§ MR. DISRAELI—I wish, by the permission of the House, to take this opportunity of adverting to a statement which I made in the course of a debate the other night with reference to the conduct of our Plenipotentiary at the Conference of Paris. His name having been introduced in the course of the debate somewhat unexpectedly, with the view of influencing the House in an impending decision, I stated that our Plenipotentiary at the Conference of Paris had entered into a conspiracy against the freedom of the press on the Continent of Europe—especially in Belgium. I do not wish to enter into any controversy upon the statement I made that night with any individual, or in any quarter, whatever; but I think it important that when statements are made by Members of this House—particularly by those who take a leading part in its affairs—this House should be satisfied that those statements are accu- 28 rate. It is unnecessary for me to enter into any argument on the question. I have only to refer to documents upon our table which will vindicate the statement that I made. It has been alleged that that statement of mine must be inaccurate, because on the occasion in question our Plenipotentiary at the Conference, in answer to an invitation given to the Representatives of different States to address themselves to the subject of the excesses of the press in Belgium—and to the necessity of having recourse to measures to restrain its liberty, stated that it was not for him, as the Minister of a Constitutional country, where the freedom of the press was established, to enter into any union of action for the coercion of the press. But, at the same time, our Plenipotentiary expressed an opinion that if the excesses alluded to by the French Minister were experienced in Belgium, those who committed those excesses were undeserving of the protection which guaranteed to the press its liberty and its independence. It has been said that the most perverted ingenuity could not twist that expression of opinion into an act of conspiracy. Now, Sir, I am perfectly willing to admit that if that was all that was said or done on that subject in the Conference of Paris by our Plenipotentiary my remarks were not only unjustifiable, but they were absurd. Because, an expression of opinion, however objectionable, cannot, by any straining of language, be construed into an act of conspiracy, which must necessarily be an act involving combination with others. I wish to refer to the Protocols of the Conference of Paris, which are on the table of the House, and at the disposition of every hon. Gentleman, in order to illustrate and to explain what really took place. On the occasion in question the Minister of the Emperor of the French called the attention of the Members of the Conference to the great excesses committed by the press, and especially by the press of Belgium, and insisted that some measures of coercion should be adopted in order to terminate evils which otherwise would be productive of great disadvantage to Europe, and would occasion a disturbance of the friendly understanding between nations. On that occasion, no doubt, the Plenipotentiary of Her Majesty did express himself in the manner to which I have adverted; but he was not the only individual who on that occasion expressed his opinion. The Ministers of all the Powers who were represented at 29 the Conference in turn expressed their views, and, generally stated, the opinions which they individually expressed were these—an acknowledgment and denunciation of the excesses of the press, especially in Belgium, and their strong and unequivocal opinion that means should be taken to coerce the liberty of the press, and to terminate its action. Well, then, Sir, that happened which always happens when there is a meeting of this nature. Gentlemen will find on reference to the Protocols that every Representative of the Powers present having expressed his opinion, eventually the general opinion of the meeting is ascertained, and is expressed in a concluding paragraph, which denotes the unity of opinion and action of those present at the Conference. The language of the concluding passage in the present instance is before me, and I will read it to the House—
That all the Plenipotentiaries, and even those who considered themselves bound to reserve the principle of the liberty of the press, have not hesitated loudly to condemn the excesses in which the Belgian newspapers indulge with impunity, by recognizing the necessity of remedying the real inconveniences which result from the uncontrolled licence which is so greatly abused in Belgium.That conclusion of the discussion in the Conference was signed by all present, and among the signatures I find that of the Plenipotentiary of Her Majesty at the Conference. Therefore, I think, I was perfectly justified in the remark which I made that there was a combination, or conspiracy, or whatever phrase you may wish to apply to it—that there was joint action among various individuals, who arrived at a common determination and who by subscribing their names proved that they were prepared to carry into effect the recommendations which they had made. But, Sir, when those Protocols arrived in England there was a feeling of great indignation and alarm throughout the country. The matter was brought in detail before the House of Commons by a right hon. Friend of mine, and also by a noble Friend who sits near me. I will not advert to the observations which either of them made, or to any observations which I may have offered on that occasion, because it may be imputed to us that we were influenced by party motives, though on such subjects I trust no strong feeling of partizanship will ever prevail in this House. But there can be no doubt that there was in this House at the time an unanimous feeling on the subject. For 30 my own vindication, and for the satisfaction of those whom I now address, I will refer to the language of one who, whatever may be his position in this House, will always be one of the highest authorities within it, who had been a colleague of the Plenipotentiary of the Queen, and is now also one of his colleagues, and who on that occasion entered into a discussion of all the questions entertained during the negotiations at Paris, with an ability which, I am sure, those who listened to it still remember. Let me read a passage from his address with regard to the Protocol I have already referred to—I do not know whether the House has fully appreciated the purport of that passage, but so important, so momentous, and grave is the fact that a passage couched in those terms should go forth to the world with the signature of the British Plenipotentiary