HC Deb 15 June 1855 vol 138 cc2036-40
MR. OTWAY

I rise to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government the question of which I have given notice, and though I am anxious not to delay the interesting discussion about to take place, still, after having formally given notice of my question, I feel bound to ask it. The noble Viscount has stated in the House, that in February last certain right hon. Gentlemen, who were lately eminent Members of his Government, stipulated as to the conditions of peace, and more especially as to cine which should be asked of Russia. I should be trifling with the House to suppose that those stipulations could have been made with any other view than that of favouring Russia; for those who have had the pain of listening to the speeches of the right hon. Members for Carlisle and the University of Oxford (Sir James Graham and Mr. Gladstone) must be aware that any stipulations as to the conditions of peace made by them could have had no other object than that of being favourable to our enemy.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I rise to order. You have heard the language which has fallen from the hon. Member. He has stated, that nothing stated or stipulated by my fight hon. Friend or by myself with references to the terms of peace could have had any object but that of being favourable to our enemy. I put it to you, Sir, whether that language is such as falls within the rules of discussion in this House?

MR. SPEAKER

It is not Within the rules, for it is attributing to hon. Members that which is treasonable.

MR. OTWAY

I regret very much, Sir, that anything I have said could be thought to impute such conduct as you have described to the right hon. Gentlemen, for nothing was further from my intention than to say that the right hon. Members had been guilty of treason. What I intended to say was, that I conceived that the tenor of their speeches must have led all hon. Members to suppose that any stipulations made by them with the noble Viscount could have been in no other than a favourable light towards Russia. I think it must be conceded that that was their intention, from the remarks which have fallen from the noble Viscount; and, that being the case, it cannot but be thought that the noble Viscount considered them proper conditions, for the noble Viscount and the right hon. Gentlemen were sitting for nearly two years in the same Cabinet, and were fully cognisant of each other's views as to the terms and conditions of peace. I think this a grave matter for consideration, and it is a sorry proof of the harmony which was said to have existed in the Government of the noble Lord; and if these right hon. Gentlemen had so little confidence in their chief, I think it would have been far better if they had not joined his Government. But there is matter far graver than this. In the struggle in which we are engaged we have allies, and I should like to know whether they were made aware of the stipulations of the right hon. Gentlemen? Supposing that the conditions referred to Sebastopol—and I think it not unlikely that they did—what could be more natural than to suppose that our allies, deeming the rebuilding or destruction of that fortress most important, should be desirous of imposing certain conditions with reference to this fortress, concerning which the right hon. Gentlemen may have stipulated with the noble Lord. The same remarks will apply to Bomarsund, and I ask if our allies were not made aware of the stipulations of the right hon. Gentlemen, what becomes of our alliance? There are many other considerations which call for positive inquiry into those proceedings, with reference to which I consider the noble Lord's conduct was neither statesmanlike nor patriotic. There are further considerations connected with the subject with which I will not trouble the House, for the right hon. Gentlemen have seceded from the Government of the noble Lord, and the fatal influence which they exercised with regard to the conduct of the war no longer paralyses his actions. I will ask the noble Viscount—and I do it in no spirit of hostility, but because I think that, after the statement he has made, it is due to the House to have a clear and intelligible reply on this subject, and because I think the conditions which we are to demand should be qualified by the successes of war—whether he is bound by the stipulations made by the right hon. Gentlemen in February last, and whether he is prepared to counsel his Sovereign and our somewhat forgotten allies, to offer such terms as he considers will prevent the aggression of Russia for the future, and secure a safe and honourable peace.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

