RESOLUTIONS.

HL Deb 23 April 1860 vol 157 cc2112-40

THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY

rose to move to resolve— That it appears by the Papers lately laid before Parliament, and especially by a Despatch from Earl Cowley to Lord John Russell, dated 5th February, that the French Minister had stated, and truly, that the Intention of The Emperor of the French to take Possession of Savoy under certain Contingencies had been made known to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, and by him communicated to Her Majesty's Secretary of State on more than one Occasion between the 12th of July 1859 and the 25th of January 1860 in private Letters: That while this House fully recognizes the Necessity of a private Correspondence between the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Representatives abroad, it is of opinion that all Facts of International Importance ought to be made Matter of official Correspondence, and as such to remain on record for the Use not only of the Government of the Day but of their Successors in Office, to be produced to or withheld from Parliament by the Ministers of the Crown on their Responsibility: That the Absence of any such Record, more 'especially if such private Correspondence is referred to in public Despatches,' is injurious to the Public Service, unjust alike to the Foreign Minister who made the Communication and to official Colleagues at Home, and calculated to withhold important Matter from the full and free Control of Parliament. The noble Marquess said, that it was some time since he had given notice of his intention to move his Resolution, but the discussion had been postponed from time to time by no fault of his. Before Easter he consented to postpone his Motion in consequence of a statement made in "another place" by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign office, that any discussion on the affairs of Savoy at that time might prejudice the negotiations which were then pending; and more lately he had consented to a farther postponement for reasons which would be fresh in the recollection of their Lordships. It was stated by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) that the postponement would be convenient on public grounds, because it was considered by Earl Cowley that his Resolutions implied a censure upon him, and that his Lordship desired to be present at the discussion and was then at Calais detained by stress of weather. He (the Marquess of Normanby) assured the noble Earl that his Resolutions were not intended to convey any censure on his noble Friend, and expressed his intention to disavow any such purpose whenever he should be able to bring the subject before their Lordships' House. As his noble Friend could not be absent from his post at Paris without inconvenience to the public service, he thought these assurances might have rendered it unnecessary for him to come over. However, his noble Friend was now present in the House, and their Lordships were all delighted to see him; and perhaps in the course of the evening they would receive from him some interesting explanation upon one or two points which required to be cleared up. His noble Friend, he could assure him, was under an entire misapprehension as to the intended effect of his Resolutions. He considered the Secretary of State alone responsible for the manner and form in which negotiations of this importance were carried on. The Ambassador's name was only mentioned as a witness as to the fact. The object of the Resolutions was general, they were entirely prospective, and their intention was to guard the public service from certain irregularities, which did injustice both to the Minister of the foreign Court, giving the information and to the colleagues of the Secretary of State at home as they had thereby no official record to refer to. It was obvious from their very phraseology that they did not apply personally to his noble Friend. It would be useless therefore to go further into that view of the subject, and he would only state for his own satisfaction that nothing could be more unpleasant to him than that it should be supposed that having himself held the same situation as his noble Friend now so ably filled, and having felt all its difficulties, he should have sought occasion, especially in his noble Friend's absence, to criticise any act of his in a hostile spirit or even in a manner that should be displeasing to him. And he had this further remark to make—that whatever might be the responsibility of an Ambassador, the moment his acts were approved of and adopted by his own Government his responsibility entirely ceased. Now, the Resolutions which he had laid before their Lordships contained a declaration of principles which had obtained from time immemorial; and the reason why he had called upon their Lordships to reaffirm those principles was, that in the course of these transactions a great excitement in reference to the relations between the two countries had been created through the act of the noble Lord now at the head of the Foreign Office in having made a serious departure from the established usage with respect to communications received from our diplomatic representatives abroad. It was his duty to put such important communications in a regular form, and those Resolutions clearly laid down such principles for the future. But he repeated, that neither the terms nor the intention of the Resolutions conveyed any censure:—yet to his surprise he was asked the other evening, incidentally to the conversation on the postponement of his Motion, whether it was his intention to turn out the Government? He was perfectly at a loss to conceive how such an interpretation could be put upon a proposition which merely implied, and that inferentially, that the proceedings of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office had not been perfectly unassailable in point of regularity or of judgment. Surely noble Lords opposite did not wish to appear more susceptible for the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary than that noble Lord was for himself. Why, within the last few days the noble Lord himself, in a public despatch, had handsomely apologised to Baron Schleinitz for the grave error into which he had fallen by the publication of a despatch from our Ambassador at Berlin, containing an account of certain confidential conversations with Baron Schleinitz. Although he could not but regret that any Minister should have exposed himself to such a rebuke as was contained in the Despatch read to him by Count Bernsdorff, at the same time he was glad the noble Lord had made this admission; because if he had not done so it would have been impossible in any discussion on foreign affairs in that House to avoid characterizing the publication of that conversation as a flagrant violation of diplomatic usage. The noble Lord had apologized to Baron Schleinitz for that irregularity; but there was another person who had been placed in an invidious position by that act—namely, his noble relative, Lord Bloomfield, to whom he hoped the noble Lord had conveyed similar expressions of regret. Lord Bloomfield had only done his duty in conveying the particulars of the conversation in question to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who, on the other hand, had made a use of the communication which he had no right to do, thereby, as he was told by Baron Schleinitz, injuriously affecting the intimacy of the relations between the two countries. If the complaint of Baron Schleinitz under these circumstances was very properly accepted as a rebuke by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, surely the Government had no right to consider that he (the Marquess of Normanby) was doing wrong in calling their Lordships' attention to another irregularity which was much more general in its tendency. It was therefore impossible to believe that any Government would cover themselves with ridicule by going to the country and saying that they had abandoned their posts because the House of Lords had chosen to express its opinion that the Foreign Secretary had not entirely acted to its satisfaction in the conduct of official correspondence. Their Lordships might, therefore, he thought, come to a decision on the Resolutions, free from any alarm as to ulterior consequences.

