HC Deb 13 July 1863 vol 172 cc661-73

On Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [30th June].

MR. ROEBUCK

Sir, I rise for the purpose of moving that this Order he now read, in order that it may be discharged. Sir, I brought forward the Motion under the feeling that I was about to ask the House to take a step which would be likely to put an end to the terrible carnage now going on in North America, and which would also be of infinite advantage to the commercial interests of Great Britain. For making this Motion I have been subjected to much obloquy. That obloquy came from a very noisy and not very wise party, and I must say, Sir, that my present determination has not been influenced thereby. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, however, has stated that the continuance of the debate would be an impediment in the way of the good government of the country and its interests. Feeling that respect which is due to the noble Lord's belief and wishes, I have induced my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lindsay) to forego his own desire in the matter. When the noble Lord sat down on Friday last, he and I were perfectly, or, at least, very nearly satisfied with what the noble Lord had stated; and if nothing more had been said, there would have been an end of the matter. But, Sir, official arrogance is a plant of portentously rapid growth. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has thought fit to bring a charge against my hon. Friend which he believed his honour called on him to answer. A little cool reflection taught him that insinuations like these coming from a quarter such as this did not need to be regarded. My hon. Friend then felt that the considerations submitted by the noble Lord at the head of the Government were so grave that he ought not to give way to any feeling on his own part of wounded pride, as I may call it, and solely to regard the interest of his country, as pointed out by the noble Lord. And now, Sir, when the matter is about to pass entirely from my control and my dealings with it, there is one observation I would make to the noble Lord. He has at the present moment the greatest responsibility on his shoulders. It has been said that the time has not yet come for the consideration of this question. I have yielded to that suggestion, but let the noble Lord bear in mind that there are two dangers before us which the Government and the country will have to meet. There is the possibility of a reconstruction of the Union upon a Southern basis, and there is the possibility of an acknowledgment of the Confederate South by the Emperor of the French alone. These are two great dangers for England. The noble Lord will, I have no doubt, with his long experience fully justify the confidence of the people in his consideration of these two great questions. I leave them, Sir, without hesitation in his hands, though I must say that my own feelings are against the withdrawal of this subject at the present time from the consideration of the House. England and English interests, it seems to me, demand the decision of the House, and it is only under a feeling of great respect for the noble Lord that I now withdraw my Motion.

Moved, That the Order for resuming the Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [30th June] be read, in order to its being discharged.

