The Marquess of Clanricardehad a question to put to the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs, upon a point of considerable interest and importance. There had appeared in the newspapers of Paris and this country reports of a conversation between the French ambassador at this court and the noble Earl opposite, respecting the occupation of Algiers by the French. He was well aware of the delicacy and importance of the subject, and he should not, therefore, express any opinion on it, in order to avoid the possibility of giving offence in any quarter. There could be no doubt that the best possible understanding ought always to be maintained between this nation and France; and there was no person more alive to the dangers and inconveniences that must arise to both countries, and to Europe in general, from even the slightest temporary estrangement between the two countries; but, at the same time, as between individuals, so between governments, a clear understanding on all matters on which any discussion may have arisen, was most conducive to harmony and good feeling; and Parliament, in this matter, he thought, was bound to ascertain the facts; a matter of so much importance to the public having been mooted, Parliament, he would repeat, was bound to ascertain whether it were true that Government had committed this country to the extent to which, according to one report, it would appear that this country had been committed. There had been two different versions of the conversation in question. He should not quote the words, or enter into any examination of the expressions attributed to the noble Earl; but it had also been reported by the press of this country that the First Minister of the Crown of England" had stated that there was no substantial difference between the two reports. Now, if the right hon. Baronet had expressed 122 such an opinion, he (Lord Clanricarde) had the misfortune to differ from him, for, in his view of the matter, the two versions of the conversation differed widely in their meaning and import. The first version conveyed to his mind the impression that when the French Ambassador entered into conversation on the subject, the noble Earl rather avoided the matter, and declined to express, on the part of his Government, any feeling or opinion on the matter at the present moment, and under existing circumstances. But the other version made the noble Earl state that Great Britain gave her distinct and positive acquiescence in the permanent occupation by France, and in that government's assertion of the sovereignty of Algiers and the country around it, now overrun by the French troops. He did not credit this latter version, because he did not think it probable that her Majesty's Ministers would so commit this country, lightly and gratuitously; and he further thought it quite impossible that these ministers could have taken such a step without making communication to Parliament. The question, then, which he wished to put to the noble Earl was, whether he had made, on the part of his Government, any communication to the French ambassador affecting the government and sovereignty of Algiers and the country about it now occupied by France.
§ The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that the noble Marquess having had the courtesy to give him notice of this question that morning, he was prepared to answer it. Noble Lords might recollect, that at the period of the French expedition to Algiers, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) then held the same office which he had now the honour to fill. The noble Marquess at that time asked him, he believed, some questions respecting negotiations which were going on on the subject, to which he had furnished replies. In 1833, he believed it was, in consequence of something that had taken place elsewhere, he found himself under the necessity of moving for the production of the papers which afforded an explanation of what had taken place at the period of the French expedition to Africa, and the noble Lord then at the head of the Government not only made no objection to the production of these papers, but expressed himself highly satisfied with the manner in which he had moved for their production. From that day to this he had never returned to this subject. He had thought it incumbent 123 on him at that time, for his own honour and veracity, to require the production of that correspondence, but, from that time to the present, he had left the Matter entirely in the hands of the late Government. He had felt that any interference would only embarrass them, and do no good to the public service, and he had therefore abstained from saying a Word on the subject. When her Majesty, some months ago, was pleased to call him to the office which he how held, he naturally felt that among the various subjects which must engage his attention, and form the subject of discussion, the occupation of Algiers would be very likely to do so; and considering the part he had taken, and the office he had filled, and again occupied, he felt that the language he might hold on the subject might be a matter of some importance to the French government and to this country, and he felt that he had but One course to pursue; he felt that whatever he might have conceived himself called upon to do, had he been appointed to office in 1831, that coming into office in the year 1841, after ten years of silence, it was not his business to take any new course, other than that which had been followed by those who preceded him. He had, therefore, had no hesitation in making up his mind what course to pursue; and this was, retaining all the opinions he had before held and expressed on the Subject of Algiers, to give no opinion on the subject unless called upon to do so, The conversation to which the noble Marquess referred was altogether an incidental one, not arising out of any proposition made to him (the Earl of Aberdeen) by the French ambassador—a conversation, in short, of quite a confidential and familiar nature, though very properly reported, no doubt, by the French ambassador to his government. There was no communication of any official correspondence or instructions, but there was, no doubt, matter which the Count St. Aulaire thought of some interest to his government. He had not the slightest doubt that M. de St. Aulaire was convinced that he had made a perfectly correct report of the conversation; for he might take this opportunity of declaring, and most explicitly, that it had never happened to him to have to deal with a more honourable and high-minded man than the present French ambassador, and it was a most fortunate thing for both 124 countries that France was so represented in this country. But when he (the Earl of Aberdeen) saw the report of this conversation, as given in the French Chamber of Deputies, it certainly did occur to him that it was liable to erroneous inferences, and, in point of fact, he perceived that erroneous inferences had been drawn from it; and he therefore thought it incumbent on him, without delay, to rectify the error into which the French ambassador had inadvertently fallen. He therefore at once wrote to our ambassador at Paris, and he would read to their Lordships the contents of the despatch, and afterwards lay it on the Table. The despatch was dated January 28, and rah thus:—
Foreign Office, Jan. 28, 1842.
"My LORD—My attention has been directed to a report in the Moniteur, of a speech delivered in the Chamber of Deputies, by M. Guizot, on the 20th inst. On that occasion his Excellency read in the tribune an account of a conversation between the Count St. Aulaire and myself, which had reference to the French possession in Africa, and which had been transmitted by the ambassador to the French minister.
"In this relation the Count St. Aulaire observes, 'I began by asserting that the security of our African possessions was for us an interest of the highest importance, Which we could not allow to give way before any consideration; and Lord Aberdeen, after having listened to me attentively, said, I am very glad to be able to explain myself distinctly to you upon this point. I was minister in 1830. If I were to go back to that time, I should have much to say; but I take affairs as they were in 1841, and in the state in which they have been left by preceding Cabinets. I, therefore, look upon your position in Africa as a fail accompli, against Which I have no further objection to make.'
"Now, I readily subscribe to the accuracy of this statement, with the exception of the last sentence. I never said that I had now no objection to make to the establishment of the French in Algiers, but that I had now no observation to make on the subject, and that it was my intention to be silent. The context shows that such was my meaning, and, in fact, this decision was the result of mature reflection. I felt that after ten years of acquiescence any objections at the present moment would have been misplaced, and that the course which it would have been impossible for me formerly to have adopted had now become entirely consistent with propriety and duty. It does not follow, however, that objections, although not expressed, may not be entertained.
"I have explained to the French ambassador the misapprehension into which he had fallen, and the erroneous statement which, in 125 consequence, he had made to his government.
"With the same object in view, your Excellency will have the goodness to read this despatch to Monsieur Guizot. I am, &c.
§ (Signed) "ABERDEEN."
§ This was the despatch which he had sent to Lord Cowley. Lord Cowley obeyed his instructions, and there the matter ended. He had only now, by command of her Majesty, to lay the copy of the despatch on their Lordships' Table.
§ Despatch laid on the Table.