§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, I rise to put a question to the noble Earl at the head of the Government, of which I have thought it my duty to give him notice, but which I think, even though no notice had been given, he would have anticipated after what has occurred, and to which I hope he will have no hesitation in giving me an answer. In most of the morning papers of Saturday last there appeared a document of a very remarkable character, purporting to be an extract from the Journal of St. Petersburg, and professing to be in point of fact a semi-official answer of no less a personage than the Emperor of Russia himself to statements made in the other House of Parliament by one of the leading Members of Her Majesty's Government. Now, if that article had merely contained a protest against the expressions made use of by that Member of the Government, as being inconsistent with the position he occupied, and derogatory to the dignity of the party to whom he referred, I would certainly not have thought it necessary to call attention to the subject, which in that case would have assumed much more of a personal than of a public character; but the assertions and allegations contained in that manifesto or memorandum, or whatever it may be called, are of a nature which require an explanation at the hands of Her Majesty's Government, because unexplained they appear to reflect upon, at all events, the political honour—I might almost say the personal honour—of some of the principal Members of Her Majesty's Government. I have taken the extract which I hold in my hand from the Times newspaper, first, because I think the article from the Journal of St. Petersburg is given more fully in the Times than in most of the other newspapers; and next, because the Times is a paper which professes—and, I believe, truly—to enjoy to a great 622 extent the confidence of Her Majesty's Government, and more especially of the noble Earl at the head of the Government—a confidence, I hope, which is not entirely undeserved, and which I must say appears to be reciprocated by the journal in question, for, at all events, it reflects with singular accuracy the opinions expressed by the noble Earl; and thirdly, because the comments which appeared in the Times upon the Russian document were themselves hardly of a less remarkable character than the document to which they referred. The Emperor of Russia, or rather the editor of the Journal of St. Petersburg, who probably would not without the Imperial sanction put forth a document of this character, after commenting upon the language made use of and the expressions applied to the Emperor by Lord John Russell, in his place in the House of Commons, proceeds to say:—
That such distrust may have been entertained by France—that it may up to a certain point have found a place in the mind of a Government still recent, which has not had time to acquire by long experience of former relations with it an exact idea of our real intentions, and abandoning itself involuntarily to the almost traditional opinion which has been formed of Russian policy in the East—that may be easily conceived; but on the part of England, which is aware of the antecedents and the character of the Emperor from a connection of long date, an opinion of such a nature justly excites surprise. Less than any other the British Government should entertain such suspicions. It has in its hands the written proof that there is no foundation for them, for long before the present condition of affairs, before the questions which led to the mission of Prince Menchikoff to Constantinople had assumed so serious an aspect of difference, before Great Britain had adopted the same line of policy as France, the Emperor had spontaneously explained himself with the most perfect candour to the Queen and Her Ministers, with the object of establishing with them a friendly understanding even upon the most important result which can affect the Ottoman empire.For this last sentence, in a leading article of the same date, the Times substitutes another expression which is even of a stronger character, the concluding words being—The Russian Government thinks fit to declare that, whatever might be the grounds of mistrust entertained by other Powers, the English Ministry had no reason to doubt the views of Russia, inasmuch as at an early period preceding Prince Menchikoff's mission the Emperor Nicholas had 'spontaneously communicated with the Queen of England and Her Ministers, for the purpose of, establishing an intimate agreement with them, even in the event of the most formidable contingency which could befall the Ottoman empire.'The article from the St. Petersburg Jour- 623 nal, after alluding to the disorganisation of the Turkish empire, goes on to say:—Since the year 1829 His Majesty followed with great attention the march of events in Turkey. The Emperor could not shut his eyes to the consequences of the changes which were, one after the other, introduced into that State. Ancient Turkey disappeared from the time when it was sought to establish those institutions diametrically opposed as well to the genius of Islamism as to the character and usages of the Mussulmans—institutions more or less borrowed from modern liberalism, and consequently entirely opposed to the spirit of the Ottoman Government. It became evident that Turkey was undergoing a complete transformation, and that these experiments, at least doubtful so far as regarded the reorganisation of the empire, seemed rather calculated to lead to a crisis which would overturn it. It seemed likely that a new order of things would arise which, although indefinable, would at all events destroy that which existed.The writer then alludes to the recent events which, in his opinion, have greatly aggravated and accelerated the crisis in Turkey, and among which he enumerates the affair of Montenegro, the religious persecution exercised in several Christian provinces, a difference with the Austrian Government, considerable financial embarrassment, and, lastly, the important affair of the Holy Places and the "imperious demands" of the French Ambassador at Constantinople. He then proceeds to say:—Penetrated with the extreme importance of such a result, and having at that period almost reached the region of the