MR. LINDSAY

Sir, I wish to say only a few words. There seems to have been some great misunderstanding on this question. The Motion now to be withdrawn is to the effect that the House invites Her Majesty to enter into negotiations with other Powers for the recognition of the Southern States of North America. That Motion stood on the paper for about six weeks, I heard a rumour ten days or so before the Motion was to come oh that the Emperor of the French had changed his mind in regard to the expediency of then recognising the South. How that rumour originated I know not, bill it was very general. I did not, however, pay any attention to it. My hon. Friend also heard a similar rumour, and wrote me a note asking me to ascertain, if I could, what truth there was in it, because, as he said, it was very important that he should know, lest, when he brought forward his Motion, some Member of the Government should rise and ask, "What is the good of this Motion when one of the chief Powers- is not prepared to join in the recognition of the South?" My hon. Friend added that he would like, if he could, to see the Emperor and learn the fact from himself. I wrote on the subject to a friend in Paris, without any idea that my letter and its enclosure would reach the Emperor. The better, however, did get to His Majesty; and I received an answer stating that I might give an Unqualified contradiction to the rumour. The Emperor adding, "I have not changed my mind as to the desirability of recognising the South, and I shall be glad to see Mr. Lindsay and Mr. Roebuck on the subject should they visit Paris." I handed that note to my hon. and learned Friend, telling him that he could read it in the course of the debate if the rumour were referred to in the House. My hon. and learned Friend, however, thought that the note would not be sufficient." I should like," he said, "to ascertain the fact for myself;" adding—"the House will believe me." That was upon the 19th of June. I replied that in my opinion the note would be enough, and that the House would believe it had come from an authoritative source; but the hon. and learned Gentleman still persisted in his desire to go to Paris. I must say, considering the high authority through whom the contradiction was received, that I had no wish to trouble the Emperor; but as my hon. and learned Friend was anxious to learn his intention from His Majesty himself, as he thought it important for the success of his Motion that he should do so, and as I shared the anxiety to see this Motion carried, I accompanied my hon. Friend, at great inconvenience, to Paris. An audience was at once granted to us; but I presume the House does not for a moment suppose that I would make public beyond what is, under the circumstances, utterly requisite, any conversation which the Emperor of the French has been pleased to hold with me, either at that interview or at any other, without his special permission. After what has taken place, I may therefore merely state that during that conversation, which lasted a considerable time, my hon. and learned Friend pointed out to the Emperor the importance of having it clearly understood, that if it should be the pleasure of Her Majesty to negotiate with him on the subject of the recognition of the Southern States, he would be prepared to enter into that negotiation, and my hon. and learned Friend asked that he might be permitted to make a statement in the House to that effect. His Majesty replied, "Take any means you think proper to let it be known that I am prepared to negotiate, and that there is no truth in the rumour prevalent in England in regard to any change of nay views on this question," All the Emperor meant, so far as I understood him, was, that if the House of Commons should pray Her Majesty to address him on the subject of the recognition of the Southern States, he would be only too happy to enter into negotiations with that object, believing, as he did, that if the great Powers of Europe thought it advisable to recognise the Southern Confederacy, the moral effect would be such as to stay the terrible carnage now going on in America. That is the substance of what took place. So far as I am concerned, I Was quite satisfied with the statement of the noble Lord at the head of the Government on Friday evening, although, as the House is aware, the course pursued by my hon. and learned Friend has been the subject of much comment in the public press, and I have shared with him the obloquy. We are all exposed to remarks of that kind; and though we feel we have not done wrong, we are often obliged to bear with them, for prudential reasons, in silence. I did not, however, pay a great deal of attention to the comments of the press in the present instance, and after the statement of the noble Lord on Friday evening, and the few words I offered in reply, it was my wish that this very delicate matter should be allowed to drop. But the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs did not seem at all satisfied; in fact, he appeared to be quite dissatisfied with what his noble chief had said. He felt it to be his duty to raise some fresh matter, and taunt me, as the organs of the Government have done, with being an amateur diplomatist and a special envoy—and he thought it necessary to read me a moral lesson, telling me to take care not to fall into the same trap again. I think the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were wholly uncalled for after the statement which the noble Lord at the head of the Government had made to the House. The noble Lord had said that no one had any right to cavil at the course which my hon. and learned Friend and I had taken. He had stated that Her Majesty's Government were well aware that for the last three years and a half I had been labouring in a very important question—a question of great interest to this country as well as to the people of France in regard to the maritime relations between the two countries, and that I had been labouring, moreover, not merely with their knowledge, but with their sanction and on their introduction. I may now state that during the whole time I was engaged in that business I never said anything to any one on the subject, except to Lord Cowley. The fact never crossed my lips that I had seen either the Emperor or his Ministers. I laboured for the good of my country in a quiet and unostentatious manner; and if I am an amateur diplomatist, it was Her Majesty's Government, of which the Under Secretary is a Member, who made me one. It was they who sent me to Paris and desired me to do the work which they ought to have done themselves. As might be expected, during the interviews with which I was favoured the Emperor was pleased to speak to me on various subjects, but I invariably reported every word to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, and I invariably told the Emperor that what he might be pleased to say to me would be so communicated to Lord Cowley. The Under Secretary taunted me on Friday evening by saying that on one occasion I came from Paris saying I was sent home on a special mission by the Emperor, but that he received a telegram contradicting the statement I made. Who was that telegram from? It is the first time I have heard of it. Was it from the Emperor or any of his Ministers? If so, it was passing strange. But I am not going to explain the circumstances; they are far too delicate to be handled in this House. They must have been so, or a private individual would not have been made the medium of communication. I have always been anxious to maintain the friendly relations between the Governments of the two countries, and would be the last to say or do anything that would cause any misunderstanding between the Emperor of the French and Her Majesty's Ministers.

MR. NEWDEGATE

I rise to order. The House must now be aware that the course which has been pursued by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield and the hon. Member for Sunderland is not only highly improper, but is likely to be fraught with serious consequences.

