The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON TUESDAY EvENINGI, FEBRUARY. IA 1556.

uxN'rALs.

municated to this embassy. I have questioned Mr. Pisani
on the subject, and he assures me that Rifaat Pasha would
never be brought to admit its existence. That Minister
was probably restrained from disclosing it by the Russian
ambassador's threatening language."
Your lordships will observe that on the 21St of March
Mr. Pisani signs a memorandum, containing a full re-
port of the contents of the note presented by Prince
Menschikoff, as ascertained in a conversation with the

Chula* ?Mei
this dry.

notaaa3
this day.

94 - 96
94 - 98

Turkish Minister, and two months afterwards he as-
sures Lord Stratford de Redcliffe that the Turkish
Ministry could never be brought to admit the existence
of that note. This, my lords, as I stated last year, is a
matter affecting the character of members of the British
legation, and I think that blame is attributable to a
higher quarter than Mr. Pisani. Lord Stratford de Red-
oldie was not justified in transmitting to the English
Government statements reflecting upon the conduct of a
Power with which we were at that thus, on terms of
amity without ascertaining their correctness. It was kis
duty, when he returned to Constantinople in the then
critical state of affairs, when the awful issue of peace or
of war was trembling in the balance, to make himself
accurately acquainted with the steps which had been
taken by Colonel Rose in his absence ; and if he had ne-
glected that part of his duty, be had still no right to
transmit an assertion to the British Government that
the Turkish Government had -concealed an important
State paper unless he was convinced of :the correctness,
of the statement ; still less had he the right to ground
upon that assertion the inference that they had been
threatened by the Russian Minister. I say, my lords,
that be had no right to adopt that course, when five
minutes' search in the archives of hie embassy would

••• - •••
104 - 106

13 - I:4i
234 - 244
1074 - 1124

4l

91 - 93

a 23
---

have afforded him every information upon the subject.
My lords, I wish to know what explanation her Ma-
jesty's Government can give of these circumstances,
and I do not think that the importance of the subject
is at all diminished because these transactions are of

- S
3 -

throe years' date, for Lord Stratford de Redcliffe is still
ambassador at Constantinople, and Mr. Pisani occupies,
I believe, the same position in the legation as he did
then. My noble friend the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs last year offered no explanation with regard to
those circumstances, nor did I expect him at that time
to do so, as he probably was not then acquainted with
all the facts of the case ; but I did expect that, when a
statement had been made involving a grave charge
against the British ambassador, and reflecting upon the
honour of a member of the British Legation, I did ex-
pect, I say, that when ssch a statement had been pub-
licly made in your lordships' home, even by a member
so inconsiderable as myself, some explanation would be
offered by those whom the statement concerned. I need
not tell your lordships that, in the present state of
affairs, duties of the very greatest importance are en-
trusted to the British ambassador at Constantinople, or
that the position occupied by Mr. Pisani is also of the
highest importance. While we employ in the East an
ambassador who is not conversant with the Oriental