possible, if not entirely of the probable—convinced of the disastrous consequences which might result from it, the Emperor thought it necessary to assure himself beforehand whether the English Government shared his apprehensions. He wished more particularly by a frank previous understanding to remove every subject of misunderstanding between Great Britain and himself. It seemed of the highest importance to His Majesty to establish the most perfect identity of views with the Government of Great Britain. With this view the Emperor engaged the English Minister at St. Petersburg to cause Her Majesty to be informed of his anticipations with respect to the danger, more or less imminent, that menaced Turkey. He requested on this subject a confidential interchange of opinions with Her Britannic Majesty. That was certainly the most evident proof of confidence which the Emperor could give to the Court of St. James; and thus did His Majesty most openly signify his sincere wish to prevent any ulterior divergence between the two Governments. Sir H Seymour acquitted himself forthwith of the important commission which the Emperor had impressed on him in a long and familiar conversation. The result has shown itself in a correspondence of the most friendly character between the present English Ministers and the Imperial Government. It is not permitted to us to divulge the contents of non-official documents, which do not concern the Emperor alone, and which contain the expressions 624 of a mutual confidence. What we are permitted to say is, that, in examining the circumstances more or less likely to affect the duration of the status quo in the East—an examination undertaken from the conviction respectively entertained that every effort should be made to sustain that status quo, and to prolong it as long as possible—there never was any question of a plan by which Russia and England might dispose beforehand, and between themselves, of the destiny of the different provinces which constitute the Ottoman empire; still less of a formal agreement to be concluded between them, without the knowledge and unassisted by the counsel and intervention of the other courts. The two parties were limited to a frank and single confidence, but without reserve on either side, to communicate what might be adverse to English interests, what might be so to Russian, so that in any given case hostile or even contradictory action might be avoided.The concluding paragraph is thus expressed:—In looking over the different parts of this confidential correspondence, in recalling the spirit in which they themselves had interpreted it, the Ministers with whom at the time it was carried on, and who since have permitted themselves to be swayed by prepossessions to be regretted, will be able to decide if those prepossessions are just. Let Lord J. Russell more especially reperuse that correspondence, in which he was the first to take part, before ceding to Lord Clarendon the direction of foreign affairs. Let him consult his conscience, if the passion which leads him astray permit him to recognise its voice. He can decide now whether it be really true that the Emperor has been wanting in frankness towards the English Government; or if rather His Majesty has not unbosomed himself to England with as little reserve as possible; if there exists the least reason for believing that we have ambitious or exclusive views on Constantinople; or if, on the contrary, the Emperor has not explained himself in a way to remove all doubt as to his real intentions on the subject of the political combinations to be avoided, in the extreme case which he at the time pointed out to the foresight of the British Government.Now, my Lords, I must say that the statement made in the concluding paragraph, that there were on the part of the Emperor of Russia no ambitious views with regard to Turkey, appears to be, I think, from the course which events have since taken, and from the papers which the Government have submitted to your Lordships, an allegation which cannot be maintained; but that which is really important in what I have read to you is, that here is a declaration that the Emperor of Russia had, through Sir Hamilton Seymour, made the most friendly and unreserved communication to the British Government of the views and intentions which the Emperor entertained on this subject—that the result of that communication was a most friendly correspondence between 625 the Emperor of Russia and different Members of the British Government, and, as far as the Emperor could judge, a perfect identity of sentiment between the two Governments with regard to Turkey—and that, therefore, the British Government had no right to express the least surprise at the course which was subsequently pursued by the Emperor of Russia, or to deal with his motives as if they were not previously communicated or understood, and still less to affect to regard that course of action as a sufficient motive for entering into a war. But, my Lords, what appears to me to be something remarkable in the conduct of the British Government is this, that while, on the one hand, the Emperor of Russia refers to this confidential correspondence, for the purpose of showing that he had no ambitious designs with regard to Turkey, and the Times, on the other hand, alludes, in a somewhat authoritative style, to the same correspondence for the purpose of proving that there were ambitious and violent designs on the part of the Emperor of Russia with reference to the dissolution of the Turkish empire and its final settlement—while all this must have been evident, the British Government should imply that they were ignorant of what the intentions of the Russian Government really were. I do not at all complain, my Lords, that the communication made to Sir H. Seymour by the Emperor, and the subsequent confidential correspondence between the two Governments, were, in the first instance, not included in the papers submitted to Parliament, because the withholding such papers might well be justified by an honourable objection on the part of the British Government to make use of private correspondence for public purposes. Previously to the late discussion on the documents which have been laid on the table, I had some intimation of the existence, and even of the nature, of such