appended to it, that I venture to bring it again under the notice of the Government. The substance of the 22nd Protocol is summed up at the end under four heads, and the fourth, which touches the point, refers to Belgium. And, not in the name of any one, but in the whole assembled Plenipotentiaries, it recites as follows.The recital here is the concluding passage of the Protocol which I have already read to the House, and then the speaker continues—So that, according to this ill-omened passage, the licence of the press under Belgian law is greatly abused; there is a necessity for remedying the evils which arise from it, and the necessity of remedying the evils which arise from it is recognized by every Plenipotentiary, even those who considered themselves bound to reserve the principle of the liberty of the press. These propositions are of a most formidable character. They touch us very nearly. If the Belgian press be free, what is the press of England?Now, those words were used by the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House—I think well-considered words, and words which were unanimously recognized by the House at the time as a perfect expression of the general sentiment of this Assembly. I have shown, therefore, I trust, to the House that the observations 1 made the other night were neither unjustifiable nor reckless. For I have been told that if I spoke with a knowledge of these proposals my observations were unjustifiable, and if I spoke without a knowledge of them that they were reckless. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman vindicated the law of the press prevailing in Belgium, which is a just and a liberal law, and he said this—In the Protocol it is intimated clearly enough that if the Belgian law be not altered by gentle means recourse must be had to compulsion.31 I have placed this matter, I hope dispassionately, before the House. After the observations which I made on a former occasion, and having been challenged in a manner which I could not pass unnoticed, I felt it my duty to bring the matter before the House. I think I was justified in the language which I used. The policy thus held up to the reprobation of the House by the right hon. Gentleman, as well as by my friends, was pursued for two years. There was an understanding, no doubt, with the French Government and with others, to effect these changes, and that policy culminated at last in the Conspiracy Bill, which was the cause of the subversion of the first Government of Lord Palmerston.
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, not being aware that the right hon. Gentleman intended to bring this subject before the House, I am not prepared fully to answer him. But on the occasion to which he alludes the right hon. Gentleman did not confine himself to making one accusation against Lord Clarendon. He made three distinct accusations against the noble Lord, which, he said, incapacitated him from again being charged with the management of the Foreign Affairs of this country. The first accusation was that he had entered into a conspiracy for the suppression of the free press of Europe. The second charge was that he had agreed to an alteration of the boundaries of Turkey, depriving Turkey of a portion of her territory, and that it required all Lord Palmerston's influence to reconcile the people of this country to the proposal. The third was that he had neglected to support the Circassians in the establishment of a free monarchy on the coast of the Black Sea. I am able to state that all these three charges have no foundation whatever, that they are all, one and each of them, entirely opposed to the facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted a passage from the end of the Protocol of the Conference of Paris. Perhaps the House will allow me to read from the Protocol itself what actually took place. Count Walewski having called the attention of the Conference to the subject of the press, on the ground that the Belgian press more especially was accustomed to preach the doctrine of assassination as regards the Emperor of the French, thereby inciting persons in France and elsewhere to assassinate the Emperor, and having suggested that something should be done to prevent 32 the press from holding such language, what was the reply made by Lord Clarendon to that proposal? Lord Clarendon, after the matter had been somewhat discussed [Cries of "Order, order!"]—I am reading from the Protocol—replied in the following terms:—
As regards the observations offered by Count Walewski on the excesses of the Belgian press and the dangers which result therefrom for the adjoining countries, the Plenipotentiaries of England admit their importance; but, as the representatives of a country in which a free and independent press is, so to say, one of the fundamental institutions, they cannot associate themselves to measures of coercion against the press of another State.There is a distinct and clear statement on the part of Lord Clarendon as Plenipotentiary of this country. He went on to say—The first Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, while deploring the violence in which certain organs of the Belgian press indulge, does not hesitate to declare that the authors of the execrable doctrines to which Count Walewski alludes, the men who preach assassination as the means of attaining a political object, are undeserving of the protection which guarantees to the press its liberty and its independence.The House will see from those words that Lord Clarendon did not speak of the press as being undeserving of the protection which guaranteed its liberty, but of those who preached assassination as being undeserving of that protection. Lord Clarendon drew very distinctly the difference between the press and the men who preached assassination in expressing his opinion before the Conference that the latter were not deserving of the protection which was granted to the liberty of the press. That is what passed at the Conference, and I think that it clearly shows that Lord Clarendon in no way associated himself in any conspiracy against the liberty of the press; but, on the contrary, that he laid down the principle that as the Plenipotentiary of this country he could not associate himself in any measures for the restriction of the liberty of the press. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought this matter before the House, Lord Palmerston explained what had taken place at the Conference, and his explanation was considered so satisfactory that from that day to this no one had raised a discussion on the point until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire referred to it the other night. Lord Palmerston said— 33Lord Clarendon very properly declared that, as the representative of a country of which the freedom of the press was one of the fundamental institutions, he could not identify himself with any measure tending to destroy that liberty in any other country; and there is nothing in the concluding sentence adverted to by the noble Lord the Member for Colchester which diminished the force of that declaration.And he further said—My noble Friend expressed his determination calmly that he would have nothing to do with any proceeding which tended to any practical restriction of the freedom of the press; and I think the House will perceive that, though those expressions were couched in civil and courteous language, they were not the more liable to be misunderstood, and were quite as effective as if uttered in a violent and angry manner. I can assure the House that, if my noble Friend were left to his own natural impulse, he would never give any countenance to an infringement of the liberty of the press.That was Lord Palmerston's reply to the charge made in this House against Lord Clarendon, and from that day to this it has been regarded as entirely satisfactory by this House and the country. With regard to Turkey the real state of the case was exactly the contrary to that which would appear from the charge made by the right hon. Gentleman; because after the war there was an addition to the territory of Turkey, and if the right hon. Gentleman looks to the Protocol he will find that it was principally owing to Lord Clarendon that that territory was ceded. I allude to the Bessarabian frontier. It was given to Turkey and a strip of land was given to Moldavia, by means of which cession Russia was deprived of an important portion of territory which gave her access to the Danube. Therefore as Lord Clarendon was an effective instrument in obtaining for Turkey an increase of territory, this accusation also falls to the ground. With regard to the third charge made by the right hon. Gentleman, when the war broke out with Russia it was the desire of the English and French Governments that Circassia should take part in the struggle. The English sent Mr. Longworth to Circassia as their agent, and the French Government also sent an agent, in order to see whether the Circassians would rise against Russia; but though the Circassians had had hostilities with Russia, they were just then at peace with the Russian Empire, and they positively refused to take any part in the contest. Some tribes who had been for a long time at war with Russia agreed to a meeting with the agents, but they never 34 came; the agents completely failed in their mission; and of their own accord the Circassians took no part in the war between the allies and Russia. At a subsequent period the Circassians sent agents to this country, asking our Government to support their claims to an independent sovereignty. The answer of the Government was that at the time when there was an opportunity for asserting their independence—the time when they might have had the support of England and France—they took no steps to do so, and that therefore we could hold out no hope to them. Would the Government have been justified at that time, after the close of the war, in engaging in a new war with Russia in order to assert the independence of the Circassian people, who had refused to assert it themselves when an opportunity offered for their being supported by England and France? These are the facts of the case, and I venture to say that every accusation which the right hon. Gentleman has raised against Lord Clarendon is utterly without foundation, and that these charges all fall to the ground.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERS saidI had no idea that the hon. Gentleman was going into a discussion upon the conduct of England towards Circassia in 1857, but I must say that the hon. Gentleman has taken upon himself to give a perfectly novel and an utterly erroneous view of the whole circumstances of the case. Without having the opportunity of consulting the Protocols, I take upon myself to say that in one or two most important particulars the hon. Gentleman—no doubt, unconsciously—is quite wrong. The hon. Gentleman has told the House that the efforts of Mr. Longworth and the agent of the French Government were entirely unavailing; that they could not induce the Circassians to enter into the matter; and that it was not till the war between the allies and Russia had concluded that the Circassians sent here to see if they could get any assistance against Russia. If that were so, I ask what need was there of a Protocol on the subject of the portion of territory on the Black Sea, conquered by the Circassians from Russia during the war? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the present Prime Minister made a statement as to the efforts of the English Plenipotentiary to retain for Circassia the forts so conquered by the Circassians. It appeared, however, that for some time the English Plenipotentiary ceased to make any effort for 35 the independence of Circassia, and handed her over to the tender mercies of Russia. There is no doubt that in the war Circassia did such service to the allies as to deprive Russia of all communication with three or four most important military posts previously occupied on the Circassian coast, but Circassia was at last abandoned when the terms of the peace were announced. That is as palpable and notorious as any fact in history. When the peace was announced I myself, and my noble Friend the Member for Tyrone, raised a debate in this House on the terms of that peace and on the conduct of the English Government towards the Circassians. That debate lasted two nights, I think, and the subject was very fully discussed; but I venture to say that never for a moment did any one in office or out of office contend that Circassia had had nothing to do with the matter, and had taken no part in it. And now for the practical conclusion of this question. I ask the hon. Gentleman, and I ask the House, whether my right hon. Friend was not right in saying that Lord Clarendon, as the Plenipotentiary of this country, did give up all the claims of Circassia? Is not the noble Earl responsible for the termination of the existence of Circassia as a nation? Now she has scarcely a name; now she has ceased to occupy any independent position whatever. My noble Friend the Member for Tyrone and myself ventured to predict what has been accomplished; and to the course taken by the English Plenipotentiary at the Conference is to be attributed the spoliation of all the national life of Circassia.