SIR W. MOLESWORTH AND MR. COBDEN —EXPLANATION. (Hansard, 8 June 1855)

§ SIR W. MOLESWORTH

said: I ask permission of the House to take this, the first, opportunity which I have been able to find, to make a statement in contradiction of certain unfounded personal charges which have been brought against me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding; charges which he defied me to contradict, and which were repeated last night by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester. The hon. Gentleman has accused me of expressing "opinions utterly at variance with all my previous declarations of opinion," and he attributed my alleged inconsistency to discreditable motives. In support of his accusation, he referred to two speeches of mine; one delivered in this House in the year 1850 respecting the Pacifico question—the other delivered at a public meeting at Leeds, in the year 1840, respecting the Syrian question. I have read over both of those speeches. The first, delivered in the Pacifico debate, is reported in Hansard. As any hon. Gentleman can look at it there, I content myself with denying that it contains any sentiments which are inconsistent with those which I expressed the other night in debate. With regard to the speech respecting the Syrian question, it was delivered at Leeds fifteen years ago. On referring to it, I found that, so far from its being, as the hon. Gentleman said, utterly at variance with my present opinions, it was in some respects remarkably in accordance with my 1650 present views. For in that speech I alluded to and foreshadowed the possible necessity of a war similar to that in which we are now engaged—namely, a war in which France and England should be allied to protect Turkey against Russia. The hon. Gentleman wished the other night that I could be forced to read that speech at the table of the House. With the permission of the House, I will read a short extract from it. I said, speaking of the alliance with Russia and the alienation of France, produced by our conduct in the Syrian question, which I was afraid would produce a war with France, the evils of which I denounced— We have formed an alliance with Russia, whose interests are hostile to our own in the East. We have lost the alliance of France, the only European power which has an interest equally strong, and a desire equally urgent with ourselves, to prevent the occupation of Constantinople by Russia. Who does not perceive that every wound inflicted on France by England, or on England by France, must be a source of rejoicing to the northern barbarian—an obstacle removed from his path to Constantinople. Speaking of the craft and duplicity of Russia, in endeavouring to embroil us with France, I said— As the fox, in the fable, when the lions had disabled one another, seized the prey for which they were contending, so Russia, more wily than the fox, urges us (France and England) on to mutual destruction, in the hope that when our forces are exhausted she may carry off the prey we would save from her grasp. In another passage I said— The question may be asked of me, are the affairs of Turkey of no importance to England? Is Russia to be permitted quietly to occupy Constantinople? I answer, by no means. I answer that the policy of England is to abstain from interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, and to insist that a similar policy of non-interference shall be adopted by the other Powers of Europe. In another passage I said— Let us say to Russia, we will not permit you to make an attempt to assume to yourself the sovereignty of the Turkish Empire. If you presume to interfere in affairs which are not your own, and menace Constantinople, France, united with England, will compel you to desist.

§ MR. COLLIER

said, he also wished to make an explanation. He wished to disclaim the interpretation which had been put on a portion of his speech of Tuesday evening by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), by which he was made to express an opinion that the right hon. Gentleman and his two colleagues, who had quitted the Govern- 1651 ment along with him, had been guilty of conduct almost treasonable to their country. He certainly had never intended to make any such accusation; on the contrary, he had expressly stated that he gave credit to those right hon. Gentlemen for having acted throughout from the purest and most conscientious motives. What he had said was, that, judging from events, it seemed to him that those Gentlemen had endeavoured to enter into a calculation as to the precise amount of money and forces necessary to carry out the objects which they had in view, and that they had avoided any excess for fear it should unduly excite the warlike passions of the people of this country or humiliate Russia; and that in consequence of their policy the war had been feebly conducted, and with ill success, by Lord Aberdeen's Government.