a correspondence; but I thought that the Government might regard it as a correspondence of so confidential a character that it should not be made public, and in that case I considered it my duty not to make use, in this House, of any information which I might privately have obtained. But, my Lords, I am about to refer now to the comments which are made—comments of a very singular character—by the Times newspaper, and, I must say, in passing, that this is not the first occasion upon which the Times newspaper, within the course of the last few months, has pro- 626 fessed to be in possession, and has proved to be in possession, of secret and exclusive information which ought to have been known only to the Cabinet; and has also had possession of, or access to, papers which have been refused, and are still refused, to the two Houses of Parliament, and to be at liberty and apparently authorised to make public these documents refused even to Parliament itself. The noble Earl at the head of the Government may, therefore, disclaim as he thinks fit having any communication with the Times newspaper. I do not say whether he has or not. He may have no communication whatever directly and personal himself; but all the noble Earl's disclaimers will not persuade me, or any human being in this country, that the Times newspaper would insert such an article as that I am about to read to your Lordships, or would convey information of the character of that to which I am about to refer, without being informed by a person or persons who had official information on these matters, and who thereby have divulged that which ought to have been a Cabinet secret. The Times says:—We are informed that in the course of Lord John Russell's brief administration of the Foreign Office—that is, in January, 1853—Sir Hamilton Seymour was requested by the Emperor, and empowered by his own Government, to enter into a detailed private conversation with the Emperor himself on this subject; and a correspondence ensued, not of an official character, and the secrecy of which does not concern the Emperor alone, but which disclosed in the fullest confidence the views of the Court of St. Petersburg with reference to the approaching dissolution of the Ottoman empire.The Times refers to previous and present transactions apparently with a full knowledge of the facts, and gives to the communications of the Emperor of Russia the interpretation which I think is likely to be given to them by the country—namely, that the Emperor of Russia did entertain the most ambitious views with regard to Turkey, and had, as he thought, placed himself in a state of identity of action with the British Government. It proceeds:—We have not now to learn for the first time that, before the Emperor Nicholas engaged in these extraordinary transactions, he had attempted at various times and in different forms to lure almost every Court in Europe to share in the plunder of Turkey. As long ago as his own visit to this country he held the same language, and it may have been repeated in greater detail in the course of last winter.Now, mark, the Times newspaper is not 627 only in possession of the fact of those communications having been made, of this correspondence having taken place, and of the character and nature of the correspondence—but the Times newspaper appears also to be aware of the fact of an answer having been sent, and of the nature and character of that answer. It goes on:—But what answer did he get to these overtures? What answer did he get when he sounded Lord John Russell, of all men in the world, on the subject of an eventual partition of Turkey? We confidently reply, that he was met by an indignant refusal on the part of the British Government. He was told, if we are not greatly mistaken, that this country could entertain no proposal in any form which presupposed the dismemberment of an empire the integrity of which we had frequently engaged to respect and even to protect; that the British Government strenuously opposed any change in the status quo of Turkey, as a source of danger and difficulty to the world; and that, as this communication had been made in a friendly spirit, England strongly recommended the Emperor of Russia to abstain altogether and scrupulously from any interference in the affairs of Turkey, which must be productive of great perils to the world.How did the Times know anything about this, I should like to know? The article proceeds:—As these communications were of a confidential nature, and wholly anterior to and unconnected with the affair of the Holy Places and Prince Menchikoff's mission, the Government appear to have thought that they did not properly form part of the correspondence recently laid before Parliament, but constituted a separate transaction. This challenge of the Russian Government relieves them from all further uncertainty on that point. Lord John Russell's answer to the Russian overture will do him no dishonour; and, although in time of peace it might have been inconvenient to lay bare the pretensions Russia has sometimes indicated, our present relations are not likely to suffer from an 'indiscretion' she herself has provoked; and we trust the whole correspondence will be immediately produced.Now, my Lords, again I ask, how can any newspaper in this country know what were the particulars of a confidential overture made by a foreign Sovereign to certain Members of the British Government? or how could the Times, or any other paper, know what was the confidential answer of Lord John Russell, a Minister of the Crown, to such a communication? Or how did such a newspaper come into possession of documents of so confidential and exclusive a nature, that the Government, up to the present moment, have felt themselves compelled by a sense of public duty to withhold the knowledge of them from either House of Parliament? It is not, however, to the minor question of 628 whether this is or is not an authorised publication that has appeared in the Times newspaper that I am anxious to call the attention of your Lordships, but to a much more important matter. I will assume that the Times is well informed with respect to the nature of the communications and the character of the proposition submitted by the Emperor of Russia, and I will assume also that the reply made to