HC Deb 08 February 1856 vol 140 cc462-73
MR. COBDEN

I rise, Sir, to ask for explanations from the Government for the non-production of the correspondence respecting our relations with America. I ask for these explanations, because the answer given by the noble Lord at the head of the Government to my inquiry the other night does not appear, for reasons I shall presently explain, founded exactly in fact. I asked the noble Lord whether there would be any objection to lay on the table of the House the correspondence respecting our present relations with America? The noble Lord stated, in reply, that the correspondence in neither of the cases to which my inquiry referred was quite completed, and on that ground he refused my application. Now, in order to make my observations the more readily intelligible, I must premise that, unhappily, there are two subjects of dispute existing at the present moment, and involving very serious and grave considerations between this country and the United States. The first has reference to the Central American question of 1850. The House is aware, though the country, perhaps, is not, that in 1850 the English and American Governments entered into a Convention, most benign in its object and somewhat novel in its character, for the purpose of promoting the construction of a canal across the Isthmus of Darien. The Convention begins by expressing a hope and desire that it might have the effect, among other things, of promoting peace and amity between the contracting Powers, and civilisation throughout the world. The object of the Convention was to enable parties to construct a ship canal through the narrow isthmus of Central America under a specific guarantee from the contracting Powers. The Convention was intended to be elastic in its operation, for the contracting Powers contemplated inviting other Powers to join with them in the guarantee. Among other things it was provided that, in case of war ships passing through this canal, or being within a certain distance of its entrance, they should not be subject to capture or molestation. History scarcely presented an example of a Convention being entered into for objects more worthy of approbation. The Convention was agreed to in 1850, but, owing to the unfortunate propensity of diplomatists to involve their sentences in phraseology which becomes unintelligible not only to others but to themselves, it seemed likely to be the cause of a very serious quarrel between the two countries. His hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart) had proposed in this House that there should be an examination of candidates for employment in the diplomatic service, and I would suggest to him to require one qualification—namely, that they should be able to write plain and intelligible English. In the present case, this unfortunate disagreement seems to be the more unaccountable, because both the diplomatists spoke the same language, whereas, had it been a Convention between a German and an Englishman or a Frenchman and an Englishman, there might have been some excuse for the misunderstanding. From the year 1850 down to October in last year, this Convention had been the subject of correspondence between this country and the United States; and in October of last year, a letter written by M. Buchanan to Lord Clarendon closed the correspondence, and in December, on the meeting of Congress, the correspondence, so far as it relates to the American side of the controversy, was laid on the table of the Senate of the United States; and I mention this, because the noble Lord says that the correspondence is not complete. I wish to separate this subject from that of the enlistment, in respect to which we are unfortunately also involved in a dispute with America, and I hope the noble Lord will give an answer in reference to this subject as distinct from the other. We have the correspondence published in the United States; it has also been published in England, and I hold in my hand a pamphlet containing it, published and purchasable in London for 1s. Nevertheless I cannot quote this correspondence, though it is discussed in the newspapers, and is made a topic of conversation in private, nor can I bring forward a Motion in this House on documents such as those I have mentioned. We must have official documents from our own Government before we can use them in the House of Commons, and we are placed in this position—that whereas everyone else can discuss the question, no one in the House can deal with it in any satisfactory way. I must for a moment refer to the pamphlet which I have mentioned, because it bears on the answer which I received from the noble Lord on a former day. The noble Lord then said—"The correspondence is not complete." Now, the noble Lord must have been unconsciously in error when he made that statement, because Lord Clarendon on the 28th of September, 1855, in his last letter to Mr. Buchanan on the subject, uses these words:— Her Majesty's Government had, indeed, refrained from pursuing the discussion by replying to Mr. Buchanan's note of the 22nd of July, 1854, because it appeared to them that the continuation of the correspondence was not likely to lead to any satisfactory conclusion; and, as Her Majesty's Ministers are still of that opinion, the undersigned will confine his answer to Mr. Buchanan's present note within the same limits as those which Mr. Buchanan has prescribed to himself. Mr. Buchanan also, in last October, assents to Lord