MR. ROEBUCK

Is the hon. Member speaking to order?

MR. SPEAKER

It does not appear to me that what the hon. Member has said can be considered as bearing upon the question of Order. The Question before the House is that an Order should be discharged; and nothing has occurred in the debate on that Question which, in my opinion, can be regarded as out of order.

MR. NEWDEGATE

again rose.

MR. SPEAKER

And, as what I have now said appears to receive the sanction of the House, it is the duty of the hon. Member to acquiesce in it.

MR. LINDSAY

I hope nothing will Fall from my lips which can be deemed unparliamentary, or against order. No one ever heard a whisper from me of any conversation I have had with the Emperor of the French until the 23rd of last month, when, incidentally, I obtained liberty to make certain statements. I have refrained from making those statements, and will not make them now. I prefer to bear the reproaches of the Under Secretary rather than let one word fall from my lips that would tend to disturb, in however slight a degree, the harmony which is generally supposed to exist between Her Majesty's Government and the Emperor of the French, and which really exists between the Emperor of the French and the people of England. I shall not make the facts known unless Her Majesty's Ministers drive me to make the statements referred to—and I am inclined to think they will not do so. But as the Under Secretary has said that he received a telegram from Paris contradicting me—whether from the Emperor or by his orders, or from his Ministers, I do not know—I may briefly state that the conversation in question took place on the 11th of April 1862. It was on the subject of American affairs, and was of a very grave character. It related to the past, but had reference also to the future. I listened to what the Emperor said to me with considerable pain. He asked me to report the conversation to Lord Cowley. I said that I was to dine with Lord Cowley the same evening, and would probably have an opportunity of doing so. I had not then the opportunity, but on the following morning I repeated to Lord Cowley the whole of the conversation, and I said to him in the most distinct manner, "In sending notes of the conversation to Earl Russell, take care to state in the clearest possible way the reasons why the Emperor has been pleased to have this conversation with me; and the reason why he has thought proper to adopt so unusual a mode of communication; there must be no misunderstanding on that point." I said to him further that the Emperor had asked me to return to him with any remarks which his Lordship might be pleased to make upon the conversation. Adding—"In this case, anything you say I will report to the Emperor at his desire; therefore say as much or as little as you like." I returned to the Emperor and repeated to him what Lord Cowley had said, and he seemed satisfied with the manner in which I had carried out his wishes. I was then requested on my return to London to repeat the conversation to Earl Russell and the noble Lord at the head of the Government. I felt, when that request was made, that I was asked to perform a very delicate duty, and, anxious to avoid it, I said to his Majesty that Lord Cowley had reported the conversation already to Earl Russell. It is exceedingly unpleasant to me to be obliged to make even these statements. I was, however, not allowed an opportunity of repeating the conversation to Earl Russell or the noble Lord at the head of the Government. A correspondence passed, and I returned to Paris. It was His Majesty's pleasure again to see me. By his request I wrote to the noble Viscount on my return to London, and I sent to Paris a copy of the letter which I had written to the noble Viscount, and also a copy of his answer, by the noble Viscount's desire. The correspondence ended with the following words:—"I have performed to the best of my ability this very delicate duty, and no person shall ever know from me what transpired." And the House does not know even now what transpired. I have not even mentioned the subject to any one until it was incidentally alluded to the other day. I may in conclusion add, that if it be the case, as the hon. Member says, that he received a telegram by order of the Emperor such as he described, why did His Majesty, when I returned to Paris, not say, "I can't see Mr. Lindsay again?" If I had been the imprudent person, the busybody, that the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to make me out, what would have been the Emperor's message for me when I returned the second time to Paris? Why, this—" Tell that gentleman, when he calls, that I am not at home." Therefore, it is strange indeed if the hon. Under Secretary received the telegram he spoke of. With these remarks—and I have been obliged in self-defence to say more than I desired to say—I now leave this truly delicate matter, and I hope the Government will not force me to say any more.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

