LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYIn rising to put the Question which stands in my name on the Paper to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), I have no intention of recalling too vividly to the minds of your Lordships all the strong things which the present Prime Minister uttered during what I may call his Mid Lothian campaign, which, as your Lordships are aware, commenced on the 16th of March, at the platform of the King's Cross Station, was renewed at intervals along the line of railway, was further proceeded with at the residence of a distinguished nobleman, well known in this House, and finally terminated only on the 6th of April, in a speech delivered in London from a window in Harley Street. Now that the heat of conflict is over, I cannot help thinking that in those various speeches there are many things which the right hon. Gentleman deeply and sincerely regrets— none, probably, more so than the paragraphs in which, in no measured terms, he alluded to the Austrian Government and to the Ruler of the Austrian Empire —language which he now confesses himself to have been—using his own words—"of a painful and wounding character." When these grave and heavy charges 171 were brought against a friendly Power, I could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman must have known that, if his campaign were successful, it would not only result in the return of the Liberal Party to power, but that he himself would be called upon very soon to fill the highest position in this country. Under these circumstances, I was astonished to read such language—more particularly as it was applied to a friendly country, and to, I might say, one of our oldest, truest, and staunchest of Allies. When those words were uttered they were received with enthusiastic plaudits; but I cannot help thinking that the audience, when they read later on the letter of the Prime Minister of the 4th of May, must have observed with feelings of astonishment—perhaps not un-mingled with sarcasm—how readily the Prime Minister of to-day could abjure and repudiate the sentiments of the candidate of yesterday. I might add that the letter to which I allude is one which is without precedent in the annals of the history of the country. I therefore think it most desirable that your Lordships should be made acquainted with the whole of this correspondence; and, holding these opinions, I venture to ask the noble Earl (Earl Granville) the following Question:—Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the whole of the correspondence which has recently passed between the Austrian Ambassador and the First Lord of the Treasury?
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, in answer to the Question into which the noble Lord has entered so fully, I think it hardly necessary to go over the description which I have seen before, given by certain hostile critics, of what he describes as the electoral campaign in Mid Lothian—how it was fought and how it was won. But with regard to this correspondence, I can only say that I presented yesterday the letter which Mr. Gladstone wrote to Count Karolyi. As to the remarks of which the noble Lord complains as having been made by Mr. Gladstone in Mid Lothian with respect to Austria, my right hon. Friend's observations were caused by two misapprehensions. One was the uncontradicted report of certain observations of a hostile character alleged to have been addressed to the British Ambassador by the Emperor of Austria; the other was 172 the belief which extensively prevailed, and which was rather encouraged by the language of some Members of the late Government, that Austria was on the road to Constantinople. Twice, I think, but certainly once, Mr. Gladstone in Mid Lothian said, that, if those circumstances were not as so stated to him, he should at once withdraw the observations he had made upon them. Subsequently, personal communications passed between Count Karolyi and Mr. Gladstone, the result of which was the letter which I presented to your Lordships, and which your Lordships have already had an opportunity of reading in the newspapers. I can only say, with regard to this letter, that Mr. Gladstone professed his readiness to give his withdrawal of the statements he had made as much publicity as those statements themselves had received in Mid Lothian —and Count Karolyi having entirely repudiated, entirely denied, the statement that the Emperor had used the language which had been imputed to him, and having also given assurances that the policy of the Austrian Government was not to go beyond the Treaty of Berlin— I say that, under these circumstances, Mr. Gladstone offered to give any publicity he possibly could to his letter. It has been stated that when sitting on the other side of the House we exhibited violent opposition to the foreign policy of the late Government. At all events, we were two years there before the slightest attack was made by us on that policy; but two weeks after the present Government was formed a Member of the late Administration—a friend of mine, one whose ability and power of speech are well known, and whose office in the late Government placed him on the very threshold of the Cabinet—made one of the most violent attacks which it is possible to conceive on Mr. Gladstone in respect of this letter, stating that he thought it shameful and shameless, and giving as his reason for that extraordinary epithet that the Government of Lord Beaconsfield had known for more than a year of the assurance which Mr. Gladstone had only just received from Count Karolyi. I must say, with regard to the mild criticism of the noble Lord (Lord De L'Isle and Dudley), and the very strong language used by Lord George Hamilton, that the observation of the Emperor of Austria when he read 173 Mr. Gladstone's letter—"This is the letter of an English gentleman"—describes that letter better.