Since he had given notice of the Resolutions he had examined the papers presented to both Houses of Parliament, and compared their dates with those of the information which their Lordships had at various times received from Her Majesty's Government. And as much of these affairs had been conducted by means of private correspondence, and the information afforded to them was very meagre, it was the more important that such information as they did receive should be accurate in all its bearings; but he had found it impossible to reconcile the discrepancies which were but too evident between the statements made, and the information shown to have been at that time in the possession of Government, he therefore thought it fair to give the noble Lords the occasion to make some further explanation, before these events passed into the domain of history. When one looks back to the discussions which took place at the beginning of the Session, not yet three months since, when one recollects the light and careless way in which so-called explanations were given by the Ministers in both Houses, one can hardly believe that they related to the same transactions which have now become accomplished facts. It was not his intention now to renew the debate on the Savoy question, except to say that he thought the suppression or the delay on the part of the Government in producing communications containing important facts might, in some degree, have contributed to that catastrophe which had excited the sympathy and indignation of the people of this country. The noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, had expressed his satisfaction at the tone of the first debate which had taken place in their Lordships' House on the subject of Savoy. He (the Marquess of Normanby) was very happy to acknowledge the compliment on behalf of their Lordships, because he thought that they themselves had reason to be very much satisfied with the debate, because he thought nothing was now gained by the application of intemperate language to the Sovereign of a foreign country. But he now regretted very much that he had been induced to withdraw his Address moved at that early stage of the question, when there appeared to be a chance of their interference being useful. He had intended his Motion as a support to Her Majesty's Government; but they did not think fit to regard it in that light, and he gave way in deference to their request, and withdrew it. Therefore, up to the present time, no direct declaration of opinion had been made on this subject by either House of Parliament; but he could not help feeling that a firm and temperate Resolution on the part of that and the other House would, if pronounced in time, and having the concurrence of all parties, have produced a favourable and forcible impression both in France and elsewhere. His Resolution, however, was declined by the Government. And now what was the last Parliamentary stage of the affair. After it had become impossible for Parliament to interfere with advantage, they had witnessed in the other House that exhibition of helpless irritation by the noble Foreign Secretary, who assumed a tone towards a foreign Sovereign which was never before heard from a Foreign Minister. The noble Lord, amid inconsiderate cheers from those whom he had previously silenced on that subject, said—[Earl GRANVILLE: Order!] he admitted that he was not in order in referring to a debate in the other House, and he would therefore only say if such sentiments were supposed to have been addressed to an English assembly it was strange that at the same time he only addressed to the French Minister a wordy despatch which that Minister justly said did not amount to a protest. He had been induced on the third day of the Session, in consequence of the information he had received, to call the noble Earl's attention to the article which had appeared in the semiofficial French paper called La Patrie, and the ground in which the annexation of Savoy to France was advocated in that journal—namely, that of nationality. He received on that occasion an incomplete and unsatisfactory reply; he was told that he had introduced extraneous matters, and that he had wasted their Lordships' time on the mere authority of newspaper para- graphs. But what was the fact? That discussion took place on the 27th of January. Their Lordships could not have been aware that at that very time the Patrie was at the Foreign Office, having been sent by Lord Cowley in a despatch dated the 25th and received by Her Majesty's Government on the 26th. Lord Cowley stated that it was more than probable that the Foreign Secretary would have been made acquainted with the rumour that there existed a secret treaty between France and Sardinia, entered into before the late war, by which the latter bound herself, in case her territory should be considerably increased in Italy by the event of the war, to cede Savoy to France. Lord Cowley added that he had no knowledge of the existence of the Treaty, and had many reasons for not believing it, but he was induced to call his Lordship's attention to the fact that the question of the annexation of Savoy to France was beginning to occupy the public mind very seriously, and that it was likely to be in the contemplation of the French Government if the Duchies, and more particularly the Romagna, were annexed to Sardinia. But this was not all. The same day brought another despatch, in which Lord Cowley said that Dr. Kern had stated to him he could not doubt that active measures were going on for the realization of the project, and hoping that Her Majesty's Government would remonstrate against the supposed intentions of the Emperor before it should be too late. That despatch also was received on the 26th. Judging from the reply of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) to his question on the 27th January his noble Friend never could have seen either of those despatches. He (the Marquess of Normanby) in putting the question said, that he was quite sure he should not be told that the Government had no information on the subject; as it turned out, however, he (the Marquess of