The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-14 00:00:00

THE BRITISH FLEET.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to ask Lord John
Russell, whether he can place on the table of the house
a copy of any despatch, or extract of despatches, in an-
swer to the instruction forwarded by the Earl of Claren-
don to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe on October Bth, 1853
(No. 134), " ordering that Admiral Pandas should in-
form the Russian Admiral at Sebastapol, that if the
Russian fleet should come out of that port for the pur-
pose of landing troops on any portion of the Turkish
territory, or of committing any overt act of hostility
against the Porte, his orders are to protect the Sultau's
dominions from attack."
Lord J. RUSSELL said the intimation referred to
was not made to the Russian ambassador, but there
would be no objection to lay the despatch on the table.

BURIALS IN ST. GILES.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to ask the Secretary of
State for the Home Department, whether the order, or
any part of it, issued in July last, for discontinuing, after
the 15th of August last, burials in the vault and church-
yard of the parish church of St. Giles' in the fields, has
been withdrawn ; and, if so, at the request of whom,
above one hundred interments having taken place since
that period ?
Lord PALMERSTON said the order had not been
withdrawn, but a portion of it had been misconstrued.
THE ARTILLERY.
Sir DE LACY EVANS wished to inquire whether
sufficient practice is afforded to our artillery troops at
Woolwich, to enable that force to serve their guns with
due effect, if required to take the field immediately,
and if means do not exist there to enable the officers to
give this degree of instruction to the gunners, whether
the Ordnance department will propose a remedy for this
deficiency ton the presentation of the estimates now
about to be brought under the consideration of the
house ?
Mr. MONSELL answered the first question in the
negative and the second in the affirmative.
OATHS.

Mr. A. PELLETT wished to ask Lord J. Russell

it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to in-
troduce any bill this session to authorise persons enter-
taining conscientious scruples to taking an oath, and not
authorised by the acts already existing, to make affir-
mations instead ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, a recommendation
had already been made by the Common Law Com-
missioners to that effect, and it would be adopted by
the Government in a bill they were about to introduce.
THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH FLEETS.

Mr. LAYARD—I wish to put two questions to the
noble lord the member for the city of London, of which I
have given him notice, and, as considerable importance
attaches to one of these questions, I trust the house wilt
allow me shortly to state its nature. I have to refer the
house to a despatch which has appeared in the papers ad-
dressed by Lord Clarendon to Lord Cowley, dated the 16th
of gDecember. From that despatch it appeared that M.
Drouyn de Lhuys had inquired of our ambassador at Paris
as to the nature of the instructions, given to our ambas-
sador at Constantinople with regard to the fleets, as it ap-
peared that some disagreement had occurred between
Lord Stratford do Radcliffe and Admiral Dund Is. Lord
Clarendon replied, that no instructions had been issued to
her Majesty's ambassador at Constantinople or to the
British admiral but those which were in possession of the
French Government ; and that those instructions were that
' the admiral should " comply with any requisitions in re-
gard to the movements and operations of the fleet under
his orders which he might receive from her Majesty's am-
bassador." At this date, therefore, there was some dis-
agreement between our ambassador at Constantinople and
the admiral of the fleet ; and I have heard from a good
source that this disagreement had become a matter of
public notoriety and that it had left a painful impression.
(Hear, hear.) The other evening the hon. member for
Roscommon addressed a question to the noble lord. It
appears that her Majesty's ambassador had ordered the
fleet into the Black Sea, but that Admiral Dundas had
since returned to Constantinople, though on his way there
he had received by a steamer a despatch from the ambas-
sador requiring him to stay where he was. With that re-
quest, however, he declined to comply, and returned to the
Bosphorus. In answer to the question put the other even-
ing, the noble lord stated, that such had been the case,
but that he believed that the conduct of the admiral,
though the ambassador had asked an explanati
of hon oer
f
it, would be found to deserve the approbation
Majesty's Government and the country. I conceive, how-
ever, that this answer of the noble lord contained a severe
reflection on her Majesty's ambassador at Constantinople,
and, therefore, I have to ask the noble lord whether the
afime ebtahs
saasdboerr,
rp ace
edt
huenrd e r
thet
ahiei n
irrdaelr
has
aosf
nhs
terru
cl3t,
iloanj es sotys
f 'a
o
different nature from those supposed to be given to the
ambassador? (Hear, hear.) I have also to ask whether
he is yet prepared to submit to the house the result of
Count Orloff 's late mission to Vienna; and, if not, whe-
ther the absence of such information arises from any un-
willingness on the part of Austria to give that information,
or from any neglect on the part of her Majesty's ambas-
sador at Vienna ? (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—With respect to the first question
which my hon. friend has asked, I have to state that when
I was asked the other evening a question on this subject
' (though I do not suppose it was so intended), .f I had at
alifthelOi in giyin a reply., it 'would have had the effect