it by Lord John Russell—an assumption which I have the more pleasure and the less hesitation in admitting, because I have confidence in the honourable conduct of the noble Lord, and because I am confident that no other answer could have been given by him to such a communication on the part of the Emperor of Russia. But this is what I require an explanation of. These communications took place, I believe, in the month of February—certainly during the short period in which Lord John Russell held the seals of the Foreign Office. Afterwards a full discussion takes place upon the question of the dispute between Russia and Turkey; the papers on the subject are officially laid upon the table of the House by the Government. I think the noble Earl will do myself and other noble Lords the justice of saying that we have not obstructed any of the measures of the Government by any factious opposition, and that both this and the other House have done nothing calculated to embarrass them. We afforded them every assistance for the prosecution of this war, which we believed might have been avoided, but was then inevitable. I thought the Government open to censure, but I did not do more than give a temperate expression to my opinion on the subject when called upon to discuss the papers laid before Parliament; but I and other noble Lords were sure that Her Majesty's Government were open to charges of having shut their eyes to a state of facts from which they should have anticipated danger. We pointed out the gathering forces of Russia, the threatening language of Menchikoff, the warnings of Colonel Rose and of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. After all these opportunities of knowledge, freedom of discussion, and warnings no less frequent than timely—what was the answer of Government? Her Majesty's Government, in the most solemn manner, by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said, "True, we had these facts before us, but if you had known the strength, the solemnity, the apparent sincerity, and the frequent 629 repetition of the assurances given by the Government of Russia with respect to Turkey, you would have been convinced, with us, that Russia had no ambitious views whatever—that the question was merely one of the Holy Places. We have been deceived, we admit, but you would have been equally deceived, for no Government could have given stronger or more repeated assurances of a peaceful policy." Now, it was in the month of April last year when the discussions took place in this House on the subject, and the noble Earl with so much gravity and solemnity made these assertions. But what becomes of all these asseverations, if at the same time the Government were in possession of communications of a secret and confifidential nature, disclosing the whole of the Emperor of Russia's views, "unbosoming himself," as we are told, with the utmost absence of reserve, and communicating to the British Government his ultimate designs for the partition of the Turkish empire, which the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was compelled to answer in terms of indignant refusal? I say, I can understand the unity which pervades the papers presented to Parliament—I can understand the reasons for not producing these private and confidential letters for the perusal of Parliament; but when we know of this additional correspondence in the hands of the Government, I cannot understand the assertion of the noble Earl, that up to the month of April, whatever might have been the menacing appearance and suspicious circumstances, Her Majesty's Government had the most entire confidence in the repeated and absolute assurances given to them by the Emperor of Russia—that her policy was not intended to assume an aggressive character. How is that consistent with the fact of the existence of correspondence and confidential communications to which the Foreign Secretary gave a most indignant refusal? These communications were, it appears, placed in the hands of the British Government for the purpose of securing—and, it was believed, did secure—a most entire identity of feeling and opinion between this country and the Emperor of Russia, to the nature of which reference is made in the article in the journal to which I have alluded. There is one other circumstance to which the Times newspaper refers, and, apparently, with some knowledge of the facts. The statement in the Times does not merely refer to the present 630 year; it goes on to state that at the period of the Emperor's visit to this country—at the time when the noble Earl now the First Lord of the Treasury filled the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—communications of a similar character took place. Now if that were the case, and if these designs of Russia upon Turkey were made known to the noble Earl who had since succeeded to the post of First Lord of the Treasury, and immediately upon whose accession to office these aggressive projects were put into execution, I want to know what confidence a Government of which the noble Earl was at the head could have had in the representations of Russia with respect to a total absence of all ambitious designs on her part? The questions which I wish to put to the noble Earl are very simple. They are—whether Her Majesty's Government believe the document inserted in the St. Petersburg paper to be an authentic one? Whether such correspondence and communications as are there referred to as being of a confidential character did take place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia? And, if such correspondence did take place, being now challenged to produce it, and their confidential character having been taken away from them, I ask whether the noble Earl will, in justice to the people of this country, produce the whole of that correspondence, which I do not blame him for not having produced before? I will also ask whether there is any truth in the statement made by a particular paper in this country, to the effect that there were communications of a similar character made in 1844, at the time the Emperor of Russia was in this country? and, if so, whether these communications ever assumed the form of writing? and, if they did, whether the noble Earl is prepared to place these papers also on the table of the House?
