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

HAY MARKETS.

SMITHFIELD.—Meadow hay, 3/ Os to Si 50 ; clover
ditto, 41 Os to 6/ Os ; and straw, 1/ 12s to 2/ 2s per load.
A moderate supply, and a steady demand.
CIIMBERLAND.—Meadow hay, 3/ Os to 51 ss; clover
ditto, 4/ Os to 6 Os ; and straw., 1/ 15s to 2/ 4s per load.
Supply good, and trade tolerably firm.
WHITEcHAPEL.--Meadow hay, 2115 s to 5/ Os; clover
ditto, 4/ Os to 6/ 6s ; and straw, 11 14s to 21 2s per load.
Trade rather dull, *

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at 5 o'clock.

The Earl of DONOUGHMORE presented a petition
from Clonmel, praying for an improved system of postal
arrangements in Ireland.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a number
of petitions in favour of the establishment of reforma-
tory institutions for juvenile offenders.
Lord BROUGHAM drew the attention of the house
to the subject of the assimilation of the mercantile laws
of England and Scotland. He stated that, in addition
to the bill which he introduced on a former evening, he
intended to lay on the table another bill importing into
the English law, some portion of the mercantile law and
practice of Scotland, which he believed would be of great
advantage to the commercial community.
The LORD CHANCELLOR concurred in the im-
portance of the object, but thought it would not be ad-
visable to make such alterations in the English law with-
out consideration.

journal ; but all his disclaimer cannot persuade me, or
any other human being, I believe, in the country, that
the Times newspaper could convey such information, or
insert such an article as I have just read to the house,
without being informed by some person who had official
information on these matters, and one who, in convey-
ing such information to the Times newspaper, betrayed
that which ought to be considered as a Cabinet secret.
(Hear, hear.) The leading article in the Times, as well
as the article taken from the St. Petersbourg Journal, re-
ferred to the correspondence carried on between the Em-
peror Nicholas and the British Government, but in very
different tones. It goes back to speak of former periods,
and says :

" We have not now to learn for the first time that before
the Emperor Nicholas engaged in these extraordinary trans-
actions he had attempted at various times and in different
forms to lure almost every Court in Europe to share in the
plunder of Turkey. As long ago as his own visit to this
country he held the same language, and it may have•been re-
peated in greater detail in the course of last winter."

Now, mark, the Times newspaper refers to previous and
present transactions, with evident full knowledge that
the Empe;or did entertain most ambitious views, and
express himself most explicitly. to Government relative
to the dissolution of the Turkish empire. The article
then goes on to say
" But what answer did he get to these overtures ? What
answer did he get when he sounded Lord John Russell, of all
men in the world, on the subject of an eventual partition of
Turkey ?"

So, then, it appears that the Times not only is acquainted
with the fact, and the nature and character of the com-
munications which had been made by the Emperor of
Russia to the Government of this country, but it goes
on to tell us the nature and spirit of the answer that was
sent :

" We [that is to say, the Times newspaper] confidently re-
ply, that he was met by an indignant refusal on the part of
the British Government. He was told, if we are not greatly
mistaken, that this country could entertain no proposal in
any form which presupposed the dismemberment of an empire
the integrity of which we had frequently engaged to respect
and even to protect ; that the British Government strenu-
ously opposed any change in the status quo of Turkey, as a
source of danger and difficulty to the world ; and that, as this
communication had. been made in a friendly spirit, England
strongly recommended the Emperor of Russia to abstain alto-
gether and scrupulously from any interference in the affairs
of Turkey-, which must be productive of great perila to the
world."

How did the Times know anything about this, I should
ike to know. The article then proceeds :
"As these communications were of a confidential nature,
and wholly anterior to and unconnected with the affair of the
holy places and Prince Menschikoff's mission, the Govern-
ment appear to have thought that they did not properly form
part of the correspondence recently laid before Parliament,
but constituted a separate transaction. This challenge of the
Russian Government relieves them from all further uncer-
tainty on that point. Lord John Russell's answer to the
Russian overture will do him no dishonour."

