the Bills introduced by his noble and learned Friend, his immediate predecessor, was one for codifying—if he might use that expression—the criminal law relating to offences against the person. When that noble and learned Lord resigned the Great Seal, and it was entrusted to him (the Lord Chancellor), he inquired of the noble and learned Lord whether he would prefer to hand it over to him, for him to adopt it, or deal with as he, and the Government might think fit, or to proceed with it himself: and the noble and learned Lord said that he was desirous of going on with the Bill himself—and he (the Lord Chancellor) need
206
hardly tell the House that he was glad the task should be in such able hands. His noble and learned Friend then introduced the Bill and a Select Committee was appoint, of which the noble and learned Lord who had put this question, and the noble and learned Lord the Chief Justice, and indeed all the law Lords in that House, besides other Peers who took an interest in the matter, were members; and they went very laboriously through the subject for eleven entire days. The Committee, owing to circumstances to which he need not advert, did not, however, conclude their labours; but the Bill, in the form into which it had been brought, was printed. The gentlemen by whom the Bill had been prepared proceeded in the same way with other branches of the criminal law, and before the end of the last Session, he (the Lord Chancellor) laid on the table another Bill which they had framed, namely, a Bill for Consolidating the Laws as to Larceny. He confessed that during the summer, on looking attentively through the first Bill, after it had undergone all these different investigations, he thought it was still in an unsatisfactory state, and he now almost despaired of being able to get the Bill into a more satisfactory form. Generally speaking, however, it was as nearly perfect as they could expect such Bills on such a subject to be on coming up from a Select Committee; and he thought the course to pursue that would be most respectful to their Lordships, and most useful for guiding them as to how far it was expedient to proceed with such a Bill, was send a letter to all the Judges during the long vacation, requesting them to give him their opinion on the subject; but feeling on his return, that that was not sufficiently definite, he wrote a second letter, accompanied by that Bill and others, and requested them to look upon that Bill as being a specimen as nearly perfect a Bill probably could be made in passing through Parliament, and to tell him whether, regarding it in that spirit, they thought the consolidation of the whole of the criminal law, arriving at such a degree of perfection as that Bill had attained, mind be an improvement or otherwise; and he begged them further to tell him if any observation occurred to them on the details of that Bill. From nearly all the judges he had received answers, and he should be ready to lay them on the table the House; but he would rather delay doing so for a few days, because there re-

207
mained one or two of the Judges who had not yet communicated with him—but he expected to receive their opinions in a few days. As soon as he had received the whole he would lay them on the table, in order that he might obtain the assistance of his noble and learned Friend, and other learned Lords, in determining whether, having regard to the opinions of the Judges, it would be wise to prosecute that course or not.

RUSSIA AND THE PORTE—QUESTION.
LORD LYNDHURST: I wish to put a question to the noble Earl at the head of the Government, arising out of what took place on Tuesday last, with respect to what is called the Vienna note—although, as I now understand, there is no Vienna note, properly so called:—for from the explanation given by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Clarendon), it appears that the note was, in fact, a French note. Now the question I wish to put is this—whether the representation of the transaction given by Count Nesselrode, in his despatch to Baron Meyendorff of the 7th September, numbered 90 in the papers on the table, is correct? This representation is contained, not only in the despatch of Count Nesselrode, but is also given with considerable minuteness in a memorandum referred to in that despatch. Count Nesselrode in this despatch states that the draft of the note was in the first instance sent from Vienna to St. Petersburg for the approval of the Emperor of Russia; and that the Emperor assented to it without knowing at the time whether it met the approbation of the Courts of Paris and of London; that afterwards the note appeared to have come under the revision of England and France; and as the result of that revision, some alterations were made in it; that after the note had been thus altered, it was again sent to St. Petersburg. Count Nesselrode says that he considered the alterations not unimportant, but they were couched in terms, as he states, so douce as not to lead the Emperor to retract the assent he had given to the draft of the note. Then it was that the note was sent for the first time to the Porte. There is no doubt, therefore, that, with respect to the complete note—the ultimatum, as it is called by Count Nesselrode—it was sent simultaneously to the Porte and to St. Petersburg. But it appears, according to this state-
208
