Lords Sitting of 10 February 1854

RUSSIA AND THE PORTE.
THE EARL OF CLARENDONhaving presented (by Command) Correspondence respecting the Rights and Privileges of the Latin and Greek Churches in Turkey, Part III.—
EARL FITZWILLIAM: My Lords, I will now proceed to put the question to toy noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which I gave notice yesterday. It is so much a matter of notoriety, that I need not remind your Lordships, that a Russian Minister has lately proceeded from St. Petersburg to Vienna, for the purpose, as it is supposed, of making some proposition either to the Court of Vienna, or through the Court of Vienna to the Ottoman Porte. The questions I am desirous, therefore, to put to my noble Friend are these: In the first place, whether Her Majesty's Government is cognisant of any proposition that may have been made there to any person, or that has been made there, either to the Court of Vienna or to the Ottoman Porte, through the intervention of the Court of Vienna; and whether, in the event of any copy of these propositions being in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, my noble Friend will have any objection to lay before Parliament that document, either in extenso, or the substance of it? I believe I have stated clearly the information I desire to obtain from my noble Friend.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, it is notorious, as my noble Friend has said, that Count Orloff has been sent on a special mission from St. Petersburg to Vienna. I believe that he was not the bearer of that counter-project or answer to the terms of the Turkish Government to which I alluded the other night. Those terms, or counter-terms, were sent by the Austrian Chargé d' Affaires from St. Petersburg to his Government, in reply to the communication he had been instructed to make to the Russian Government. I may as well mention in substance what the terms proposed by the Russian Government
390
were. The first was, that it was indispensable that a Turkish negotiator or plenipotentiary should proceed either to St. Petersburg or to the head-quarters of the Russian army, in order to negotiate peace; secondly, that if he came to St. Petersburg, the representatives of the Four Courts might have instructions to advise and concert with the Turkish plenipotentiary, but that the form of a conference was to be avoided; thirdly, that there was to be some separate or independent act or protocol, defining clearly the former and recent firmans of the Sultan, confirming or bestowing privileges or immunities on the Greek Church in the East: there was also an article to the effect that the Principalities should be evacuated as soon as practicable; and, fourthly, that an arrangement should be come to with respect to affording an asylum to what are called "agitators and revolutionaries" from different parts of the world. A Conference was summoned by Count Buol at Vienna, to which this counter-project was submitted. It was compared with the terms forwarded by the Porte to Vienna, approved of by the Conference at Vienna, and transmitted to St. Petersburg—and it was found to be totally at variance with those terms. The Conference, therefore, determined, and recorded that determination in a Protocol, that it was inacceptable by the Sultan, and should not be transmitted to Constantinople. That is the answer to my noble Friend's question with respect to the counter-project, or terms proposed by Russia. With respect to the objects of Count Orloff's mission, I beg to state that I have no official papers on the subject, and that I am not able to make ally statement to your Lordships; but I believe I may say this much—that that mission had, as far as I am informed, only reference to the relations and proposed relations between Russia and Austria; and I believe that the answer given to his proposals was such as was fitting to be given by an independent country.
[Subject resumed on Question respecting PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.]

NEUTRALITY OF DENMARK AND SWEDEN—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I wish to put a question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which I have not had an opportunity to give notice, but respecting which notice is not necessary, as it merely relates to a

391
matter of fact. I beg to ask the noble Earl whether Her Majesty's Ministers have received from the Court of Denmark, or from the Court of Sweden, any communication as to their intentions with respect to their utter neutrality or modified neutrality, in the event of hostilities occurring in the Baltic?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: In answer to the question of the noble Earl, I have to state that we have received communications both from Sweden and Denmark. They have announced to us their intention of preserving a strict and perfect neutrality; and they have also sent a list of those ports and fortified places to which they would not admit the ships of war of the belligerent Powers. Our answer to those communications was, that we approve of the system of policy which they propose to adopt, and of the manner in which they intend to carry it out. I may also say that we said we shall respect that neutrality.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: Has the noble Earl taken exception with respect to the particular ports enumerated by Sweden—inasmuch as he (the Earl of Ellenborough) understood that several of those ports are almost essential to the practical action of our fleet in the Baltic? In this matter we stand on an inequality as regards Russia, inasmuch as Russia has ports and we have none, and the exclusion which was proposed would deprive our vessels of ports in which to take shelter in the event of stress of weather.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: No exception has been taken by us to any part of the communication from Sweden, and we consulted the Naval authorities before we gave our answer. I may say that great exception has been taken by Russia to the system which Sweden has announced.