Again, I ask, how can any newspaper in this country
know what were the particulars of a confidential over-
ture made by a foreign Sovereign to certain members of
the Britfsh Government, or how could the Times or any
other paper know what was the confidential answer of
Lord John Russell, a Minister of the Crown, to such a
communication ? (Hear, hear.) Or, how did such
newspaper come into possession of documents of so con-
fidential and exclusive a nature that the Government
had thought it their duty to withhold them from either
house of Parliament ? But it is not to what has appeared
in the Times newspaper that I wish to call the attention
of your lordships, but to a subject of a much more grave
and serious importance. I will assume that the Times is
well informed with regard to the nature of the communi-
cation, and the character of the proposition of the Em-
peror of Russia ; and I will assume, also, that the answer
of the noble lord referred to is correct—an assumption
which I have the more pleasure and the less hesitation
in admitting, because such an answer appears to me to
be a very proper one, and just such a one as ought to
be made. (Hear, hear.) But this is what I require an
explanation of. These communications took place during
the time that the noble earl held the seals of the Foreign-
office ; afterwards full discussion takes place upon the
question in dispute between Russia and Turkey ; the
official correspondence is submitted to both houses ;
I and others, who have afforded to Government every
assistance that we could to prosecute this war—
which we believe might have been avoided, but which is
now inevitable—l and others, having been challenged
by Government to discuss the blue-books put into our
hands--after we had commented upon them freely, and
temperately stated where it appeared to us that the
Government was entitled to censure or animadversion
(hear, and a laugh)—after we had pointed out that the
Government had shut their eyes to the dangers that were
imminent and impending—after Government had been
warned, by the gathering of the forces in the principali-
ties, by the tone of the IVlenschikoff Note, by the re-
monstrances of Colonel Rose and the warnings of Lord
Stratford de Redcliffe—after all these opportunities of
knowledge, freedom of discussion, and warnings no less
frequent than timely—what was the answer of Govern-
ment ? " True, we had these facts before us, but still
we had assurances given us, with so much force and
solemnity, of the apparent sincerity of the Emperor of
Russia, and that the only question was one of the Holy
places ; —true, we admit we have been deceived, but
how are we to be blamed for having been so in the face
of such strong and positive assurances of good -faith on
the part of Russia ?" But what became of these as-
severations when all the time the Government were in
possession of the secret and confidential designs of the
Emperor of Russia, of the aggressive nature of the policy
of which he had unbosomed himself —(hear, hear),—and
of his ultimate designs relative to the partition of the
Ottoman empire : in regard to which, it was said, the
noble lord (Russell) had been compelled to write an
answer in terms of indignant refusal. (Cheers.) I can
understand not producing these private and confidential
letters for the perusal of Parliament ; but I cannot
understand how, with such correspondence before them,
Government could come forward with the assertion
that they had received repeated and absolute assurances
from Russia that her policy was not intended to assume
an aggressive character. (Cheers.) How can these things
be reconciled ? There is one other circumstance to which
the Times newspaper referred, and apparently with some
knowledge of tne facts. The statement to which I allude
is, that on the Emperor of Russia's visit to this country,
which took place when the noble earl (Aberdeen) was
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, communications
of a precisely similar nature were made by the Emperor.
If this were so, and if, when the noble earl succeeded to
the head of the present Administration, the designs of
the Emperor were being put into execution—if this were
so, I say, I want to know what confidence could Govern-
ment possibly have in the professed absence of aggressive
designs in the Emperor's policy ? (Cheers.) The ques-
tions which I wish to ask the noble earl are—firstly,
whether he believes the document to which I have re-
ferred to be an authentic document, and, if so, secondly,
whether the correspondence therein referred to did take
place between the Emperor of Russia and her Majesty's
Government ? thirdly, if such correspondence did take
place, whether the noble earl, being now challenged by
the Emperor of Russia, will satisfy the people of this
country by producing the whole of such correspondence ?
and, fourthly, whether there is any authority for the
statement made by the Times newspaper of similar com-
munications having been made to the noble earl while
Foreign Secretary by the Emperor of Russia during his
visit to this country in 1844, and whether such commu-
nications ever assumed the form of writing, and, if so,
whether the noble earl will produce them ? (Hear.)
The Earl of ABERDEEN —The statement to which
the noble earl has referred is one of considerable interest
and importance, and, finding it in the paper as we do,
it may be considered as possessing a sort of official
character. More than this I know nothing, and the
noble earl is quite as well able as lam to form an
opinion on the subject. I have seen the statement no
where else but where it is ; and, as I said before, I
know no more about it. The communications to which
the noble earl referred, and which took place between
his Majesty the Emperor of Russia and some of her
Majesty's Ministers, were, as the noble earl has stated,
and not disapproved, retained by her Majesty's Govern-
ment and not printed with the papers laid on the table
in consequence of the confidential character which was
considered to be in some degree attached to them.
(Hear.) It has not been usual, under circumstances
similar to those under which these communications were
made, to lay upon the table of Parliament a statement
of familiar conversations, such as those described, be-
tween a Sovereign and a Foreign Minister, and for this
reason her Majesty's Government did not think it proper
or consistent with that respect or delicacy which was
due to a Prince with whom we were on terms of alliance
to produce papers which had a somewhat private and
confidential character. (Hear.) This statement in the St.
Petersbourg Journal, and which must be considered as in
some degree official, and by which it appears that there
is no reluctance on the part of Russia that her Majesty's
Government should produce and make public all com-
munications which had passed on the subject, relieves
her Majesty's Ministers from much difficulty in treating
with the matter, and removes any reasonable scruple
they might have entertained relative to the production
of the papers to which the noble earl refers. (Hear,
hear.) I can assure the noble earl that, if he had not
made the observations which he has, I should still have
laid these papers on the table, and stated those commu-
nications to your lordships—the object to retain them
and to consider them as private having now ceased. The
whole of this correspondence will therefore be laid on
the table, and I think, upon a perusal of the same, the
noble earl will find that there has been little occasion for
those observations which he has somewhat hypothetic-
ally applied to her Majesty's Government to-night.
(Hear, hear.) It will be found, my lords, I feel assured,
that her Majesty's Government will have no reason to
regret the position they will occupy with reference to
this correspondence, and I think the noble earl will
find himself egregiously mistaken in endeavouring to
cast either blame or imputation of any kind on her Ma-
jesty's Government for the part they have taken in this
transaction. (Cheers.) I have nothing more to say
upon the subject, and the papers will speak for them-
selves. The noble earl referred to the commentary made
in the Times newspaper upon the article copied from
the St. Petersbourg Journal. The noble earl will prob-
ably be surprised to learn, considering what he calls our
connexion with that newspaper, or rather what he seems
better pleased to call my connexion—(laughter)--with
that paper, that untilthis morning I never ra id the article
or the comments to which he alludes, nor had I heard
of them either directly or indirectly. In making this
statement I find, my lords, some advantage in a man's
having a character for truth and honour ' • and I again
repeat that until this morning I never had the most re-
mote conception of the article iu question, or the origin'

