HC Deb 04 May 1855 vol 138 cc105-13
MR. DISRAELI

Sir, I wish to have some explanation from Her Majesty's Government of the unusual delay which has taken place in laying before the House the State Papers relative to the late unsuccessful negotiations for peace at Vienna. The House is aware that whatever might have been the result of those negotiations—whether successful or the reverse—whether the preliminaries for peace had been signed, or whether the result had been such as it appears to have been—the papers which have been exchanged during the negotiations might have been prepared for the House, so that when the negotiations had terminated there might be only a protocol or two or the last despatch to print. And the papers might have been laid upon the table of the House on the same night that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies returned and took his seat. If you find that this has been the usual course, I think that I may ask from the Government why the usual course has not been followed on the present occasion, and why there has been an apparent unwillingness on the part of Her Majesty's Government to place Parliament as soon as possible in possession of that information which on so grave a subject it has certainly a right to possess, as soon as it is in the power of the Government to produce it. I have searched the Journals which should guide us on this subject, and as I wish at present to confine myself strictly within the technical limits of a Parliamentary question, I will state what I find in the Journals to direct us at this crisis, and then I will ask the Government to explain to the House why upon this important occasion they have not followed the precedents which have always governed the conduct of Ministers under similar circumstances. The precedent which I take to govern us does not vary from others to which I might refer, but I select it because it is one of modern date, and of the highest importance, and because its circumstances are apposite to the present conjuncture. I take, Sir, the precedent of the rupture of negotiations in 1796. The House will remember that on October 18, 1796, the country was informed that the King had sent the Earl of Malmesbury as his Plenipotentiary to France to negotiate for peace. That was on the 18th of October, and on the 20th of December it was known to the country that the negotiations had terminated. The Earl of Malmesbury returned to this country on the 29th of December, but three days before his return—namely, on Monday, the 26th of December—the Minister came down to the House of Commons with a Message from the Crown—a Message from which will now read an extract to the House.

MR. SPEAKER

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to conclude with a Motion?

MR. DISRAELI

Yes, I will conclude with a Motion, if you should find that I am not strictly within the limits of a question; but I apprehend that you will probably be of opinion that I am strictly within those limits. I wish first to state what, under similar circumstances, was the course pursued by the Ministry on the occasion to which I am referring, and then to inquire why that course has not been adopted on the present occasion. But if you, Sir, should be of opinion that I am trespassing on the rules of the House, I will conclude with a Motion which will not be inconvenient to the Government, inasmuch as it is one which they would have to make themselves at some period during the evening. I may remind the House, that on the 20th December it was known that negotiations had terminated. On the 29th December the Plenipotentiary (Lord Malmesbury) returned to this country; but three days before his return—namely, on the 26th—Mr. Secretary Dundas came down with a Message from the Crown, expressed in these words— It is with the utmost concern that His Majesty acquaints the House of Commons that his earnest endeavours to effect the restoration of peace have been unhappily frustrated; and that the negotiation in which he has been engaged has been abruptly broken off by the peremptory refusal of the French Government to treat, except upon a basis evidently inadmissible. His Majesty has directed the several memorials and papers which have been exchanged in the course of the late discussion, and the account transmitted to His Majesty of its final result, to be laid before the House."—[Hansard, Parl. History, xxxij.] On referring to the Journals of this House, hon. Members will find that the State Papers alluded to in this Royal Message were of a very voluminous description. They will find there the schedule of the papers laid upon the table of the House, and they will perceive that neither in importance nor yet in number were the documents so submitted, inferior to those which are now so anxiously expected. But the House will observe that two days before—

MR. RICH

said, he rose to order. He was most unwilling to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman unnecessarily, and most desirous that he should have the fullest opportunity possible for making the statement which he wished to submit to the House; but he apprehended that the right hon. Gentleman, in entering into all these particulars, was transgressing the rules of the House with respect to the manner in which questions should be put. The right hon. Gentleman should make a Motion.