Clarendon's statement that the correspondence is concluded. He says— While far from intending to renew the general discussion of these questions, which has already been exhausted, the undersigned, in passing, would make a single observation," &c. Moreover, it was Mr. Clayton himself, a party to the treaty, who in moving, in the American Senate, that the papers should be printed, stated that the correspondence was concluded. If I wanted any further proof that the correspondence was ended, I should find it in the fact stated by Lord Clarendon in the House of Lords, that the subject-matter of dispute had been offered to be referred to arbitration, thus plainly admitting that the discussion is absolutely at an end. I, therefore, think that this House ought not to be wholly unacquainted with the nature of that correspondence, and I hope that the noble Lord will not object to its production, or, if he does, that he will give some other ground for his objection than that alleged on the former occasion. The other subject of dispute is one of more recent date. Last year we sent emissaries to America to enlist men for our Foreign Legion. Now, I should like to know who were those wise individuals who, sitting in Council, and feeling a great want of men to fight this battle which we were told England was able to fight against all the world, sent to the United States for men to serve against the Russians. Why, the stream of human labour going from the East to the West every year amounts to 300,000 or 400,000 human beings. We ourselves send from 50,000 to 100,000 men annually to America, to seek their fortune by the superior remuneration of labour, and I should have thought it as likely to have rolled back the seasons, or to have turned the river in its course, as to send to the United States to find able-bodied men, where they are earning 4s. or 5s. a day each, to fight for us in a semi-barbarous region against men whose labour may be hired for sixpence a day, and to do so at a shilling a day. It was so absurd and foolish a project that I should like to know who are the parties responsible for it. We have no correspondence published on this subject, either here or in America, therefore I only go on common rumour, and on what was admitted by Lord Clarendon in another place. It seems that, on remonstrance from the United States, we admitted our error and countermanded our orders, withdrawing our enlistment establishments not only from the United States, but from our own North American Colonies. In this respect our amende and apology were most honourable. I do not know the terms of the apology, but I am told that the apology, when made, was considered satisfactory. But I am told that after that another transaction took place, not in violation of American law, but in evasion of it, which has reopened the grievance. I do not know how far this may be true, for we have no official information before us, and I only state what I am given to understand is the fact. All I wish to point out to the House is, that our Government has admitted itself to be in error. We are in the wrong, and when we have admitted that to be the case, whether we make reparation in one form or another does not appear to me to be of any great importance. If you tread on a man's toes, it does not very much matter whether you say to him, "I beg your pardon," or "I beg ten thousand pardons." That never would be a point on which any sensible man would go out to fight. Let it be borne in mind, then, that we are, by the confession of our own Government, in the wrong, and, as we stand responsible in the name of the country for the acts of our Government, I think it would be well if we had this correspondence laid before us, even if it be not completed; and for this reason, I am inclined to suspect that this question has assumed very much of a personal character, that it has been envenomed and embittered in the course of the protracted correspondence; and I think, therefore, that if it were taken away from the Foreign Office, and discussed in the country or in this House, there would be displayed such a magnanimous feeling on the part of the people and of the Members of this House, that the quarrel would be at once put a stop to. There has been a talk of arbitration in the other subject of dispute, and I believe we should find some such mode of settling this question in an equally honourable and satisfactory manner. In private life, in quarrels on matters of etiquette, it is not the usual course for the person who has committed the wrong to fix the reparation. Seconds are called in, and they decide what shall be the apology to be made; and, if this question were brought before the House, I have no doubt we should readily find out a means of escaping from the difficulty. Besides, the country would be much more at ease if the subject were discussed by us, and there would be an end to that alarm and apprehension which now exists among the mercantile community lest every fresh packet should bring intelligence that Mr. Crampton has received his passports and is on his way home. At all events, I am quite sure that nothing will be gained by allowing these matters to remain veiled in the secresy of the Foreign Office. We have drifted into one war by the system of secret diplomacy, and we may get into another in the same way. "Where there is darkness there is danger" is as true in politics as in the material world. This second dispute about our attempts at enlistment, be it remembered, is