32 - 23
83 - 85

language, the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the
interpreter or dragoman attached to the, embassy afford
the only security which the country possesses that its
affairs will be properly transacted. Upon these grounds
I ask my noble friend what explanation can be afforded
of the discrepancy which I have pointed out
The Earl of CLA.RENDON—My lords, my reply to
my noble friend will be a very brief one, because I am
not able to give any complete explanation in answer to
the inquiry which he has addressed to me. A t the same
time I cannot help expressing my regret that my noble
friend should have brought forward this subject at the
present moment, and should have preceded it by the
speech which he has made, because I think that he has
failed to show either that there was any urgent necessity
for bringing it forward, or that any practical good could
be expected to result from it, at a time when both your
lordsbipe House and the other House of Parliament
have given such unequivocal proofs of their determina-
tion to avoid anything that can be likely to produce
embarrassment or irritation. (Hear.) In so doing,
Parliatm tat has noted from the highest sense of duty,
and I believe that it faithfully reprosetiti the feeling of
the country i'e resolving to wait with patience for the
result of the neeotiations,which are about to be entered
upon—anxious for an honourable peace, but if that, un-
fortunately, cannot be obtained, determined to prosecute
the war with vigour. Feeling, my lords, that the meet-
ing of Parliament will rather tend to facilitate than to
render the negotiations difficult, and feeling confident,
alai), in the 84:lenity of onr intentions, I believe, if we
.are but met, as I trust we shall be, with similar sincerity
on the part of those with whom we have to tteat, that
then, negotiations ought to be neither long nor difficult ;
but, if we have reasonable grounds for anticipating the
conclusion of peace, I cannot see the practical utility of
ripping up transactions that occurred previous to the
commencement of the war. My noble friend coin-
plaiasjthat I did not answer his speech upon this sub-
ject last year. My noble friend certainly made a
speech of very great length and- very great power
upon that occasion, to various portions of which I could
not reply, because my attention had not been drawn to
them previously ; nor did I then, nor do I now, attaeh
the lame importance to the discrepancy that my noble
friend does. It is a matter which ccncerns the Turkish
Ministers, who, from some motive or other, first denied
the existeuce, and afterwards would not admit the con-
tents, of a certain document ; and, having once deviated
from the fact, they have never since been able to make
a consistent story of it. It is perfectly true, as my
noble friend has stated, that Colonel Rose on the 24th
of March heard that Rifaat Pasha had received a note
verbale from the Russian Government. He went to in-
quire whether it was true, and all that he could learn
was that the Turkish Government believed that the
Russian "aavernment- intended to propose, a secret
treaty, but he was not mire that the. Turkish Govern.
moot would inform the British Embassy of it. A week
afterwards Col. Rose saw both the Grand Vizier. and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs ; and he then heard, as was
reported by Mr. Pisani afterwards, that Rifaat Pasha
had said that a note verbale had been presented by Prince
Menschikoff ; but they stated that Prince Menschikoff
had used the strongest language to prevent any com-
munication of it to the British or French embassies,
and bad endeavoured to extract from Rifaat Pasha a
promise that no such communication should be made ;
and that on Rifest Pasha hesitating to give that pro-
mite Prince Menschikoff left him in great auger. My
lords, I think there can be no doubt that the Turkish
Ministers were intimidated, for 'at the same interview
Rifaat Pasha informed Colonel Rose that he did not
consider that Russia had specified or declared what her
intentions were. I ',think, therefore, that the Turkish
Ministers were intimidated ; nor is it very surprising
that they should have been when they knew the circum-
stances ander which Prinee Menschikoff was there; when
they knew that the very predecessor of Rifest Pasha had
been compelled to quit office,on account of Prince Men-
schikoff; when they knew the vast power of Russia and
their own want of preparation, and were' ignorant of the
course which France and England were about to take.
Under such circumstances, I am not surprised that the
Turkish Ministers, after the language which had been
held, should have been somewhat intimidated, and some-
what cautious in the proceedings they adopted. This it
further confirmed by Lord Stratford, who, upon his
arrival at Constantinople, wrote that the Turkish Minis-
ter had broached the subject to him, but that he was un-
able to draw any explanation from him; and he added,
that the fear which induced the Turkish Minister to
withhold the truth arose from the language which had
been used towards him. by Prince Menschikoff, and that'
it greatly embarrassed the settlement of the question.
But it is perfectly true that the note verbale never was
given to the British embassy at all. It was placed inmy
hands by Baron Branow, and by me it was sent to
Lord Stratford. Lord Stratford writes that Mr. Pisani
says that the Turkish Government could net be brought
to admit the existence of the note; and Mr. Pisani says
the same thing now. I thought that the best way of
meeting the inquiry of my noble friend was to send his
question along the telegraphic wires to Constantinople—
(hear)—and I will now read to your lordships the answer
which I received yesterday. Lord Stratford telegraphed
to me from Constantinople on the 7th inst. the following

answer :

