The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-28 00:00:00

THE NAVY.

In reply to a question from an HON. MEMBER,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was not aware that any dis-
content prevailed on board the Princess Royal or any other
of her Majesty's ships arising out of the employment of
Coast-guards. (Cheers.)
THE OATHS BILL.
Lord D. STUART wished to know if the noble lord the
member for the city of London could state when he intended
to proceed with the Oaths Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL replied in the negative.
Sir F. THESIGER had understood the bill was fixed for
the 20th of March.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it certainly had been fixed for
that day, but he would not say whether it would be
brought forward then or not. (Hear, hear.)
NEUTRALS.

Mr. M. GIBSON again drew attention to the question
of neutrals, and wished to know if in the event of war,
ships laden with merchandise—not munitions or imple-
ments of war—and sailing under a neutral flag, would be
protected from aggression.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the subject, which was a very
delicate and important one, was still under consideration
of the Government, but no permanent decision had yet
been come to upon it. Before, however, any declaration
of war was made the resolution and intention of the Go-
vernment would be fully made known to the world.
(Hear, hear.)

SUPPLY.
The report of the committee of supply was brought up
and agreed to.
REMOVAL OF PAUPERS FROM ST. PANCRAS.
On the motion for going.into committee of supply,
Sir B. H ALL took the opportunity of contradicting a
statement which was made on Friday by the hon. member
for Dungarvon, with reference to the removal of a person
named Harris from the parish of St. Pancras. No such
person existed as the woman referred to, and the hon.
member must, therefore, have been deceived by those who
supplied him with the information. (Hear.)
Mr. MAGUIRE said he obtained the information from
the parish authorities of Cork. (Hear.)
The subject then dropped.

MASSACRE OF SINOPE.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY took the same opportunity of
directing attention to the destruction of the Turkish
flotilla at Sinope on the 30th of November, 1853. On the
whole he thought Russia was not to blame for having de-

~.
stroyed the flotilla, though he took exception to the man-
ner in which they did it, but the Government were to
blame for not having allowed the British squadron to

enter the Black Sea in sufficient time to prevent the catas-

trophe. (Hear, hear.) It was known some time before
it occurred that the Russian fleet had left Sebastopol,
and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe warned the Government
what would happen unless the British squadron was di-

rected to piss through the Bosphorus. It was true that
instructions were sent out directing that the Russian autho-

rides should be warned that if the fleet entered the Black Sea

it would be taken as an open act of hostility, and he wanted
to know how it was that this instruction was not carried
out until after the affair at Sinope had taken place? But,
putting all that aside, it was notorious that before a
powerful naval force was cruising about Sinope some days
before the Turkish flotilla, and he wanted to know what
the British squadron was about at the mouth of the Bos-
phorus while all this reconnoitring was going ou. (Hear,
n .r.) Certainly a fault was committed somewhere, and it
was A.,..
question,,ml he thought
responsi&tiy oftPtarliameut to find out with whom the
1, neglect rested. (Hear, hoar.)
Sir J. GRA.1.... M remarAfhi. the house that this part
of the Turkish case u...._,
_uch ti._t. upon in the recent
il et ntghtehne nr
received
idveebia on?he
fullestth e t; a
esx,.pi
an u
al,
~.,
from the c.l,wern-
ment. So far back as the Bth of 0,,,-‘l)er last, in-
structions wers given to the British squadron 0...0; the
territory of Turkey on the Black Sea should be pro-
tected against any Russian attack, and immediately
after the affair at Sinope that instruction' as extended to