more imminent than the first. I do not know whether the noble Lord intends to lay before us the papers relating to this part of the subject; but if he refuses, on the ground that the correspondence is not completed, I am at a loss to see how we are ever to get any more papers on any subject, for it was only last night that he declined to produce the papers relating to the case of Mr. Curtis, our Consul at Cologne, on the ground that the correspondence was closed and the whole matter finally settled. If he now refuses to give us these papers on the ground that they are not completed, he will invest himself with absolute irresponsibility; for if we are not to have the correspondence, either before or after it is finished, what hold can the country have upon the noble Lord and his Government? This question of our relations with the United States would, I think, be much safer in the hands of the people and of this House, than of the Government or of the press. If there be a war between us and the United States, it will not be a war upon which the people will enter with a willing spirit; if there be a collision, it will be provoked cither by secret diplomacy, or by the exasperating language of the press of this country. What has been the language of the Ministerial journals of this country on the subject? Almost the first thing we heard of this dispute was from an article in The Times newspaper in November, which told us, to our astonishment, that we were ready to go to war with America, but that we should still "Hold our hand on the throat of the Northern despot." Within the last fortnight, too, I have seen similar language in the Morning Post and in The Times, which are the journals supposed to represent the opinions of the Ministry. I must say, though I have watched the language of the American journals with considerable interest, I have seen no such menaces in them as has appeared in The Times and the Morning Post. True, the journals of England generally have not taken that hostile course, but those journals which represent the Cabinet will be taken in America to speak for a large portion of our people. I am anxious, therefore, that we should not be the only persons in the country who are not to discuss this subject. I desire that we should be, in fact, the pulse of the nation in this question, as we are on any domestic question in which the people feel interested. I can hardly view as possible so great a calamity, to both countries and to the world, as a hostile collision between England and the United States, and yet we are talking about it daily in the press, we are speculating about it in private, and the Government, in their correspondence, is bringing us to a deadlock which will take away all chance of escape. A war between this country and the United States, on whichever side success might rest, would be the most horrible, the most inhuman calamity, even to the victor, which could possibly happen. Were we to succeed, it would be very much like destroying our own offspring, and, were the United States to crush England, it would be little better than parricide. I hope, therefore, that we shall not be afraid to approach this question, that we shall not refuse to understand what it is we are quarrelling about, but that we shall call for the Papers and shall show the country that we are prepared to deal fearlessly and honestly with the difficulty, whatever it may he, which may be laid before us.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, in answering the hon. Member, I shall observe that distinction between the two questions involved in this matter which he has himself drawn, and which he has recommended to me. And first, then, I will deal with the question of Central America. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that the Treaty of 1850 was a Treaty honourable to both parties, and which had in view objects that could only conduce to the improvement of commerce and the extension of civilisation over every part of the world. It is well known that great interest was excited upon the subject of the opening of a ship canal through the Isthmus of Darien between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Jealousies grew up between England and the United States, each supposing that the other had some exclusive object in view, and meant by some means or other to establish itself to the prejudice of the other, either at one end or other of the canal if it were made. The object of the Treaty concluded by my right hon. Friend Sir Henry Bulwer with Mr. Clayton was to remove all possible cause of jealousy upon that point, and the provisions of that Treaty, as explained by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding, were in my mind perfectly calculated to accomplish that end. The project of cutting a ship canal between the two oceans has, however, been found liable to physical difficulties which there is not much chance of overcoming, and practically, therefore, that part of the arrangement has ceased to have any immediate application. But there were further provisions in that Treaty, by which, in order entirely to do away with the jealousies which each of the two countries entertained of the views of the other, both countries disclaimed any intention to appropriate any territory in Central America, or to colonise or obtain any possessions therein. There was an exception made, however, with respect to possessions which we had already there—Belize and its dependencies— and