§ THE EARL OF ABERDEENMy Lords, the statement to which the noble Earl has referred is undoubtedly one of considerable interest and importance; and finding it in the paper, I presume we must consider it as possessing a sort of official character. More than this I know nothing; and the noble Earl is quite as well able as I am to form a conclusion as to the character of that statement. I have seen the statement nowhere else but where it is; and, as I said before, I know no more about it. The communications to which the noble Earl has referred, which took 631 place between His Majesty the Emperor of Russia and some of Her Majesty's Ministers, were, as the noble Earl has stated—and that course he has not disapproved—retained by Her Majesty's Government, and not printed with the papers laid on the table, in consequence of the confidential character which was considered to be attached to them. It has not been usual, under circumstances similar to those under which these communications were made—whatever may be the case with communications with foreign Ministers—to lay upon the table of the House a statement of familiar conversations, such as those described, between a Sovereign and a foreign Minister; and for this reason Her Majesty's Government did not think it proper or consistent with that respect and delicacy which they were bound to observe towards a Sovereign with whom we were still in alliance, to produce papers which had a private and confidential character. This statement in the St. Petersburg Journal, which, I conclude, must be considered as in some degree official, in which reference is made to these communications, and by which it appears that there is no reluctance on the part of the Russian Government that Her Majesty's Government should produce and make public all communications which had passed on the subject, relieves Her Majesty's Ministers from much difficulty in treating with the matter, and removes any reasonable scruple they might have entertained relative to the production of the papers to which the noble Earl refers. And not only that: I know no other course; and I am not at all surprised at the course taken by the noble Earl; and I can assure the noble Earl that if he had not made the observations which he has, and no reference had been made to this subject, I should have thought it the duty of Her Majesty's Government to have laid these papers on the table, and stated these communications to your Lordships—the object to retain them and to consider them as private having now ceased. Independent, therefore, of the question of the noble Earl, the whole of this correspondence will be laid upon the table; and I think, upon a perusal of them, the noble Earl will find that there has been little occasion for those observations which he has hypothetically applied to Her Majesty's Government tonight. It will be found, my Lords, I feel assured, that Her Majesty's Government have no reason to regret that they are now 632 in the condition to lay the correspondence on the table; and I think the noble Earl will find himself egregiously mistaken in his endeavour to cast blame or imputation of any kind on Her Majesty's Government for the part they have taken in this transaction. Upon that part of the subject I have nothing further to say; the papers will speak for themselves, and your Lordships will be able to form your own judgment from them. The noble Earl has, however, referred to the commentaries made upon the article copied from the St. Petersburg Journal, in a public journal—the Times newspaper. The noble Earl may, perhaps, be surprised—considering, as he does, that a very close connection subsists between that paper and some Members of Her Majesty's Government—or rather what he seems better pleased to call my connection with that journal—to learn that until this morning I never read the article or the comments to which he has referred; and neither directly nor indirectly—and here I feel some advantage in a man's having a character for truth and honour—I have neither directly, nor indirectly the most remote conception of the origin of the article in question, or of the comments which have been made upon it; not the slightest. I can say nothing more about it, except again to repeat that I am entirely ignorant of the source whence the comments alluded to arose; nor can I form an opinion or conjecture on the matter, except this—that I have been given to understand that a clerk in the Foreign Office, but who is not a clerk there now, and who was introduced, by-the-by, by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury), has scandalously betrayed his duties by revealing the contents of some official documents in the office with which he was connected. That is the way I am informed; but I do not know whether it is through that source or not that this correspondence has been made public, and on which the comments are based to which the noble Earl has attached so much importance. All I can say is, that I have not, directly or indirectly, the slightest knowledge personally of the matter. The first question, then, which the noble Earl has asked, I have already not only answered, but stated that it was the intention of the Government, without having been asked, to do what he has requested. With respect to the other matter to which the noble Earl referred, it is perfectly true that when His Imperial Majesty was in 633 this country, several communications—verbal communications—took place between him and the late Duke of Wellington and myself. I am not sure whether any