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH l4, 1854.

of the comments which have been made upon it. (Hear.)
I can say nothing more about it, except again to repeat
that I am entirely ignorant of the source whence the
comments alluded to arose, nor can I form an opinion
or conjecture on the matter, except this—that I have
been given to understand that some clerk in the Foreign-
office, but who is not a clerk there now, and who was
introduced, by the by, by the noble earl opposite
(Malmesbury), had scandalously betrayed his duties by
revealing the contents of some papers. (Hear, hear,
and a laugh.) However, I know not whether it is
through that source or not that this correspondence has
been made public, and on which the comments are based
to which the noble earl has attached so much import-
ance. All I can say is, that I have not, directly or in-
directly, the slightest knowledge personally of the mat-
ter. The first question, then, which the noble earl has
asked, I have already not only answered, but stated
that it was the intention of the Government, without
having been asked, to do what he has requested.
(Hear.) With respect to the other matter to which the
noble earl referred, it is perfectly true that when his
Imperial Majesty was in this country, several commu-
nications—verbal communications—took place between
him and the late Duke of Wellington. I am not
sure whether any took place with the late Sir R. Peel
or not ; but, with respect to the Duke of Wellington
and myself, there is no doubt that communica-
tions did take place as to the state of affairs in the
East, and the views and prospects which might be enter-
tained on this subject. It was, I think, shortly after his
Imperial Majesty's visit to this country—indeed lam
not sure that it As not about the same time—that
Count Nesselrode came here and embodied those views
of the Emperor, and the conversations that had taken
place, in a memorandum, which was afterwards reduced
to writing. I have not seen that document for the last
ten years—from the time when it was written, and pro-
bably the noble earl knows more about it than I do. In
these circumstances I am not prepared to say at this
moment whether it may be fit or not to lay it on the
table, but I shall ascertain. I do not wish to speak
about a document I have not seen for so long a period ;
I may say, however, that I think it is not likely to have
much reference to present circumstances, or that it re-
fers to the dispute about the holy places—to the mission
of Prince Menschikoff—to the Vienna note—or, indeed,
to anything involved in the recent discussions ; and
therefore I do not think it is at all likely to be of any
service at this moment ; but on that point I reserve
myself till I have had an opportunity of seeing and con-
sidering the document. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH—My noble friend
states that, during the year 1844 communications took
place between the Emperor of Russia and the Duke of
Wellington, but that he is not sure whether any such
communications took place with Sir R. Peel. Now, I am
able to state that there were communications with Sir
R. Peel, for my right hon. friend communicated to me
one point on which the Emperor of Russia had expressed
a very clear opinion, and that was with reference to Tur-
key. I understood my noble friend to say that he
knew nothing whatever of the document which has been
read as coming from St. Petersburg. If that be the
case, I would suggest whether he is not premature in
promising to lay these papers on the table of the house?
I think this would better be delayed till he has seen a
copy of the St. Petersoburg Gazette containing the docu-
ment ; for, as yet, there is no official or certain informa-
tion that it is genuine.
The Earl of ABERDEEN was understood to say he
had no doubt of the authenticity of the document.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH had understood his
noble friend to say that he knew nothing about it till he
saw it in the Times newspaper ; but that was not a suf-
ficient authority.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE—I hope that all
the conversations which have been carried on with the
Emperor of Russia by Sir H. Seymour on this subject
will be laid on your lordships' table—(hear)—because,
undoubtedly, his Imperial Majesty has no right whatever
to select one particular part of those conversations and
make them matters of communication intended for this
house and the Government, and to debar her Majesty's
Government from having the full advantage that an
entire communication would give them. I say this,
because it has been current at St. Petersburg, and ru-
mours have been current in the diplomatic and other
well informed circles throughout Europe, that in that
conversation a most important communication -- im-
portant in itself and important also as regards the con-
duct of the Government and of Parliament, if it should
turn out correct—took place, in which the Emperor of
Russia expressed his determination to lose his last
soldier, and spend the last rouble in his treasury,
sooner than give up his clairfis on Turkey. (Hear,
hear.) I think the memorandum given by Count
Nesselrode to the Ministers of this country in 1844, as
stating the views of the Emperor and his Government on
the then condition of Turkey, it is of vast importance for
us to have. (Hear.) We have a full right to know
what was the view then entertained by the Emperor,
because it is evident that it must bear most strongly on
the present circumstances which have rendered war so
imminent. (Hear.) I trust that we shall have all the
conversations with the noble earl, who was then Secre-
tary of State for Foreign Affairs, in some shape or other
also before us. (Hear.) It appears impossible we should
not, for I think it necessary, for the credit of our Go-
vernment, that we should be able to show exactly what
were the communications made to her Majesty's Minis-
ters, what was the answer, and what was the language
held in 1844, as well as what was the language held by
Russia, so as to give a really conclusive answer to the
manifesto now published. (Hear, hear.) It is essential