Normanby) was better informed upon the matter than was the noble Earl himself. The answer, however, which he did receive was, that Her Majesty's Government had received no information as to the negotiations said to exist between France and Sardinia for the annexation of Savoy to France. From that answer their Lordships were probably inclined to believe that such a despatch as that to which he had referred, had never been written. He did think that Her Majesty's Ministers ought to be more careful in ascertaining the facts on which they had to reply before they gave an answer so eminently inconsistent with the exact state of affairs. But this was not all. The effect of all the answers which had been given on this subject in that and the other House of Parliament was to create an impression that this question of Savoy might have been spoken of in the month of July but had never been reverted to since. The first day that any glimmer of light broke through the profound darkness in which Her Majesty's Ministers sought to envelope the question was the 10th of February—a very important day in other respects, because it was on that evening that Mr. Gladstone introduced the Budget in the other House of Parliament. On that day, having received information of the most important character, he thought it necessary to ask the Government to give an immediate reply to a question he then put:—and he certainly used all the courtesy he could on the occasion, for he sent to the noble Lord a copy of the paper which contained it the evening before he put the Question. That Question was put, and he received the same reply of rather affected pleasantry, that Her Majesty's Government could not attend to newspaper paragraphs—that anything of that kind was unworthy the attention of the Government. But the effect of the information was that the rumours to which he had alluded on the former occasions were strictly true, and that all persons in Paris had become aware that the article in question had been inserted through the authority and under the inspiration of Count Walewski. For it was Lord Cowley who, in his despatch of the 5th of July, reported that Count Walewski had reminded him of the same facts stated in the newspaper cited by him, that between July and January he had repeatedly warned the Ambassador that if England succeeded in carrying out her policy of annexation in Central Italy, it must be "at the cost of Savoy and Nice," which must in that case pass to France. This despatch was written on the 5th of February, it is docketed as received on the 8th. It would have been convenient to some, perhaps inconvenient to others, if it had arrived in the usual course on the 6th, because then the information would have been in possession of the Government the night of my Motion for an Address on the 7th. At any rate, it is docketed as arrived the 8th, and it must have been eight-and- forty hours accessible to the noble Lords opposite when I put my question on the 10th. I am perfectly ready to believe that from circumstances the President of the Council had not seen it, but one must also believe that the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State had not seen it, else he could never have volunteered to inform the House that the subject was, so to say, dropped between July and January. Their Lordships would recollect that it was on the very evening on which Mr. Gladstone brought forward his Budget he had thought it his duty again to introduce this question stating that he was sorry to detain their Lordships from hearing the interesting speech of Mr. Gladstone, but that he thought it was quite time that their Lordships should have some distinct information on the subject. But the fact was that it was with a view to the effect of that Budget, that both that and the other House of Parliament had been kept without any distinct information on this subject. The secret of the Cabinet was for that night kept, and the whole effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech preserved from all present contact with stubborn facts; true, no one believed his assertion that this was not to be a union of the Goverment but a union of the nations. All saw that on the part of the Emperor the Treaty was required to keep the commercial measure from any popular control which would be fatal to them. That on our part, all had been hurried on in order that the meeting of Parliament might find this country so far committed as to make it dangerous to recede; but when Mr. Gladstone went on to say, This is not to be an union of the Governments; it is to be an union of the nations; and I confidently say again, as I have already ventured to say in this House, that there never can be any union between the nations of England and France except an union beneficial to the world, because directly cither the one or the other begins to harbour schemes of selfish aggrandizement, that moment the jealousy of its neighbour will powerfully react, and the very fact of their being in harmony will of itself be at all times the most conclusive proof that neither of them can meditate anything which is dangerous to Europe."—[3 Hansard, clvi., 836.] Every one who heard that statement believed that perfect harmony existed at that moment. That effort of oratorical art had cost the country something; but it was for the time successful, as it gave a Ministry which held the House of Commons by the slightest thread a strong temporary majority. But would the same effect have resulted had all the facts been known—had both Houses of Parliament been in possession of Lord Cowley's despatch—that measures for the promotion of what one of his colleagues afterwards called a scheme of selfish aggrandizement were at that time actually in operation, and that the harmony which was considered so perfect had been already broken? Had these facts been known the other House of Parliament would, in all probability, have thought the great national sacrifices they were required to make were not compensated by any counteracting advantages. Have the Ministers not been since found to avow that something was meditated, in their opinion, "dangerous to Europe?"