took place with the late Sir Robert Peel, or not; but with respect to the Duke of Wellington and myself, there is no doubt that communications did take place as to the state of affairs in the East, and the views and prospects which might be entertained on the subject. It was, I think, shortly after His Imperial Majesty's visit to this country—indeed I am not sure that it was not about the same time—that Count Nesselrode came here, and embodied those views of the Emperor, and the conversations that had taken place, in a memorandum, which was afterwards reduced to writing. I have not seen that document for the last ten years—from the time when it was written, and probably the noble Earl knows more about it than I do. Not having seen it for so long a period, I am not prepared to say at this moment whether it may be fit or not to lay it on the table; but I shall ascertain. I do not wish to speak about a document I have not seen for so long a period; I may say, however, that I think it is not likely to have much bearing on present circumstances, or that it refers to the dispute about the Holy Places, to the mission of Prince Menchikoff, to the Vienna note, or, indeed, to anything involved in the recent discussions; and therefore I do not think it is at all likely to be of any service at this moment, even if there should be no objection to produce it; but on that point I reserve myself till I have had an opportunity of seeing and considering the document.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHMy noble Friend states, that during the year 1844, communications took place between the Emperor of Russia and the Duke of Wellington, but that he is not sure whether any such communications took place with Sir Robert Peel. Now, I am able to state that there were communications with Sir R. Peel; for my right hon. Friend communicated to me one point in reference to Turkey on which the Emperor had expressed a very clear opinion. I understood my noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) to say that he knows no more of the document which has been read as coming from St. Petersburg than the noble Earl who asked the question. If that be the case, I would suggest whether he is not premature in promising to lay 634 these papers on the table of the House? I think this would better be delayed till he has seen a copy of the St. Petersburg Gazette containing the document; for, as yet, there is no official or certain information that it is genuine.
§ THE EARL OF ABERDEENwas understood to say he had no doubt of the authenticity of the document.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHhad understood his noble Friend to say that he knew nothing about it till he saw it in the Times newspaper; but that was not a sufficient authority.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEI hope that all the conversations which have been carried on with the Emperor of Russia by Sir Hamilton Seymour on this subject will be laid on your Lordships' table, as well as those communications to which no particular reference has been made; because, undoubtedly, His Imperial Majesty has no right whatever to select one particular part of those conversations, and make them matters of communication intended for this House and the Government, and to debar Her Majesty's Government from having the full advantage that an entire communication would give them. I say this, because it has been current at St. Petersburg, and rumours have been common in the diplomatic and other well-informed circles throughout Europe, that in that conversation a most important communication—important in itself, and important also as regards the conduct of the Government and of Parliament, if it should turn out correct—took place, in which the Emperor of Russia expressed his determination to lose his last soldier and spend the last rouble in his treasury sooner than give up his claims on Turkey. I think the memorandum made by Count Nesselrode, and given to the Foreign Minister of this country in 1844, as stating the views of the Emperor and his Government on the then condition of Turkey, it is of vast importance for us to have. Your Lordships have a full right to know what was the view then entertained by the Emperor, because it is evident that it must bear most strongly on the present circumstances which have rendered war so imminent. I trust that we shall have all the conversations with the noble Earl, who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in some shape or other, also before us. It appears impossible we should not; for I think it necessary, for the credit of our Govern- 635 ment, that we should be able to show exactly what were the communications made to Her Majesty's Ministers, what was the answer, and what was the language held in 1844, as well as what was the language held by Russia, so as to give a really conclusive answer to the manifesto now published. It is essential that we should know what language has been held; for though this is the first time we have had it put forward in this way, it has been rumoured throughout the whole Continent that language very different from that we have recently taken was held formerly by Ministers of this country, and, among others, by the noble Earl who was then Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It is well, if documentary proof exists, that it should be made available, for the purpose of showing that the Government stands acquitted of inconsistency, as well as of duplicity, in these most momentous and unfortunate transactions.