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I was somewhat surprised to hear, in the course of the remarks which the noble Earl has just made, the statement that some observations on the part of Members of the late Government had led to a belief—had confirmed a belief— that, as the noble Earl puts it, Austria was on the way to Constantinople. I should be glad if the noble Earl would put in more precise language the ground of that accusation, because it was no slight accusation; it was an accusation against us that we imputed to a friendly Power with which we had recently concluded an important Treaty, the ink of the signature to which was scarcely dry, that the Government and the people of that country were already meditating a breach of the engagements into which they had entered. If we had made any such imputation against a friendly Power we should have been doubly to blame; and, therefore, I think the noble Earl, when he puts on record such an accusation, should state more precisely the grounds on which he makes it. The noble Earl is much exercised in his mind at the language in which my noble Friend, Lord George Hamilton, described the letter of the Prime Minister to Count Karolyi. I venture to say that when that letter first appeared the general sentiment among men of all parties did not very greatly differ from that to which Lord George Hamilton gave expression. Lord George Hamilton said that the accusation made by Mr. Gladstone against Austria was shameful, because it was made against a friendly Power, without any justification from facts, and was made by one who was at that moment a candidate for the Office of Prime Minister. What was the accusation? That you could not put your finger on any part of the map and say "Here Austria has done good." That Austria had boon everywhere the enemy of freedom, while Russia, though sometimes not the friend of freedom, had shown herself the friend of Slavonic freedom; but Austria was not the friend even of Slavonic freedom. It is astounding that any man who has read the history of Poland and knows that even now the government of Poland is a terrible blot on the civilization of the 19th century 174 should make such a statement; but it is still stranger that a man who was about to become Prime Minister should say that Russia was the friend of Slavonic freedom. But what seemed, and what was utterly unfitting the position of anyone who had held high office, and what was still more unfitting the position of one who had the aspirations which Mr. Gladstone had, was that he made against Austria charges which, oven as applied to the old government of that country, were unjust, because it was not true that the old Austrian Metternich was hostile to freedom, while the allegation was utterly out of place as applied to the Austria which has existed since 1867. Austria is now, and has been since 1867, a free Constitutional State, and, instead of being the enemy of Slavonic freedom, has been the friend of that freedom. She has given what Russia never will give, Parliamentary institutions to 10,000,000 Slavs. The institutions of Austria are so liberal that they go even beyond what the Liberal Party here will grant. Austria has given Home Rule to her subjects; and I believe the Liberal Party—or, at least, their Leaders—do not profess to go so far as that. I do not understand on what possible basis of fact this accusation against Austria could have been raised; but that which made it, in Lord George Hamilton's phrase shameful, was that it was made by a man who had undertaken political operations which, in his belief, were certain to lead to victory—a victory which he knew full well would place him at the head of the Councils of the Queen. My Lords, I thought I gathered in some of the language that fell from the noble Earl opposite that Mr. Gladstone had withdrawn the accusation he had made. Mr. Gladstone did nothing of the kind. Mr. Gladstone only promised not to make the accusation again, and said ho would not defend it; but the gist of his letter was this:—"I believe that Austria, in spite of her recent signature, intended to seek territorial advantages beyond those given her by the Treaty. I thought I was justified in acting on that belief until the statement on which it was founded was contradicted; and because that statement was not contradicted, and because I entertained that belief, therefore I accused Austria of being everywhere hostile to freedom." But he does not withdraw 175 the statement that Austria was hostile to freedom. He does not cancel this imputation. The imputation remains where it was. He only promises, in recognition of the assurance given him by Count Karolyi that Austria does not desire to advance beyond where she now stands, that he will not renew the accusation. I do not question the discretion of the Austrian Government in accepting that apology, however unsatisfactory its character and form. I think if it was necessary, Mr. Gladstone having made this mistake, that he should apologize for it; he should have apologized in a manner less humiliating to England and more satisfactory to Austria. He might have simply said in