I think my hon. and learned Friend has judged rightly in moving to discharge the Order. The reasons which I stated the other evening, to show that no good could arise from a debate and a division on the Resolution of my hon. and learned Friend, are still, I hope, present to the minds of hon. Members. I must, however, express my regret that my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) should have mixed up with this well-considered decision of theirs au attack upon my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. ["Oh, oh!"] My hon. Friend did on Friday what he deemed to be his official duty, as arising from what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, after I had spoken and towards the conclusion of the discussion. I will say nothing on that subject, except only that I hope this will be the last time when any Member of this House shall think it his duty to communicate to the British House of Commons that which may have passed between himself and the Sovereign of a foreign country. I sincerely say that I do not mean to impute the slightest blame to my two hon. Friends. I am persuaded that they acted with the best intentions, and according to what they felt to be their duty as Members of Parliament, and for the good of the country. At the same time, I wish to impress upon their minds, and upon the minds of the House, that the proceeding which they have adopted is most irregular—to use no stronger language. The British Parliament is accustomed, as one of its functions, to receive messages and communications from the Sovereign of the United Kingdom; but we are in no relation to, we have no intercourse with, no official knowledge of, any Sovereign of any foreign country. Therefore, it is no part of our functions to receive communications from the Sovereign or the Government of any foreign State, unless such communications are made by the responsible Minister of the Crown in consequence of official communications held by order of a foreign Government with the British Government. If the Emperor of the French and the Queen of England have any communications to make to each other, the Emperor has his Ambassador in London, and the Queen has her Ambassador in Paris. Those Ambassadors are the proper organs for such communications. Sovereigns and Governments communicate with Sovereigns and Governments, but they do not communicate with the Legislatures of other countries. If either the Emperor of the French or the Queen of England have any statement which they wish to make public to all the world, or any intentions which they think fit to announce, they have Ministers in their respective Parliaments to make those announcements; or, if those Parliaments be not sitting, the Emperor of the French has his official organ—the Moniteur—through which to make public any statement of his intentions, any denials, or any assertions. We have not in this country a corresponding official organ; yet everybody knows that the Government have the means of making widely known any important statement which they may wish to give to the world during the Parliamentary recess. Therefore, nothing can be so irregular as proceedings of this sort, and for this obvious reason—setting aside the constitutional objection, which I hold to be very grave—that when the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Paris, or my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office here, makes a communication to the country, that communication is made by a responsible Minister, who is bound to take care that that which he states is an accurate description of the communication which it is intended to make, so that no question can at any time arise as to the authenticity of the statement or the correctness of the report which is made. It cannot be the same with such communications coming through private individuals. I think it right, therefore, to place it upon record, as far as a statement in this House can do so, that the proceeding is utterly irregular, and I trust it will never be drawn into a precedent. I do not in the least find fault with my hon. Friends for communicating with the Emperor of the French on any matter on which they think they ought to do so. Only they ought to have followed the course which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland said he followed on a former occasion—namely, that of communicating to Lord Cowley that which had been stated to them, and that which it was important should be made known to the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland said, very truly, he had been in communication with the Emperor of the French for the last three years on subjects connected with commerce and navigation. He rather implied that he was employed by Her Majesty's Government for that purpose. That is not exactly the case. The hon. Member stated that he was going to Paris, and thought, from his commercial knowledge and his acquaintance with navigation, that he might be able to convey to the Emperor information which might be useful to him in framing his measures for the alteration of the French Navigation Code. He stated that to me and to my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office. We said, "We should be very glad that you should employ your special knowledge for that purpose." We did not ask him to do it. He offered and we accepted, and we gave him an introduction to Lord Cowley in order that he might procure access to the Emperor for that purpose. So far what he did was perfectly regular, well-considered, and founded on the best intentions. Of course, my hon. Friend has information which we have not in the same detail, and from his own practical experience he could give useful information to the Emperor, with a view to the framing of future legislation on the French Maritime Code. But then my hon. Friend went on to say, that having returned to this country, he offered to communicate to my noble Friend and myself the result of his communications with the Emperor, and that he got a letter from me which was written, I think, from the country. As far as I can recollect, for I have not refreshed my memory by looking at that letter, I have no doubt that what I then stated was what I state now—namely, that if the Emperor of the French, in consequence of the representations and information laid before him by my hon. Friend had any proposal to make to the British Government, that proposal ought to come through some responsible channel—either through the Emperor's Ambassador here or through our