The Press.
London, England, 1856-02-16 00:00:00

CRIMEAN COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.

The Earl of CARDIGAN, on Monday, complained of
certain reflections upon his professional conduct
contained in the report of the commissioners, and
gave notice of his intention to transmit to the War
Minister an exculpatory statement, to which he
trusted the noble lord would give equal publicity.
The Earl of LUCAN stated that on Thursday last
he had given into the hands of Lord Panmure a
letter refuting and contradicting in the most positive
manner that part of the report which reflected so
seriously upon him personally, and upon his cavalry.
He felt somewhat surprised that publicity had not
been given to his letter.

Lord PANMURE said it was not the intention of the
commissioners to attack the character of any peer.
The noble earl's letter had been referred to the com-
missioners, and in due time, with their rejoinder,
would be laid before the house.

The Earl of DERBY inquired what course would
be open to any other officers whose conduct was im-
pugned by the Government report, and who could
not vindicate themselves in Parliament. Would
they be precluded from publishing their answer to
any charges against them ?
Lord PitiMURE could not authorise the publica-
tion by officers of official documents; but if any offi-
cer addressed an explanation to him on such points,
he promised it should bo laid on the table of the
house.

15.

The Earl of HARDWICKE said many of those oft-
cers had received promotion and decoration. for
their conduct. If he were one of them, and his cha-
racter were afterwards attacked in this manner he
would tear off those decorations and return theii to
the Sovereign.
Lord PANMURE explained that the decoration
were given fcr gallantry in action, and he hoped
both Lord Cardigan and Lord Lucan would continue
to wear them.

The Earl of HARDWICKE was glad to have elicited
the assurance that the reflections of the report were
not intended to touch the honour of the noble earls
as soldiers.

DISCREPANCY BETWEEN DIPLOMATIC
NOTES.

Earl GREY, in pursuance of notice, asked Lord
Clarendon, on Monday, for an explanation of the
apparent contradiction between a despatch from
Colonel Rose of March 25th, 1853, and another from
Lord Stratford de Redcliffe of the 27th of May
following. lu the first it was stated that M. Pisani,
the interpreter of the English embassy at Constanti-
nople, bad given the substance of a note verbale pre-
sented to the Turkish Government by Prince Mens-
chikoff on the 16th a March ; the purport of the
note is given on the descripticn furnished to M.
Pisani by Rifaat Pacha and the Grand Vizier. In
Lord Stratford's despatch his lordship states, on the
authority of M. Pisani, that Rifaat Pacb a would never
be brought to acknowledge the existence of such a
note. Earl Grey thought the discrepancy ought to
be explained, as it involved a charge against Lord De
Redcliffe or 31. Pisani, or both.

Lord CLARENDON could give no complete explana-
tion of the discrepancy, and regretted Earl Grey had
brought forward the subject at this moment, as it
could be of no practical use or importance. He had
no doubt the Turkish Ministers were intimidated by
the language of Prince Menschikoff, and were in-
duced by him to conceal the existence of the note
from the English Ambassador, and this bad given
rise to the two different statements. He had tele-
graphed Earl Grey's question to Constantinople, and
from the answer he had received it appeared M.
Pisani still maintained the truth of the assertion that
the Turkish Foreign Minister at that time would
not acknowledge the existence of the Russian note
alluded to.

Earl GREY said the explanation of Lord Clarendon
had not touched the point at issue.

THE CONFERENCES AT CONSTANTINOPLE.
Lord PALMERSTON, on Tuesday, in answer to Mr.
Layard, as to the reported exclusion of the Sardinian
envoy from the conferences at Constantinople, ex-
plained the object of the conferences now being held
by the representatives of England, France, Turkey,
and Austria. The subjects related to the principali-
ties, the rights of the Christain subjects, and other
points connected with the internal affairs of Turkey,
totally unconnected with the treaty of peace. The
Sardinian envoy had applied to be admitted, but the
representatives of England and France stated that
they had no authority to admit him, and wrote for
instructions. Lord Palmerston added, that the pro-
ceedings had hitherto been confined to matters
arising out of the fourth point, viz., the arrangements
to be made for the protection of the rights and pri
vileges of the non-Mussulman subjects of the Porte.