The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-15 00:00:00

EDUCATION BILL.

Lord J. MANNERS said that the noble lord, although
he signified his intention of not proceeding with the Edu-
cation Bill this session, declared that h would still ask
the house to assent to the principle of the bill by moving
the second reading. (Hear.) He believed that almost
every member of the house would agree with him that it
would be most inconvenient to ask the house to enter upon
what might be a troublesome and annoying discussion of
the principle of a bill which it was not intended to pass
into a law in the present session. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that his object in proposing the
second reading of the bill was to ascertain the nature of
the objections that might be urged against it so that he
might be able to introduce the bill next session after a full
consideration of those objections. (Hear.) He should still
reserve to himself the right of considering whether he
should proceed with the second reading, but if he brought
it forward it would be only for the purpose he had men-
tioned.

REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES.
Mr. HUME wished to know whether the Government
intended to proceed with this bill, with regard to which
members were every clay receiving a great many letters?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the bill had been referred

to a select committee, and without some connunicaliOn.

with that committee it was not for him to say what would
be done with respect to the bill.
Sir G. GREY said it would greatly facilitate the public
business if hon. members, who had bills for Wednesday,
would give up the sitting on that day to the Government.
(Hear.) The Factory Bill had been fixed for a late day in
July--(laughter)—and he wished to know from the noble
lord opposite whether it was intended to proceed with that
bill.

Lord J. MANNERS said that the right hon. gentleman
had better put the question to the hon. member for Old-
hail?. (Mr. pobbett), who was more intimately concerned

with the bill than he was.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY.
Mr. DlSRAELl—Referring to the question I addressed
to the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) on Monday, with re-

spect to the circular dispatch signed "Nesselrodo," which

reached the metropolis that day, I then mentioned it ap-
peared in the dispatch that the occupation of the Turkish
ports by the combined English and French fleets was consi-

dered. by Russia as a naval occupation analogous in cha-
racter to the military occupation of the Turkish principa•
lities by the Russian army. I also mentioned the dispatch
stated, when that complete satisfaction was given by Turkey
to Russia which was its due, and when the pressure which
the attitude of the two maritime powers in the ports

alluded to had ceased, then the Emperor of Russia would

withdraw his forces within their own limits.

The noble

lord on that occasion, while he justly felt, it to be his duty

to question the propriety of the first allegation I alluded
to—namely, that the presence of the combined fleets was a
naval occupation of the dominions of the Sultan, said,

with reference to the second statement, his impression was,
that I was not authorised in the interpretation I put on the

circular dispatch. It has since been mentioned in another
place that the observation of the noble lord was inadvert-
ently made—a pardonable inadventuro, certainly, as the
document had only just arrived, and the noble lord's atten-
tion had only been just called to it. But, sir, it is not for

that purpose I rise to address a question to the noble lord.
The Secretary of State, in another place, took the oppor-
tunity of declaring the determination of her Majesty's
Ministers that they would not listen to the conditions
pressed in that dispatch in so peremptory a manner, and
that they would not for a moment—in the management of
this important affair—admit as a primary condition that
the combined fleets should leave the Turkish ports alluded
to. Assuming, as I do, that now negotiations are only
formally, not virtually pursued—and that they are arrived
at what is called a dead-lock—and believing that advantage
to the public service will arise from a discussion of the
question in both Houses of Parliament—l wish to know if
the noble lord has any objection to fix a day on which the
hon. member for Aylesbury can bring on the discussion in
this house?

Lord J. RUSSELL—In answer to the right hon. gentle-
man, I must refer to the circumstances of the answer
given by me on a former day. The right hon. gentleman
asked me a question with regard to the circular dispatch
which only reached this country that day—and as I only
had an opportunity of reading it in the newspaper iu a
cursory manner, and had not made myself completely
master of its contents, I therefore answered the right hon.

gentleman with respect to my impression of the interpreta-
tion to be put upon that part of the document which said
tho Russian troops would be removed from the principali-

ties if the pressure from the combined fleets in the Turkish
ports were taken off. I alleged I could not believe it was
intended by the Russian government to make that a condi-
tion of the evacuation of the principalities. I did so, not
only because it did not appear to me that that position was
quite distinctly laid down, but also because I could not can-

ceive that no account of two things so totally unlike the Rus-
sian government would think itself justified in demanding
that the English and French fleets should leave the Turk-
ish waters before the Russian troops evacuated the princi-
palities. Because, in the one case, the English and French
fleets were only in the waters of an allied power, and
only there for the purpose, not of putting a pressure on
that power, or urging that power in any way, but to be
ready in case that power should call for the assistance of
its allies, in the event of actual invasion of its territories.
The other case was that of an actual occupation of the prin-
cipalities belonging to Turkey by Russian troops. I could
see no similarity or comparison between the cases, and I
could not think that a person of the experience and saga-
city of Count Nesselrode could have affixed his signature to
a document which declared to all the world that such was

the opinion and determination of the Russian Goverment.
At the same time, admitting that the words boar on the
face of them the interpretation the right hon. gentleman
gave, with respect to the question asked by the right hon.
gentleman I have to state he is mistaken in supposing the
negotiations have come to a dead-lock ;on the contrary,
both the English and French Governments have considered
whether there are not propositions which might be acceded
to both by the Russian and Turkish Governments, which
would afford the means of obtaining a pacific termination
of these unfortunate disputes. Whether or no these hopes
will be justified we cannot know immediately. It must
take some time before we learn what is the view taken by
the Court of St. Petersbargh of the mode in which Eng-
land, France, or Austria may have entered upon these
subjects. And while such is the state of the negotiation,
I think it is not desirable to have it a matter of discussion
in this house.