He now came to the part of the subject more directly involved in his Resolutions, namely, that part which affected the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in respect to the negotiations between France and Sardinia. No one knew better than Count Walewski how these proceedings would be scrutinized. Count Walewski is not unknown in this country. As French Ambassador he was for many years deservedly popular. It so happens that he was residing here in that character at a most extraordinary Ministerial catastrophe, which arose entirely from those irregularities in the conduct of diplomatic intercourse, of which I am now complaining. This was the cause of the summary dismissal of Lord Palmerston in 1851 by his present Foreign Secretary. When a very important communication is made to a Secretary of State by a Foreign Ambassador, it is the correct custom to record its substance to the English Ambassador abroad. Had Lord Palmerston adhered to this rule and communicated to him, as Ambassador at Paris, what he had said to M. Waleswki, he would never have incurred the consequences unknown to any other Statesman of having been dismissed with the unanimous assent of all his colleagues. Count Walewski on that occasion justly estimated his diplomatic duty. That which was told him by the English Minister, he considered as the property of his Government, and wrote an official despatch reporting Lord Palmerston's language; and when he (Lord Normanby) read Lord Palmerston's despatch to the French Minister, which had been agreed to in the Cabinet, he naturally remarked, "this is not the language of Lord Palmerston as quoted by Count Walewski in his despatch." He would not allude any further to the consequences thus produced, but had cited it as a proof that Count Walewski had every reason to suppose that Lord John Russell would be regular himself on these points; and should be surprised if any one engaged in these transactions shall consider this a light matter, when they recollect that Lord Palmerston's defence on that occasion was, that he considered the conversation "a private one," which excuse was accepted by no one. Having mentioned that subject he would, with their Lordships' permission, refer to a paper which he held in his hand, and which was remarkable as containing an incident which, until it was published in a London journal, had never come to his knowledge. The paragraph was contained in a journal published in London, and supposed to have relations with the French government, and he expected it was not written without authority. It was, in fact, the Imperial answer to Lord John Russell's speech in the House of Commons on the 5th of April. He would quote two extracts from this article in The Horning Chronicle, which, both from its tone and its type, showed that it had been inspired by high authority. It begins:— We learn from Paris that the Emperor has been equally afflicted and hurt at finding himself accused of having been deficient in good faith towards England with regard to the union of Savoy and Nice to France. No Power is less entitled than England to be astonished at a result which was worked out, so to speak, by her own policy, when, in opposition to the counsels of the French Government, she laboured to bring about the complete annexation of the Duchies of Parma and Modena, of the Legations, and of Tuscany, to the kingdom of Sardinia. From the very moment that policy was manifested, Count Walewski never ceased, in his conversations with Earl Cowley, to point out the necessities that it would impose on France. The English Ambassador could not have left his Government in ignorance of the persistent and invariable nature of the declarations made to him on that subject; and if there is anything to be surprised at, it is that the blue-book contains not one trace of a communication which ought to be found in the archives of the Foreign Office, and of which the production would have served to prove that Lord John Russell was never ignorant that the system of annexations which he warmly patronized would have for its corollary and complement the union of Savoy and Nice to France. The latest warning given to him on that head was from the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Thouvenel, a few days after his installation to office, when it was evident that the mode of solution proposed by the English Government would lead to the formation of a great State in the North of Italy. Here, in a few words, is a simple recital of facts. Where is the duplicity? We leave any sincere and honest man to judge. He now came to the despatch of the 24th of January, which was missing when the papers relative to the annexation of Savoy and Nice were presented, which might not at the first Hush appear to be of much importance, but in which Lord Cowley stated that he had no specific information on the subject. The "latest warning" seemed to have been given on the 25th, when Lord Cowley had for the first time an interview with M. Thouvenel, with respect to which there were two despatches which did not bear on the part of the case to which he was addressing himself. On the 25th of January, however, it was that Lord Cowley had written that first despatch to the Foreign Minister at home in which he distinctly stated that the annexation of Savoy and Nice would take place if Central Italy were united to Sardinia. It was very evident that Lord Cowley had then acquired information of which he was not possessed the day before, and it was also evident that instead of sending an official despatch he had forwarded an account of these transactions by means of private letters, and perhaps had been desired to do so. The explanation of the French Government in the matter, he might add, was that we had had repeated warning as to what was likely to occur, and that we ought to have been perfectly aware that the course which we had been pursuing since the signing of the Treaty of Villafranca must lead to the annexation which we deprecated. And what was that course? England, a Power which had objected to the war from the first, which had done so on the ground of respect to European treaties, which had professed neutrality and non-intervention, had, when the ink was hardly dry which signed the preliminaries between the belligerents, interposed her meddling intervention to mar the execution of the solemn engagements on the faith of which the curse of European war had been averted. On the 19th of July, a week only after the war was concluded, Lord John Russell wrote a despatch, recommending to the Provisional Government of Tuscany the immediate election of an Assembly to decide upon their future fate, though the Government of that country was still usurped by the Sardinian Commissioner, who had been recalled; therefore from the first the whole proceeding had not a semblance of legality. This course, all tending, as he knew, to the annexation of Savoy and Nice, the Foreign Secretary seems to have pursued by constant intrigues at Turin and elsewhere, up to the beginning of last month. There was much in the recent conduct of France which gave room for uneasiness as to the future, but he thought sufficient allowance had not been made for the necessities of the position made for the Emperor by the line pursued by the English Government. It had been asserted that at least one of the Cabinet was very early informed of this contingency, in the event of Venetia being annexed as well as Lombardy, and had not expressed any strong objection. But as far as French feeling was concerned, it would have been more fatal to Imperial prestige if, without compensation, he had consented to the creation of a new State, which should extend from the south of the Maremma to within forty miles of Lyons, with an uninterrupted coast line from near Civita Vecchia to the Var. Venetia annexed might have been more dangerous to Germany, but not so obnoxious to France. The last act of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary with reference to this quesion—the despatch of the 22nd of March, he (the Marquess of Normanby) was ready to admit was an able one; but at the same time he must express his opinion that it was certainly deficient in sincerity of statement. The noble Lord indulged in guess and hypothesis as to the line of the French Government on points upon which positive information had been furnished to him by the very agent he was addressing, and that was a course of which he (the Marquess of Normanby) must confess he could not approve. He believed that no advantage had been gained to Italy by the Treaty of Villafranca, still less by the violation of that treaty, to compensate for the misery, suffering, and bloodshed of the war. He had stated on previous occasions that he objected to the policy of all those measures; and, without reference to his own opinions, he thought there were indications that it was very possible the year 1860 might in its end resemble 1859, no more than the year 1849 resembled 1848. It was very possible that this newly constructed Italian kingdom might break down; the contingency would depend very much on the characters of the two persons under whose leadership the experiment had been made. With respect to the part which the King of Sardinia had acted in the matter, he believed that there never was a man of whom it might be more truly said than of Victor Emmanuel, who had grasped at the territories of his neighbours and given away his own, that he was alieni appetens, sui profusus. His conduct in abandoning Savoy, leaving Piedmont and adjourning its Legislature, had produced a great change in public opinion; and as to Count Cavour, he believed that neither in England nor elsewhere could he ever get over the fact, that when this barter was all settled he told his friend Sir James Hudson that Sardinia would never sell, exchange, nor surrender her territory. He wished by his Motion to cast censure on no man; but by refusing to adopt his Resolutions their Lordships would produce an impression that they approved transactions not sanctioned by the opinion of a great portion of the British public. He was well aware that any independent Member of their Lordships' House who took upon himself to introduce a question of this importance incurred a deep responsibility, but in the course which he had taken he was actuated by a strong sense of duty; and he therefore cordially recommended the subject to the attention of their Lordships. The noble Marquess concluded by moving the Resolutions.