THE EARL OF DESART: So far as I can judge, it still appears from public report that there is some possibility of peace. I do trust, however that may be, that Russia is not to be permitted to gain another of those diplomatic victories by which she has acquired a greater addition of territory within the last century than she has done by force of arms. If Russia is still willing to negotiate and to accept such propositions as the Sultan would have submitted to some time ago, let her do so; but if that is not her intention, and if Russia is permitted to retain the Black Sea as a mare clausum, I can only say that you put powers into her hands which
392
have long been the source of contention, and out of which will probably originate fresh contentions, which may draw this country into a war which she perhaps may not be as well prepared to meet, or in which she may not be as well seconded as she is now. I trust I shall be excused for offering these remarks; but I feel strongly that this should not be allowed to be a triumph instead of a punishment to Russia, after the calamities which she has brought upon her subjects, the great obstructions which she has occasioned to commerce, and the near embroilment in a war in which she has involved all Europe.
EARL FITZWILLIAMasked whether the House was to understand that the noble Earl had, or had not, any papers relative to the mission of Count Orloff to Vienna?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I distinctly said I had no papers. I am willing, as soon as I get information, to place it before the House, exercising, however, my own discretion as to the propriety of producing any papers relating to a matter in which this country is not immediately concerned. At present I have no papers to produce.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—RUSSIA AND THE PORTE (RESUMED).
EARL GREY: In putting the question of which I have given notice to the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government, I have only a very few words to say in explanation of my reason for doing so. Your Lordships are aware, from the Votes of the other House of Parliament, that notice has been given that a Bill on the subject of Parliamentary Reform is to be proposed in that House on Monday next on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. This notice was given at the beginning of the Session; but since it was so given, I have heard from persons of the most various political opinions, and of the most conflicting views as to the propriety of any further reform or not—from gentlemen of all parties I have heard such a unanimous concurrence in the opinion which I ventured to express to your Lordships in the debate on the Address, that it was inexpedient to bring forward the question of reform, before the measures for the national defence which may be required by the probable outbreak of war were completed, that I really felt confident that Her Majesty's Government would postpone

393
that notice unless they should be able to assure us that the probability of a disturbance of peace was at an end, and that they could rely upon tranquillity being preserved. Your Lordships are aware, from the answer given both to-night and on a former evening by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that he has not been able to hold out to us any such hopes of the preservation of peace. On the contrary, the noble Earl has told us this evening that the temper of the Emperor of Russia makes the probability of war stronger than ever. Under these circumstances, I am anxious to know whether Her Majesty's Government really mean to submit to Parliament a measure for the alteration of the constitution of the House of Commons before those measures which are essential for the defence of the country have been considered and disposed of. I cannot help remarking to your Lordships that there is naturally a great anxiety on the subject in the public mind. Every man is most anxious to know when Her Majesty's Government propose to submit to the House the Army and Navy Estimates, and when other measures will be brought forward, and especially that measure which has been announced for extending the Militia Law, which is now only applicable to England, to the other divisions of the United Kingdom. It is earnestly desired by all parties that those measures should be made known to the country with the least possible delay, and should be considered, and the opinion of Parliament taken upon them. There is a very great objection to the discussion of those subjects being interfered with by another question of the peculiar nature of that which I have mentioned. I beg to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the delay which may be thereby caused, may not be merely the delay of a single night or of the several nights that may be occupied by an adjourned debate upon the intended Reform Bill—it may be a delay of a much more serious character; for I presume that such a measure as one of Parliamentary reform is not to be launched by Government without a full intention of proceeding with the consideration of it without unnecessary delay. Looking, however, to the very conflicting views and to the great variety of opinions on this subject which now prevail in the country, it is possible that Her Majesty's Government may fail in proposing a measure that will meet with the ap-
