The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-14 00:00:00

LEICESTER GAOL.

Sir H. HALFORD wished to call the attention of the
noble lord the Secretary for the Home Department to the
report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the
management and discipline of the county gaol at Leicester.
(Oh, oh.) He understood that the noble lord had promised
to lay the report on the table after it had been referred to
the law officers of the Crown. Four months had now
elapsed since the presentation of the report, and during the
whole of that time the magistrates had been exposed to
great obloquy. He believed that no justifiable imputation
whatever rested upon them. The chief commissioner had
borne testimony to the humanity of the governor of the
prison, and believing that the report would completely ex-
culpate the magistrates, he trusted that it would very soon
be laid on the table.
The motion for the adjournment of the house was then
withdrawn.
THE CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH
RUSSIA.

Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I wish to make an inquiry of her
Majesty's Ministers respecting some account of their con-
duct which has recently appeared in two newspapers. One
of these journals is published at St. Petersburg—the other
is published in London. The first journal is called the.Tour-
nal of St. Petersburg, and the other journal is the Times.
In a number of the Journal of St. Petersburg recently pub-
lished, there is a statement that about this time last year,
or even at an earlier date, communication took place be-
tween her Majesty's Government and the Government of
Russia, of a very confidential character, in which, accord-
ing to the allegations in the Journal of St. Petersburg, the
most frank and unreserved declaration was made by the
Emperor of Russia of his views present and future with re-
spect to the condition of the Turkish empire. I need not
remind the house that any statement made in the Journal
of St Petersburg is always considered an authoritative and
official statement. Sir, on Saturday last an article appear-
ed—a leading article—in the English newspaper, the
Times, and I believe I have a right to assume that that
also was an authoritative and official statement, because
it referred to circumstances which could be known net only
to men who were Privy Councillors, but only to Privy
Councillors who were Cabinet Ministers. In that loading
article of Saturday last, in the Tiinls, there is a notice of
this statement in the Journal of St. Petersburg, namely,
that in the early part of last year there was a lengthened
correspondence between the Russian Government and her
Majesty's Government, in which frank and unreserved ex-
positions of the sentiments and views of the Emperor of
Russia, with regard to the state of the Turkish empire,
was made. In the Times newspaper the authenticity of
that statement is unequivocally admitted. It is not only
admitted, but allusions are made to public despatches
written by the then Secretary of State for Foreign Af-
fairs, the noble lord opposite, in reply to those commu-
nications from St. Petersburg. More than that. In this
authoritative and official article in the Times newspaper
there is a reference to certain communications upon the
same subject, namely, the condition of the Turkish em-
pire, which occurred between her Majesty's Government and
the Emperor of Russia personally during his visit to this
country in the year 1844, connecting these communications
of the year 1841, in similarity of nature and identity of
subject, with the correspondence referred to at the present
moment in the Journal of St. Petersburg. The inquiry
which I wish to make of her Majesty's Government is this
—whether they ars prepared to lay upon the table of the
house the correspondence which took place at the beginning
of last year, and which does not appear among the papers
which her Majesty has graciously permitted us to see—
this correspondence referred to in the Journal of St. Peters- I
burg, and acknowledged in the Times as an authentic cor-
respondence ? Further, I wish to inquire of the noble lord
if he can inform the house whether there was in the year
1844 any arrangement or understanding between her Ma-
jesty's Government and the Emperor of Russia when ho was
in this country—reminding the house that the distinguished
individual who is now Prime Minister of England was then
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs —whether, if there
were such understanding or arrangement, it was reduced
to writing, and if reduced to writing, whether the noble
lord is prepared also to lay that document on the table of
the house, if he be prepared to lay on the table the corres-
pondence to which I have referred. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, with respect to the two articles
in the newspapers, to which the right hon. genCeman has
referred, I have to answer, that I saw on Saturday the
article in the Journal of St. Petersburg, to which he has
alluded, containing the allegations which he has stated to
the house. With regard to another article, which he at-
tributes likewise to an official source, I did not see that
article, nor any part of it, until I saw some extracts from
it in a newspaper to-day ; and I did not know, until the
right hon. gentleman just meptioned it, that the article re-
ferred to a memorandum drawn up in 1844.
Mr. DISRAELI—I did not say memorandum.
Lord J. RUSSELL—WeII, then, communication. Sir,
I have given no authority whatever to the Times newspaper
to state what was my conduct when I held the office of
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Now, with respect
to the circumstances which did occur. It is the usual
practice, I believe—it certainly has been the usual prac-
tice, so long as I have known anything of public affairs--
not to lay before Parliament any communications which
take place between her Majesty's ambassadors and mini-
sters abroad, and the Sovereign to whom they are ad-
dressed, nor is it usual, when these conversations are of
so confidential a nature that they should be laid before
Parliament. Now, it is perfectly true, that in the course
of last year the Emperor of Russia held a confidential com-
munication with Sir Hamilton Seymour with respect to
the affair of Turkey. That communication reached this I
country in the shape of a despatch from Sir Hamilton Sey-
mour, and it was my duty as Secretary of State for Fo-
reign affairs to lay before the Cabinet a despatch in answer
to that communication, which despatch was afterwards
forwarded to St. Petersburg. Some further communi-
cations took place with Lord Clarendon and Sir Hamil-
ton Seymour. I have stated what I think is the usual
practice, and what I think is the just rule on the subject,
that such communications should not be laid before Par-
liament, because it is obvious that if they were laid before
Parliament they might lead to dangerous consequences.
But as the Journal of St. Petersburg, permitted and au-
thorised, no doubt, by the Government of Russia, has al-
luded to these confidential communications, her Majesty's
Government can no longer have any scruple in laying all
the correspondence upon the table of the house. (Cheers.)
I trust that that correspondence will show that, while we
evinced every respect for the Emperor of Russia, we re-
pelled every .uggestion which would tend to the dismem-
berment of Turkey. (Cheers.) With respect to the fur-
ther question which the right hon. gentleman asks, namely,
as to the conversation that took place in 1844, it is cer-
tainly truo that when the Emperor of Russia was in this
country in that year he held a conversation, I believe,
with the Duke of Wellington, with Sir R. Peel, and with
the Earl of Aberdeen, then Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs. I believe the substance of that conversation was
consigned to a memorandum, and that the late Minister
of Russia in this country (Baron Brunow) was cognisant
of and assented to the correctness of that memorandum. I
am not able to give so positive an answer as to the produc-
tion of that document as I have given to the other question
of the right hon. gentleman. This memorandum has not
been lately under the view of the members of her Ma-
jesty's Government, and therefore I wish to reserve my
answer on that point. (Hear, hear.) But with respect
to the correspondence to which I before alluded, namely,
the correspondence which took place in the course of last
year, I have no hesitation in laying it upon the table of
the house. (Cheers.)

