HL Deb 11 February 1856 vol 140 cc513-22
EARL GREY

rose, pursuant to notice, to put the following question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs:—Whether he can give any Explanation of the apparent Contradiction between Colonel Rose's Dispatch of the 25th of March, 1853, and that of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe of the 27th of May following; the first of these dispatches containing a memorandum of Mr. Pisani, of the account given to him by Rifaat Pasha and the Grand Vizier, of the Substance of the Note verbale presented by Prince Menchikoff to the Porte on the 16th of March, while Lord Stratford de Redcliffe states in his Dispatch of the 27th of May that Mr. Pisani had assured him that Rifaat Pasha would never be brought to admit the Existence of this Note? He was sure their Lordships would agree with him that it was of the utmost importance that any information transmitted to Her Majesty's Government by the diplomatic servants of the Crown employed abroad, and more especially any information which was to be laid before Parliament to justify and explain the policy of the Government, should be of unimpeachable accuracy. If, therefore, circumstances should arise to throw any doubt on that accuracy, more especially if these circumstances should be calculated while unexplained to raise a suspicion as to the trustworthiness of any of the diplomatic servants of the Crown, of whatever rank they might be, it was not merely the right, but the duty of any Member of either House of Parliament whose atenttion might be called to the subject, to demand an explanation from the Government. This being so, he felt bound to ask for some explanation with regard to a circumstance to which, on a previous occasion, he had called their Lordships' attention. Last year, in discussing the policy of the war, he had endeavoured to show that there was no ground whatever for the allegation which had been made, that Prince Menchikoff, as the representative of Russia, had used threats for the purpose of inducing the Turkish Ministers to conceal from the British Government the nature of the Russian demands. He had contended, on the contrary, that the Turkish Ministers, desiring, for their own purposes, to create an impression to that effect, had made dupes, first of Colonel Rose, the British Chargé d'Affaires in the absence of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, and afterwards of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, when he had resumed his office as our Ambassador at the Porte; and that they had been induced, in consequence, to transmit to Her Majesty's Government erroneous information, which had produced the most unfortunate effect on the minds of the Government and of the people of this country. Without repeating the arguments he used upon that occasion, he wished to recall to their Lordships' recollection one of the main facts upon which he bad relied. On the 16th of March, 1853, Prince Menchikoff had presented a very important paper, called a note verbale, to the Turkish Government. On the 25th of the same month Colonel Rose transmitted to Her Majesty's Government a dispatch, enclosing a memorandum bearing the signature of Mr. Pisani, and stating that its purport was founded upon what had been told him by the Turkish Ministers, the Grand Vizier and Rifaat Pasha. Colonel Rose, in his dispatch, used the following language:— Your Lordships will see that, in spite of Prince Menchikoff's denunciations against the Turkish authorities, should they reveal his secret demands, they, in consideration of the danger which would ensue from a compliance with them, determined to make them known to Her Majesty's Government. That note, then, had been communicated by the Turkish Government to Her Majesty's Minister at St. Petersburgh, and it had been communicated to his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs by the Russian Ambassador in this country. His noble Friend transmitted it to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; and shortly afterwards Lord Stratford de Redcliffe addressed a dispatch to his noble Friend, in which he said— I think it my duty to record that the note verbale presented to the Porte by Prince Menchikoff on the 4th (16th) of March, and enclosed with Count Nesselrode's dispatch to Baron Brunnow on the 9th (21st) ultimo, was never communicated to this embassy. I have questioned Mr. Pisani on the subject, and he assures me that Rifaat Pasha could never be brought to admit its existence. That minister was probably restrained from disclosing it by the Russian Ambassador's threatening language. It thus appeared that on the 25th of March Mr. Pisani had signed a memorandum stating the contents of the note verbale, as he had learned them from the lips of the Turkish Ministers; and, yet, two months afterwards, on the 27th of May, he assured Lord Stratford de Redcliffe that the Turkish Minister could never be brought to admit the existence of that note. He (Earl Grey) had stated last year—and he then repeated the statement—that that was a transaction which could not be explained by any mere fault of memory on the part of Mr. Pisani—the circumstances were too important to be easily forgotten, and neither would forgetfulness be a sufficient excuse for so grave an error. He had also stated that, in his opinion, the blame went much higher than Mr. Pisani—that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was not justified in transmitting to Her Majesty's Government a statement deeply reflecting on a Power with which we were then at peace without having ascertained, to the best of his ability, that the statement was correct; and that it was his duty, when he returned to Constantinople, in the then critical state of affairs, when the awful issue of peace or war was trembling in