394
probation of Parliament or of the country. Are we, then, in the midst of our preparations for war, to have a dissolution of Parliament, or a resignation of the present Ministry? My Lords, I am not one of those who profess an unbounded confidence in Her Majesty's present advisers, but at the same time I own that I should look forward to their resignation at the present moment with deep alarm and apprehension. At no time is a change of Government effected without some considerable disturbance of the regularity of the movements of the Executive Government. It is quite true that when the members of one Administration resign, they continue in the performance of the functions of their various offices until their successors are appointed, and that there is no actual interruption of the most necessary functions of the Executive Government; but I know also that from the very day on which the resignation of Her Majesty's advisers has been accepted, until their successors have been actually installed, more than one-half of the real power of the Government is destroyed. It is utterly impossible that when the reins of power are about to pass from the hands of one set of men to those of another—when it is uncertain whether the measures brought forward by them may not be reversed by those who succeed them—it is quite impossible, under such circumstances, that the Government can be carried on with proper vigour and effect. These changes—even in times of profound peace and tranquillity—are not unattended with a certain degree of inconvenience; but at the moment of preparation for war, or of the actual breaking out of hostilities, when the various measures required for the purpose are in actual progress, I am sure every man must feel that a change of Ministers must be attended with the greatest inconvenience if not danger. We cannot afford to have a Ministerial crisis needlessly brought on, or even risked, at a time when the attention of the country ought to be entirely occupied in providing for its defence, and for the vigorous conduct of the hostilities with which it is threatened. It is upon this ground that I am most anxious to know whether, even at this last moment, Her Majesty's Government may be inclined to postpone bringing on that subject to which I have adverted. I quite agree with them that it is a subject which ought to be taken into consideration as early as possible. After what has taken place within the last

395
two or three years on this subject, there is no advantage to be gained by attempting to get rid of question. Whatever the difficulty or inconvenience may be, the question must be considered; but that consideration ought not to take precedence of the consideration of the more pressing measures which the present state of the country demands. I beg to ask the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that a measure of Reform is to be submitted to the other House of Parliament before the introduction of the Navy and Army Estimates?
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: In answer to the question of the noble Earl, I have to inform him that it is the intention of my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) on Monday next to bring forward a measure of Parliamentary reform in the House of Commons. If I correctly understand the noble Earl, the objection which he takes to this course of proceeding rests upon the supposition of its interfering with those preparations—those military and naval preparations—which the present state of the country not only justifies but demands. Now, my Lords, it will not practically have any such effect. The Navy Estimates were laid, I believe, upon the table of the House of Commons yesterday; but it was impossible, from the nature of those Estimates, to appoint an earlier day for their consideration than Friday next. On Friday next, therefore, the Navy Estimates will be taken into consideration; but the measure of Parliamentary reform, although proposed on Monday next, will not be proceeded with until after the consideration of the Estimates, both Army and Navy. Therefore the public business will not suffer in consequence of the introduction of that measure. Her Majesty's Government have felt that their character was at stake in the production of that measure, and that if it had been possible for us to postpone it, we should have met with just reprobation on the part of Parliament and of the public for taking that course. Noble Lords seem to think that we are actually at war; but I must say that not only is this not the case, but I, for one, deny (although it has been asserted in this House by various noble Lords) that war is inevitable. On the contrary, although I admit that the case is such as to require ample preparations to meet the dangers of war, yet I will not abandon the hope of maintaining peace. Practically, however, whatever my hopes or belief may be, they will not affect the
