§ LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he wished to put a question—though he did not know very well to whom he was to put it; but he hoped it would be answered by the noble Earl the President of the Council. It also related to something which was reported to have passed in the other House. It appeared that as early as May last instructions were sent out to blockade the different Russian ports in the Black Sea; but no particular directions were given as to the manner in which the blockade was to be effected. In these circumstances it appeared to the-English and French Admirals that the best mode of blockading the Russian ports in the Black Sea was to place a blockading squadron in the Bosphorus. Such a proceeding was much the same as if, with the view of blockading the ports of Italy, we were to think of placing a blockading squadron in the Straits of Gibraltar; or as if, wishing to blockade the Russian ports in the Baltic, we should place a blockading squadron in the Sound, or the Great Belt. As was to be expected, some doubts arose as to whether such a blockade would be legal, and he supposed that applications were immediately made to the Admiralty on the subject. Of course, when these applications reached the Admiralty, as time was of the utmost consequence in such matters, that department consulted the law officers of the Crown, who could not delay long in declaring the blockade to be altogether illegal and ineffectual. Such being the case, it was, of course, of the utmost consequence that no delay should take place in despatching information to the Admirals in the Black Sea. The whole of these proceedings might have been completed in less than four or five weeks; but he understood that the original blunder was permitted to remain unrectified for the period of three months; and at the expiration of that time it was found impossible to blockade the Russian ports in the Black Sea, because our fleet was then engaged before Sebastopol. Now, the 1742 question he wished to put was this—how it happened that three months were consumed in rectifying so gross a blunder?
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would venture to suggest that it would have been much better if notice had been given of this question, as he thought it was for the public convenience to adhere to the rule laid down in such eases, more especially when the department more particularly implicated was not represented in that House; but as he was anxious to give all the information in his power to the noble and learned Lord, he would state what he believed to have been the circumstances of the case. Orders were sent out, as the noble and learned Lord had stated, to the Admiral to blockade all the Russian ports in the Black Sea. After some communication between the French and English Admirals it was resolved to blockade those ports in the manner described by the noble and learned Lord. It was to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe to whom the doubt at once suggested itself, whether such a blockade would be consonant with the law of nations. The question was referred to the law officers of the Crown. They gave it as their opinion that it was quite impossible that such blockade could be good in law. It was then necessary that some communications should pass between the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the French Government, in order to inform them that such a blockade could not be maintained, and also to make arrangements for the establishment of an efficient and valid blockade. The dates were not so clear and precise in his mind as to enable him to give the exact number of weeks or months which those communications occupied; but the fact was, as stated by the noble and learned Lord, that when the second order reached the Admirals in the Black Sea the fleet was engaged before Sebastopol.
LOUD LYNDIIURSTsaid, the explanation of the noble Earl was not satisfactory. He did not understand why so much time had been lost. No proposition could be clearer than that such a blockade as that attempted was altogether ineffectual and illegal.
§ House adjourned to Monday next.