the balance, to have made himself fully acquainted with what had passed in his absence, and thus to become aware of the contents of Colonel Rose's dispatch. But, even if he had neglected that most essential part of his duty, he had no right to send to Her Majesty's Government a statement that the Turkish Government had concealed an important state paper, while he drew from that statement the inference that the Turkish Ministers had been threatened by the representative of Russia—he had no right to send such a statement with such an inference, when five minutes' research in the archives of his embassy would have proved to him that it was unfounded. Under those circumstances he asked what explanation his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs could give of these circumstances? In his opinion, the importance of the matter was in no degree diminished by the fact that three years had elapsed since the occurrence had taken place, for Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was still Ambassador at Constantinople, and Mr. Pisani occupied, he believed, the same position at the legation as he did then. When he brought that matter under the notice of their Lordships last year, his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs gave no explanation with respect to it; and indeed he had not expected any such explanation, because it would not be reasonable to suppose that his noble Friend could be prepared to explain an apparent discrepancy to which his attention had not previously been directed. But he confessed he had expected that when a statement of this kind, involving so grave a charge against a British Ambassador, and reflecting on the honour of the British legation at Constantinople, had been made in that House, even by so inconsiderable a Member as himself—he had expected that those whom that statement affected would have thought it their duty to offer some explanation upon the subject. No such explanation, however, had been given, and that was the reason why he again adverted to the matter. He need not remind their Lordships that, in the present state of affairs, duties of the very greatest importance were intrusted to the British Ambassador at Constantinople, or that the position occupied by Mr. Pisani was also of the highest importance. While we employed in the East an Ambassador who was not conversant with the Oriental language, the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the interpreter or dragoman attached to the Embassy afford the only security which the country possesses that its affairs will be properly transacted. Upon these grounds he asked his noble Friend what explanation could be afforded of the discrepancy which he had pointed out?

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

My Lords, my answer to my noble Friend will be a very brief one, because I am not able to give any complete explanation of the subject upon which he seeks for information. At the same time, I cannot help expressing my regret that my noble Friend should have brought forward this subject at the present moment, and that he should have accompanied his question with the speech he has just made. I think that before he addressed to your Lordships such a speech, he was hound to show that there was some urgent necessity for introducing a discussion of this question, and that some practical good could be expected from his pursuing the course he has just taken, at a time when both your Lordships' House, and the other House of Parliament, have given unequivocal proofs of their determination to avoid everything that was likely to embarrass Her Majesty's Government or to produce any species of public irritation. Your Lordships have acted in that case under the highest sense of duty, and I believe that you have faithfully represented the feelings of the country. I believe that the people of this country are prepared to wait with patience the result of the pending negotiations, anxious for an honourable peace, but if unfortunately that cannot be obtained, determined to prosecute the war with increased vigour. I believe that the meeting of Parliament will rather tend to facilitate the negotiations than to increase the difficulty which may attend them. I am led to entertain that belief, in consequence of the demeanour which Parliament has already observed; and feeling confident, as I do, in the sincerity of our intentions, I believe that if we are but met, as I trust we shall be met, with similar sincerity on the part of those with whom we have to treat, the negotiations ought not to be either long or difficult. But if we have reasonable ground for anticipating the conclusion of peace, I confess that I cannot see any practical utility in ripping up the transactions that preceded the commencement of the war while the negotiations are still pending. My noble Friend reminds me that I did not answer last year that part of his speech which had reference to this transaction. My noble Friend certainly made a speech of very great length and very great power, and I could not give him detailed answers upon points to which my attention had not previously been directed. And neither did I then, nor do I now, attach the same importance to this circumstance that he attaches to it. It is a matter which regards the Turkish Ministers, who, for some motive or other, first denied the existence and afterwards would not admit the contents of a certain document, and having once deviated from the fact they have never since been able to make a consistent story of it. It is perfectly true, as my noble Friend stated, that Colonel Rose, on the 24th of March, heard that Rifaat Pasha had received a note verbale from the Russian Government, but that that Minister had denied the fact; that he then sent to inquire whether the statement was true, and all he