396
course of proceeding of the Government. We shall make all preparations as if war were inevitable. My Lords, if war be inevitable, amongst others of the calamities which must necessarily be inflicted upon mankind by any such event will be this—and it is an additional misfortune—that it will interfere with our progress, social and political, and with all those measures that are most calculated for the welfare of the country. But I cannot admit that the mere apprehension of war is to interfere to prevent us from redeeming a pledge that we have given to Parliament and to the country, and which we are bound and determined to fulfil.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I must say that I have heard with very great regret the statement made by the noble Earl. I heard it with regret, because I think he has quite failed to meet the objection which, as I understand, is urged by the noble Earl (Earl Grey), with regard to the introduction of this measure of Parliamentary reform at the present moment. I do not apprehend that that noble Earl objected to the introduction of the measure, simply on the ground that its introduction would interfere with those naval and military preparations which Her Majesty's Government, as the Executive Power, has undertaken, but because at a moment when it is important that all party feeling should be sunk—at a time when all our attention ought to be directed to one object, and to one object only—namely, preparing for a war, which I believe the noble Lord is the only man in the country who does not believe inevitable—I say, I believe the objection of the noble Earl was, that Her Majesty's Government, for the purpose of redeeming a pledge which was given to the country under very different circumstances, are now running the serious risk of involving the House of Commons in a serious conflict, and of placing parties in a position in which, for the good of the country, it is eminently desirable that they should not be placed. I need not say to the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) that I agree with the noble Earl who preceded him, in having no great confidence in Her Majesty's present Ministers; but I concur with him not the less in anxiously and earnestly deprecating anything that might tend to remove those Ministers at this moment. I concur with the noble Earl in thinking that at all times under circumstances of public danger, a change of Government, which weakens the hands of the

397
Executive, and throws uncertainty into the councils of the country, is to be deeply regretted; and, however strong a partisan the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's present Government may conceive me to be, and however determined to oppose the policy of the noble Earl as far as I understand that policy, I assure him I desire to see no change of Administration now: at all events, I hope the House and the country will give me credit for not desiring to sacrifice that which I believe to be for the good, the welfare, and the honour of the country, to any considerations of party advantage which could be derived from entering into such a question at such a time as the present. My Lords, the noble Earl upon the bench below has suggested the possible danger and risk arising out of the reform measure not being satisfactory to the country, and consequently involving either a dissolution of Parliament, or a resignation on the part of the Ministers. But, supposing this measure of Parliamentary Reform to be acceptable to the country—an extensive measure we are bound to presume it to be, or it would not be worth all the turmoil and trouble which will be caused by it—but supposing it to be adopted by Parliament, then the Parliament is condemned by its own declaration; and I want to know whether, in that case, such a Parliament is fit to continue to sit to advise the Crown, and to carry on the business of the country. Then, whether the measure be rejected, or be adopted, the proposition of it involves much inconvenience for the present, and at no distant period, a dissolution of the House of Commons; and I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they think—for party considerations or for the good of the country—that a dissolution of Parliament, in the course of the present Session, be a measure which can be taken with a due regard to the interests and safety of the country? My Lords, it is not of the interruption to public business that I complain; it is not of the interruption to the consideration of the naval and military Estimates; it is of the diversion of the attention of Parliament from that subject to which it ought to be mainly directed; it is of the introduction of party feeling where all ought to be harmony and concert in the promotion of one great object, namely, the defence of the country and the prosecution of the war. It is on that account that I concur with the noble Earl upon the bench below, in deeply deprecating the introduction, at this mo-