his place in Parliament that he had been hurried away—as he undoubtedly was — by the heat of electioneering speeches. However, though the Austrian Government is wise in not raising any further questions leading to further controversy on this unfortunate occurrence, we here in England have some cause to look with apprehension and suspicion on the terms in which Mr. Gladstone made this apology. He promises that he will make no further reference to Austria's misdeeds. He admits that he made the original accusation as a kind of weapon against Austria to prevent her from making further territorial advances; but at the same time that he made this accusation against Austria he went out of his way to exculpate Russia, and put aside the use of any such weapon by her. Are we, then, to infer that the motive which actuated him in making this accusation against Austria is one of which he does not recognize the cogency when Russia is in question? Does he mean to say that he put Russian misdeeds entirely aside, because that which he fears in the case of Austria he does not object to in the case of Russia— namely, the advance beyond the position which the Treaty of Berlin has accorded? The very conspicuous and significant oblivion of all historical facts with reference to Russia rather seems to imply that to his mind what would be only a fair advance on the part of Russia would be intolerable in the case of Austria. I am very sorry if that is the attitude which the present Government desire to adopt. I do not wish them to. make special or exclusive alliances with any 176 nation. I do not think that would be an advisable policy for this country. Exclusive alliances, as we know, are apt to be offensive to those who are not included in them, and can only be justified when there is a complete identity of interests. It appears to me that cannot be the case with this country. The noble Earl said yesterday that he had entered into some considerable diplomatic operations in the hope of bringing about a concert of all the European Powers. That would be a very noble result, and one greatly to be desired. How far it is practicable remains in the future to be proved. On the other hand, as far as our experience goes, it has shown that the European concert is performed by an orchestra of which the various members have not the slightest intention of playing the same tune; and I fear that what has happened in the past may recur in the future. The noble Earl says that this policy of proceeding by the concert of the European Powers is one that England has specially cultivated. I do not know that that boast has been justified by the policy of the Liberal Party. It was not in concert with all the European Powers the Crimean War was undertaken. It was not in concert with all the European Powers they set up the Kingdom of Italy. I think the concert of the European Powers was only once obtained, and that only for a brief period, during the Conference at Constantinople. And its duration then was speedily brought to an end. Though all the Powers agreed in making certain recommendations to Turkey and urging them very strongly, all were not agreed as to the mode in which they should be pressed. Before two months Russia broke away from the European concert and pressed her recommendations on Turkey by war. So long as it is a question of mere recommendations the concert may be preserved; but if, unhappily, it should ever come to measures more active than diplomatic communications, I am afraid the concert will disappear in an inharmonious crash. But the danger of this effort of carrying all the Powers with you is that when the disagreement ultimately arises, that disagreement is apt to produce greater alienation, and to end in greater estrangement, than if the apparent unanimity had never been attempted. I do not for that reason blame the noble Earl 177 for making the attempt; but there is one point on which I wish to lay stress, and it is this—that it would be a matter of great detriment to this country if the policy of which I see traces in Mr. Gladstone's letter should be brought into effect whenever the moment for the disappearance of this concerted action should arrive. If the spirit in which the Government are guided in this negotiation is to lean rather to the side of Russia than to that of Austria—to look at Austria with special and exceptional suspicion and close your eyes when they are turned to Russia—it will be a very grievous matter to this country. Although we have no reason to be bound by any special alliance with Austria, yet she is, undoubtedly, the country to whom every consideration of interest should draw us most closely, because she is the one country whose interests cannot by any possible contingency clash with our own. If, in deference to any mere sentimental view in recollection of struggles long gone by—struggles in which Italian freedom was gained, and of which I fear the recollection has far too great an influence in governing the feelings and framing the policy of the Prime Minister—if the result of these feelings should be that we depart from that close friendliness with Austria which it certainly was the object of the late Government to sustain, and which we believe to be in the highest interest of this country, I think the policy of this country will greatly suffer, and that we shall have ground greatly to regret the incident which has occurred.