EARL COWLEY

—My Lords, before I make any comment on the Resolutions which my noble Friend has just submitted to your Lordships. I beg to thank you for the courtesy shown to myself in postponing this discussion in order to afford me the opportunity of being present. I am sure that none of your Lordships will be astonished at my wish to take part in this debate. When I first read the Resolutions proposed by my noble Friend they appeared to me to contain so distinct and so specific a charge against myself, of being in some way or other instrumental in keeping back from your Lordships matters of great importance that I felt it necessary to ask permission of the Secretary of State to present myself before your Lordships in order that I might answer so grave a charge. It is perfectly clear that it is something which I am supposed to have done—or rather that I have left undone—which has induced my noble Friend to move these Resolutions—Resolutions which, if approved by your Lordships, notwithstanding what he says to the contrary, cannot appear to me in any other light than a vote of censure. The best way in which I can meet this charge is by simply stating to your Lordships all that has taken place with reference to those transactions. In the month of March, 1859, I received a communication from my noble Friend then at the head of the Foreign Department, stating that he had received information of a Treaty having been signed in the January preceding between France and Sardinia for the cession of Savoy to the former country, and desiring me to make inquiries into the truth of the rumour. I accordingly addressed myself to Count Walewski on the subject, and was assured by him that no such treaty existed. On the 4th of July, a despatch from Her Majesty's Minister in Switzerland passed through my hands in which, on the part of the Federal Council, he expressed apprehensions lest there should be an arrangement of that nature subsisting between France and Sardinia. Without waiting for instructions from Her Majesty's Government, I again went to Count Walewski, and he then told me that there had been discussions between the Governments of those two countries with respect to a cession of territory to France, and that it had been laid down on the part of France that if the event of the war were to make considerable territorial additions to Sardinia in Central Italy, France might think it necessary to demand some extension on the side of Savoy. I conveyed this information to Her Majesty's Government, and on the following day, the 5th of July, Her Majesty's Secretary of State addressed to me the instructions which are included in the papers that I hold in my hands; and I may say, once for all, that up to the time when the question took a more serious shape these instructions guided my conduct and influenced the conversations which I held with the French Government. On the 7th news of the armistice reached Paris; and on the 8th Count Walewski, in a conversation which I had with him, of his own accord, and without any provocation on my part, made a declaration that if at any time the idea of annexing Savoy to France had been entertained by his Government, it was entirely abandoned. This declaration was made unequivocally and without any reserve whatever. Your Lordships are aware that on the 11th the preliminaries of peace were signed at Villafranca. Your Lordships are also aware that those preliminaries received no acceptance in general by the populations of Italy, who thought they would benefit by becoming part of Sardinia, and they preferred annex- ation to that country to the arrangements made under the provisions of that treaty. Your Lordships are also aware that Count Walewski, from the moment those preliminaries were signed, was most anxious to carry out the stipulations which they embodied. It is perfectly true that in various conversations which I had with him, but particularly on the 25th of August and the 3rd of November, he declared to me his private opinion—I had no authority whatever to convey it to my Government—but he stated that, in his opinion, if the annexation of the Duchies to Sardinia were to take place, such a step would be followed by a demand for the annexation of Savoy to France. This was not an official communication made to me by Count Walewski; it was an observation which passed in common conversation, and I certainly did not take it, nor was it meant to be taken, as an official declaration which I was to forward to the British Government. Still, I thought it advisable to make it known to Government, and I accordingly did so in my private letters. Now, what would have been the consequence had I acted otherwise? I was in possession of the solemn declaration which Count Walewski gave in July, and if I had made the observation the subject of an official communication I should have involved my Government at once in the fruitless discussion of a question which to all appearance was about to engage the attention of a Congress, and I should have given up the advantage of the previous declaration which had been made to me, as I have already stated, unequivocally, and without any qualification whatever. Another consideration which weighed very strongly with me was that, I could not conceive that, whatever the wish or intention of France might be, it was possible that Sardinia would give up its territory. I did not believe that the King of Sardinia could alienate what has been well called "the cradle of his dynasty," and which, moreover, contains the last resting-place of his ancestors. My noble Friend, in the Resolutions which he has proposed, remarked that it is not usual to refer to private correspondence in public despatches. My Lords, I admit this; such a proceeding is undoubtedly irregular; but I think I can give your Lordships good reasons why I committed this irregularity. In the month of January last, when the change of Government, or rather the change in the Department for Foreign Affairs in France took place, I happened to be in this country on a short leave of absence. On my return to Paris I found the whole aspect of affairs altered. The question of the annexation of Savoy, which had completely fallen to the ground, was in everybody's mouth, and it consequently became necessary for me to speak to the new Minister for Foreign Affairs on the subject. The Congress, moreover, was no longer expected to assemble. As soon, therefore, as M. Thouvenel had assumed the direction of French Foreign Affairs I went and spoke to him on this question; but M. Thouvenel, from his long absence in Turkey, was so totally unacquainted with what had taken place that he told me on various occasions that, until he had had an opportunity of informing himself fully, he would give me no information. It was not until the 5th of February that he gave me any notification with respect to the intentions of the French Government. It is true that I had received information in the meantime from other sources that the matter was under the consideration of that Government, but it was only on the 5th that anything like an official communication was made to me. It was necessary for me then to recall M. Thouvenel's attention to the declarations formerly made to me; but before doing so I went to Count Walewski, who admitted the accuracy of my representations, but pointed out that on more than one occasion allusions had been made to the possibility of a demand by France for the annexation of Savoy in the event of territorial additions being made to Sardinia. In making my public report to the Secretary of State it seemed to me that it would be unfair not to make mention of Count Walewski's observations. I had the choice of doing that which was irregular or unfair. I could not hesitate between the two; and I think I have said enough to show to your Lordships that what I did was justifiable and proper, and I trust your Lordships will clearly understand that throughout these transactions there has been no communication withheld from Her Majesty's Government, and that the observations between Count Walewski and myself were proper subject-matter for private communication and not for official report. With regard to that part of the noble Marquess's Resolution which says that the "absence of any such record, more especially if such private correspondence is referred to in public despatches, is injurious to the public service, and unjust alike to the Foreign Minister who made the communication." My noble Friend who has so long been an ornament to the diplomatic service, must know that when a foreign Minister wishes to make a communication to a foreign Government, he has his own Ambassador or Minister to do it by, and that it is generally in that way that such communications are made. Now it does not appear that any communication of Count Walewski's opinion was ever made to M. de Persigny, and this is one of the greatest proofs that he had no intention to make it as official. My Lords, I am not sufficiently conversant with Parliamentary usages to know in what manner this Motion ought to be met; but I hope I have said enough to convince your Lordships that throughout the whole of these transactions no important communication was ever withheld by me from Her Majesty's Government, and that in making this particular communication by a private letter, and not in a public despatch, I did that which was most in conformity with the best interests of Her Majesty's service.

