§ MR. DISRAELII wish to put a question to Her Majesty's Ministers. It having been officially announced that the Ambassador of the French Republic has been recalled from the Court of St. James's, and that his recall was occasioned by conduct on the part of the British Government, supposed to be derogatory to the honour of the French Republic, I wish to know whether Her Majesty's Ministers deem it expedient to afford any communication to the House explaining the causes of an incident of such grave import?
§ LORD J. RUSSELLSir, all that I can at present state to the hon. Member is, that General La Hitte, the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the French Republic, 167 informed the Marquess of Normandy that, in consequence of what he considered the ill-treatment of France by the Government of this country, he had thought it necessary to recall M. Drouyn de Lhuys. At the same time he said that M. Drouyn de Lhuys having been sent here in order to settle the affairs of Greece, and to endeavour to come to some arrangement with the British Government on that subject, those affairs having terminated, and that endeavour having failed, it was natural that the Ambassador who had been deputed for that special purpose should return home. This is the only statement on the subject that I can at present make. I will only add that I am very sorry that this feeling should exist on the part of the French Government; for I am sure that on the part of Her Majesty's Government there has been every wish to listen to the representations of the Government of France on the affairs of Greece; we had every hope that the results of the mission of M. Drouyn de Lhuys would have been successful, and we were always ready to give every facility for bringing the affair to a satisfactory conclusion with the mediation and aid of the French Government; and I feel convinced that had not M. Gros, for some reason which I cannot divine, so suddenly given up his mission, on the 23rd of April, and declared to the Greek Government his functions suspended, there would have been ample time for the arrival of the despatch from Her Majesty's Government, and then this misunderstanding could not have occurred.
§ SIR JOHN WALSHSir, it is matter of public notoriety that in the statement relating to this subject which took place in the French Legislative Assembly, General La Hitte read to the Assembly the despatch recalling M. Drouyn de Lhuys, and detailing the reasons for that recall. At the end of the despatch, M. Drouyn de Lhuys is directed to communicate a copy of it to Lord Palmerston; I should like to know whether that despatch was so communicated, and whether it was in the hands of the noble Viscount when he yesterday answered the question put to him by the right hon. Member for Manchester?
§ LORD J. RUSSELLM. Drouyn de Lhuys did not communicate a copy of the despatch to my noble Friend; neither did my noble Friend nor any Member of the Government have a copy of it.
§ MR. ROEBUCKI am sure the noble Lord does not desire that there should be 168 any the slightest misapprehension on this subject. It might be presumed, from what the noble Lord has now stated, that on the part of the French Minister who has left this country, there had been some want of duty, or of performance. This, I am sure, is not intended by the noble Lord, but it certainly is to be implied from what he has said; because in the letter road to the Legislative Assembly by General La Hitte there is the instruction that the letter is to be communicated to the Foreign Secretary of State of this country. The noble Lord informs us that no copy of the despatch was communicated to the British Government. The ordinary form on these occasions, I believe, is for the person who has received such a note to go with it in his hand and to communicate it to the person indicated in it by reading it; if this was done by M. Drouyn de Lhuys, the noble Viscount must have been in full possession of all the contents of the despatch when he yesterday made his explanatory answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLThere are two ordinary modes of communicating such notes; one is to road them to the Foreign Minister, giving no copy, the other is to read them and to leave a copy with the Minister. The former course was the course taken by the French Ambassador. Following, I presume, the orders he had received from his Government, and with no sort of intention of discourtesy, he read the letter in question to my noble Friend, but communicated no copy of it; and my noble Friend, in his statement to the House yesterday, gave what was his impression of the case.
§ SIR JOHN WALSHBut though the Foreign Secretary had not formally had an actual copy of the despatch placed in his hands, still he was in full possession of all its contents.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLNo doubt the French Ambassador read to my noble Friend the despatch he had received, accompanying it at the same time with such observations as he thought proper to make. A very long interview took place.
§ Mr. C. ANSTEYPerhaps I may be permitted to ask if, in consequence of what has occurred, the Marquess of Normanby may be expected in this country?
§ LORD J. RUSSELLThere has been no order sent recalling the Marquess of Normanby, and I trust no such order will be necessary. The hon. Member for Montrose has suggested that the Committee of 169 Supply should not be taken until Monday, but I must adhere to my proposition that it be taken on Thursday. The Motion that the House go into Committee will then afford an opportunity to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, or any other hon. Gentleman who desires further in-formation on this subject, to seek it, or for the Government, should it have further information, to give it; for this reason it is not desirable to name the later day, and I hope my hon. Friend, who has already made so many sacrifices for the public advantage, will consent to make one more on this occasion.
§ MR. DISRAELIIt would be very convenient if, meantime, the House could be put in possession of the papers on the subject.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLI did not suggest that the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on Thursday should be made the occasion of a regular debate on the subject; but simply that it would afford the opportunity for any question that might be considered expedient by Members. As to the papers, they are too voluminous to he prepared in so short a time.
§ Subject dropped.