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYMy Lords, even if I had never held the seals of the Foreign Office, I should on all occasions of this kind have endeavoured so to express myself as to avoid the possibility of embarrassing those who are charged with the administration of our foreign affairs. With reference to the present question, I certainly should not have pressed Her Majesty's Government to produce this correspondence, and I think that, under the circumstances, they were warranted in abstaining from laying it before the House. I will say more than that. I think the great advantages we enjoy from living under a constitutional Government, are somewhat abated at a period like this by the inconvenience which belongs to our position with reference to public affairs, as compared with a Government entirely despotic. I know that a Government which is entirely despotic—a Government resting on the will of one man—can carry on warlike operations with much more secrecy and much more rapidity, and, therefore, with more advantage, than one which has to consult the wishes of two Houses of Parliament. Feeling this most strongly, I have abstained as much as my duty permits me to do from any remarks relative to the great questions and subjects now agitating the country that could possibly be considered factious on my part, or on the part of my noble Friends with whom I have the honour to act. My Lords, I expected, therefore, on the other side—and I must say I have always been met in these 636 discussions in the same spirit by the noble Earl now at the Foreign Office—I expected that I should have been met with any other feelings rather than those of hostility, and, let me say, with an expression of rudeness from the other side of the House. The noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen), while defending himself from the charge that, whether from indiscretion or from any other cause, he was connected with, or under the suspicion of being connected with the Times newspaper, and that, either directly or indirectly, he had anything to do with putting them in possession of confidential communications, said that these confidential communications had not been given purposely by any Member of the Government, or knowingly by them, but that they had been revealed to the Times—["No, no!"] I understood the noble Earl to say that the Times had obtained this information from—[The Earl of ABERDEEN: NO, no.] Then what did the noble Earl say? Will the noble Earl inform the House what his statement was? The noble Earl said that the only way in which he could account for the knowledge which the Times possessed of transactions which could be known only to the most secret officers of Her Majesty's Government was, that there had been at the Foreign Office a clerk who, either from indiscretion, or still worse motives, had betrayed those State secrets; that that clerk was now no longer a public servant; that he had been dismissed in consequence—["No, no; no longer a clerk."] Well—that he was no longer a clerk; and then, in a tone and manner which nobody in the House could misunderstand, the noble Earl added that the Gentleman had been appointed by me. From the spirit and manner in which he uttered it, the noble Earl seemed to be sure that such was the case. [The Earl of ABERDEEN: I said I had heard so.] The noble Earl had no business to make such a statement unless he were sure of its accuracy. Nothing could be less consonant with the manners that prevail in this House, or with the usage of this House, nor does it agree with the customs which we, as gentlemen, not merely as Peers, observe towards each other, that the noble Earl should in this way have spoken of me as having appointed a man who has betrayed his trust. I wish to know from the noble Earl who that gentleman is. And this leads me to a much more serious consideration. Great and im- 637 portant State secrets have been betrayed, as the noble Earl says, by a public servant. A public newspaper is made conversant with these secrets through the treachery of a servant, though the noble Earl does not seem to be sure of it. He will not say that that is the case. But, my Lords, matters have come to this pass, that it is necessary we should know who it is that betrays the public secrets—how it is that Cabinet secrets have oozed out and been filtered through the public offices, and that papers which have been refused to Parliament have found their way into the newspapers, while the Prime Minister of the country does not know how or by whom the Government has been betrayed. My Lords, I think first of all I have a right to ask what is the name of the public servant who has betrayed his trust, and whom I am said to have appointed; and, in the next place, I will take into my serious consideration whether it is not my duty as a Peer and Member of Parliament to move that some searching inquiry shall be made by Parliament, and with all the powers that Parliament is armed with, to ascertain who it is that betrays public secrets to the newspapers, who this person is that has not yet been discovered, and who cannot be named by the noble Earl.
§ THE EARL OF ABERDEENThe noble Earl will excuse me from answering his question, for I do not know. He was a clerk in the Foreign Office, but is no longer a clerk; but I did not say he was dismissed. I said I had heard a rumour that it was through his instrumentality that this information had become known; but I did not say he was dismissed, nor do I know his name.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYWe have it on the statement of the noble Lord, that it is supposed the secrets of the Cabinet have been betrayed by a person in a public situation. It is said that these secrets have been scandalously betrayed by a person appointed by the noble Earl beside me. Now, that person ought clearly to have been dismissed, and if he is not dismissed for this violation of duty, the heads of that office have failed in their duty to the country. Unless, however, the noble Earl was perfectly convinced of the fact—unless he knew that the person so appointed, as he says, by my noble Friend had been guilty of that base treachery to the country—he was not warranted in making the statement he has done; and, if the noble Earl did know, nothing should have prevented 638 a man filling his high station of First Lord of the Treasury, in his place in Parliament, and from the Treasury bench, from stigmatising the person who had been so guilty in the face of Parliament and the country.
