§ MR. LAYARDSir, it may be in the recollection of the House that on Tuesday I asked a question of the noble Lord as to the Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, and that, if I could not then obtain a reply, I would repeat it. The noble Lord said, the Four Points having been considered as a whole, the rejection of any one point involved the rejection of the whole four, and therefore, the third point having been rejected, the Government considered themselves free as to the others; but that in any future negotiations the principle of these points would still form the basis of arrangement. I wish to ask whether by "principle" the noble Lord means the principle laid down in the memorandum of the 28th of December, namely, as regards the first point, that the sole guarantee as to the Principalities should be converted into a quintuple guarantee, and that any future arrangement for the government of the Principalities should be by a combined arrangement between the Powers which are parties to the treaty. It having been reported to me that there is at this moment a commission sitting at Vienna to arrange a 1203 form of Government for the Principalities, I beg again to put the question to the noble Lord, whether he is aware of any such Commission sitting at Vienna? I also wish to ask him whether a protest has not been delivered to Lord Clarendon for the British Government, signed by a considerable number of Wallachian and Moldavian gentlemen of influence against the arrangements concluded at Vienna in reference to Moldavia and Wallachia? I wish to give notice that on Monday I will ask the noble Lord why Sir Charles Napier has been excluded from those honours of the Bath which have been recently conferred on other Generals and Admirals for their services?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONWith regard to the first question of the hon. Gentleman, I certainly consider that it is rather difficult to Her Majesty's Government, and somewhat inconvenient to be asked, to state what are the precise conditions they may think it right to demand, or require or insist upon, in future negotiations. The hon. Gentleman must see the inconvenience of such questions, bearing as they do on matters of considerable importance. What I meant, on a former occasion, to state was this—that the details of the arrangement with regard to the first and second points were settled provisionally, on condition that the whole treaty of peace should be satisfactorily arranged. That not having been the case Her Majesty's Government—and the Austrian Government were quite aware of the circumstance—held themselves free to re-discuss any matter which had been provisionally agreed to in regard to the Principalities. But what I consider to be the fundamental principle of the first point is that Russia should no longer exercise that exclusive protection over the Principalities which hitherto by treaties she has expressly enjoyed. What may be substituted for that must be matter of arrangement when the time comes for considering it. With regard to the Commission reported to be sitting at Vienna, I beg to inform the hon. Gentleman that there is no such Commission sitting at Vienna, engaged in planning a system of Government for the Principalities. There is a Commission, but one of a very different kind—namely, a Commission consisting of English, Austrian, Turkish, and French members, who are empowered to receive representations from the inhabitants of the Principalities as to any complaints which they 1204 may have to make with regard to the occupation of their country by the Austrian troops. I understand from my noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) that he has received a communication from certain gentlemen stating themselves to be natives of the Principalities, but who are not at all in a capacity which would make them the representatives of the Principalities—being persons residing in other parts of Europe—France or Germany. With regard to the question of the hon. Gentleman, as to what he calls the exclusion of Sir Charles Napier from the honours of the Bath, I can assure him that it was a circumstance which caused great regret to Her Majesty's Government, but the exclusion was one altogether self-imposed. Sir Charles Napier was informed that his name had been recommended for the honour of the Grand Cross of the Bath, but, for reasons of which he must be left to judge, he declined accepting it.
§ MR. LAYARDasked, whether the noble Lord would have any objection to lay a copy of the protest made by the Gentlemen from the Principalities on the table of the House?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would communicate with his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the subject.