ADDRESS FOE CORRESPONDENCE. (Hansard, 3 May 1875)

§ EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I rise to move that an Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies of the recent Correspondence between the Governments of the Emperor of Germany and the King of the Belgians, with an account of the steps taken to ascertain the truth of the allegations referred to in the said Correspondence. As your Lordships are aware, a Correspondence has taken place between the Governments 1945 of the two countries which has been communicated to Her Majesty's Government, and you are also aware of the statements that have appeared as to the nature of that Correspondence. From all we have been able to learn it would appear that Germany has asked that certain laws should be passed by Belgium which should give additional security for the maintenance of friendly relations between the two countries. Prom this it would appear that the two countries are not in such amicable relations as could be desired. The Correspondence of the German Government is in a friendly tone. It states that the Powers of Europe generally have not provided for the punishment of offenders against the amity of nations at peace; that there is a want of completeness in those laws on the part of Belgium; and that the want of such provision is now felt by Germany; and therefore in the most friendly tone and terms the Government of Germany asked for those laws which it has requested the Belgian Government to have passed in Belgium. The Correspondence is complete on the part of Germany. With respect to Belgium, I am not at all sure that the Belgian Government has made its answer—its final and complete answer—and I ask the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs for information on that point. The question raised by the Correspondence is one of very considerable interest to this and other nations. A person fully competent to give me information as to the state of the law in this country—namely, the late Lord Westbury—has laid down two peremptory principles as the test of friendship of a foreign country—the one being the punishment of offences against the Queen's person, and the other of offences against the Queen's amity. Undoubtedly the competency of the law to deal with this second class was long ago recognized by the legal authorities of England and by the Executive Government, because a person was indicted for issuing a publication inciting others to assassinate the First Consul, the then ruler of Prance. I may observe also that it was the late Lord Westbury's opinion that every State in Europe ought to have laws sufficient to prevent the offence of inciting to the murder of any ruler of any foreign nation with which the particular State was at peace. It appears 1946 to me that this is a very important question. If that be a good principle of International Law, it appears to me that it would be very desirable that both Germany and Belgium should conform to it. As to Belgium, the rumour is that the Belgian Government holds that the present state of the law of that country does not admit of any action being taken for the punishment of any outrage against a foreign Government which was not attended by overt action. Then the Correspondence seems to pause. Perhaps the noble Earl the Secretary of State will say whether there is any final decision to be expected; whether Belgium is able to point out those portions of her own law which render her unable to punish persons inciting to offences against the rulers of foreign nations, or whether her Government is ready to propose laws which would enable her to maintain amicable relations with foreign nations in this respect. The last part of my Question is an inquiry as to the steps taken to ascertain the truth of the allegations referred to in the Correspondence. They are of a character on which I do not care to pronounce any opinion. One allegation is that a person named Duchesne, a Belgian subject, and domiciled in Belgium, when in a state of intoxication expressed his intention to assassinate Prince Bismarck. Another is that this person wrote letters to the Archbishop of Paris, offering to murder Prince Bismarck on payment of a certain sum of money. The truth of this story it is impossible to ascertain; but this I must say—that I think the proposal to have laws to punish any person who states it is his intention to act against the person of a foreign ruler—whether that ruler be the First Consul of France or whether he be Prince Bismarck—is a proper one, because it is plainly impossible to allow the suggestion of such outrages, and at the same time to preserve that amity which should exist between nations at peace with one another. I ask the noble Earl, therefore, whether he can inform me whether any steps have been taken towards any legislation such as I have indicated? This is a question which materially affects this country, because, as the noble Earl is aware, we have promised to guarantee the neutrality of Belgium, and therefore, whether Belgium is fulfilling all her obligations to foreign 1947 Powers and has laws by which she can deal with persons who threaten the assassination of men in high office in Germany, or whether she declines to have such laws, is a matter of great importance to this country. It is obvious that if we are required to guarantee the neutrality of Belgium, and she declines to have such laws, a very embarrassing question might arise, requiring the grave consideration of the Powers who have guaranteed her neutrality. I am, therefore, anxious to know from the noble Earl whether it is true that Germany has asked Belgium to have laws passed to prevent the offence to which I have referred; and whether, if Belgium declines to do that, she is prepared to punish under existing laws persons guilty of such an offence? As I have mentioned, our own laws were strong enough to convict a person who had published in this country a libel against the first Napoleon, and who would have been punished, only that war broke out between England and France at the moment. I ask the noble Earl whether, if Belgium has not such laws at present, her Government will propose to the Legislature such laws as will tend to preserve those amicable relations which should exist between herself and the other Powers of Europe? It appears to me that the law which prevails at present in this country—which pledges us, in fact, to prosecute those who commit such offences against friendly foreign nations, and under which Lord Ellenborough in his day would have punished offenders—is a good one, as tending to preserve the peace of Europe. I shall not go further at present; but I hope the noble Earl will be able to give your Lordships the information for which I have asked him in the few observations I have addressed to your Lordships' House.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY

My Lords, I am sure that neither the noble Earl nor your Lordships will think I am wanting in the respect which I should wish to pay him and the House if the reply I make to the questions he has just 1948 put is necessarily brief and couched in somewhat guarded terms. Though I am ready to state any facts which may be within my knowledge, and which I am at liberty to make public, I think your Lordships will feel that there would be no advantage in my going into a general discussion of the question which is pending between the German and the Belgian Governments in this case—especially as the Papers are not, and, for a reason which I shall presently state, cannot be now before your Lordships' House. My Lords, with regard to the production of those Papers, I conceive that they are not mine to make public. They were communicated to me by the German Ambassador in London: and when I asked whether I could publish them, I was requested to consider them as confidential for the present. When the noble Earl (Earl Russell) put his previous Question to me a fortnight ago, the second of the Papers of the German Government had been placed in my hands in the course of that afternoon, and I was able to give an opinion—though only a hastily formed opinion—of its contents. By a singular chance the answer to that Paper has been placed in my hands only within the last three-quarters of an hour. I have not had time, therefore, to study it with any care, and I think your Lordships will understand that I am reluctant to give an imperfect and hasty, and therefore an inadequate and perhaps even an unfair, summary of its contents. I understand that the Correspondence will shortly be laid before the Belgian Chambers, and that a debate will be taken on it in that Assembly; and when those Papers are communicated by the Governments which are primarily concerned in their contents, there will, of course, be no difficulty in our producing them and circulating them in this country. But, as they are to be shortly laid before the Belgian Parliament, I think it would be the fairer and more convenient course to allow the Belgian Government to tell its own story in its own way. It will, therefore, be enough for me to say that there is nothing in the Correspondence on either side, as far as I can learn, of an unfriendly character, and nothing in it in the nature of menace. The question between the two Governments may be very fairly described—as the noble Earl has described it—as a question whether 1949 the Belgian law is in certain respects sufficient to satisfy the admitted requirements of international relations. That is a question on which no Foreign Minister ought to express an opinion without a fuller and more careful examination of the laws of other countries than I have been able to make at present. I may add that no appeals have been made on either side—either by Germany or Belgium—to the guaranteeing Powers. Her Majesty's Government have watched, and will continue to watch, this question with close attention and with the deepest interest; but I do not think that any advantage would be gained for the good relations between those two countries, or for the peace of Europe generally, by volunteering at this stage an uncalled-for interference in a case which has been only partly heard.