THE OATHS BILL—THE SETTLEMENT AND
REMOVAL BILL.
Sir F. THESIGER inquired whether the noble lord in-
tended to move the second reading of the Oaths Bill on
Monday, or whether the second reading of the Settlement
Removal Bill would be proceeded with on that day ; and
if so, on what day the second reading of the Oaths Bill
waslikely to be moved ?

Lord J. RUSSELL said the Settlement and Removal
Bill would be taken on Monday; the Oaths Bill would not
be proceeded with before the 27th.
THE PACKET SERVICE.
Mr. H. HERBERT asked the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty whether it was the intention of the Government to
take any steps for the improvement of the packet service
between Holyhead and Kingstown, in accordance with the
recommendation of the committee of last session on Irish
postal communication?

Sir J. GRAHAM said the report had been brought under
the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, and he had
to state to the house what he believed he had already stated
on a former occasion—that the packet service throughout
the United Kingdom should no longer be conducted by the
Government itself but by contract; and at this moment
inquiry was making into the subject of the packet service
between England and Ireland. The right hon. gentleman
made some additional remarks relative to the speed of the
packets, but in so low a tone as to be inaudible.

ST. PAUL'S CHURCHYARD.
Mr. FIILDYARD said the corporation of London were
now constructing a street which diverged at the south-east
corner of St. Paul's-churchyard, and which would leave a
small angular piece of ground between that street and Can-
non-street. If that piece of ground should remain unbuilt
upon, a fine view would be afforded of the eastern part of
St. Paul's, and an admirable site would be afforded for the
erection of a statute. Perhaps the noble lord might have
a posthumous interest in the question he was about to put