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMy Lords, it appears to me that the object of the noble Marquess who has just addressed your Lordships was twofold— to do as much harm as he possibly can to the Prime Minister, and to damage as far as he can, by anticipation, the foreign policy of the present Government. The noble Marquess evidently desires to raise a prejudice against all the proceedings of the Government, by fixing upon them, through a side attack, occasioned by the letter of the Prime Minister, an imputation, even before he knows what their action has been, that their policy is pro-Russian. It would be well for him to wait to see whether our policy is Russian, or whether it is impartially directed, as we believe it will be, to the interests of this country 178 and to the peace of Europe. But the noble Marquess is too eager to wait. Fresh from the Foreign Office, an Office of which I formerly had some experience in a subordinate capacity, I should have thought that he would have been sufficiently prudent, or, if not sufficiently prudent, sufficiently patriotic, not to make such an attack before the Government had had an opportunity of developing its policy. See what that attack is. The noble Marquess knows that the object of the Government is to obtain the concert of the European Powers in order to procure a settlement of the question in the East. The noble Marquess sneered at that kind of concert, and said that it was a difficult thing to obtain, and further compared it to an orchestra, all the members of which played different tunes. No doubt the concert of the European Powers is a difficult thing to secure, and the peace of Europe is not always to be maintained. But are we to say that because that concert has frequently failed that we are not to endeavour to obtain it? and are we to anticipate that there will be no concerted action because it has been sometimes unsuccessful? If that concert be successful, it cannot but be productive of good. I maintain that in this matter the Government deserves encouragement in an effort which, if even unsuccessful, is both praiseworthy and laudable. I ask your Lordships to consider whether it is a prudent or a patriotic course to constantly encourage jealousy and suspicion against one of the Great Powers of Europe—I mean Russia. My Lords, I am not Russian in tendency. I believe there is much in Russia of which this country will disapprove—much in her past policy—and that the position of Russia is, in some respects, such as to cause disquietude to this country. But one thing is certain—Russia is likely to remain one of the chief Powers of Europe; and I ask, is it wise, is it prudent, to raise up suspicions and enmity between this country and Russia? My Lords, I believe that to be an unworthy policy, as well as an unwise course to take. There has been a great diplomatic instrument to settle the affairs of the East. Russia has been a party to that instrument, and not an inconsiderable party. That Treaty arose out of the quarrel between Turkey and 179 Russia. Russia will be called upon, and is called upon, to carry out the provisions of that Treaty. Indeed, it cannot be carried into effect without Russia's co-operation and consent. Noble Lords opposite may think that that Treaty will be fulfilled by trying to excite animosity against Russia; but it cannot be fulfilled unless it has the assent of that Power. Mr. Gladstone has not in his speeches—and certainly not in his letter—said that because he disapproves of some of the past actions of Austria he is about to throw himself into the arms of Russia. The two things are totally different. What does this attack mean, unless it is an attempt to sow dissension amongst the Great Powers? The noble Marquess talks of historical opinion; but all the world knows what Austria once was, and knows that in the time of Prince Metternich Austria certainly was not the advocate of freedom, and that she was a Power which, in many respects, acted against the general opinion of this country. Russia also did so in the affairs of Poland. But I cannot see that the Prime Minister should be so greatly blamed for remembering the history of Austria; and I am glad to find that the noble Marquess disclaimed any feeling of favour to the extension of Austrian territory beyond what was provided by the Treaty of Berlin. The noble Marquess lectured the Prime Minister. Does the noble Marquess remember the speech at Manchester? Does he remember that he spoke of the alliance between Germany and Austria as "tidings of great joy?" My Lords, I believe a more imprudent statement was never made by a Minister — made not by one who was expecting Office, but who was in Office. I think what the noble Marquess has said to-night shows that his opinion is that we should have formed an exclusive alliance with Austria. My Lords, I believe it is greatly to the interest of this country to act with Austria and in concert with Austria, but not to the exclusion of the other Powers. If we cannot co-operate with all the Powers, our object is to co-operate with as many as we can get to act with us. I trust we may succeed in effacing, to some extent, the constant hostility between this country and Russia, which is a source of danger to the peace of Europe 180 and to our possessions in Asia, and which we believe a more prudent policy may do a great deal to remove and relieve. I regret that the noble Marquess should have extended the discussion on the letter which the Prime Minister wrote to Count Karolyi; because I believe he has been hasty in making an attack upon Her Majesty's Government before he knew what policy they intend to pursue.
§ THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDMy Lords, one would suppose, coming down to the House suddenly, and not being aware of the facts of the case, that we had made an attack on the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Earl who has just addressed us has scarcely noticed the origin of this conversation. Does the noble Earl wish us to believe that no such document exists as that which took the shape of a letter from the Prime Minister to Count Karolyi? And yet is it to be supposed that so remarkable a document should have been made public, and that no notice of it should have been taken in your Lordships' House? I am surprised that so long a period as 24 hours should have elapsed after the meeting of the House without some reference having been made to it. I myself should have made allusion to the letter yesterday if I did not think it desirable that as little controversy as possible should be introduced in the discussion on the Motion for the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. What is the document in question? Does the noble Earl who has just addressed us mean to say that it does not imply a policy hostile to Austria? What was the declaration of the Prime Minister originally, and what was the spirit of the vindicating letter to which attention has been properly called by my noble Friend who asked the Question? The right hon. Gentleman has not withdrawn that original interpretation which he put upon the character and conduct of Austria which is now before us. The noble Earl seems to think that we have nothing whatever to do with the original speech of the Prime Minister, because it was, in fact, delivered during the heat of an election contest. Whether it were the passionate expression of a vindictive memory which recalled the past of many years ago with reference to the history of Austria I cannot stop to inquire. That 181 would be an argument which, really does not alter the state of the case. We are told that the policy of Austria and the general principles of its government at the time of Prince Metternich were different from what they are now. That is a rather extraordinary way of meeting the statement of my noble Friend. It is now between 30 and 40 years since Prince Metternich retired from official life; and, therefore, the explanation of the expressions of the Prime Minister, that they were prompted by a too lively recollection of the policy and conduct of Prince Metternich, is one of the most trifling statements I have ever heard in your Lordships' House. The fact remains before us that a Minister of the highest position in this country, at a time very critical, during negotiations on which ultimately the peace of Europe may depend, has spoken of one of the Great Powers of Europe in a manner which, if it faithfully represents the sentiments of that individual, must be most injurious to the course of the negotiations, so far as the influence of that Power, which, at least, was once the Ally of England, is concerned. The noble Earl who has just addressed us has made no answer whatever to the statement of my noble Friend. What my noble Friend put before the House—-and most usefully put before the House—was that the country must not be deceived, and suppose that because, by the interference and interposition of Count Karolyi, certain assurances have been extracted from the Prime Minister on this matter, the affair is entirely closed. There is nothing in that answer—though there are many expressions in the letter which are humiliating to this country, though there are many expressions which may be satisfactory to the honour of Austria —there is nothing in that answer which at all guards this country from future action on the part of that Minister which may imperil the peace of Europe.
THE DUKE OP ARGYLLI am very sorry that so early in the Session the noble Marquess and the noble Earl should have taken an opportunity to make a most severe and a very bitter attack, not upon the foreign policy of the Government, because they do not know what that foreign policy is, but upon a speech made by the present Prime Minister before he was in Office, 182 and upon a construction of that speech which I believe to be entirely erroneous as regards the foreign policy of this country. I have never expressed any hostile feeling against Austria; and I think the distinction which the noble Marquess drew between Austria in the days of Prince Metternich and Austria in the present time is a just and legitimate one. I, for one, regretted the terms in which my right hon. Friend referred in Mid Lothian to the Austrian Empire; but I am bound to say this on behalf of Mr. Gladstone, that there had been recent circumstances and recent communications — apparently authentic, more or less connected with the Conservative Press — which did give the impression to many persons that Austria was to be pushed forward by Her Majesty's late Government in opposition to Russia, and that an exclusive alliance was to be made between this country and Austria with regard to the Balkan Peninsula. It has always been the declared policy of my right hon. Friend that no exclusive alliance in regard to the East of Europe should be made between this country and either Austria or Russia; he has uniformly declared that he wished to see the freedom of the Native populations in the Balkan Peninsula. He has also uniformly objected to extending the dominion of either Austria or Russia over those populations. My Lords, I think Her Majesty's Government have a right to complain of the speeches of both the noble Marquess and the noble Earl at the head of the late Government. Immediately before the Dissolution of Parliament the noble Earl assured your Lordships that if the General Election should result in a verdict against himself and his friends he would give the succeeding Government a loyal support so far as he was able to do so. Now, so far, that loyal support consists in a most embittered attack on a policy which the noble Earl constructed out of his own heated imagination, and which he founded upon a letter which did not bear the construction he gave it. Her Majesty's Government are now in most active and friendly co-operation with the Austrian Government; and I trust that co-operation may soon extend to the whole of Europe. My Lords, I cannot help remarking that it would be more seemly in the Members of the late Government to talk a little more 183 modestly with regard to the results of their foreign policy. They are very proud of the Treaty of Berlin, and their supporters in the country have been twitting Her Majesty's Government with taking up the policy of the late Administration. This is because Her Majesty's Government are desirous of seeing the Treaty of Berlin carried out. But, my Lords, I am one of those who have more than once pointed out that ninety-nine hundredths of that Treaty were due, not to the English Government, but to the sword of Russia—that ninety-nine hundredths of it were literally copied from the Treaty of San Stefano; and that, while the late Government seemed to take under their special protection all the clauses of the Treaty which were really their own work, they had been very languid in their support of the other clauses which had been due entirely to the efforts of Russia, and which secured the liberties of the Christian populations in the Balkan Peninsula. Those clauses, in so far as the Turkish Government are concerned, have hitherto remained absolutely a dead letter; and it will be the first duty of Her Majesty's Government to endeavour, if they can, to unite all the Powers of Europe in favour of the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin which had not the special patronage of noble Lords opposite.
§ House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.