398
ment, of a measure so certain to rouse party spirit and excite party animosities as a measure of Parliamentary Reform. I know not what course may be taken in the House of Commons by those who are not in the habit of giving their confidence to Her Majesty's Ministers; but I know that, if party feeling is allowed to prevail, the noble Earl and his colleagues have thrown out a temptation (which it may require some special firmness and virtue to resist) to a union in a vote adverse to the Government, upon a most vital proposition. Many of those who may not dissent from the measure itself, will doubtless object to the time and opportunity selected for its introduction; but, my Lords, I will venture here anxiously to express my hope—however reckless the conduct of the Government may be in throwing before the country such a subject for agitation, at such a moment—that they will find more public spirit and a better sense of the public welfare on the part of their opponents, which will prevent them from falling into the snare the noble Earl and his colleagues have offered to them. I trust that nothing will be done—I trust the House of Commons will not afford to the noble Earl and his colleagues even a chance of escaping from the difficulties of their present position. I trust that that measure, however we may deprecate and denounce the conduct of the Ministry in introducing it at such a time, may be received with the respect due to every communication authorised by the Crown, and that we, who are opponents of the Government, will not be parties to any party division separating the two sides of the House, at a time when agreement between them is most desirable, until Her Majesty's Government shall call upon us in a manner it is impossible to evade, to say aye or no to the principle of the proposed measure.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: My Lords, I heard an observation of great importance fall from the noble Earl at the head of the Government. I understand the noble Earl to say, that not only are we not now at war, but that he does not admit that war is inevitable. That sentiment coming from him, I wish to ask him, is he aware at this moment of any negotiation that is going on to put an end to the hostilities which are referred to in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, and which are popularly believed to be now raging in an important part of Europe?
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: I am aware that a state of warfare exists between Russia and the Porte; but I have yet to learn that this country is at war with any Power. I say that war may, unfortunately, be too probable; but I do not say that it is inevitable; and, so long as peace remains, I will not abandon the hope of maintaining it; and, please God, no efforts shall be spared on my part to maintain it.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: Precisely; and that is the reason why I must repeat the question I have asked, and which the noble Earl has not answered; namely, is the noble Earl aware of any negotiations that are now on foot to terminate the state of warfare which is alluded to in the Speech that was delivered from the Throne in the opening of Parliament?—a Speech very different in its tone from that which the noble Earl has addressed to your Lordships to-night.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: I have no objection to answer the noble Marquess' question. The negotiations have certainly come to a close at Vienna, relating to the propositions that were last under consideration. What may ensue hereafter, I am unable to say at present, nor do I think I am now called upon to state.
LORD BEAUMONT: Surely, that is no answer to the question put by the noble Marquess. That question is not as to what is going on at Vienna, but its object was to ascertain whether we are now negotiating for peace or not anywhere? I understood that the negotiations were completely closed—and as we are pledged to support the Sublime Porte, and pledged to I put an end to the state of affairs now existing in the Danubian Principalities; and as we have tried negotiations, and tried them too long, and found them to fail, are we not bound in honour to proceed to war? And are we not at this moment, if we are nut at war, or not proceeding to war, covering ourselves with disgrace? Therefore, I think that the question which has been put, is one that ought to be answered by Her Majesty's Government, and the question is this—are any negotiations now taking place on the part of this country for preserving peace?
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: There are none going on at present, and I have given that answer already to the noble Marquess.
LORD BEAUMONT: Then if no negotiations are going on for peace, are we to
400
remain satisfied with things as they are, and take no other steps to put an end to the proceedings now taking place in the Principalities? That is the question.
