§ LORD DORCHESTERMy Lords, I rise to put a Question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which I have given him private Notice. I need, not disclaim any intention to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, for I think they are sufficiently disposed to embarrass themselves and the country. But the state of tension of public feeling and opinion is such that I think your Lordships and the public have a right to be informed as to what has occurred in the recent negotiations with Russia, and I am sure that there is no intention upon the part of any Member of your Lordships' House to occasion any embarrassment by desiring to know what are the future intentions of the Government. In rising to put this Question, I wish to call attention to the manner in which the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary is in the habit of replying to Questions put by humble individuals sitting upon the Opposition—and, indeed, on the Ministerial—side of the House. Upon the 7th February I called attention to what, from my knowledge of the Russian character and of the action Russia has often before pursued, not in this only, but in the past, I believed might possibly be a fact—although one which, I believe, is unparalleled in the history of the wars that have been waged between civilized States. I refer to the advance of the Russian Army after the armistice had been agreed upon. There may be some noble and learned Lords in this House, and hon. and learned Gentlemen in "another place," who can tell us exactly the legal position of the matter, and 442 may be able to explain what is the distinction between doing an act after an armistice is signed, and before it is declared; and doing it after the latter formality has been accomplished; but it does seem inexplicable to those who hold, as an Englishman does, that his word of honour is as good as his bond. I wish the same could be said of certain other nations. The evidence of the act to which I referred on the 7th February— this advance of the Russians after the armistice had been signed—was in the possession of your Lordships 12 hours after, and in that of the noble Earl 12 hours before I put the Question in your Lordships' House. Her Majesty's Government is supported by a large majority of the Opposition, not only in this House, but in "another place," and will be so supported in all their acts which tend to maintain the honour and dignity of the country, and its position among European and civilized nations; but I think I have a right to complain that, when the noble Earl was in possession of the information on the evening of the 6th of February, he did not reply to my Question as to the armistice, which I put on the 7th of February. When I repeated the Question subsequently, the noble Earl answered it by reading Papers, to which I shall not now refer, though I shall be happy to hand them over to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for his information as a Member of the Cabinet, if he should not be disposed to study the Parliamentary Papers as fully as many humble individuals in your Lordships' House are in the habit of studying them. Before putting the Question of which I have given the noble Earl Notice, I shall state what I believe to be a fact—that, with the exception of a very small portion of the public, the noble Earl at the head of the Government will find himself thoroughly supported; that he will find many supporters on both sides of this and the other House; and that he will find supporters in every street and almost every house in the country, so long as he upholds the dignity of the country in the manner in which Liberal Prime Ministers have done before him. I beg to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of information as to the position of the iron-clad Fleet of the Turkish Empire; and, if so, 443 whether he can, without inconvenience to the public service, communicate the same?
§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, the noble Lord (Lord Dorchester) has put to me a Question of which, as he has said, he gave me private Notice; but he has exceeded the limits of his Notice by prefacing his Question by a complaint to your Lordships of the manner in which I answered, or did not answer, Questions put to me by him on previous occasions. The noble Lord -will excuse me for saying that I do not admit that there are grounds for his complaint, and that I am not aware that I have been wanting in respect in answering any Question coming from any Member of your Lordships' House. I may add, that I do not see any very close connection between the Question with which he concluded and the remarks by which he preceded it. With regard to those remarks I am in your Lordships' hands, and I must appeal to your Lordships as to whether I or my Colleagues on this bench have been backward in giving information so far as we could do so without inconvenience to the public service. My impression is that it has very seldom happened on occasions like the present that the Government have been so ready and forward to place before Parliament, and consequently before the public, all the information with which they were provided, and all the materials that would enable them to form a judgment on the position of affairs. Now, I must point out further that the noble Lord has answered his own complaint. He says he asked me for information about a fortnight ago, and that I declined to give it, and that he found it in a Parliamentary Paper presented two or three days afterwards. In that case, I do not think the noble Lord has any reason to complain that he did not get the intelligence he desired to have. What I understood the noble Lord to ask was something which I did not feel in a position to answer. His Question referred, not to a matter of fact, but to a matter of inference—namely, whether certain movements alleged to have been made by the Russian Army subsequent to the conclusion of an armistice had violated the conditions of that armistice. I told him at the time that I did not feel in a position to give your Lordships a precise opinion respecting that matter on the 444 information before me. The noble Lord subsequently pointed to a passage in a public despatch which he thinks is confirmatory of his view. I cannot say that it is not so. The matter is one of opinion and argument, and not of fact; and, being a matter of opinion, the noble Lord had precisely the same material on which to form an opinion respecting it that I have. Now, with reference to the Question with which the noble Lord concluded his remarks, I can answer it to a certain extent. I am in possession of information which I believe to be accurate as to the present position of the greater part of the Turkish Fleet; but I do not think it desirable that I should state it to the House. I will tell your Lordships why. In the first place, it is hardly our business to answer Questions as to the movements of foreign Fleets. In the next place, we have not heard that the terms of peace are signed. The condition of affairs is one of suspended hostilities-—it is a condition which we hope will lead to peace; but the war is not at an end, and it is possible that hostilities may be renewed; and in that case I think the noble Lord will be of opinion that he would not have done service to that cause which he is so anxious to promote—the cause of the Turks—if he had induced me to disclose to all Europe, and therefore to those who may be their opponents, the precise position of the Turkish Naval Forces.
§ LORD DORCHESTERThe noble Earl has, I think, misapprehended me. The Question I put on the 7th was whether the Russian Armies had advanced after the signature of the armistice? The Papers issued show that on February 6 the noble Earl received a telegram from Mr. Layard, stating that the Russian Army had advanced, notwithstanding the protest of the Turkish commanders. I knew nothing of that— as a private Member, I could know nothing of it. My Question was a chance shot, if I may say so—not directed at the noble Earl or Her Majesty's Government, but at the action of a Power whose ambition, whose arrogance, and whose overwhelming autocracy I am anxious to check—["Order!"]—and I must repudiate at once and altogether the suggestion that I am anxious to stand up for the Turkish authorities. [Loud cries of" Order!"]