MR. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman has intimated his intention of concluding with a Motion, and is, therefore, perfectly in order.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, I am sorry that any misconception on the part of the hon. Member of a statement which it is for the public interest that I should make, and which nothing but the state of the public service, and a regard for the honour and advantage of the country, should have induced me to make, should have subjected me to this interruption. Still, however, I do not despair of bringing the matter clearly before the House, and I will attempt to regather the broken strings of this narrative. The House will see that the moment it was shown that the negotiations were broken off—even before the Plenipotentiary had returned, there came a Message from the Crown to the House of Commons, and the Minister at the same time stated that all the papers relating to those transactions should be laid before the House, and he gave notice that upon the following day the documents in question should be placed upon the table—a very different position from that in which the House now finds itself placed. But was that all? On Monday, the 26th of December, the Message of the Crown to the House of Commons came down. On Wednesday, the 28th, in reference to the promise contained in that Gracious Message, the Minister placed upon the table of the House the whole of the papers connected with those negotiations. But that was not all. Mr. Canning, then Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on the preceding day laid on the table of the House, for the use of the Members, a State Paper of the utmost importance, composed with an ability which was not remarkable, since the pen of Mr. Canning may be traced in it, called "His Majesty's Royal Declaration," in which the King informed the House of all the circumstances of the negotiations, and of the cause which had led to their unsuccessful termination. The House will perceive that, in 1796, under circumstances similar to the present—so similar, indeed, that those with whom we were then in treaty appear to have conducted themselves very much in the same spirit as that described by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) the other night, in his brief account of his negotiations having terminated with "a peremptory refusal to treat, except on a basis evidently inadmissible"—the House, I repeat, will perceive that upon that occasion, under circumstances not only similar to, but I may say even identical with, the present—we had a Message to Parliament from the Crown—we had laid on the table, even before the negotiator had returned, the whole of the papers connected with the unsuccessful negotiations—we had, for the use of the Members, a Royal declaration containing the whole pith and marrow of these same negotiations; and, more than this, on the very day that he laid the papers on the table, which was on Tuesday, the Minister gave notice, for the following Thursday, of a Motion to take them into consideration. Now, Sir, as I have more free warrant than I had expected to speak upon this subject, I shall briefly ask the House to contrast the situation of Parliament in 1796, under similar circumstances to the present, with the condition in which the House of Commons now finds itself in 1855? How have we been treated? Has there been the same anxiety on the part of the Government to impart to Parliament all necessary information at a moment so pregnant with events bearing upon the fate of the country? Has there been not only the same promptitude, but the same cordial and wise ceremony in conducting the communications between the Throne and the Parliament? So far as the proceedings of Parliament are concerned, I am not sure that we have any authentic information that any negotiations whatever have been carrying on; and most assuredly we have not the slightest authentic information of what the basis of those negotiations was, and what the points of controversy were. Now, Sir, I think that this House has a right to inquire why there has been this singular difference between the modes in which Parliament has been treated under circumstances of so much importance and of so much similarity by the Government of that day and the Government in the present instance? Why was not Her Majesty advised to deign to communicate with Her Parliament when the negotiations for peace were found to have failed? Why has there not been a Royal Message? Why were not the papers prepared during the intervals of negotiation, as was the case in 1796, so that when the negotiations were announced to have terminated, Parliament might have been immediately made aware of the circumstances, and an anxious and deeply agitated country have been placed in possession of such information as might enable it to form an opinion on the state of our national affairs? Again, I ask, why has there not been a Royal Message? Why have not the papers been placed more promptly on the table of the House? Why has there not been a Royal declaration? And why has not the Minister come forward with that frankness that befits a British statesman, and, laying the papers on the table, fixed a day for the House to take them into consideration? I thought, Sir, I should have been permitted to ask these questions without being obliged to trench upon o privilege which I wished other Members to enjoy, of moving that this House, at its rising, do adjourn to Monday next. I will, however, make that Motion, because I wish to be strictly within the rules of the House. Having now done so, I await with interest the answer of the Minister to the questions I have addressed to him.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