that we should know what language has been held ; for,
though this is the first time we have had it put forward
in this way, it has been rumoured throughout the whole
continent that language very different from that we have
recently taken was held formerly by Ministers of this
country, and, among others, by the noble earl who
was then Secretary for Foreign Affairs. (Hear.) It is
well to have documentary proof that this is not true,
and that we should be able to show that we have pre-
served our consistency on this most important and mo-
mentous question. (Hear.)
The Earl of MALMESBURY—Even if I had never
held the seals of the Foreign-office, I should on all occa-
sions of this kind have endeavoured so to express myself as
to avoid the possibility of embarrassing those who are
charged with the administration of foreign affairs.Witla re-
ference to the present question, I certainly shouldnot have
pressed her Majesty's Government to produce this cor-
respondence, and I think that, under the circumstances,
they were warranted in abstaining from laying it before
the house. I will say more than that. I think the great
advantages we enjoy from living under a constitutional
Government at a period like this are somewhat abated
by the disadvantages which belong to our position, with
reference to public affairs, as compared with a Govern-
ment entirely despotic. I know that a- Government
which is entirely despotic—a Government resting on the
will of one man—can carry on warlike operations with
much more secresy and much more rapidity, and, there-
fore, with more advantage, than one which has to con-
sult the wishes of two houses of Parliament. Feeling
this most strongly, I abstain as much as my duty per-
mits me to do from any remarks relative to the great
questions and subjects now agitating the country that
could possibly be considered factious on my part, or on
the part of my noble friends with whom I have the
honour to act. (Hear.) My lords, I expect, therefore,
on the other side—and I must say I have always been
met in these discussions in the same spirit by the noble
lord now at the Foreign-office—l might have expected
that I should have been met with any other feelings ra-
ther than those of hostility. and, let me say, with an ex-
pression of rudeness from the other side. (Hear.) The
noble earl (Aberdeen) has defended himself from the
charge that, whether from indiscretion, or from any
other cause, he was connected with, or under the
suspicion of being connected with the Times news-
paper, and that either directly or indirectly, he
had nothing to do with putting them in possession of
confidential communications. The noble earl has said
that these confidential communications have not been
given purposely by any member of the Governnient, or
knowingly by them, but that they had been revealed to
the Times. ("No, no ?") I understood_ the noble earl to
say that the Times had obtained this information from
—(" No, no," from Lord Aberdeen.) Then what did
the noble earl say ? Will the noble earl inform the house
what his statement was ? The noble earl said that the
only way in which he could account for the knowledge
which the Times possessed of transactions known only
to the Government as State secrets was, that their had
been at the Foreign-office a clerk who, either from indis-
cretion, or still worse motives, had betrayed those State
secrets ; that that clerk was now no longer a public ser-
vant ; that he had been dismissed in consequence. ("No,
no ;no longer a clerk.") Well—that he was no longer
a clerk ; and then, in a tone and manner which nobody
in the house could misunderstand, the noble earl added
that the gentleman had been appointed by me. (Hear,
hear.) From the spirit and manner in which he uttered
it, the noble earl seemed to be sure that such was the
case. ("No, no ?" from the Ministerial bench.) Then,
he had no business to say it. (Hear.) Nothing could
be less consonant with the manners that prevail in this
house, or with the usage of this house, nor does it agree
with the customs which we, as gentlemen, not merely as
peers, observe towards each other, that the noble earl
should in this way have spoken of me as having appointed
a man who has betrayed his trust. I wish to know from
the noble earl who that gentleman is. (Hear, hear.)
And this leads me to a much more serious considera-
tion. Great and important State secrets have been be-
trayed, as the noble earl says, by a public servant. A
public newspaper is made conversant with these secrets
through the treachery of a servant, though the noble
earl does not seem to be sure of it. He will not say
that that is the case, But, my lords, matters have come
to this pass, that it is necessary we should know who it
is that betrays the public secrets—how it is that Cabi-
net secrets have oozed out and been filtered through the
public offices, and that papers which have been refused
to Parliament have found their way into the newspapers,
while the Prime Minister of the country does not know
how or by whom the Government has been betrayed.
(Hear.) My lords, I think first of all I have a right to
ask what is the name of the public servant who has be-
trayed his trust, and whom I am said to have appointed
—(hear)—and, in the next place, I will take into my
serious consideration whether it is not my duty as a
peer and member of Parliament to move that some
searching inquiry shall be made by Parliament, and with
all the powers that Parliament is armed with, to ascer-
tain who it is that betrays public secrets to the news-
papers, who this person is that has not yet been dis-
covered, and who cannot be named by the noble earl.
The Earl of ABERDEEN—The noble earl will ex-
cuse me from answering his question, for I do not know.
(Laughter.) He was a clerk in the Foreign-office,. but
is no longer a clerk ; but I did not say lie was dismissed.
(Hear.) I said I had heard a rumour tnat it WAS
through his instrumentality that this information had
become known, but I did not say he was dismissed, nor
do I know his name. (Hear.
The Earl of DERBY—We have it on the statement
of the noble earl, that it is supposed the secrets of the