THE INSURRECTION IN TURKEY.
Mr. M. MILNES called the attention of the house to
the circumstances of the Greek insurrection in Turkey, and
expressed apprehensions that the most disastrous conse-
quences would follow if it were permitted to be suppressed
with unrestrained cruelty and violence. It was the duty
of this country to endeavour by mediation and every fair
means to put a stop to these calamities, and the appoint-
ment of a British commissioner to watch the contest might
be attended with the best effects. Since we were com-
pelled to make war, it should be our object to make even
war the instrument of civilisation, and to advance the
moral and intellectual welfare of the world.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I have no difficulty in saying that
I agree very much in the opinions of my hon. friend who
has addressed the house. I agree with him in thinking that
it is our duty to do all that is in our power to improve
the condition of the Christian subjects of the Porte, and in-
fluencing its conduct as far as we can • for it is impassible not
to assent to what my hon. friend stated in the early part of his
speech, that notwithstanding the most liberal edicts on the
part of the Sultan, and the greatest anxiety on the part
of his Ministers to carry into effect the laws with equal
justice to all his subjects, there are, by means sometimes
of ignorant and corrupt persons, but more frequently by
means of a licentious soldiery, great evils inflicted upon
the subjects of the Sultan, of which neither he nor his
Ministers could approve. The advice that has been at all
times given by Lord Stratford, has tended very much to
mitigate the evil ; and only very lately he advised the Sul-
tan, upon the breaking out of this insurrection, that none
bueregular and well-disciplined troops should be employed
for its suppression. My hon. friend is quite right in saying
that part of this insurrection—l believe the greater part—
was owing to the conduct of the soldiery who were sent to
put down insurrection movements; but, sir, at the same time
we think it our duty to discourage as much as possible these
movements. We cannot think that an insurrection among
the Christian subjects of the Porte would tend to im-
prove their condition, or lead to any other result than to
place them in a far worse and more helpless state of sla-
very than any to which they have hitherto been reduced.
(Hear, hear.) It has been so fully stated by a noble friend
of mine (Lord Shaftesbury) in another place, that I have
no need eolarove what would be the effect of these persons,
owing to their insurrection, becoming subject to Russia,
and I certainly shall not go into that part of the question.
Every one knows that the light of the Gospel, which I be-
lieve is permitted by the Sultan and his Ministers to pene-
trate through all classes of Christians who are under his
sway, is entirely opposed to insurrections. This insurrec-
tion can tend to no advantage to these tribes • but, on the
contrary, can only divert the forces of the Porte when it
is in jeopardy from a foreign antagonist. Every effort
will be made by her Majesty's Government to induce the
Sultan to improve the condition of all his Christian sub-
jects, and to allow the maxims of justice and equality full
force in all his dominians ; but, on the other hand, we
shall show the disapprobation of the Government of this
country of any insurrectionary movements against the
Sultan. With respect to the papers for which my honour-
able friend has moved, I believe they are not yet ready at
the Colonial-office; but there will be no difficulty in pro-
ducing them before long. I have nothing further to say,
except that there was an allusion in the honourable gentle-
man's speech which perhaps I ought to notice ; namely,
that we ought not to be a party to any agreement or ar-
rangement for suppressing political movements in Italy.
I say distinctly with regard to Italy what I have just said
with regard to Greece, that, feeling, as I do, with the peo-
ple of Italy, I do not believe they could take a course more
obstructive of the attainment of the very result which
they desire than that cf rising at the present moment
against the Austrian Government. I believe, on the
contrary, that if they remain tranquil the time will come
when that Government will be not only more humane,
but will concede many more popular privileges than would
be the case if Italy were to rise in insurrection against
the military force of Austria. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. RICH wished to elicit a distinct declaration from
the Government that our interference was not to favour
any dominant race, but on behalf of the whole mass of the
population of European Turkey.
Lord LOVAINE adverted to published evidence of the
maltreatment of the Christian subjects of the Porte, which,