ment, that before the note was complete, a draft of it had been sent to St. Petersburg for the Emperor's approval, and thus, that although the complete note had been sent simultaneously to the Porte and to St. Petersburg, yet that in the course of the negotiation, and in the course of preparing the note, the draft in the first instance was sent to St. Petersburg for the assent and adoption of the Emperor. It is certainly somewhat singular that the draft of the note should, during the negotiation which took place respecting it, have been sent to one of the parties to whom it was to be proposed for his approval, and not sent to the other party—the Porte—and the more especially so as the note related to the sovereignty and independence of the Porte. I ask then, whether this statement of Count Nesselrode is correct, and if so, whether that draft of the note was sent to St. Petersburg with the assent of the representatives of the different Powers at Vienna, or whether the sending it was the sole act of the Austrian Government?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I believe that to a considerable portion of my noble and learned Friend's statement I can best reply by repeating what I stated the other evening as to the origin of the Vienna note. The origin of that note was French. It was submitted—as I said here the other night—for the consideration and approval of Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government did not think it likely to be successful—did not think it likely to effect the desired object; but the French Government having expressed their wish to transmit the draft of this note—which was a kind of splicing together of the two different notes of Prince Menchikoff and of Reshid Pacha in reply—they having expressed a desire to send this draft of a note to Vienna and to St. Petersburg, Her Majesty's Government offered no objection to that proceeding. The note was accordingly despatched, and was shown to the Emperor at St. Petersburg. As I stated the other night, no objection was made to it, but no answer was given to it—because the Russian Government had at that time accepted or asked for the mediation of Austria, and it therefore said, that it would entertain no propositions except those which came from Vienna. A copy of the note was also sent to Vienna, and it was found to be in conformity with the proposition which Austria had made to the Porte at the time

209
that Prince Mcnchikoff left Constantinople. The Austrian Government then wrote to the Turkish Internuncio to know if some middle term could not be found between Prince Menchikoff's ultimatum, which had been rejected by the Porte, and Reshid Pacha's note, which was not accepted by Prince Menchikoff—whether some middle term could not be found, that would be acceptable to the Emperor of Russia, and would yet guard the independence and dignity of the Sultan. I say that this note was found to be in conformity with that which the Austrian Government desired; but the Danubian Principalities had at this time been occupied, and the Austrian Government, highly disapproving of that measure, thought it highly desirable that no step on such a subject should be taken, except in conjunction with the other Powers. The Austrian Government, therefore, thinking that it saw in this note a peaceful solution of the difficulties, asked the aid and advice of the other Powers. Count Buol accordingly called in the Ministers of England, France, and Prussia, and asked whether they would assent to this note, which there was reason to think, from the news of its having reached St. Petersburg, would meet with no objection on the part of the Russian Government. When our Minister was asked to assent to that note, he said he would very gladly agree to it if he thought that it was likely to prove acceptable to both parties, for that, of course, it was desirable that by that mode their differences should be settled. There were one or two alterations in the note suggested from Vienna through the telegraph, to which we agreed; and the note so agreed to by the four Powers was sent simultaneously to St. Petersburg and to Constantinople. But after the note was despatched to St. Petersburg, it occurred to Her Majesty's Government here, that one or two slight alterations might be made in it which would more efficiently mark and give effect to the intentions of the Conference, and that these propositions should be made to the Conference at Vienna, in the interest of the Porte, in order to render the note more acceptable to the Porte, and more adapted to secure the independence of the Porte, and, therefore, more in harmony with the intentions of the Powers. These amendments were at once adopted by the Conference, and transmitted by telegraph to St. Petersburg; and these are the alterations to which the noble and learned Lord alludes as being mentioned in
210
Count Nesselrode's despatch, as having been proposed in a mild and temperate tone, but the real object of which the Russian Government was perfectly aware of. I am now, of course, speaking from my recollection of dates some time back, and I cannot charge my memory as to minute details; but I believe that these alterations were sent to St. Petersburg after the note was on its way to Constantinople as well as to St. Petersburg. And these amendments were immediately adopted by the Russian Government, and the Conference was informed by telegraph that there would be no objection to them. When the note was despatched and on its road, and also when it went to Constantinople, there was no knowledge at Vienna that it would be accepted at St. Petersburg; but as soon as it was known at Vienna that the Russian Government agreed to the note, intelligence was sent on by telegraph to Constantinople that there would be no objection to it. I am not aware, my Lords, that there is any other point which I have to explain.