Cabinet have been betrayed by a person in a public situa-
tion. It is said that these secrets have been scanda-
lously betrayed 1 y a person appointed by the noble earl
beside me. (Hear, hear.) Now, that person ought
clearly to hay.) been dismissed, and if he is not dismissed
for this violation of duty, the heads of that office have
failed in their duty to the country. Unless, however,
the noble earl was perfectly convinced of the fact—unless
he knew that the person so appointed, as he says, by my
noble friend, had been guilty of that base treachery to
the country, he was not warranted in making the state-
ment he has done ; and, if the noble earl did know,
nothing should have prevented him from stigmatising the
person who had been so guilty in the face of Parliament
and the country. (Hear, hear.)
Earl GREY looked upon this as a case of very great
importance. It was the first time in Parliament that
lie had ever heard of such a case. He confessed, how-
ever, he had seen for some time past, with surprise and
very great regret, the sort of official communications
that had foun place in the newspapers, because this was
not the only case. Their lordships would remember
that, about a fortnight ago, the noble earl on the upper
bench asked a question as to what steps were to be taken
with reference to the Russian fleet coming out of the Baltic,
and how those ships could be stopped in the absence of a
declaration of war. The noble earl at the head of the Go-
vernment thought it consistent with his duty to avoid
giving any explanation in answer. But the next morning
there appeared in the Times newspaper a complete ex-
planation, because they were then informed by the Tunes
that this difficulty of a declaration of war did not exist
—that a summons had been addressed to Russia to with-
draw her troops from the principalities, and that if that
summons was not attended to it would be equivalent to
a declaration of war. Now, that was a fact of great
importance to know and the same statement he might
observe had been made by Lord J. Russell in the other
house of Parliament. Now, seeing these official com-
munications in a particular newspaper, and information
of such a peculiarly important character, it was hardly
satisfactory that they should be told by the noble earl
that he had no knowledge, either directly or indirectly,
as to how these communications were made. He did
not for one moment doubt the statement of the noble
earl, but he thought it important for the honour and
dignity of this country that such a scandalous breach of
faith as they had heard of should not be passed over
without some more serious notice being taken of the
fact. He did not think that an imputation so grave
should have been thrown out on any individual whatever
who was said to be in the Foreign-office, but which not
being fixed on any one individual would hang over the
head of every one in that department, and that too with-
out the imputation being distinctly made or the grounds
of that imputation being given. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said it had been dis-
tinctly stated, in answer to a question, that the answer
of the Emperor of Russia to the summons given him was
not expected till the 25th of March. Our fleet sailed on
the 11th of March, and, as we must wait till we have
received that answer on the 25th of March, our fleet
must have sailed without specific orders. (Hear, hear.)
In the meantime the Russian ships going out of the
Baltic for the purpose of preying on our trade might
pass through Admiral Napier's squadron untouched.
(Hear.) This was a consequence of not attending to
time, which was of all things the most essential in every-
thing connected with war, and he was not surprised
that his noble friend, when he put the question to him
the other night, did not give him any answer, inasmuch
as he could not say what answer it was possible to give
under the circumstances ; he was unable to say whe-
ther the Russian ships should, in the circumstances, be
stopped or not. (Hear, hear.)
Earl FITZWILLIAM was afraid that the explana-
tion which had been given could hardly be called an
explanation. There had appeared, within the last 4S
hours, disclosures of certain things in the newspapers,
and, unless this person against whom suspicion had
been raised had left the office within 4S hours, a suffi-
cient explanation would not be given of the paragraph
of Saturday to which lie referred. (Hear.) He begged
to observe on this subject that it disclosed to the world
how mischievously the country submitted to place itself
in the hands of the metropolitan press. It was a very
serious affair, as it showed they were too much under the
dominion of the press. He was very much afraid that her
Majesty's Ministers—that all Ministers, not only those
at present in office, but their noble friends opposite—
felt the necessity for courting the public press too
greatly to allow of their being as rigorous as they ought
to he in their examination of the means by which the
press obtained its information. In conclusion, he begged
their lordships to bear in mind that these secrets could
not have been disclosed by the clerk unless he had been
in office 48 hours before the paragraph alluded to was
published.

The Earl of MALMESBURY—I have not receivel
at the hands of the noble earl the justice that I expected.
After having made such a charge, I expected, if not for
my sake as responsible for the appointment of the gentle-
men, yet for the sake of those other gentlemen on whom,
as has been said, the charge will rest, that the noble earl
would have named the gentleman to whom he has al-
luded. I appointed two or three clerks, and if the noble
earl conceals the name of the party in this instance, on
them will the stigma of this charge also rest. I beg
your lordships to remember one thing. I have been
told that the appointment was made by me ; now, if the
custom still prevails that did when I held the seals of
the Foreign-office, this man alluded to must have been
quite at the bottom of the list of clerks occupied in copy-
ing documents on very important matters. It is there-
fore impossible, or almost impossible, and it is wrong,
that they should have been acquainted with correspon-
dence of such important and confidential nature RR that
to which the noble earl has alluded. Looking at the
circumstantial evidence of the case—as the noble earl
refuses or is unable to give me further information on
the assertion made by him most unwarrantably—l say,
looking at the circumstantial evidence of the case, it is
almost impossible that any young man appointed but for
two years could have been cognisant of this correspon-
dence, and, consequently, almost impossible that he
should have revealed it.