EARL GRANVILLE

—My Lords, I really think that, after the very clear, candid, and satisfactory answer given by the noble Earl to this Motion, and seeing that no Peer has risen to support it, I am only doing my duty in moving the Previous Question. The noble Marquess commenced by saying that no attack whatever was intended on the noble Earl by this Motion, and that he regretted extremely that it should have the appearance of it. I know enough of the good feeling of the noble Marquess to be assured that it must have been very painful to him to be compelled, by a sense of public duty, twice during this short Session to attack the two persons who succeeded him in the two diplomatic posts which he has last held. In one case, where the censure affected a young man who was comparatively unknown to your Lordships, and whose professional abilities were not generally known beyond the world of diplomacy, such an attack in his absence was much to be deprecated; but it cannot be of the slightest importance in regard to a person in the position of the noble Earl. He would not, in the noble Earl's presence, speak of his well-known good qualities, except to say that his abilities have secured him the confidence of every Minister by whom he has been instructed, and of every Foreign Minister with whom he has had diplomatic communications. The noble Marquess as- sured us, too, that he did not make his Motion with the slightest intention of turning Her Majesty's Ministers out of office. This declaration is exceedingly satisfactory; but considering that his speech was a series of personal attacks on the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, and of general hostilities against the Government, and that he had raked up, for the second time this Session, a story ten years old, evidently in the vain hope of throwing an apple of discord between two of the most distinguished Members of the Government, I am afraid it is not the will to turn us out which is wanting, but simply that the noble Marquess feels that he is utterly powerless to accomplish that object. The noble Marquess has complained, certainly in no very courteous terms, of two answers which I gave him early in the Session on this subject of Savoy; and he expresses his astonishment how, after reading Lord Cowley's despatch of the 25th of January, I could say that the Government had received no official information with regard to certain negotiations between France and Sardinia. Now, if the noble Marquess will turn to that despatch, he will see that Lord Cowley writes in it— It is more than probable that your Lordship is acquainted with a rumour in Paris that there existed a secret treaty between France and Sardinia before the late war. I have no reason to believe in its existence, and for many reasons I am inclined to doubt it; still I could not take upon myself to affirm that some sort of engagement or understanding respecting Savoy does not exist between the two Governments. How can it be affirmed on the strength of this despatch that I had the slightest semblance of a foundation for saying that we had received any official information of the existence of the Treaty? I do not think it is any part of my duty, representing Her Majesty's Government in this House, to give any answer to a statement on a point affecting France which has appeared in a journal in a third country, without, so far as I could be aware, any official authority; therefore, to that part of the noble Marquess' charge I shall make no reply. The noble Marquess then went into a long discursive attack on the conduct of Lord John Russell in encouraging an appeal to the population of Italy—which by the way he entirely failed to connect with his Motion—and, as far as I could make out, he endeavoured to show that by favouring the annexation of the provinces of Central Italy to Piedmont we were responsible for the annexation of Savoy to France. I appeal to my noble Friend here whether he has ever received the slightest instruction, direct or indirect, from the Government to favour any particular mode of settling Italy. [Earl COWLEY: None whatever.] There is no indiscretion in saying now that, abstractedly speaking, different Members of Her Majesty's Government held different opinions as to what would be the best mode of distributing the provinces of Italy; but on this we were unanimously resolved, that the real policy of the Government was to insist on the Italians being left to themselves to decide for themselves on the mode of settlement which they might think best adapted for their future interests as a nation. I am personally too well acquainted with the facility with which we fall into a slipslop style of Parliamentary talking to take exception to forms of expression in speeches; but when the noble Marquess seeks to commit the House of Lords to such Resolutions as these I do think, with great respect for him and for what he has written, that he ought to put them into tolerable English. These Resolutions are to show the whole world what are our views upon the mode of conducting diplomatic correspondence. The noble Marquess moves, That it appears by the papers lately laid before Parliament, and especially by a despatch from Earl Cowley to Lord John Russell, dated 5th February, that the French Minister had stated, and truly,"— This makes it appear as if it were an extraordinary fact that the French Minister should have stated truly—what?— That the intention of the Emperor of the French to take possession of Savoy under certain contingencies had been made known to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, and by him communicated to Her Majesty's Secretary of State, on more than one occasion between the 12th of July, 1859, and the 25th of January, 1800, in private letters. The noble Marquess makes it perfectly impossible for the French Minister to have stated truly with regard to all the correspondence between the Ambassador of England and the Secretary of State "on more than one occasion" between July and January. The next Resolution contains the gist of the matter. I do not think it goes far enough. If it be necessary to lay down the principle on which diplomatic correspondence should be carried on, I would go the fullest length in saying that all important communications between foreign agents and the Secretary of State should be by public despatches. But that is not the question. The real question before us is whether, in the particular case which the noble Marquess censures, it would be a right application of the principle or not. But if it be necessary to lay down an abstract proposition, I should wish to see it framed in clearer language. The noble Marquess proposes in his last paragraph, That the absence of any such record, 'more especially if such private correspondence is referred to in public despatches,' is injurious to the public service. I do not know who is the author of the words between inverted commas quoted by the noble Marquess; but he goes on, Is injurious to the public service, unjust alike to the Foreign Minister who made the communication and to official colleagues at home. Who are the official colleagues? Are they the official colleagues of Lord Cowley, who has got no colleagues at home? Or are they the official colleagues of Count Walewski, who, I flatter myself, has no colleagues in this country? I must apologize to your Lordships for having treated the matter thus lightly; but I think both in substance and in form it is not desirable to adopt these Resolutions. I have no wish to negative the general proposition. I quite agree that a rule should be laid down; but I do not think it applicable in the present instance, and, therefore, the more becoming way to treat the Resolutions will be to agree to what I shall now propose—namely, the Previous Question.

Motion objected to; and a Question being stated thereupon, the previous Question was put, "Whether the said Question shall be now put?"

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

My Lords, I am anxious to express the feeling that prevails on this side the House that there is no intention whatever to express any censure of the noble Earl who has come over to meet us on this occasion. We are all conscious of the ability and zeal which he has always fulfilled the duties of that important mission, and certainly no man is more competent than myself to hear witness to that zeal and ability. This we are all perfectly conscious of; but I must add that the clear and straightforward statements of the noble Earl, do, in some respects, justify the observations of the noble Marquess, because the noble Earl has not attempted to deny that certain conversations, and information consequent upon those conversations, were sent by him to the Government, not in an official, but in a private form. My noble Friend (Earl Cowley) has even admitted that it may be on his part an irregularity so to act; but what I wish to point out to the House is that the result of that irregularity has been, in the first place, to enable the Government by a sort of quibble to state that they had no official information with respect to these subjects. It was correct to say that they had no official information; but it was a quibble to use the words so as to lead your Lordships to believe they had no information at all. I understood the noble Earl the President of the Council to ground his answer upon that; and he quoted a despatch, in which, no doubt, there was no official information, because, in fact, the information was given to the Government in private letters.