" Mr. Pisani confirms to me what I stated in my des-
patch to your lordship of May 27, 1853, viz., that the
Turkish Foreign Secretary at that time would not then ac-
knowledge the existence of the document called Prince
.Mensehikoff's note of March lti or 17,' iu the same year.
The Pasha was pressed to give me a copy of it, and he ap-
pears to have resorted to subterfuges and disavowals ia
order to avoid. the importunity. Mr. Pisani affirms that,
subsequently a search was made by him, with the assist-
ance of Noureddi Bey, the t'orte's chief interpreter, and
that the paper wax not to be found in the archives of the
Turkisk corespondents."
In fact, the Turkish Ministers would not allow the ex-
istence of that note in order that they might not be
pressed to give a copy of it, which they were afraid of
doing. My noble friend, however, tries to fix blameupon
Lord Stratford in this matter in a manner which shows,
I think, that he is not quite familiar with the contents
of the note, and that he is unmindful of the original
cause of the war. The note contained a long recital of
Russian grievances against .Turkey with respect to the
Holy Places, and demanded that certain things should
be done in reparation of those grievances and in fulfil-
ment of engagements with Russia which it was said had
been violated the year before. Some of those things,
however, which were required to be done, were contrary
to the arrangement which had been entered into with
the French Ambassador, and the Porte was greatly
embarrassed how to act ; but by the friendly interpo-
sition of Lord Stratford the Porte war relieved from
its embarrassment, and Lord Stratford received the
thanks of all parties. It was only after that matter had
been satisfactorily settled that other demands were
brought forward by Russia, to which the Turkish Go-
vernment could not assent, and which we could not re-
commend them to concede. I will pursue the subject no
further, but I beg my noble friend to bear in mind that
Lord Stratford was perfectly aware of the contents of the
note verbale ; that he acted upon it ; and that if no other
demands had been made by Russia beyond those which
were contained in the note verbale, Lord Stratford would
have prevented a rupture between Russia and the Porte.
(Hear.) My noble friend concluded by some remarks
upon Lord Stratford which I do not think were alto-
gether fair. Lord Stratford, like all the rest of us, may
have his defects, but no man will deny Lord Stratford s
high sense of honour and extensive qualifications. There
• is no man who is more intimately acquainted with Ori-
ental questions, no man who more desire? to see the
progress and prosperity of the Ottoman empire than
.Lord
Stratford. Lord Stratford has rendered great services,
and he is still rendering great services. As I comedown
to the house this evening I received a letter from him,
stating* the progress of events, and I can safely say that
ky his knowledge and ability he bas ben eminently use-
ful in procuring a settlement of what is called the Fourth
Point, and in securing to the non-11ussultnan subjects
of the Porte a position which I believe will be highly '
satisfactory to the Christian Powers of Europe. (Hear. )
Earl GREY—I am extremely sorry that my noble
friend has thought it necessary to question the propriety
of the step which I have deemed it nay duty to take this
. evening. Lie says that Parliament has very properly