with respect to certain duties of protection which had been performed by us for a long course of time, and which were at that moment existing. I do not think myself that the Treaty is liable at all to the criticism which the hon. Gentleman has passed upon it. It seems to me that the words of the Treaty are plain, and its meaning perfectly obvious, and I really do not see that any other construction but that which we contend for can be put upon it. The Treaty was prospective, and not retrospective in its operation. At the same time the American Government has endeavoured to establish a different construction, and a long correspondence has taken place between the two Governments on the subject. We contend for our construction, and the American Minister here contends for a different one. We have stated, however, that notwithstanding that we are perfectly convinced that our interpretation is the just one, we are ready to submit the question to the arbitration of any third Power. To that offer we have not yet been able to obtain an answer, and so the question at present stands. I did say, the other day, in answer to the hon. Member, that I did not think the correspondence sufficiently closed to be laid before Parliament, but upon referring to the state of the correspondence I feel that we shall be perfectly prepared to produce it, and I am quite ready to lay it on the table at once. The correspondence is not, perhaps, technically closed, but I think it is sufficiently closed to be laid before Parliament for the purpose of showing what are the views of the two Governments on the points at issue. The other subject adverted to by the hon. Gentleman relates to our Foreign Legion. When the Act was passed, a little more than a year ago, which enabled the Crown to enlist foreigners, it was represented to Her Majesty's Government that there were in the United States a considerable number of Germans who might be disposed to enlist in the military service of this country. The hon. Member seems to think it a moral and political absurdity to expect that the tide of emigration which has been setting from East to West can, with regard to individuals, turn back and flow from West to East; but he must know, or at least he ought to know, that in point of fact that ebb of the tide has already commenced, and that, in regard to Ireland, hardly a month or a week passes that a certain number of individuals who have emigrated to the United States do not return to their native land, either having amassed what they consider a competency, or, on the other hand, having been disappointed in their expectations; but whatever is the cause the fact I have stated is undoubted—persons are constantly returning from America to these islands. It was not, therefore, an unreasonable surmise that a considerable number of Germans would be willing to enlist, and orders wore therefore given to establish a recruiting depot within our provinces, with instructions that any persons capable of service who might present themselves for enlistment, and were fit for service, should be enrolled. At the same time strict and specific orders were given that nothing should be done which should infringe the municipal regulations of the States, or violate the law of the Union. Several hundreds of Germans went to Halifax and enlisted, and some of them are now in this country. Her Majesty's Government, however, very soon found that it would be exceedingly difficult in carrying on this enlistment to avoid that which might cause offence to the American Government; and, being most anxious that nothing should occur which could give umbrage to the United States, we issued orders that these proceedings should be entirely discontinued. Soon afterwards an official representation was made by the Government of America, complaining of the enlistment. The answer given to that was, that, anticipating that they might take umbrage at the proceedings which had been commenced, Her Majesty's Government had of their own accord ordered that they should be discontinued. In giving this answer we expressed our regret for anything which might, contrary to our intentions and instructions, have been done in violation of their laws, though we were disposed to think that no such violation had occurred; and referred, as a proof of the sincerity of such regret, to the fact that we had of our own accord stopped the proceedings of which the American Government complained. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) has said, that the relations of Governments should be regulated by those rules which apply to the conduct of gentlemen towards each other; and I would ask, what could be more satisfactory as between gentleman and gentleman than that one should say to the other, "I thought I foresaw that what my servants were doing might give you reason for complaint, I have stopped their proceedings; but, nevertheless, if they have, contrary to my instructions, done anything with which you have reason to find fault, I beg your pardon; I am very sorry for it; and express my regret?" When the communication to which I have referred was made to the American Minister in London, he expressed himself satisfied with the explanation, and said that he felt confident that his Government would entertain a similar feeling in regard to it. For some time we heard nothing more. Subsequently, however, complaints wore renewed, the question was re-opened, and a correspondence has gone on upon this subject. Three days before that