EARL GRANVILLE

the noble Marquess said, that if I had read a certain despatch I was inaccurate in stating to him that I had no official information, and I read the despatch to show your Lordships that there was no official information in it.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

As I understood him, the noble Earl to a certain extent deceived the House, and gave the impression that the Government had not received any information to excite apprehension in their minds as to the annexation of Savoy. Another result of the course taken by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris is that apparent injustice is done to Count Walewski, because the noble Earl has always spoken and acted as if Count Walewski had not communicated to my noble Friend at Paris all the intentions and views of the French Government. I therefore cannot help saying that I regret that my noble Friend at Paris did not put in the form of a public despatch, or what is called in the Foreign Office a separate or confidential despatch, the whole conversation which he had with Count Walewski, although the words of that conversation expressed only the private opinions of the French Minister. Your Lordships must be aware that the private opinions of a Minister placed in the position of Count Walewski bring with them a weight and importance which do not attach to the opinions of ordinary individuals; and when I was at the Foreign Office if a Foreign Minister had said so and so is my private opinion with regard to a great public ques- tion, I should have deemed these words as words to be remembered, to be acted upon, and to be repeated to my colleagues. I therefore cannot accept as a valid excuse for an irregularity in the usual manner of carrying on diplomatic business that private conversations with a Foreign Minister are to be thought of less consequence than conversations of a formal and official character. I think the whole amount of the charge which can be brought against my noble Friend is that he should have put the conversation in an official form, which might or might not have boon published; and I think the Secretary of State is much to blame that he did not ask my noble Friend to put it in that form, so that it might be a document to be left in the Foreign Office for the use of his successors. But with respect to private letters your Lordships must not suppose that private letters and private communications cannot be converted by the Secretary of State into official information. On the contrary, it is constantly done. I have done it myself several times. Private letters have been made public and printed in blue-books—in fact, it is entirely in the discretion of the Secretary of State to make use of information conveyed in private letters in any way which he pleases, and, therefore, it is unfair to make any charge against the Ambassador. I should not have said another word if the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had not gone a little into the question of Savoy, and if some observations had not been made by the leading members of the Government in the other House with respect to what passed when we were in office. My accusation against the Government is of a much graver nature than what relates immediately to the question before your Lordships. It is that they were neither watchful nor jealous enough upon this question of Savoy. It is quite clear that in the private information sent from Paris in regard to this matter there was plenty of cause for alarm; but they might have gone still further back. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department had a document within his reach sufficient to rouse the attention of the Government and prepare them for what was to come. There is a despatch now in the Foreign Office, dated as long back as October, 1858—a month after the agreement, or, I will rather call it, the conspiracy, between two great personages at Plombieres—from the President of the Swiss Republic stating that he had reason to believe that some conditional or contingent agreement had been come to between the Emperor of the French and Count Cavour with respect to Savoy. We tried to discover what had taken place, but were unable to do so. We were told by my noble Friend (Earl Cowley) that he believed that no treaty had been signed. I do not believe that any treaty was signed; and the reason that no document was signed by either of those potentates—for I may call them both so—probably was that they might be able, without any violation of the truth, to say that nothing had been signed, and that there was no treaty in existence. It is, however, my conviction, amounting almost to knowledge, that a verbal and conditional agreement was then made, which has since been carried out. What was the conduct of the Government of that day? I know that I was myself so much alarmed that I communicated my fears to my colleagues, and was determined to take the earliest opportunity of showing how jealous England would be of such an event, and of warning France what would be the opinion of this country of such an act as the annexation of Savoy. Not only that—but for so doing I was taunted by the noble Viscount now at the head of the Government with uselessly offending France. What did the late Government do when the French troops marched through Savoy into Sardinia? When the French troops were about to march through Savoy into Sardinia the Swiss Government, true to the neutrality upon which depends its independence, referred to the treaties of 1815, and objected that those troops had no right to pass through the neutralized territory. Subsequently, there being some question as to whether the line of railway did not avoid the neutralized portion of Savoy, the Swiss Government withdrew their objection, and allowed the troops of France to pass. We thought that they were wrong in doing so. We thought the maintenance of the neutrality of that territory of such European consequence—we thought the exact, if you choose it, the pedantic, observance of the treaties of 1815 of such importance that we protested against the passage of those troops to Sardinia. On the 28th of April, 1859, I wrote as follows:— Her Majesty's Government are aware from the communications which have reached them that the Swiss Government do not propose to raise any objection founded on the treaties to the passage of French troops along the road which passes through the neutralized portion of Savoy; but, as parties to the treaties by which the neutrality of that district was recognized, Her Majesty's Government feel it their duty to place on record that the march of the French troops through that district has been effected contrary to the treaty engagements to which France in common with other Powers was a party. That shows how jealous we were, and how early we became jealous of this question concerning Savoy; and yet for having written that, I was taunted by the present Prime Minister of this country with having uselessly offended the French Government. Is it not fair, then, for me to say that the jealousy and apprehension which the former Government entertained with regard to this question were entirely set aside by the Government which followed, and that, in some degree, the event which has taken place may be attributed to their supineness, neglect, and indifference, or to their disbelief in the intelligence which they received from abroad? What has occurred would be perfectly incredible were it not witnessed by the evidence of facts and events. Who that knows that Savoy is annexed, and that the neutralized territory will be annexed to France and that in that annexation every principle that has been considered sacred in treaties has been violated, and that the whole act is a crime, could believe that only about two months ago the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said, (he believed he should not be out of order in quoting Hansard) in answer to a question from Sir Robert Peel:— We have inquired of the Sardinian Government whether there was any engagement or intention to yield Savoy to France, and the answer has been generally that there was no engagement upon the subject, and that Sardinia had no intention to cede Savoy to France. That is the general nature of the answer which has been given. We have not communicated to the French Government the opinion entertained by other Powers, because we have had no communications with other Powers to ascertain what their opinions may be— What, no communication with the other Powers your co-trustees under the Treaties of Vienna, not even so much as to ask their opinions? It is evident that the Government either cared not what was about to happen, or utterly disbelieved the information which they had received upon the subject. With regard to the last question of the hon. Baronet, 'Whether, in the event of the annexation of Savoy to France being effected, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to abandon the neutrality of Switzerland, s guaranteed by Great Britain in common with other European Powers? I have to say that the Swiss Government have asked us whether, in case of such annexation, we are prepared to maintain the neutrality of Switzerland, and to provide in such a manner that the neutrality should in no way be injured; and we have always replied that we had determined to do so. It appears that the districts of Chablais and Faucigny more especially are guaranteed by the Treaty of Vienna in the same manner as Switzerland; that they are, in fact, part of the general arrangement for the guarantee of Switzerland," [3 Hansard, clvi. p. 1133.] I hope that the Government will, if it is not too late, redeem that pledge. The neutrality of Switzerland is materially threatened by destroying the neutrality of this part of Savoy. If I take the declaration of the Government literally, I can have no doubt that they are as anxious as I am for the neutrality of Switzerland; but what has become of the neutrality of Savoy? Who would have believed, after the speech which I have just quoted as delivered two months ago, that the results which have happened could have occurred, as far as I know, without any opposition on the part of the Government? I have referred to this matter because "in another place" I have been taunted with not having acted with greater energy upon the Savoy question, and with having, when I did act, acted in a manner which was likely to promote ill-feeling on the part of France. The noble Earl's explanation having been entirely satisfactory, he having admitted that there was some irregularity in his mode of correspondence, and that important information should always be conveyed in an official manner, and there being no intention to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, I should recommend my noble Friend the noble Marquess to withdraw his Resolution, or, at all events, to assent to the course which has been proposed by the noble Earl opposite.