However natural the desire of the hon. Member who has put this question may be to have full information on the subject, I am sure the House will concur with me, that it would be unbecoming in me to enter upon a detailed discussion of the matter. All I can therefore state is this—and I hope it Will be sufficient for the hon. Gentleman and for the House—that when my right hon. Friends, who have lately ceased to be Members of the Government, were considering the proposals that were made to them that they should join the Cabinet, they very naturally and properly desired to come to a clear understanding upon any points upon which it was possible that some difference of opinion might afterwards arise. In so doing, I think they only did that which was due to themselves and to me. There was one point upon which they required information, and that was whether it Was the intention of the Government, then in the course of formation, to make a particular demand upon Russia the sine quâ non of peace. I stated, in reply, to the friend through whom the communication was made, that the demand was not one which this country was entitled to make a sine quâ non, and that it was not his intention to propose to his colleagues to make it an absolute condition. Of course, all conditions of peace communicated by the Governments of England and France to the Government of Austria, and afterwards communicated by that Power to Russia, depend upon the events of the war; and that which might at one time be a condition which this country might not be entitled to demand, might, under altered circumstances, become one very proper to insist upon. I hope this explanation will be considered sufficient, and that the House will not consider it necessary, or advisable, that I should enter into further details.

MR. DISRAELI

It is, no doubt, of the utmost importance that there should be a complete understanding between the members of a Government; and this House has no right to ask for more than a general exposition of the main principles on which a Government is formed. It has no right to inquire into all the conditions which may have taken place between the several Members of the Government. But when in a debate of the magnitude of that which has lately taken place, the Members of the Government specifically referred to a particular stipulation and condition made to and assented to by the noble Lord who remains at the head of the Government, Her Majesty's Ministers must not be surprised at such a question as that asked by the hon. Member. The course which has been pursued is perfectly legitimate, Parliamentary and constitutional, and I do not think any Gentleman is open to censure for making such inquiries as have been made by the hon. Member. It was an inquiry which those who are Ministers, or who have been Ministers, must have expected would be made after the specific allusion made by them to these stipulations. I should not have risen, but I thought the tone of the noble Lord's reply implied that the inquiry was improper; but, as I have said, after what has taken place, he must have expected that such an inquiry would be made.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I should not have risen to claim your protection against the language used by the hon. Member—language which I do not think he has abandoned, as he might have done—had I not felt justified in so doing. I agree, however, with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), and do not think that the slightest blame is to be attributed to the hon. Member for making this inquiry. I feel a good deal embarrassed both by the question and the subject it has reference to; for it appears to me, in a question of this kind, one of two courses ought to be pursued. The Commons ought either to know nothing or everything. For my part, as far as my personal and strong inclinations and earnest desire go, I wish that my noble Friend at the head of the Government, if he felt it consistent with his public duty, after having made reference to this subject, could have felt himself at liberty to proceed, and have laid before the House all the information in his power; for I am certain that the effect of these partial references, followed by information jealously and stintedly given—going up to a certain point and then stopped short by the plea of official reserve—cannot but be mischievous to all the parties concerned. On this ground I regret the position in which the matter has been left; but I am not in a condition to press for the information beyond expressing my personal inclination and desire that it should be given; but the public interest must rule all the decisions in questions of this character. With regard to myself—and I do not presume to speak for any one but myself—but for myself I beg leave to say that I am not aware that I have at any time, either directly or indirectly, by myself or through others, at the time of the formation of the Government, put a question to my noble Friend with reference to the anticipated conditions of treaty with Russia; for this reason—I was not aware that any difference of opinion existed between us as to those conditions, or that any such difficulty would arise. In thus speaking for myself, and not admitting that I was a party to any question of the kind, I do not wish to be understood as making any assertion on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle; it is for my right hon. Friend himself to state, if he thinks fit, the part which he took. As far as I am concerned, no communication to which I was a party had reference to any particular stipulation, term, or condition of peace with Russia. I hope I have explicitly stated my own inclination to the House. I deeply regret the position in which this question stands. I sincerely wish, especially in a case like this, where nothing in the world passed between the noble Lord and my right hon. Friend except what was perfectly frank, straightforward, and honourable upon all sides, that, after a reference had once been made to the subject, all the particulars could have been made known to the House.