The subject then dropped.
CIVIL SERVICE.
Lord MONTEAGLE moved for a copy of the in-
structions given to the commissioners who have reported
on the state of the civil service, and of the evidence taken
before them. The noble lord in a speech of considerable
length entered into an elaborate discussion of the
changes recommended in the civil service, and expressed
his total inability to concur with them. He contended
that they had been arrived at ex parte, and complained
that the commissioners' report had been printed in the
newspapers on the 9th of February, although it was not
presented to Parliament until the 24th.
Earl GRA.NVILLE said there was no objection to
produce the instructions, but no evidence could be given
as no short-hand writer had been admitted during the in-
quiry. The Government were of opinion that some such
change as that recommended by the commissioners might
advantageously be made ' • and he added that it had the
support of the heads of various departments. When
the Government. should bring their measure forward, it
would be found free from the slightest selfish feeling,
and to have been prepared solely with the object of im-
proving the civil service.

Lord BROUGHAM doubted whether any plan was
really in contemplation ; but if one was, he certainly
could not agree with it. •
_ _

After a biief debate, in which the Earl of Harrowby,
the Marquis of Clanricarde, and, the Duke of Argyle
engaged,

Lord MONTEAGLE replied, and the motion was
agreed to.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice that
on Friday next he should move for a copy of the cor-
respondence between the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs and Her Majesty's Council-General at Riga
with regard to the exportation of Russian produce
being the ;:property of Her Majesty's subjects, and
with regard to the rights of neutrals in the event
of a war. He considered that to be one of the
greatest questions that could possibly occupy the public
attention, and that it was one which would not be pre-
maturely brought before the public by him. Indeed,
his reason for making the motion was in consequence of
what had taken place in the other House of Parliament
where statements had been made on the subject which
were entirely at variance one from the other. This was
a very serious matter, and he hoped that by giving
notice of the question for Friday next the Government
r”.r,red to give the explanation renuirea.
The Consolidated Puild (8,000,00ut.) Bill was read
second time.

The House then adjourned shortly after half-past 8
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Brighton, Hove, and Preston Waterworks, the
Hastings and St. Leonard's Gas, the London Life Asso-
ciation, the Middleton Gas, and the Radcliffe and Pil-
kington Gas Bills, were read a third time and passed.
On the motion that the East London Waterworks
Bill be considered,
Mr. A. PELLATT moved that the bill be read a
third time this day six months.
Mr. JOHN M`GREGOR spoke in support of the
bill, and against Mr. A. Pellatt's amendment.
Lord SEYMOUR thought the house would neither
act consistently with reason or with justice, if they should
let this bill go on.
Mr. ALCOCK spoke in favour of the bill going into
committee.
Lord PALMERSTON said he had had communica-
tions both with parties in favour of the bill, and those
against it, and on the whole he was against the second
reading of the bill. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. Bright, Mr. French, and
Lord D. Stuart, the house divided, when the numbers
appeared—
For the second reading ll4
For the amendment 143
Majority against the bill —29
PETITIONS.
Mr. H. W. WICKHAM presented the following pe-
titions :—From the congregation of Wesleyan Methodists
worshipping in Richmond-terrace Chapel, Bradford,
Yorkshire, praying that public-houses and beer-shops
may be closed the whole of Sundays, except to lodgers
and bovc fide travellers ; from the congregation wor-
shipping at the Centenery Wesleyan Chapel,;and the Kib-
gate Wesleyan Chapel, Bradford, Yorkshire ; also from
the congregation worshipping at the Wesleyan Chapel,
Low Moor, Yorkshire, praying that the sale of intoxi-
cating liquors may be prohibited during the whole of
Sunday.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from Mr. Urqu-
hart, stating that he was formerly employed as secretary
of embassy in Turkey for many years, and he believes
that Turkey is able to defend herself against any hostile
attacks of Russia, and believing that an internal revolution
will arise in Turkey consequent upon our inteference in
the quarrel of Turkey and Russia, and praying the

house to withdraw our ambaasador from Constantinople
and our fleet from the Black Sea. (Loud laughter.)
The hon. member also presented a petition from an in-
dividual named William Pcplow, Stafford, praying the
house to order an inquiry into the secret diplomatic cor-
respondence between this country and Russia.
THE BALTIC FLEET.

Mr. FRENCH observed that in the newspapers of
the Bth instant, there appeared in the public prints a
report of the public dinner given to Sir C. Napier, on
the previous evening, at the Reform Club. By that re-
port it appeared that the right hon. gentleman, the
First Lord of the Admiralty, in his official capacity,
gave Sir C. Napier liberty to declare war on entering
the Baltic. Now he wished to ask the right hon baronet
two questions upon this point ; first, did the right
hon. baronet give such authority—and, secondly, if
he did, would it b 3 acted upon while we were
in anticipation of the arrival of the Czar's reply to the
ultimatum which had been offerded him.