LORD WODEHOUSE

said, he would not have troubled their Lordships but for one observation of the noble Earl who had just sat down, who said that the Government had deceived the House in the statement made by his noble Friend the President of the Council. Now, so far from having at any time misled their Lordships, his noble Friend in the speech which had been referred to said that he was not in a position to deny that some conversation had passed upon the subject between the late French Minister for Foreign Affairs and Lord Cowley, so that his noble Friend's statement was strictly in accordance with the facts. He himself (Lord Wodehouse), afterwards stated that there were no despatches, no communications of a formal character upon the subject (as in fact there were not), but that he did not deny that there had been communications between the French Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Lord Cowley. His noble Friend the Ambassador at Paris had given so full an account of what had happened that it was unnecessary for him to add a word to it. He had fully confirmed what he (Lord Wodehouse) had said upon a previous occasion, that the French Government had attached no importance to the conversations which had taken place, because if they had done so they would have addressed a despatch upon the subject to the French Ambassador in this country. He had no intention to follow the noble Earl who had just sat down into the general question of the annexation of Savoy; but he must remind the noble Earl that however important the late Government might have considered the matter they were undoubtedly satisfied with very little being done. He maintained it was perfectly unjust to say that Her Majesty's Government had not seriously opposed that annexation. Those who had read the despatches which had been laid before Parliament would scarcely agree with the opinion of the noble Earl on that point. The question of the annexation of Savoy had undoubtedly produced great disquiet throughout Europe, and he could assure their Lordships that the part which Her Majesty's Government had taken with regard to that question had not left the impression on the mind of any Power that they were indifferent to what had taken place. The noble Earl who spoke last had referred to the position of the neutralized provinces of Savoy. That important point was at the present moment the subject of negotiation with all the great Powers of Europe; and therefore it could not now be conveniently discussed by their Lordships. The noble Earl expressed regret that steps had not been taken in time, in concert with the other Powers, to prevent the annexation of those provinces to France. He could only say that all the Powers who were parties to the guarantees given by the Treaty of Vienna had been consulted by Her Majesty's Government, and the proposals which had been made relative to that subject were still under consideration. He had every confidence that if the Motion were pressed their Lordships would adopt the Previous Question.

THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY must begin by reminding the noble Lord who had just spoken that his explanation, by which he endeavoured to establish the accuracy of the answer given to the question formerly put to the noble Earl the President of the Council failed, inasmuch as it related to a different reply given upon another occasion. What he had complained of was, that on the 27th of January, he had been told that the Government had no information as to the state of these negotiations, with no qualification of the denial for the use of the word official, though the day before a despatch had been received from Lord Cowley stating, that "Dr. Kern trusted Her Majesty's Government would remonstrate against the Emperor's intention before it shall be too late." He did not think it necessary to notice the pertinacity with which the noble Earl had attributed to him an intention to censure the Ambassador at Paris, although he had disclaimed such an intention, stating that the whole blame rested with the Foreign Secretary; the fact was that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had taken no means of meeting the charge made against him by the French Minister, which charge amounted to this—that the noble Lord had done all in his power to prevent the execution of that basis of peace which he had admitted to be a blessing in Europe. Not having in any respect defended himself against that accusation, on him only rested the responsibility. With respect to the circumstances which led to the dismissal of the noble Viscount now at the head of the Government from the Ministry of Lord John Russell, he had introduced that topic because it furnished the strongest possible example of the evil produced by these irregularities in the conduct of diplomatic correspondence. Count Walewski, whose name was mixed up with the present affair, also knew how much Lord John Russell then disapproved of the abuse of private communications, because he was a witness of how he had visited it on the noble Viscount. He had always viewed the conduct of the noble Viscount on that occasion as a great blot in his character. Nor was he singular in that opinion, for the noble Viscount's colleagues had regarded the matter in the same light, having unanimously concurred in his dismissal from the Cabinet. Certainly, the noble Earl opposite must have been gravely dissatisfied with the noble Viscount's proceedings, because he had been induced to take his place at the Foreign Office. It was very convenient for the present Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary last year to forget the disagreement which had occurred between them on the most important subjects; but at this moment there was scarcely an European statesman—certainly, there was not a single French statesman—who could not pass a civil service examination as to every one of the points which led to what was supposed at the time to be the final separation between those two noble Lords. The result of the debate had been to elicit a clear admission that a most important matter—one likely to compromise the two countries had been made known to our Ambassador, and by him communicated to the Foreign Secretary by means of a private communication instead of having been made in a public despatch, and placed in the Foreign Office for the information of all future Secretaries of State. He was quite satisfied with the result he had already obtained. What he wished was to show to Europe that their Lordships' House did not sanction any of those irregularities in the mode of conducting diplomatic affairs to which he had alluded. He had not heard any objection to the principles he had laid down; and he had no doubt, from what had fallen from the noble Earl opposite, that they would be adopted in future by Her Majesty's Government. He would not withdraw the Resolutions, but he had no objection to accept the Previous Question on them, on the understanding that his Motion was founded on principles which their Lordships would be always inclined to sanction.

The Previous Question was then put, "That this Question be now put."

Resolved in the Negative.

House adjourned at Half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.