he observed, was the ordinary incident of Turkish rule;
their treatment depending upon the accident of the charac-
ter of the Pasha, whether he was a man of humanity or a
tyrant and oppressor. He scouted the idea of Turkish
toleration, and sought real guarantees for the rights of the
Christians.
Lord D. STUART considered a suggestion thrown out
by Mr. Milnes, that a British commissioner should be sent
to Turkey to induce its Government to act with modera-
tion towards the Greeks, well deserving of attention. The
insurrection was not the result of Turkish persecution ; it
had been produced and fomented, if not by the Govern-
ment of Greece, at least by persons belonging to the Greek
kingdom. He believed that Turkey had, within the last
30 years, made considerable advances in humanity, as well
a. in civilisation. He had seen in Bulgaria large farms,
well stocked with sheep, and a peasantry well clad, well
fed, and in appearance contented and happy.
Lord C. HA MILTON desired to have a definite answer
from the Government as to the position of this country,
should the Greek insurrection gain head, and an assurance
that our troops would not be employed in putting it down.
He palliated the proceedings of Russia in relation to the
questions at issue, and inveighed against the weakness and
corruption of the Ottoman rule, which had, ho said, re-
peatedly embroiled the affairs of the East.
Mr. LAYARD observed it was necessary to inquire into
the origin of the outbreak on the part of the Greek subjects
of Turkey, which he traced to the mission of a Russian
Admiral to Athens byPrince Henschikoff, when he arrived
at Constantinople in the beginning of last year, and to the
intrigues of Russian agents. He described the position of
the Greek races in Turkey and their character ; he
praised the moderation of the Ottoman Government ; he
contrasted its mild despotism with the iron tyranny of the
Czar, and insisted that the object of Russian interference
was to crash the spirit of liberalism and reform which was
spreading among the population, as well as among the
ruling authorities of Turkey. He related instances of fic-
titious charges of oppression brought against the Turkish.
Government, which, he said where causes of just com-
plaint existed, removed the offending Pasha from his
pashalic. It had been urged that we should enter into a
convention or an understanding with the Porte in respect
to the treatment of its Christian subjects • but such a step
would justify the very policy of Russia of which we com-
plained.
Mr. E. BALL approved the line of argument taken by
Lord C. Hamilton, and, referring to the favourable por-
traits heretofore drawn of the character of the Emperor of
Russia, expressed his belief that that Sovereign had been
represented of late in an unfair and ungenerous light, and
unlike the man ho was. Ho disclaimed all sympathy with
those who cried out for war, the necessity of which he
denied, and which, ho said, would soon cease to be popular.
Lord PALMERSTON said—l hope, sir, that we may be
allowed to proceed with the business which is before us.
(Hear, hear.) I can assure the home, however, as well as
my hon. friend, that nothing can be more at heart with us
than to use every effort in our power to improve the con-
dition of the Christian subjects of the Sultan, and to
endeavour to have them placed upon a footing of equality
with the Mussulman population. But I am sure that it
will feel that it would be very unfitting in us to fall into
the same course as that which has been so decidedly con-
demned in the case of the Emperor of Russia, and that the
endeavours of her Majesty's Government must be tempered
with the consideration of that which is due to the indepen-
dence of another,sovereign and of another country. Now,
these changes and reforms have been the object of the
anxious endeavours of the British Government for many
years; and, as stated by my hon. friend (Mr. Layard) whose
personal knowledge and experience enable him to guarantee
the fact—great improvements have already been made. In-
deed, it is only a few days ago that her Majesty's Govern-
ment received a copy of a firman issued by the Sultan, by
which, for the future, a Christian's testimony is to be re-
ceived in all cases, civil as well as criminal, in all the courts
throughout the Ottoman empire. So that a most important
and valuable privilege is thus conferred upon the Chris-
tians ' • and there is this remarkable circumstance, which
ought not to be entirely lost sight of, that the Christian's
evidence is not received upon oath ; for no such custom as
that of taking evidence upon oath prevails in that country.
So that the testimony of the Christian and the Mussulman
will be upon precisely the same footing. Now, sir, we
have been told that the Turks have inflicted a great num.