EARL GRANVILLE: I think, my Lords, that there is some irregularity in our proceedings this evening. Questions have been put without any previous notice of them having been given; and even that question of importance which has been put to the noble Earl behind me (the Earl of Aberdeen) by the noble Earl below (Earl Grey) is in its character very irregular, because it related to the order of proceeding with the business to be taken in the other House of Parliament. But when the noble Marquess is not content with making, not one speech, but two speeches in the same discussion, but goes on also to put argumentative questions, and expects immediate answers to them, I put it to the good sense of your Lordships whether it is consistent with the dignity of the House that such irregularities should continue? All that my noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) has said—and I hope he is not the only person in the country who shares in the sentiment—is this, that while war has not been declared there are yet some chances of peace; and he further explicitly said, that he was not aware of any negotiations that were going on, but that there exists—as I myself sincerely hope may be the case—some slight chance of peace from this circumstance, that in consequence of the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government in concert with France, having resulted in a cordial co-operation between the various Powers of Europe, it was to be hoped that that cordial co-operation would be followed on the part of Russia by some departure from the violent and, I must say, imprudent course which she has taken.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: My Lords, I suppose I must consider myself to fall under the rebuke which the noble President of the Council has just administered; but I wish for myself to say that I repel that rebuke. It is not I but the noble Lord himself who is ignorant of the usages of Parliament, if he thinks it unusual, when the quostion of war or peace is concerned, for a Member of either House of Parliament to rise in his place after the Prime Minister has made a speech, and ask a question which immediately arises out of a gratuitous assertion which that Minister has made. I find no fault with what the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen)

401
has said, but his remarks demanded explanation, and therefore I put my question. The noble Earl answered frankly that he knew of no negotiation now going on at Vienna, or St. Petersburg, or Constantinople, or anywhere else; and, so far, that was a clear answer; but I say that mine was a very pertinent question to put; for the noble Earl held out to us that this country is not in a state of war, and followed up that declaration by expressing his belief that war is not inevitable. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the conclusion to which any noble Lord would naturally arrive from this statement of the Minister, must be different from that to which he arrived from Her Majesty's Speech. I maintain, therefore, that I was perfectly right in putting the question I did; and so far from taking the rebuke of the President of the Council as perhaps in all humility I ought to take it, I say that I, for one, will not fail in my place in Parliament to seek for an explanation whenever a Minister of the Crown throws out hints which I think require explanation. I have always agreed that it is convenient both for the sake of eliciting a clear answer, and for every other purpose, that notice should be given of the intention to put questions; but when assertions are made themselves without notice, and questions immediately arise out of those assertions, I believe that such questions may be put; and so long as Parliament maintains its independence of the Crown and its Ministers, I hope they will continue to be put.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I also rise to protest against the rebuke which the noble President of the Council has thought proper to administer to my noble Friend behind me (Lord Beaumont), to myself, and to the House. We are told that questions such as we took the liberty to put are inconsistent with the order of our proceedings and with the dignity of your Lordships' House. Now I believe it is perfectly regular that any proceedings of the Commons House of Parliament with which we become cognisant by their printed Votes, which are laid upon our table, should be taken notice of in this House, if any noble Lord amongst us thinks it expedient for the public welfare so to take notice of them. Therefore I deny that in founding a question on a notice in the Commons Votes, as I have done this evening, I have committed any irregularity. I am not aware either that my noble Friend behind me has
402
been guilty of any irregularity; but I will say that I do not concur in the expediency of not pressing Her Majesty's Government for further information on this subject than they think proper to afford. I can assure the noble Earl at the head of the Government that I so entirely concur with him in his desire for the preservation of peace, that although the Russian Minister has left this country—although we have heard it reported that a part of Her Majesty's Guards are ready for embarkation—and although we may now be on the very eve of hostilities, still I have heard with the most unfeigned satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government do not despair of the maintenance of peace. Nothing shall fall from my lips in this House that might contribute in the least to their embarrassment, or might prevent their carrying on any negotiations or other measures which they may think proper to adopt, in order to avert the calamities with which we are threatened. My reasons, however, for putting my question are in no degree shaken by the answer of the noble Earl; for I believe that, from a false point of honour, and to redeem a pledge which they believe they have given, Her Majesty's Government are about wantonly and deliberately to risk the welfare, and perhaps the safety, of the country, by bringing forward at an inexpedient moment the subject of Parliamentary Reform.
House adjourned to Monday next.