on which Parliament met I thought that we should be able to lay that correspondence on the table of the House. There was nothing in it which we could wish to conceal; on the contrary, we were anxious that it should be in the hands of hon. Members. On the very day, however, before the meeting of Parliament, the American Minister presented to my noble Friend (Lord Clarendon) an exceedingly voluminous despatch, containing a long recital of circumstances alleged to have occurred in connection with this enlistment. My noble Friend felt that it would be impossible to answer that despatch in a manner consistent with the respect which ought to be shown to the Government of America, and with a due regard to the character of the British Government, without referring to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington for a report upon a variety of minute details, upon which the information possessed by the Foreign Office was imperfect. This circumstance has necessarily delayed the reply to the last despatch of the American Government; and the matter therefore stands thus:—If the correspondence were to be produced now, it would end with a long paper from the United States' Government, to which no answer has yet been given, because the materials on which such answer must be founded have not yet reached this country. It would not be fair to the American Government to omit from the correspondence this last paper, which they would not have sent had they not considered it an important one; and, on the other hand, it would not be fair to the British Government to give that statement without giving also the reply to it. I hope that no long period of time will elapse before we are able to close the correspondence by giving an answer to that paper; and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that when that has been done, we shall be most ready and most anxious to lay the papers upon the table. I quite agree with the hon. Member for the West Riding that this matter is of the utmost importance in its bearing upon the interests of the two countries. I fully concur with him in thinking that there could hardly be any conflict between two nations which would be more lamentable and calamitous to both than would be a contest between ourselves and the people of America. I say, to both nations, because, though we should suffer severely, depend upon it that those with whom we deal on the other side of the Atlantic would suffer quite as much. It would indeed be painful if in these days two nations, bound together by so many ties of common origin and common interests, should go to war with each other without some real overbearing and unavoidable cause. I cannot but think that, if the same spirit of fairness and conciliation is exhibited by both parties, an adjustment of the difference may be arrived at which will be compatible with the honour of both nations. I can assure the House that, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, nothing consistent with a due regard for the honour, character, and dignity of this country—which I am sure no one would wish to see disregarded— shall be omitted in order to bring about such a result. Nothing, I say, which in a matter of private honour could be done, shall be done for the purpose of avoiding a collision which would, in my opinion, be a reproach to both countries. I have already said that, with respect to one portion of the correspondence, I am prepared to lay it upon the table; and, as to the other part, as soon as the correspondence is terminated, which cannot be distant, I shall be prepared to lay that also before Parliament.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

said that, after the speech of the hon. Member for the West Riding, the reply of the noble Lord must have been heard with great satisfaction. If international affairs were to be discussed in the spirit in which this matter had been treated by the hon. Member (Mr. Cobden), he had much rather leave them in the secrecy of the Foreign Office. The hon. Member had said that we had drifted into the war with Russia. In his (Sir De L. Evans's) opinion, one cause of that war had been the too frequent and earnest deprecation of hostilities; and he was afraid that, in the present instance, the exaggerated expression of a similar feeling would rather encourage party feeling on the other side of the Atlantic than conduce to a just and proper settlement of the difference. With regard to the enlistment in the United States, he agreed with the hon. Member for the West Riding. It was a most remarkable and inconsistent proceeding. He had been assured, on good authority, that persons of the highest respectability in Canada, gentlemen having seats in the legislature, had offered to raise in that colony two regiments of 1,000 men each, to serve in the Crimea, the only condition being that these regiments should be called the "Royal Canadian Regiments," or something of that sort. He believed that Sir Allan M'Nab, the President of Council in Canada, who was in England at the time, had arranged the matter, but that some red-tapism of the Horse Guards interposed, and it was entirely dropped. This occurred several months ago; and it was after neglecting to avail themselves of the men who might thus have been raised within our own frontier that the Government sent persons into the United States to recruit, and provoked this absurd and ridiculous controversy.

Motion for the adjournment of the House till Monday agreed to.