could learn was, that the Turkish Government believed that the Russian Government intended to propose a secret treaty, but he could obtain no positive information upon the subject. A week later, Colonel Rose saw both the Grand Vizier and Rifaat Pasha, the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs, and he then learned, as the conversation was afterwards translated by Mr. Pisani, that Rifaat Pasha said that a note had been presented by Prince Menchikoff—that Prince Menchikoff had used the strongest language for the purpose of preventing any communication upon the subject being made to the British or French Embassies, and that when Rifaat Pasha had hesitated to give any promise to that effect, Prince Menchikoff had left Constantinople in a state of great apparent indignation. I think myself there can be no doubt that the Turkish Ministers were intimidated upon that occasion; for at the same interview both the Grand Vizier and Rifaat Pasha informed Colonel Rose that they did not consider that Russia had declared what her intentions were. I say, therefore, that the Turkish Ministers felt they were placed in a position of great difficulty. And neither is that very astonishing. You must remember, my Lords, with what pomp Prince Menchikoff arrived at Constantinople; you must remember the language which he then held; you must remember that the immediate predecessor of this very Rifaat Pasha had been compelled to leave office on account of the reception given to him by Prince Menchikoff. The Turkish Ministers knew the vast power of Russia; they knew that they were themselves wholly unprepared to meet that power, and they were altogether ignorant of the course which England and France might pursue in reference to any quarrel between the Turkish and the Russian empires. I must say, therefore, that there is nothing astonishing in the fact that the Turkish Government should have been intimidated by the language of the representative of Russia, and that they evinced great caution in any proceedings they adopted. This view of the matter is further confirmed by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who, upon his arrival at Constantinople, wrote on the 9th of April a statement to the effect that the Turkish Ministers had broached the subject, but that he could not draw from them any frank explanation even of the difficulties in which they were placed. He added that the language held to them by Prince Menchikoff, and the peremptory demand made of them for an immediate answer had increased the embarrassment and alarm of the Porte. But it is perfectly true that this note was never given to the British Embassy at all. It was placed in my hands by Baron Brunnow and sent by me to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe afterwards wrote to the effect that Mr. Pisani said the Turkish Government could not be brought to admit the existence of the note, and Mr. Pisani still adheres to that declaration. When I found that my noble Friend had given notice that he would make this inquiry, I thought I could not deal better with his question than by placing it on the telegraphic wires, and so sending it to Constantinople; and I will now proceed to read the answer which I received from Lord Stratford de Redcliffe upon the subject. That answer is dated Constantinople, Feb. 7, and is as follows:— Mr. Pisani confirms to me what I stated in my dispatch to your Lordship of May 27, 1853—namely, that the Turkish Foreign Secretary at that time would not then acknowledge the existence of the document called Prince Menchikoff's note of March 16 or 17 in the same year. The pacha was pressed to give me a copy of it, and he appears to have resorted to subterfuges and disavowals in order to avoid the importunity. Mr. Pisani affirms that subsequently a search was made by him, with the assistance of Noureddi Bey, the Porte's chief interpreter, and that the paper was not to be found in the archives of the Turkish correspondence. The meaning of this is, that the Turkish Ministers would not admit the existence of this note, in order that they might not be pressed to give a copy of it, which they were afraid of doing. My noble Friend tries to fix blame on Lord Stratford de Redcliffe in reference to this transaction, and thus shows, I think, that he is not quite familiar with the nature of notes verbales, and also that he is unmindful of the original cause of the war. The note verbale was a long recital of grievances sustained by Russia in the matter of the Holy Places; it demanded certain things to be done in reparation of those grievances, and in fulfilment of engagements entered into by the Porte with that Power, which it was alleged had been violated the year before. Some of those things, however, which were required to be done were at variance with the arrangement which had been entered into with the French Government, and the Porte was greatly embarrassed how to deal between the conflicting parties. It was through the friendly intervention of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe that the Porte was relieved from this embarrassment; and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe received the thanks of all the parties engaged in the transaction. It was only after that point, which we were at first told was the only one in discussion, had been satisfactorily settled, that other and dangerous demands were brought forward by Russia—demands to which the Turkish Government could not accede, and which we could not recommend them to grant. It was then that negotiations were broken off; but the two things, the note verbale and the subsequent demands, are wholly distinct, as is clearly set forth in Lord Stratford de Redcliffe's dispatches; and I may say also, in one of the dispatches which I wrote myself. I will beg my noble Friend to bear in mind that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was perfectly aware of the contents of the note verbale, that he acted in reference to that note in aid of Russia, and that if no other claims beyond those stated in the note verbale had been brought forward by that Power, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe would have been entitled to the exclusive credit of having prevented a rupture between Russia and the Porte. I must also observe that my noble Friend (Earl Grey) concluded with some remarks in reference to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe which I do not consider altogether fair. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, no doubt, like all of us, may have his defects; but no one, I think, will deny the high sense of honour and the statesmanlike qualities he has evinced in the conduct of our policy in the East. No man is more intimately acquainted than he is with Eastern questions, and there is no one who wishes well to the progress and prosperity of the Ottoman Empire that would not be glad to see his views with respect to that empire carried into effect. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe has rendered great services, and is at this moment rendering great services to that Power. It was only as I came down to the House this evening that I received from him a letter stating what has just been done for the protection of the Christian subjects of the Porte. I will not now read to your Lordships his statement in detail, but I will inform you that a very satisfactory result has in this instance been obtained. I can state to your Lordships that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe's knowledge and abilities have been eminently useful in producing a settlement of what is called the fourth point of the preliminaries of peace; and the securities which have thus been procured for the non-Mussulman subjects of the Porte, will, I believe, be highly satisfactory to all the Christian Powers of Europe. This event, I may add, must tend greatly to facilitate the success of the negotiations for peace; for I defy anybody to come to a satisfactory solution of the Eastern question if that point is not settled in some generally unobjectionable form.

EARL GREY

I am extremely sorry that my noble Friend has thought it necessary to question the propriety of the step which I have deemed it my duty to take this evening. He says that Parliament has very properly abstained from embarrassing the Government in the present delicate posture of affairs. Though I believe there is no man in the country who more thoroughly disapproves the policy of the Government upon foreign questions than myself, I am equally confident that there is not one in either House of Parliament who has more cautiously abstained from doing anything which might in any way embarrass them. Certainly I have abstained this Session from saying a single word upon a question on which I feel the deepest anxiety. But is it calculated to embarrass the Government—I hope not—to point out circumstances which, if left unexplained, may injuriously affect the honour of the country? What has the question now before your Lordships to do with the impending negotiations? How can it embarrass them? And does the Government really mean to close the mouths of independent Peers upon questions of this kind, by talking to us of negotiations which have no more to do with the subject in hand than negotiations in the moon? I must decline to follow my noble Friend into the question, whether the present war is to be attributed to Russia or to Turkey, or whether Lord Stratford de Redcliffe has rendered great services to the country or not. Upon those points I may entertain very different opinions from my noble Friend, but they are not before us at present. I raise one specific question—whether there was or was not a contradiction between the dispatches of Colonel Rose and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe? My noble Friend says there was not. Allow me to read the two passages, and then I will leave your Lordships to judge whether there was a contradiction or not. On the 25th of March the memorandum of Mr. Pisani contains the following words:—"Rifaat Pasha, in the interview I had with him yesterday, stated that Prince Menchikoff had left him on the 17th a note verbale." On the 27th of May, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe informs us, that he had questioned Mr. Pisani on the subject, "and he assures me that Rifaat Pasha would never be brought to admit its existence," speaking of this very note verbale. The question then is, whether a certain gentleman, having stated that he had received from a Turkish Minister an account of a note left with him, and two months after writing that the very same Minister could never be brought to admit its existence, has stated that which is correct? This matter may be passed over lightly by my noble Friend, but I say it is of the very deepest importance, not for the reputation of the British Embassy only, but also for the honour of the nation. If England is to be represented by persons whose statements are thus contradictory, I say that its honour suffers; and, where there is so much suspicion, the power and moral influence of the country may depend upon regaining that high character which ought to belong to all engaged in the diplomatic service of the British Crown, so that no shade, even of distrust, may rest upon the accuracy of their statements. I think it was right to bring this subject before the House, and confess I feel the deepest regret that my noble Friend, instead of giving some explanation showing there had been a mistake, has found it necessary to go into various other questions, but not to touch the only point at issue.

House adjourned till To-morrow.