LORD LYNDHURST: Count Nesselrode says it was a draft note—a projet de note—which is translated in the papers "a draft of a note." My question is whether this draft was sent in the course of the formation of the note not only to St. Petersburg but also to Constantinople. It appears to me, on reading Count Nesselrode's despatch to the Russian Ambassador at Vienna, and the papers accompanying it, that the draft note was sent to St. Petersburg in the first instance for approval, and that afterwards, when it was completed, it was then sent to St. Petersburg and to Constantinople contemporaneously; but there is no intimation that the draft was communicated to both Powers for approval, but only to Russia. I wish the noble Earl would read attentively the paper 90, containing Count Nesselrode's remarks on the draft note, because it is a most material fact in this case; my noble Friend has not answered my question. I wish to know if the draft referred to in Count Nesselrode's despatch was sent to St. Petersburg for approval, and not to Constantinople—and if so, whether it was sent with the concurrence of the four Powers, or by the authority of Austria alone? The reason why I put the question is, because I think, in a crisis like that in which the country is placed, it is of the utmost importance that unanimity should prevail on all sides of this House; and, therefore, it is essential that the House should be in full possession of

211
all the facts connected with this transaction, and more especially of a fact which strikes me as so important as this. Let us know whether a previous communication was made to Russia of a draft note, and her assent obtained to it, before any communication had been made to the Ottoman Porte.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that this House should be informed of every Circumstance that has taken place; and your Lordships will find full information on all the facts in the papers. I shall always be most ready to give every information in my power. But I can merely repeat what I said before—that what is called the draft of a note was what was sent some time before by the French Government to St. Petersburg and to Vienna. The note was sent from Vienna to St. Petersburg with the assent of the English Government. There was nothing sent to St. Petersburg but a complete note, and not a draft note, from the Conference of Vienna, on the part of the four Powers; and I know of no other amendments being sent to St. Petersburg beyond those which I have stated were sent two days after the note.
LORD LYNDHURST: It is stated in the papers that a draft note was received at St. Petersburg, and that the Emperor assented to it by a telegraphic despatch.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: That is exactly what I was stating, namely, that a note was sent from Vienna, and was assented to by the Emperor of Russia; and that, two days after that, some amendments, which consisted only of the alteration of two words, in order to make the meaning more clear and more acceptable to Turkey, were proposed by Her Majesty's Government and sent to Vienna, where they were assented to, and afterwards forwarded to St. Petersburg, and also assented to there.
LORD BEAUMONT: After the noble Earl's explanation, it is extremely difficult to understand the real state of the case; but, certainly, the impression on my mind now is a very different one from what I recevied from the noble Earl's explanation the other night. I understood the noble Earl the other night to have directly contradicted what has been constantly asserted, namely, that the Court of St. Petersburg had been consulted with regard to this note, and that the assent of that Court had been obtained to it before ever the Porte was consulted or made acquainted with the terms
212
intended to be offered to it. I originally understood the noble Earl to state distinctly that, on the contrary, the note went simultaneously to the two belligerent parties—Russia and Turkey. But now, if I understand my noble Friend, the case is this, that the French Government drew up a note; that that note, with the consent of the Government of England, was sent to St. Petersburg and to Vienna; that perhaps—and there I draw a distinction—on its being received at Vienna a further communication was made of the French note from Vienna to St. Petersburg; that the Emperor of Russia refused to take any notice whatever of a note that came direct from France and England—refused to return any answer whatever to England and France, but consented to send an answer to Austria, because, as he says, he has accepted the good offices of Austria in the ease; that then he gave his assent to the original draft, as if it had been addressed to him by Austria, though he knew very well that in reality it was drawn up by France; that after that Austria did not act solely and simply alone, as Russia wished her to do, but that she called together the other three Powers, and having submitted the matter to them they then agreed that this note, with certain modifications should be adopted; and that the amended note was then sent simultaneously to St. Petersburg and Constantinople. It seems that further alterations were then made, and were sent after the original note to St. Petersburg and Constantinople. It, therefore, seems to result from this—that no doubt the original draft, without the alteration, was communicated to St. Petersburg without being at all made known to the Porte; but that the altered note in its final state was simultaneously sent to the two belligent Powers. Therefore, I ask my noble Friend distinctly this question, whether the French note, without any alteration, the simple French note, agreed to by the English Government in the first instance, was communicated to St. Petersburg without being communicated to the Porte?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: Upon my word, at this moment I cannot answer that question of my noble Friend. It was no communication on the part of Her Majesty's Government—it was entirely done by the French Government, who communicated it, as I believe, to the Porte as well as to Russia; but on that point at this moment I cannot positively speak.
House adjourned till To-morrow.