I think, Sir, the answer which I shall have to give will have been anticipated by almost all who heard the questions of the right hon. Gentleman, who are at all acquainted with the circumstances to which he has adverted and the circumstances connected with the negotiations recently conducted by my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell). The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a case in which, in a war between England and France, negotiations were entered into directly between the two countries—a case in which it was perfectly clear in the course of the negotiations, before they were concluded, that peace was hopeless, and, peace being hopeless, it became the duty of the Government of the day to appeal to Parliament for more vigorous exertions for the prosecution of the war. If my noble Friend had gone to St. Petersburg without any previous negotiation with any other Power, and if the result of a fortnight's or a month's negotiations at St. Petersburg had proved similar to that to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, the cases would certainly have been much more parallel than they are in point of fact. It is well known that the negotiation which my noble Friend undertook was conducted through the intervention of the friendly Government of Austria. It is also well known that from the commencement of the war—and, I may say, even before the commencement of the war—Austria, as maintaining friendly relations towards all parties, has been incessant in her endeavours to bring about a reconciliation of the differences existing between England and France on the one hand and Russia on the other, and it was only a continuance of those efforts which led to the Conferences in which my noble Friend took part. Although, however, these Conferences did not terminate in a successful issue, they were not broken off. They were adjourned without any specific time being appointed for their renewal; but after my noble Friend left Vienna, and after the Conferences had been adjourned sine die, there took place, at the request of Austria, another Conference. [Lord J. RUSSELL: of Russia.] Yes, the application for a renewal of the Conferences did come from Russia, but through Austria, and not directly communicated either to England or France. At the request of the Russian Minister, who said that he had another proposal to make, the Conference was re-assembled, and—without being perfectly certain on the subject—I believe that up to this moment the detailed protocols or records of that Conference have not been received by Her Majesty's Government; at all events, if they have been received, it is within the last few hours. Well, Sir, the Conferences were adjourned, and my noble Friend returned to this country; but there still exist at Vienna the elements of a Conference—representatives of England, of France, of Russia, and of Austria. The course the right hon. Gentleman suggests might certainly be a very proper course to adopt, if it was the determination of Her Majesty's Government to shut the door against every possible means of settling those differences which have led to the war. If Her Majesty's Government had fully determined that, under no circumstances, would they listen to any further overture that may be made, either by Russia through Austria, or by Austria with the view of suggesting means of accommodation between the belligerent parties, then, undoubtedly, the course the right hon. Gentleman recommends Her Majesty's Government to pursue, of coming down with a Message to Parliament, stating that all possibility of accommodation was at an end, and declaring that peace was, under the circumstances, impossible, would be the proper course to adopt. But that, Sir, is not the position in which we are placed. We have failed in the attempt we made, but I am not prepared to say that there are no other means open by which, through the intervention of the friendly offices of Austria, propositions may be made which it may become the duty of Her Majesty's Government seriously to consider, with the view of determining whether it is still possible to bring the existing differences with Russia to a close. Allow me to say, Sir, that, even upon the showing of the right hon. Gentleman, the present case and that to which he refers are not parallel cases. The right hon. Gentleman says that, in the case of France, the basis of negotiations was peremptorily refused by France; but in this instance the basis of negotiation has been accepted by Russia. The four points upon which England and France agreed to negotiate have been accepted by Russia, and, to a certain extent, even the interpretation which England and France placed upon those four points has also been accepted by Russia as a foundation upon which to negotiate. The difficulties have been as to the mode in which the fair meaning of these points was to be carried out in detailed articles of agreement. I think, therefore, Sir, whatever may be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the analogy of the two cases, that they are essentially different in their fundamental elements; and I consider that Her Majesty's Government would not have been properly performing their duty if, following out the fanciful analogy of former cases, they had taken steps which would have proclaimed to the world that we had lost all hopes of the possibility of an accommodation. Sir, I should, at the same time, be equally neglecting my duty if I were to hold out false hopes which might not be realised; but, while saying that I feel that the Government would entirely violate their duty if they stated that all hopes of accommodation were at an end, I wish to leave the question in the state in which it is. I wish to leave the door of negotiation open. I would not shut the door to any possible negotiation by such measures as those into which the right hon. Gentleman would wish to drive Her Majesty's Government. We said, Sir, that we would produce the protocols relating to the Conferences at Vienna. Those protocols shall be produced, and when, they are produced it will be for the House to determine whether they think it advisable to take any steps founded thereupon. We are anxious to give to this House and to the country all the information we think consistent with the public interests and consistent with the possibility of any future amicable arrangement of those differences which have compelled us to embark in a great and arduous contest. While, on the one hand, we are determined to continue that contest, so long as it shall be inevitably necessary, in a manner consistent with the honour, the dignity, and the interests of the country, so, on the other hand, we shall not be the parties to shut the door to the possibility of concluding an honourable and satisfactory peace.