protecting the Turkish flag on the Black Sea as well as the
Turkish territory. The first of these instructions was not
communicated to Russia until after the outrage of Sinope ;
he readily admitted that, but the delay which thus took
place he thought was fully explained in the blue-books,
and to those books he must refer the hon. baronet for an
answer to his question. (Hear, hear.) It would be seen
from the papers, in fact, that Admiral Pandas offered
to go into the Black Sea before the Sinope massacre
took place, but by some misfortune he did not
obtain any answer from the Turkish Government to this
application until after the calamity had happened. (Hear,
hear.) It was clear, therefore, that the Turkish Govern-
ment was alone to blame for having left their flotilla
so unprotected at Sinope ; while, with regard to
the imputations and insinuations which had been thrown
out against Admiral Dundas, he would only stop to say
that when the opportunity offered the gallant admiral
would show that he was not wanting eithr in vigour or
decision. (Cheers.)
Mr. BUCK asked for some explanation with regard to
the English merchant ship which was at Sinope when the
attack took place.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the ship arrived at Sinope
just before the attack was made, and although her
crew were totally defenceless, they were attacked by the
Russians with a barbarous and cruel fire, and when they
succeeded in escaping to the shore they were most cruelly
set upon by the Turkish inhabitants, who mistook them
for Russians.
Sir DE LACY EVANS asked what had been the re-
sult of our examination of the Black Sea.
Sir J. GRAHAM said our cruisers had repeatedly visited
Varna, the entrance to the Sea of Azoff and coast of Cir-
cassia, but they had never yet met with a ship bearing the
Russian flag. (Hear, hear.)
Admiral WALCOTT availed himself of that opportu-
nity to denounce the conduct of Russia in the Sinope
affair, which he thought had inflicted indelible disgrace
upon the Russian flag, while the noble, and almost
superhuman resistance of the Turkish fleet would
reflect honour upon the flag to the end of
time. (Cheers.) The gallant admiral insisted that the
period hail arrived when the liberties of Europe demanded
that the aggressions of Russia, which hitherto had
been carried on by means of liplomacy, should
be resisted by the force of arms, and he there-
fore rejoiced to hear that our armaments would be
carried out upon an extensive and vigorous scale. (Hear.)
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND reminded the house that
if the country was to be well served by its officers they
must be protected from the attacks of unprofessional
critics. (Hear.) He remembered some 30 years ago sailing
with the present Admiral Pandas in the Mediterranean,
and the admiral then remarking to him—" The time may
come when I shall be an admiral having the command of a
fleet on this sea in a time of war, and then I believe the
greatest difficulty I shall have to contend with will be the
sneers and sarcasms of unprofessional members of the
Legislature. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that prophecy
would be a warning to the house for the future. (Cheers.)
Mr. F. FRENCH protested against the House of Com-
mons being precluded from discussing the conduct of
our Admirals on the ground just stated. (Hear, hear.)
Lord D. STUART said the disaster of Sinope was but
the result of the hesitatintpolicy which had been pursued.
(Hear, hear.) It was to be seen from the despatches of
Lord Stratford how deeply he regretted that the allied
fleets did not enter the Black Sea sooner. (Hear, hear.)
It was unaccountable that they should have delayed so
long, considering that the instructions were to protect the
Turkish forces and territory. For a long time before the
affair of Sinope the movements of the Russian fleet were
known ' • and they had swept the Black Sea two months.
Unless the ambassador had received instructions at every
hazard to prevent risk of war, the allied fleets would have
gone to the rescue of the Turkish squadron. (Hear.)
Such a feeble policy would only be calculated to frustrate
the very object it had in view.
Captain SCOBELL said, when an hon. member asked
whether the House of Commons should not discuss why
the allied fleets had not entered the Black Sea, the answer
was that it must depend on the winds and weather—(hear)
—and that it was impossible sitting there to command a
fleet in tho Black Sea. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Nor
could the ambassador at Constantinople do so—it must
depend on the judgment of the admiral. (Hear.) It was
said, why had not the English fleet sailed into the Black
Sea alone ? The answer was, that it would have been
most unwise to do so, as it would have been equivalent to
attacking Russia without a declaration of war, and with-
out the co-operation of France. The fact was that the
disaster of Sinope was in a groat degree owing to the rash-
ness of the Turks, who had remained within a short dis-
tance of Sebastopol, without any reason at all, except to
tempt the Russians to attack them, and there was
ample justification for the attack, although undoubtedly
it had been characterised by needless barbarity.
Our fleet was well manned, and he believed that in any
struggle which might ensue our sailors would display that
gallantry which had marked their conduct in all previous
encounters with the enemy.
Lod J. MANNERS asked whether the noble lord
(Lord J. Russell) was in possession of any information to
the effect that since the British fleet bad entered the Black
Sea there had been any fresh aggression there on the part
of the Russians.
Mr. SANDARS, while he admitted that the affair of
Sinope was nothing less than a savage massacre, was at a
loss to determine where the real fault lay. He believed,
however, that had we earlier informed Russia of our inten-
tions and had adopted more energetic measures at the com-
mencement We should not have found ourislyes in so