INTERFERENCE IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS. (Hansard, 4 July 1848)

§ MR. URQUHART

Sir, I rise to move— That, interference in the internal government of other countries is detrimental to the interests, and derogatory to the honour of this country, as well as to the interests and honour of the countries in behalf of which such intervention is assumed to be exercised. That this practice of intervention has led to or excused the increase of the military and naval establishments, and thereby of the public expenditure, to the great oppression of Her Majesty's subjects, and particularly of the class which depends on daily labour for daily food. After the late sitting of the House last night, and the length of time it has been this day engaged in public business, I could expect very little of its attention, even were the subject I have to bring forward the most attractive. How little, then, can I look for a patient and attentive hearing, "without which it is impossible for any one to do justice to that subject which I have to introduce? I will recommend it to your consideration as being calculated to diminish, not to increase, the labours of the House. Overwhelmed with the load of internal colonial, commercial, monetary, and other business, is it not desirable to relieve ourselves from this foreign policy with which we have been and must be beset, until we choose to give one hour of serious deliberation to ascertain whether or not it be lawful, wise, and expedient to meddle in matters which do not concern us? What I propose is, to shut a door through which enter matters embarrassing, and drawing after them painful consequences. You cannot help governing yourselves—you cannot avoid governing your colonies—but we are under no necessity of governing Europe; nor have you succeeded so well at home as to be encouraged in the exercise of these governing tendencies abroad. What I have to assert is nothing more than a truism; but a truism which is the law of the land—a truism which is the dictate of common sense—a truism which requires to be asserted by this House to become a truth. The resolution which I submit is one which 128 requires little argument to support it, for no one in this House will venture to gainsay it. There is no party in this House in favour of intervention. No reformer has ever declared for intervention. No innovator has proposed intervention. No Minister has come down to abrogate our past laws—to rescind our past resolutions, and to tell us that henceforward it is the duty and business of this country to interfere in the affairs of others. Were any man found to assert that the principle, as it is called, of intervention is just, there is no one who would declare that the practice of it is expedient. The difficulty with which I have to cope, and on mastering which depends the direction of the future course of this country, is to bring home to the House the consciousness that our acts are in direct opposition to our avowed maxims, and that it is our business to prevent what we acknowledge to be wrong. The resolution I propose puts you in the alternative of affirming the necessity of doing what you know to be right, or of declaring that right which you do—it puts you in the alternative of reducing your practice to conformity with the old law, or of affirming new maxims consonant with your present practice—it puts you in the alternative of admitting that you undertake to govern the world, or of suffering the world to manage itself.

I will not travel back into the past history of the case, nor enter into the details of transactions in any separate country. What I have to bring before you is a practice, now become habitual and notorious, of interfering with the dynasties that should sit on foreign thrones, or the form of institutions which should govern independent nations. To these two points I limit myself. I now declare, that by the law of nations, it is not only not lawful to act on such pretexts, but that it is a crime. There is a distinction to be drawn between the acts of agents exercising a delegated authority and of private individuals. To the private individual it is lawful to do whatever the law does not forbid; but the Government can do only that which the law permits. There is no law which sanctions such interference; but there is a law which in the most express, detailed, and stringent manner forbids it. Such acts are no less repugnant to common sense, than they are to the very fundamental maxims of the faith which we profess—that "we should do unto others as we wish others should do unto us." They are, moreover, in direct violation of all the 129 old traditions of this country, and of the practice of the best—nay, even up to the present, that is, the worst times. We have taken part with dynasties—we have taken part with institutions—we have made these the cause of quarrel and war where England was neither injured nor concerned. In each such act England has violated the law of nations, and the Minister has violated the laws of England. I defy the noble Lord to controvert either of the two positions. The noble Lord can give no answer. He dares not rise up in his place and give any answer. The only answer which he can give is the one which he is now preparing—a "count out." I will risk the loss of a minute of the few that may yet be afforded me by reading a passage from Lord Aberdeen, spoken by him twenty years ago, in reference to Portugal, when England was appealed to from that country for aid. That appeal was rejected by the English Government, upon the ground that our interference would not be justified by any foreign aggression, but could have reference only to internal rebellion, or to the support of a certain dynasty. Here then is the practice and the law of England laid down by a living statesman. Now, I ask the noble Lord whether the will of this people—the decision of this House—or the laws of England—have been changed? He has reversed the practice of England, in defiance of the will of the people, of the decision of this House, and of the laws of the land! Why then, it may be asked, if the law forbids such acts, is a resolution of this House requisite? For this reason, that no virtue remains in the land to enforce the law. The penalties, which are its preventive means, no one dreams of enforcing, and thus the law slumbers disregarded. Further, the consequences of evil acts no one comprehends, for we day by day conclude on events and form opinions, so that it becomes impossible to connect consequences with their causes. The utmost then that this House can do is to throw obstacles in the path of those who possess irresponsible power. Such an obstacle this resolution would be; for in face of it a Foreign Minister would have more difficulties to contend with on the part of his Colleagues. The maxim that the Government had to make out and submit a case in each instance of intervention, being admitted, the prior assent of Parliament would be required before we plunged again into wars, treaties, 130 interventions, and protocols. There is no one who will not admit that if the prior assent of Parliament had been required—as was the practice up to the close of the career of Mr. Canning—that we should have had none of those measures which have cost the lives of nearly 100,000 of our fellow-creatures—occasioned enormous sacrifice of money—and prepared Europe for a relapse into barbarism. By this illegal course of England, Europe has been brought into the present confusion. By the great example of England, public law has been laid prostrate—by her armaments and her acts have the nations of Europe been oppressed with the load of military establishments under which all its systems have perished. On us has been heaped up an extra expenditure within the last thirteen years of 42,000,000l. This is the penalty brought home to the door of every man in this land, whether capitalist or daily labourer, for his disregard of the laws. Such are the results of our interfering to support certain dynasties and forms of government. I will content myself with these assertions, which no one will have the hardihood to controvert, and call upon you now either to put an end to such proceedings, or really to adopt them, as your own. I repeat—the effect of this resolution will be merely that this House shall be consulted beforehand, when measures are to be undertaken abroad.