Sir J. GRAHAM said—Sir, although I might be wil-
ling to dispute the right of the hon. member to put a
question to me with respect to what passed after dinner
(roars of laughter)—yet perhaps it would be disrespectful
to the house if I did not give an answer to the ques-
tion. (Hear, hear.) I have to state, then, to the
honourable gentleman, that with respect to the
authority given by me it arose in this way—
Sir C. Napier had observed that before he entered the
Baltic, he must have authority to declare war, and I
said, in reply to this remark, that when he entered the
Baltic, I hoped there would be no difficulty on his part
in declaring war. (Hear, hear.) No declaration of war
has, however, been made yet, nor has any order been
given to Sir C. Napier to enter the Baltic, but when war
is declared, a proper notification will be given to him
and the country of it. (Cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT—That I may not be out of order, I shall
take the liberty of moving the adjournment of the house.
I gave notice a few evenings ago to the right hon. baronet
the First Lord of the Admiralty that I would put a ques-
tion to him on the subject which has just been brought
under the notice of the house. I cannot say that the an-
swer of the right hon. gentleman is one which meets the
case—(cheers from the Opposition)—or one that would
justify me in saying nothing more upon the subject. The
right hon. baronet complains that he should be asked a
question about something that happened after dinner. (A
laugh.) Now, the house put an interpretation upon that
remark which, I am quite sure, was not justified by the
state of the right hon. gentleman, (Loud laughter.) There
is, however, a matter connected with this subject which
affects the Government as a Government, and not the right
hon. hon. baronet alone. I have seen it stated in one of
the morning papers—and it has been currently reported—
that some time ago the Lord Mayor of the city of London
proposed to give a dinner at the Mansion-house to distinguish-
ed officers of both services. Every gentleman who becomes
Lord Mayor seems to be excited about something—(a
laugh)—and in the effervescence of my Lord Mayor Sidney
it was thought desirable to have this dinner. I understand
that application was made to the right hon. gentleman
(Sir J. Graham) who is at the head of the naval adminis-
tration, and to Lord Hardinge, the head of the army, for
their sanction ; and that in the one case it was agreed that
some 30 officers should be invited, and in the other case, I
believe, as many as 40. Everything went on swimmingly
for the ambition of the Lord Mayor—(a laugh)—until in
consequence of some notification from some higher power—
from the Cabinet, or from the noble earl at the head of the
Government, but I suspect from the latter—the dinner was
countermanded, and fora time at least postponed. Now,
in my opinion, nothing could be more proper or judicious
than that postponement ; for considering the circumstances
in which we are placed, I think that, at such a critical pe-
riod, it is advisable that the members of the Government
should abstain from any demonstrations of this nature.
The Mansion-house dinner did not take place, but the din-
ner at the Reform Club came on. Now, I don't at all ex-
pect the Government to • put an end to dinners at the
Reform Club. Clubs are celebrated for their cookery—(a
laugh)—and in the case of a great many members of clubs,
the preparation of their dinners and the eating of them are
the chief objects of their concern during the day. (" Oh,
oh !" and a laugh.) lam sorry if I have said anything
offensive to any hon. members. (Laughter.) Although it
was no part of the business of the Government to put a
stop to a dinner at the Reform Club, yet, if the Govern-
ment considered a dinner atthe Mansion-house injudicious,
I don't know how they could regard the attendance of
three Cabinet Ministers, and an admiral just appointed to
a high command, at a dinner of the Reform Club as other-
wise than injudicious also. I suspect that, some day or
other, this house will have to ask who is the Minister, and
what is the Cabinet, and where we are to look for the exe-
cutive administration of the country; for I regard the two
cases I have mentioned as affording some evidence that
there are probably a majority and a minority in the Cabi-
net, and that there is a difference of opinion upon this
subject, as probably there may be upon other important
questions. I will say nothing of the good tasse or the
bad taste of Ministers of the Crown in attending the
dinner at the Reform Club. I can imagine, however,
that, after Ministers have succeeded in bringing a na-
tion to the verge of the precipice of war, they will not be
very particular as to the means they take to keep alive or
to stimulate public passions, in order, it may be, that
some blunders which have been committed may, under
this prevailing frenzy, lie undiscovered. It is said that the
noble member for the city of London (Lord J. Russell) was
requested to attend, if not to preside at, the dinner at the
Reform Club; bat I need not remind the house that the
noble lord, in the midst of many political successes,
and some reverses, has generally—l think always—
managed to show that he had some self-respect some regard
for his own dignity and for his own character, and he was
not present at this dinner. The noble member for Tiver-
ton (Lord Palmerston) was the chairman on the occasion.
I wont go into the question whether he should have been
chairman or not, but I must say I could not help con-
trasting the language lie used on that occasion, when he
spoke of the single-mindedness, the good faith, and the
honour of a certain ruler abroad, with tho language which
I recollect was used by the noble lord in this house only
two years ago, when he sought to terrify the house and
the country by describing the imminent probability that
a marauding army of 60,000 Frenchmen might land on the
southern shores of England in a single night. There was
another exhibition at that dinner which gave me extreme
pain—the presence of the right hon. baronet (Sir 'William
Molesworth) the Chief Commissioner of Works. (Hear,
and a laugh). The change that 12 months of official life