abstained from embarrassing the Government in the pre-
sent delicate posture of affairs. Though I believe there
is no man in the country who more thoroughly disap-
proves the policy of the Government upon foreign ques-
tions than myself, I am equally confident that there is
not one in either House of Parliament who has more
cautiously abstained from doing anything which might
in any way embarrass them. Certainly, I have ab-
stained this session from saying a single word upon a
question on which I feel the deepest anxiety. But is
it calculated to embarrass the Government—l hope
not—to point out circumstances which, if left unex-
plained, may injuriously affect the honour of- the
country ? What has the question - now before your
lordships to do with the impending negotiations ? How
can it embarrass them? And does the Government
really mean to close the mouths of independent peels
upon questions of this kind by talking to us of negotia-
tions which have no more to do with the subject in hand
than negotiations in the moon ? (A. laugh.) I must de-
cline to follow my noble friend into the question whether
the present war is to be attributed to Ruisia or to Tur-
key, or whether Lord Stratford 'de Redeliffe has rendered
great services to the country or not. Upon these points
I may entertain very different opinions from my noble
friend, but they are not before us at present. I raise one
specific question, whether there was or was nota contra-
diction between the despatches of Col. Rose and Lord
Stratford de Radcliffe? My nobleiriend says there was
not. Allow me to read the two passages, and then I will
leave your lordships to judge whether there was a contra-
diction or not. • On the '2sth Maroh the memorandum of
Mr. Pisani containsthe following words : "Rifaat Pasha,
in the interview I had with him yesterday, stated that
Prince Mensehikoff ha 4 left with him on the 17th a note
verhale." On the 27th May Lord Stratford de Redcliffe
informs us that he had questioned Mr.Pisani on the sub-
ject, "and he assures me that Rifest Pasha would never
be brought to admit its existence," speaking of this very
note verbale. The questioa then i 5, whether a certain
gentleman, having stated that he had received from a
Turkish Minister an account of a note left with him, and
2 months after writing that the very same Minister could
never be brought to admit its existence, has stated that
which is correct? This matter may be passed over lightly
by my noble friend, but I say it is of the very deepest im-
portance, not for the reputation of the British Embassy
only, but also for the honour of the nation. If England
is to be represented by persons whose statements are
thus contradictory, I say that its honour suffers ; and,
where there is.so much suspicion, the power and moral
influence of thef country may depend upon regaining that
high character which ought to belong to all engaged in
the diplomatic service of the British Crown, so that no
shade, even of distrust, may rest upon ,the accuracy of
their statements. I think that it was right to bring
this subjectbefore the house, and confess I feel the deepest
regret that my noble friend, instead of giving some
explanation showing there had been a mistake, has found
it necessary to go into various other questions, but not
to touch the only point at issue.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.YESTERD AY. )
The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
NEW MEMBER.
Mr. MARTIN took the oaths and his seat for Rochester,

PRIVATE BUSINESS,
The following bills were then severally read
a second time, and ordered to be committed :
A.bcrdeen and Scottish Midland Junction.. Railway Com •
panics Amalgamation ; Alford Valley Railway ; Ban-
bridge Junction Railway; Barnsdala and Leeds Road ;
Bath. Gas ; Carmarthen and Cardigan Railway ; Chel
tenhana Gas ; Colonial Bank ; Conway and Llandudno
Road ; • Cork and Youghal Railway ; Coventry (City)
Gas; Darenth Valley Railway; Deeping Fen Drainage ;
Denny Junction Railway ; Dorset Central Railway ;
Dimblane, Donne, and Callender Railway; Dundee
Harbour Eastern Counties Railway •; Eastern. Union
Railway ; East of Fife Railway ; Edinburgh Munici
pality; Edinburgh Water; Ely Tidal Harbour and Rail-
way ; Fdey Water ; Formartine and Buchan Railway ;
Glasgow Courthousesand Public Offices; Glasgow Paving;
Wastonbury and Bruton Railway ; Gloucester Gas ;
Halifax and. Huddersfield Road; Heywood Gas; Knares
borough and Green Hamrnerton Road ; Knaresborongh
and Pateley Bridge Read ; Knottingley Gas ; Lambeth
Water; Lancaster Gas; Leicesterand Welford Road ; Lin-
coln Water; London and North-Western Railway; Lon-
don and South-Western Railway (Yeovil to Exeter) ; Lon-
don Dock; Lowesteitand Beocles Rail way; Luton District
Road ; Luton, Dunstable,, and Welwyn Janction.Rail•
way ; Monmouth Roads ; North Shields and Tyne-
mouth Dock ; Oxford, Worceiter, and Wolverhamp-
ton Railway (Extension of Time, &,c ; Renfrewshire
Roads ; Rbosydd Railway ; Scottish Central. Rail•
way ; Shrewsbury and Hereford 'Railway ; Shrewsbury
and Welchpool Railway ; Shrewsbury Water; Sleaford
and Tattershall Turnpike Trust ; Southport. Water ;
Stockton and Middlesbrough New Road and Bridge ;
SVIMIStea Vale Railway; Thames Haven Dock and Rail-
way; Ulster Railway ; West Ham Gas ; Westminster
Terminus Railway; IVeytnonth and Ilfelcombe R,gis
GAS ; Worksop Gas.