HC Deb 14 February 1853 vol 124 cc85-7
MR. COBDEN

Sir, I wish to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and, to show its necessity, I will preface it by reading some extracts from a letter which appeared in the Times of Saturday last, signed by a Peer of the Realm, and which, arguing the question I am about to put, contains, amongst other similar statements, the following:— Peculiar circumstances have enabled me to obtain information, which cannot be doubted, upon important points bearing upon these questions; but before referring to it, I would state that I lived in France, have been on terms of intimacy with many Frenchmen, and have lost no opportunity of making myself acquainted with the state of public feeling. I never met the man who, if pressed, did not admit that no conviction as to what their interest might be could prevent the longing desire to have their revenge for the events of the last war. I would defy even any Frenchman to assert that the force which they were known to possess last year was not amply sufficient for any purpose which France could require, excepting for that of an invasion of our possessions. He says— I therefore contend that every additional ship to that great force—they have now more sailors in their pay than we have, without our vast colonial empire—is an additional proof that they do contemplate a descent on our shores. I have received positive information, which cannot be doubted, that they are now striving to the very utmost to increase their naval force in every manner, and that arrangements have been officially decided upon to continue year after year similar exertions. I cannot give my authority, but trust that I shall be believed when I say that this information may be most thoroughly relied upon. And at the conclusion of the noble Lord's letter, he says— I repeat that the information I have received, of preparations which can only be made for aggression, may be relied on. It cannot be doubted that a statement of this sort—a statement of facts made from his own peculiar knowledge and peculiar means of information by the noble Lord—must make a great impression on the country; and the question I have to put, and of which I have given notice to the noble Lord, is, whether the British Government has had any communication with the Government of France with respect to the increased naval preparations alleged to be going on in that country?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

Sir, with respect to the question with which my hon. Friend has concluded, I have to state, that although it is true that the French Government have thought right both to increase and to improve their naval means, yet that increase and that improvement have been going on gradually; and, considering that France is a great maritime country, I think it is not at all such as to justify or require the Government of this country either to remonstrate or make it any question with the Government of France. I will just say that the relations between the two countries are of the most friendly nature: and I may say, speaking generally of European affairs, that the best understanding prevails between the two Governments. With regard to the information in the letter of the noble Lord, to which my hon. Friend has alluded, I certainly must profess my ignorance. I believe this Government has tolerably good information, and I believe that there is no concealment on the part of the Government of France with regard to the improvement and increase which they are making in their ships. But with respect to such information as that communicated by the noble Lord, I certainly have none whatever. All I know is, that in that letter the noble Lord has made some awkward mistakes, for he speaks of the withdrawal of an ambassador in consequence of the Pritchard dispute, on which occasion no ambassador was withdrawn by this country; and I should say, on the evidence of that letter, and of a former letter published in the Times, that whatever information Lord Mount-Edgcumbe may have received from the ports of Prance, he is very ill-informed with respect to what passes in my house. His statement with regard to what passes in a house in London, which happens to he my house, is totally inaccurate. I do not attach quite so much value as my hon. Friend appears to do to the statement of a Peer of the Realm, because there are Peers of the Realm whose authority is by no means infallible.