§ EARL GREYlooked upon this as a case of very great importance. It was the first time in Parliament that he had ever heard of such a case. He confessed, however, he had seen for some time past, with surprise and very great regret, the sort of official communications that had found place in the newspapers—because this was not the only case. Their Lordships would remember that about a fortnight ago the noble Earl on the upper bench asked a question as to what steps were to be taken with reference to the Russian fleet coining out of the Baltic, and how those ships could be stopped in the absence of a declaration of war. The noble Earl at the head of the Government thought it consistent with his duty to avoid giving any explanation in answer; but the next morning there appeared in the Times newspaper a complete explanation, because they were then informed by the Times that this difficulty of a declaration of war did not exist—that a summons had been addressed to Russia to withdraw her troops from the Principalities, and that if that summons was not attended to, it would be equivalent to a declaration of war. Now, that was a fact of great importance to know, and one which could only have been known to Members of Her Majesty's Government. Now, seeing these official communications in a particular newspaper, and information of such a peculiarly important character, it was hardly satisfactory that they should be told by the noble Earl that he had no knowledge, either directly or indirectly, as to how these communications were made. He did not for one moment doubt the statement of the noble Earl, because the noble Earl had most justly stated that he felt the advantage of having the character of a man of honour; but he thought it important for the honour and dignity of this country that such unauthorised communications should not come out, and that such a scandalous breach of faith as they had now heard of should not be passed over, without some more serious notice being taken of it than appeared to be the case. He did not think that an imputation so grave should have been thrown out on any individual whatever who was said to be in the Foreign Office, but which not being fixed on any 639 one individual would hang over the head of every one in that department, and that, too, without the imputation being distinctly made, or the grounds of that imputation being given.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, it had been distinctly stated, in answer to a question, that the answer of the Emperor of Russia to the summons given him was not expected to reach this country till the 25th of March. Our fleet sailed on the 11th of March, and if we wait, as we are bound in honour to do, till we have received that answer on the 25th of March, our fleet must have sailed without specific orders. In the meantime the Russian frigates and corvettes might sail out of the Baltic for the purpose of preying on our trade, and might pass through Admiral Napier's squadron untouched. He was not, therefore, surprised that the noble Earl found it inexpedient to answer his question, inasmuch as he could not say at the time whether those ships would be ordered to be stopped or not, as it depended upon the reply to be received from St. Petersburg, which would not reach this country till the 25th of the present month.
§ EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, he was afraid that the hypothetical explanation which had been given could hardly be considered to explain the disclosure which had taken place. There had appeared, within the last forty-eight hours, disclosures of certain things in the newspapers, and, unless this person against whom suspicion had been raised had left the office within forty-eight hours, a sufficient explanation would not be given of the paragraph of Saturday to which he referred. He begged to observe on this subject, that it disclosed to the world how mischievously the country submitted to place itself in the hands of the metropolitan press. It was a very serious affair, as it showed they were too much under the dominion of the press. He was very much afraid that Her Majesty's Ministers—that all Ministers, not only those at present in office, but their noble Friends opposite—felt the necessity for courting the public press too greatly to allow of their being as rigorous as they ought to be in their examination of the means by which the press obtained its information. In conclusion, he begged their Lordships to bear in mind that these secrets could not have been disclosed by the clerk, unless he had been in office forty-eight hours before the paragraph alluded to was published.
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYI have not received at the hands of the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) the justice that I expected. After having made such a charge, I expected, if not for my sake as responsible for the appointment of the gentleman, yet for the sake of those other gentlemen on whom, as has been said, the charge will rest, that the noble Earl would have named the gentleman to whom he has alluded. I appointed two or three clerks, and if the noble Earl conceals the name of the party in this instance, on them will the stigma of this charge in the Foreign Office rest. I beg your Lordships to remember one thing. I have been told that the appointment of the gentleman in question was made by me; now, if the custom still prevails that did when I held the seals of the Foreign Office, the person alluded to, whichever of them it may be, must have been quite at the bottom of the list of clerks occupied in copying documents on very important matters. It is therefore impossible, or almost impossible, and it is wrong, that they should have been acquainted with correspondence of such an important and confidential nature as that to which the noble Earl has alluded. Looking at the circumstantial evidence of the case—as the noble Earl refuses or is unable to give me further information on the assertion made by him most unwarrantably—I say, looking at the circumstantial evidence of the case, it is almost impossible that any young man appointed but for two years could have been cognisant of this correspondence, and, consequently, almost impossible that he should have revealed it.