appears to work in some gentlemen is wonderful. (Laugh-
ter.) We have heard of men who have grown old from
the anxieties of a single year, and I believe there are cases
on record of men's hair having turned grey by the agony
of a single night. I think it was Horace Walpole who re-
marked upon the frankness with which members spoke whoa
on that (pointing to the Opposition) side of the house, and on
the diplomatic reserve which they displayed when they sat
on the benches below sue and who observed that Ministerial
language was the easist of all languages, for a man could
learn it in a week. It has only taken some 12 or 15
months of official life to erase from the mind of the right
hon. baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) all traces of that great
principle of non-intervention upon which, in 1850, if I
recollect aright, he gave a vote emphatically condemning
the foreign policy of the noble lord the member for
Tiverton. But now I come to the First Lord of the
Admiralty. He has been in this house longer than
most of us recollect ; in fact, I suppose scores of mem-
bers of this house were not higher than that table
(pointing to the clerk's table) when the right honour-
able gentleman was first immersed in political affairs.
(A laugh.) He has held office for a great number of years;
his language is most precise and accurate ; he is not sur-
passed, or even rivalled, by any hon. member in the beau-
tiful precision with which his words are placed and uttered;
and he is such a judge of what is discreet that, upon this
very occasion, in flat contradiction to the notorious opinions
of the noble member for the city of London, he took upon
himself to vouch for and to guarantee the absolute discre-
tion of Sir C. Napier. (Some cries of " Hear, hear.")
Now, the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) has not to
my mind, stated precisely what were the words he used on
the occasion to which reference has been made. I must
say of Sir C. Napier that I thought his speech was the best
speech at the dinner, for it was a speech not unbecoming
the position in which he was placed. I will say nothing of
the appointment further than this,—that it appears now
to be the rule of the Government that a man does not come
to maturity until he is about 70 years of age. (A laugh.)
I am certainly of opinion that it was not very judicious to
give tho command of the most powerful and costly fleet—
costly whether viewed with regard to stores or to human
life—that over loft this or any other country, to one who
has passed that period of life when man's mental and
bodily powers are in full vigour. The language Sir C.
Napier used was this—and I believe the report, so far as I
can learn, to be accurate and verbatim :
" I cannot say we aro at war, because we are still at
peace. (Great laughter.)"
(A laugh.) One would really suppose that nothing could
be more funny than the subject which these gentlemen
wore discussing.
" But," Sir C. Napier proceeded,—
" I suppose we are very nearly at war, and probably
when 1 get into the Baltic I'll have an opportunity of
declaring war. (Loud cheers, laughter, and a cry of
Bravo Charley !')"
(Laughter.) Now, it was in reference to that paragraph
that the First Lord of the Admiralty made the observation
to which the attention of the house had been called. The
right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) said :
" My gallant friend says, when ho goes into the Baltic he
will declare war. (Laughter.) I, as First Lord of the
Admiralty, give him my free consent so to do."
(Hear, hear.) (An hon, member on the benches immedi-
ately behind the Treasury bench, here made an observa-
tion which was inaudible in the gallery.) I understand
(Mr. Bright continued) what the hon. gentleman means by
saying, „ When he goes into the Baltic ;" but, suppose
the same language had been used before Admiral Dundee
entered the Black Sea. It would have been just as proper
and rational for a Minister of the Crown to have used
such language in that case as in the present ; and no idea
that we might be at war when Sir C. Napier got into the
Baltic could, in my opinion, afford the slightest excuse for
the indiscreet language of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
The question I intended to have asked, if I had not been
anticipated by the hon. member for Roscommon (Mr.
French), was simply whether the right hon, baronet had
the sanction of the Government to the language he used,
and whether he spoke in that explicit and resolute style
upon so grave a subject with the authority of his Sove-
reign. From his explanation it appears that it was only
the expression of an after-dinner speech—that, in point of
fact, a subject so grave was treated in this manner for the
purpose of eliciting—not that it did elicit—cheers from an
audience who, no doubt, were not very particular about
what they heard, as they were not very particular about
what the Government were going to do. I must say that
I read the whole of those proceedings with pain and with
humiliation. Whether this war be justifiable or not, it
not the question; but whatever sort of war it be, it is an
awful thing for any nation that engages in it. (Some
cries of " Hear, hear.") If war be not in itself always a
crime, it is the inevitable parent of innumerable crimes.
There are thousands, perhaps scores of thousands of
lives depending on this question. The fortunes and
sidea
re
the happiness of millions depend
sending 20,000 or 25,000 men to
upon it.
otherru
of Europe. You take a man from each. of 25,000
British homes. In those homes there are families who at
this moment are feeling the deepest anxiety—who, it may
be are alternating between hope and fear ; and what per-
son can tell but that before the heat of summer is past, or
even before it comes, you may have news from the swamps
of the Danube of the indiscriminate slaughter on the
battlefield, which will strike dumb with sorrow the occu-
pants of hundreds of homes in this country? I want to
know, then, whether it was right or becoming on the part
of the noble member for Tiverton to entertain the con ntry
with stories and jokes at a time like this ? I conceive, Sir,
that this is one of the gravest matters that can be discussed