§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON—Sir, I wish to set myself right with the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the House with reference to an assertion which I made the other evening in regard to the military convention to which I alluded. I stated that I had been informed that that convention had not been signed—and I believed such to have been the case. I think, however, it due to the right hon. Gentleman to state that I have since learned that in point of fact it was signed. The convention, however, being more of a military than of a political nature, and having for its object the regulation of the mutual relations between the French and Austrian troops which might happen to be quartered in Italy, in the contingency of Austria declaring war against Russia—that being the foundation of the entire proceeding—and Austria never having, in point of fact, declared war, the convention, although signed, has been a dead letter, and has had no application or effect whatsoever.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid: Sir, although there is no question before the House, I hope I may be allowed to make a few observations—and they shall be of extreme brevity—in reference to what has just fallen from the noble Lord. Hon. Members will recollect that upon the first night of the Session I mentioned the existence of a secret treaty between France and Austria for a particular object. To that statement I received a direct contradiction from the noble Lord. ["No, no."] Yes, the noble Lord said it was "a romance." I do not wish to dwell on this topic, but as the assertion seems to be again met with a denial, I may just observe that the noble Lord was good enough to say that I was distinguished for my powers of invention, and, alluding to the circumstances of my having written some works of imagination in the course of my life, called this another romance. A week elapsed, during which the noble Lord did not appear in his place, and I seized the earliest opportunity, after his return among us, to vindicate myself. I made upon that occasion a statement to the House—which I hope from a sense of justice is still in its recollection—to the effect that I believed the assertion which I had made upon the first night of the Session to be correct—namely, that there had been a treaty entered into between Austria and France guaranteeing to the former the security of her Italian provinces. That was the statement which I submitted to the House on Tuesday last. I added that that treaty had been signed, and I gave the date of its signature; that it had been extensively acted upon; that troops had been withdrawn from Italy in consequence; and that at a subsequent period some alarm being felt by the Italian Governments, Austria had requested the permission of France to communicate to those Governments the existence of the guarantee in order to tranquillise their alarm. And yet this is the treaty which we are told was not acted upon, and whose very being was unknown to Her Majesty's Government. And what was the answer which I received from the noble Lord on Tuesday? The noble Lord, who had upon the first night of the Session pronounced my assertion "a romance," was, on Tuesday, obliged to own that there was a written document in existence, the object of which was to accomplish what I had previously stated; but the noble Lord added that I was mistaken in calling it a treaty, that it was simply a convention—a con- 537 vention, too, which had never been signed. Now comes the third act. We have it now from the noble Lord, not only that there is a written document in the shape of a convention between those two powers for this object, and that it is a secret document, but we have also an acknowledgment from the noble Lord that the only statement of his the other night which substantially saved him from refutation—namely, the statement that the convention was not signed, was incorrect, and that in point of fact it had been signed. Now, after these two admissions from the noble Lord, I am here again to re-state that which I stated on the first night of the Session. I say it was not a convention. I say it was a treaty. I say that it was not only signed, but that it was also extensively acted on. I say that every expression the noble Lord used describing that instrument so little applies to its real nature, as it has been represented to me, that I really believed at the conclusion of the discussion the other night that in consequence of this treaty there must have been concluded some military convention which had not been signed, and that the noble Lord had in that way been misled. I stated the other night, and I now state again, that the document I mentioned was a treaty, and a secret treaty, which was entered into between France and Austria, and the object of which was a guarantee from France to Austria of the security of her Italian dominions; that it was executed on the day I mentioned; that it was acted on—extensively acted on; and that to the best of my belief it conveys on its surface no limitation of its action, and that the description of it given the other night by the noble Lord is entirely incorrect.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON—I am aware that I have no right to trespass again on the indulgence of the House; but really, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and the manner in which he has attempted to cover an ignominious retreat, I hope I may be allowed to make a few additional observations. The right hon. Gentleman has mis-stated now what he said on a former occasion; I say he has entirely misrepresented his own statement, which must be still fresh in the recollection of the House. What was his statement? His statement was this—that there was a treaty between Austria and France for guaranteeing to Austria her Italian possessions. He said that that treaty was now in existence, and that it 538 had been recently acted on by Austria towards the King of Naples, in consequence of discussions between the Governments of France and England on the one hand, and the Government of Naples on the other, and that it had been concluded at the instigation of Her Majesty's Government.
§ MR. DISRAELINo; at the instance of Her Majesty's Government.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONThe right hon. Gentleman said that the treaty had been concluded not only with the knowledge, but at the instigation of Her Majesty's Government.
§ MR. DISRAELIAt the instance of Her Majesty's Government.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONcontinued: The right hon. Gentleman cannot escape on that difference of syllables. I heard the word and recollect it; I am sure he made use of the word "instigation."
§ MR. DISRAELIIt is of no importance. What I really said was, "advice and instance."
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONNo, no; the word was instigation, but if it suit the right hon. Gentleman better to say advice, be it so. What he meant at all events was, that the treaty originated in advice and counsel given by the English Government to the Governments of Austria and of France. Now, Sir, I denied the whole of that statement, and the whole of that statement I now deny again. To my knowledge, and to the best of my belief, no such treaty exists; no such treaty was ever concluded. I say most distinctly that the British Government had no knowledge of such a treaty, and could not, therefore, have instigated its adoption. I stated the other night that if the right hon. Gentleman had seen such a treaty, and if he should assert its existence on his own knowledge, I should of course bow to his declaration, and, although I knew nothing of it, I should take it for granted that such a treaty existed. I said that a convention of a totally different character had been negotiated—a convention regulating the mode of action of the French and Austrian troops, which might happen to be in Italy at the time, in the event of Austria declaring war against Russia, and fighting in front, in concert and in combination with the English and French armies, as she naturally wished that her rear should be secure from molestation while she was engaged in the van in co-operation with the Allies. I said, further, that that convention having been founded 539 on the assumed case of a declaration of war by Austria against Russia, and that declaration never having taken place, the convention became a dead-letter and never had, and never could have, any effect. That assertion I still maintain, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the vapouring manner in which he has been pleased to follow up his statement, has, to the best of my belief, been imposed upon. [Hear.] I beg pardon, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman uses hard words himself, and I must frankly express my opinion, whatever he may think of the language I may find it necessary to employ. I say, then, that the right hon. Gentleman, to the best of my belief, has been grossly imposed upon. This military convention never had any operation, because the condition on which it was founded was never realised. It was represented to him as a thing which it never was, and never was intended to be, namely, as a guarantee obtained by Austria from France for the security of her Italian dominions; and it is utterly impossible that that convention could have been made use of in the manner in which he described, because Austria could not have said to Naples, "I have a permanent guarantee from France for my Italian possessions." The only document that was signed between France and Austria, as far as we are aware, was a convention providing for a case which never arose. And further, this military convention was not signed by our "advice," but it was communicated to us as an arrangement already settled between France and Austria, and the only question we had to consider was, whether we thought, upon the whole, that France was bound in honour to make such an arrangement as would leave Austria the free use of her forces in Italy while she was co-operating with the Allies in the war against Russia. So far, therefore, was what I said from bearing out the right hon. Gentleman, that that which I said, and which I still believe to be perfectly true, shows that the right hon. Gentleman was grossly and entirely misinformed as to the facts of the case.