Ambassador at Paris. It is not the habit of the English Government to carry on what may be called a double diplomacy. We have public and official organs of communication with foreign Powers; and I think it highly objectionable to have private communications made through individuals touching those matters which ought to be the subject of official communications. That was what I stated—I trust courteously—to my hon. Friend; and that was the reason why I thought it better that we should not receive any communication coming from the Emperor through him. I did not intend to offer any discouragement to the useful exertions of my hon. Friend in seeking to infuse more liberal commercial principles into the French Government. I simply meant to say that it is objectionable for Her Majesty's Government to be employing private persons, however honourable or intelligent, in carrying on communications with foreign Governments, instead of conducting them through the official and legitimate organs. This case is entirely different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), because he was employed by the Government to negotiate in concert with our Ambassador at Paris; and although he was too high-minded to receive any actual appointment or salary, he was clearly a diplomatic agent, employed specifically by the Government for a special purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland did not hold that character. He was a private gentleman, going to Paris to give information which he possessed in an eminent degree, and which would be very useful; but he was not employed by the Government; and therefore I thought, and my noble Friend (Earl Russell) also thought, it was not desirable that we should have backward and forward communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Emperor of the French through my hon. Friend. I should hope, Sir, that this discussion may end here. I think my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) is right in the decision he has taken; and I trust we shall have no further debate as to what was said by the Emperor, or what was said by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland said, that if the Emperor had thought him a busybody, the next time be knocked at the door of the Tuileries His Majesty might say, "Not at home." Well, I think that these discussions in this House are not encouraging to a ready opening of the door of the Tuileries to those whose presence there and whose opinions and information might really be found very useful.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, that the tone which had been taken by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) on the present occasion was very different from the tone which he took when he brought the subject before the House, But he wished, before the Motion was withdrawn, to enter his humble but emphatic protest against the spirit of hostility to America in which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield's Motion had been conceived, and also to free himself from any possible imputation of sharing in the smallest degree in the vindictive feelings which had manifestly taken possession of that hon. and learned Gentleman's mind. His feelings towards America, both North and South, were very different from those of the hon. and learned Gentleman. His feelings were those of unbounded gratitude and the warmest affection; and he ventured to say, in his place in Parliament, on behalf of the majority of his countrymen that they entertained similar feelings towards America, both North and South. ["No, no!"] There might be a difference of opinion; he had stated his—and he must say he did not think they would so far forget what they owed to America as to become consenting parties to a policy which ostensibly had for its object the recognition of the independence of the South, but in reality sought, by recognising the South, to take the surest and safest means of striking a deadly blow at the greatness and prosperity of America. He should say no more on this occasion but that he was sorry the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman had not received an emphatic denial by the House. Though his sympathies leaned more to the North than to the South, it was simply because the object of the North had been the reconstruction of the Union. If, however, by the triumph of the South the Union should be restored, he would equally rejoice, considering that one of the greatest calamities that could befall, not only America, but the world, had been averted.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, that no country in Europe had more interest in a full discussion of the American question than Ireland, for the simple reason that thousands of her sons had been slaughtered in the contest now going on in America, and for a cause not their own. Owing to some want of energy on the part of Her Majesty's Administration, it was stated that at the present moment the subjects of the Queen were being daily enlisted to engage in that fratricidal war. He did not think that the hon. Member could have convinced any one, much less the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, that the people of Ireland did not want the subject discussed. He did not object to the withdrawal of the Motion; but he did not think there was any room for a sneer on the occasion, seeing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated many months ago—in October last year—as plainly as he could speak, that the South had shown all the qualities of a great nation. The Government of America complained of that statement as a breach of the laws of neutrality; but it could be no reflection on any Member to think that the South was a nation now, when the most eminent Member representing Her Majesty's Government, making capital for the Northern States, proclaimed the greatness of the South in October last, whatever might be the opinion of the Government now.

MR. NEWDEGATE

quite agreed with the noble Lord at the head of the Government in the constitutional answer he had given to the hon. Member for Sunderland respecting the mode of communication between Sovereign Powers; and he felt thankful to the noble Lord for warning the House against a repetition of the proceedings which had been adopted. Such proceedings were not only in derogation of the prerogatives of the Crown, but, as any one could easily foresee, might lead to the gravest complications between this and other States.

Motion agreed to.

Order read, and discharged.