Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page

LONDON CORRESPONDENCE.

[No title]

----11

[No title]

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL.

[No title]

STEAMBOAT COLLISION AND LOSS…

ALEXANDRA PALACE. '

[No title]

THE EASTERN QUESTION.[< .......-

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS.

[No title]

PA m J AM &NTARY jm: LLIGENCE.

News
Cite
Share

PA m J AM &NTARY jm: LLIGENCE. LORD DERBY'S STATEMENT.—In the House of Lords, Lord Derby stated, in reply to Lord Stratheden and Campbell, that Eussia was the only Power that had objected to the Conference being heldm Vienna; but he did not think this difficulty, which was still under discussion, was likely to continue long, or prevent the meeting of the Conference. The noble earl further stated, in answer to Lord Gran- ville's questions, that the fleet bad reached the anchorage of Prince's Islands,^about ten miles from Constanti- nople. Although the Turkish Government ofiVred a formal protest against its entering the Dardanelles, they made no attempt to oppose its passage. Her Majesty's Government regarded the Porte as hardly a free agent, and attributed its protest, not to any hostility or jealousy towards this country, but to reo luctance to incur responsibility towards Russia. They had, therefore, taken upc n themselves the respon- sibility, and had consequently been informed, in concilia- tory terms, that the Ru,sians contemplated sending troops into Constantinople. He did not consider a military occu- pation of the city and the senuing of men-nf-war into the harbour below it were parallel cases, and a despatch in these terms had been sent to St. Petersburg'. The noble earl added that the whole of the fleet had not passed the Dardanelles. THE BRITISH FLEET IN THE BOSPHORUS.—In the House of Commons the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to the Marquis of Hartington, made It similar statement to that made by Lord Derby in the other House. He added that no other Power had sent ships of war to the Bosphorus; he did not knuw whether the lines of Gallipoli were incladed within the neutral zone. THE CONSOLIDATED FUND (£".000,01)0) BILL. On the second reading of the Consolidated Fund ( £ 6,0:0,000) Bill, Mr. E. Jenkins made a bitter attack upon the Eastern policy of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended the candour of the Govern- ment (which the previous speaker had impugned) in respect to the orders sent to the fleet; there had been no reservation whatever. Mr. Gladstone expressed his anxiety lest any combination should take place which would have the effect of limiting- the freedom to be granted to the Christian inhabitants of Turkey. Sir R. Peel believed the root of all the Eastern troubles was to be found in Germany. Lord R. Montague followed with a violent denunciation of Russia, in which he used terms to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Gladstone objected, and the noble lord withdrew them. Sir J. Lubbock, Sir G. Campbell, Lord Elcho, and other mem- bers engaged in the debate, and ultimately the bill was read a second time without a division, as also was its comple- ment, the Exchequer Bonds, &c., Bill. MOVEMENT OF THE FLEET.—Eeplying to Lord Gran. ville, Lord Derby stated that no further progress had been made in assembling the Great Powers in Confe- rence or Congress; but the delay was not occasioned by her Majesty's Government. As to the movements of the fleet, Admiral Hornby, who had bad Prince's Islands suggested to him, but who was vested with full powers to place the fleet where he thought best, had, in consequence of communica- tions from Mr. Layard, removed the ships from Prince's Islands to Mudania Bay, which, though further from Con. stantinople, was in telegraphic communication with that city, and h d a better anchorage than the former station. This movement was not a result of any negotiations between her Majesty's Government and that of Eussia. EASTJCRN AFFAIRS. — To further inquiries by Lord Granville, Lord Derby said he was una orare of any de- cision having been come to respecting a Russian advance on Constantinople. He had received a communication as to a possible advance on Gallipoli, but Ministers had not yet had time to consider it. He would, how- ever, take an early opportunity of placing a copy of it on the table. He desired, also, in justice to Mr. Layard, to read a telegram from thAt gentleman in reply, to attacks that had been made uptn him. It men- tioned that great indignation was felt at Constantinople with regard to the statements attributed to Server Pasha, but which that functionary denied; and Mr. Layard de- clared for himself that he had never encouraged the Turks to go to war or continue the war, or promised or encouraged them to expect material aid from England. On. the con* trary, he had always striven for peace. COLONKL WELLESLEY'S DESPATCHES.—In the House of Commons the Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to Mr. Monk not to proceed with the notice he had placed on the paper to the effect that the long delay in presenting Colonel Wellesley's despatches to Lord Derby of the 20th of July and the 7th of August last had not con. duced to an early conclusion of the war. The reason for not presenting these despatches earlier, he explained, was that they were of a strictly confidential character, and that their publication would have been objected to by the Emperor of Russia. Mr. Monk, in response, disclaimed all intention of raising a discussion on the general policy of Ministers; but IÙthough the answer of the right hon. gen- tleman was not entirelj satisfactory, he felt that it would be impossible for him, as a private member, to oppose his judgment to that of the responsible Minister of the Crown. He therefore withdrew his notice. BOROUGH FRANCHISE IN IRELAND. — In the House of Commons Mr. Meldon called attention to the restricted nature of the borough franchise in Ireland, which he com- plained was not upon an equality with the same franchise in England and Scotland, and submitted his annual motion to the effect that the subject deserved the immediate attention of Parliament with the view of establishing a fair and just equality of the franchise in the three countries Mr. C. Lewis urged that what Ireland wanted was not a lower franchise but a redistribution of seats. Sir W. Harcourt thought there was no reasonable ground for resisting ihe measure. The Attorney-General for Ireland refused to admit that there was any grievance that required the immediate attention of the House. The proposed extension of the franchise ought not to be adopted unless it were ac- companied by other measures, including a redistri- bution of seats. Mr. D. Plunket said the effect of the motion wonld be the triumph of a misehievous democracy, for there was no middle class in Ireland to act as a check. Mr. Bright remarked that according to Mr. Plunket Ireland was in a deplorable condition. Could it be worse if the motion was adopted? He aid not believe that the result would be a very sensible change in the representation; but the granting such a measure wonld be a proof to the Irish people tha they might appear in the House of Commons in a posi* tion not inferior to that of the English people. He regretted the severance of feeling aul sympathy between the Irish members below the gangway and the bulk of the Liberal members of the House; but he thought it was not likely to continue llermanently, and the proposal under consideration would have a healing effect. The House, upon a division, rejected the motion by 134 to 126. The announcement of the numbers was received with Opposi- tion cheers.

ANOTHER ATTEMPT^

[No title]