HC Deb 08 July 1859 vol 154 cc881-7
MR. COCHRANE

said, that in the absence of his noble Friend (Lord W. Graham) he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Circular of Count Cavour, dated the 14th day of June, 1859, has been officially communicated to the English Court; and if so, whether he has deemed it consistent with his duty to make any reply thereto, or to address any observations thereon to the Sardinian Minister in this country. That despatch referred to one of the 1st of March, which had been published, and of which it purported to be merely a recapitulation. Nevertheless, while the despatch of the 1st of March spoke about obtaining a separate national constitution for Lombardy and Venice, the later despatch accepted the annexation of Lombardy to Piedmont. On this point the following language was held— The feelings of the inhabitants have broken out; the municipal authorities, the very same that had been instituted by Austria, have proclaimed the fall of the ancient Government, have renewed the union of 1848, and unanimously con-firmed their annexation to Piedmont. The municipality of Milan proclaimed it even within range of Austrian cannon. The King, by accepting this spontaneous act of the national will, infringes the existing treaties in no respect, since Austris, by refusing to accept a Congress having for its basis the maintenance of these treaties, and by invading the dominions of His Majesty, has torn up, in so far as concerns herself, the transactions of 1814 and 1815. The despatch then proceeded to say— The object of the present war, His Majesty openly avows it, is Italian independence and the exclusion of Austria from the peninsula. This cause is too noble for us to dissemble its full bearing, too sacred that it should not obtain in advance the sympathy of civilized Europe. We even ought to acknowledge that this sympathy has never failed us, for the policy of the King's Government has always been the same, and has met with the approbation not only of the public opinion but of the Cabinets. The document concluded as follows:— We feel the most absolute confidence that the equilibrium of Europe will not be disturbed by the territorial extension of a great power, and that in Italy there will be a strongly constituted kingdom, such as is naturally indicated by its geographical configuration, the unity of race, language, and customs, such as diplomacy had already desired to create at other times in the common interest of Italy and Europe. With the rule of Austria, and of the States that joined their destinies to those of Austria, a permanent cause of disturbances will disappear, order will be guaranteed, the smouldering flame of revolutions will be extinguished, Europe will be able to give herself up in full security to those great enterprises of peace that form the glory of the age. You now have, Monsieur le Ministre, the point of view under which you are to present the events now passing in Italy. The contest provoked by Austria ought to have for its result her exclusion from a country which force alone had subjected to an odious and intolerable yoke. Our cause, I rejoice to repeat in ending this despatch, is noble and just; we can, we are bound to avow it openly, and we have full confidence in the triumph of good right. This despatch conveyed so much meaning, and was written in so different a spirit from the earlier one, that it would be most desirable to have the noble Lord's answer laid upon the table.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

In answer to the question which has just been put by the hon. Gentleman, and which was to have been put by the noble Lord the Member for Hereford, relating to a despatch or circular of Count Cavour of the 14th of June, I have to state that it has not been officially communicated to the British Government. There is a despatch from Sir James Hudson, stating the substance of a circular written by Count Cavour—I am not exactly sure whether the same circular or not—which alludes to certain States being annexed to Piedmont. The answer of Her Majesty's Government to Sir James Hudson was that they could not acknowledge any of these annexations of other States; that the state of occupation must be considered as provisional only to be decided finally by the wishes of the inhabitants, by the fortune of war, and by any general treaty of peace that might be concluded. This answer Sir James Hudson was desired to communicate to Count Cavour. There is, therefore, no acknowledgment by Her Majesty's Government of any of the annexations that may have taken place. I will next reply, Sir, to the question which has been put by the hon. Gentleman the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. His question is, whether I have any objection to lay on the table of the House a copy of despatch stated to have been addressed to the Prussian Government or Her Majesty's Minister at Berlin as to the course of conduct which Prussia ought to pursue with reference to the war in the north of Italy. In answer, I have to state that it would be very inconvenient to the public service if that despatch were laid on the table. It is a despatch to which an answer has been given by Prussia; while, again, another was sent only last night by Her Majesty's Government, continuing the correspondence. I think, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will see that it would be highly inconvenient to give publication to part only of a correspondence. But with respect to the nature of the correspondence the hon. Gentleman has very naturally fallen into some errors. The hon. Gentleman speaks of a circular addressed to the Germanic Confederation from the Court of Russia, and of another circular signed by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Walewski. The circular of the Court of Russia, and I think also that of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, spoke of the rights and duties of the Germanic Confederation, and of what was the proper course for that Confederation to pursue in regard to foreign nations. Now, that is a kind of discussion naturally interesting enough for the States of Germany; but we have not followed any such course. We have not discussed at all the rights and duties of the German Confederation or the rights and duties of the several States, or what should determine their relations to other Powers. But with regard to Prussia, owing to rumours that were in some degree countenanced by official statements, we addressed a despatch to that Court. Now, in looking at the Italian Papers on the table, I see a despatch from the Earl of Malmesbury to Lord Bloomfield, our Minister at Berlin, in which, after stating that the Govern- ment of this country intends to remain neutral, he says,— Her Majesty's Government, therefore, deprecate any act which would unnecessarily extend the theatre of war, and they will be prepared to take advantage of any favourable opportunity that may be afforded to them of being the medium of restoring peace."—p. 402. Now, the whole object of our despatch to the Court of Berlin was to "deprecate any act that might unnecessarily extend the theatre of war." It appears to me that it is the bounden duty of Her Majesty's Government, as far as they can properly do so, to consult with other Governments which are neutral in order to prevent the theatre of war from extending. I need hardly point out to the House, certainly not to the hon. Gentleman, who is so well acquainted with foreign affairs, that while it is a great calamity to have war in Italy, it would be a still greater calamity if the war extended to Germany, and through Germany to the whole of Europe. We were, therefore, led to consider what were the causes put forth that should induce Prussia to take part in hostilities, and to discuss in the most friendly manner the interests of Prussia in regard to the war. In regard to the latter part of the statement of the hon. Gentleman it is peculiarly necessary that there should be no premature publication of correspondence at this moment; for, without knowing how far the armistice may extend, we are informed officially by the Moniteur that it leaves room for negotiation. That is so important an announcement that it would be unadvisable for the Government, and very unwise for any Member of this House to enter into discussion on this subject. Our disposition must ever be the same as that of the late Government— namely, to take any opportunity afforded us of "being the medium of restoring peace." We may not take the same view in regard to what would be the most favourable time for restoring peace to Europe; but with regard to the object we are entirely agreed with them. The hon. Gentleman—surely very unnecessarily—referred to a despatch of mine written some years ago, and communicated to the Court of Russia. The fact, with regard to that despatch, was that the late Emperor of Russia thought it advisable that there should be a concert between this country and Russia with regard to the future state of Turkey, supposing the Government of the Sultan to be destroyed. We did not think fit to enter into any such concert, and the Emperor of Russia was told so in a despatch that was afterwards in sub stance repeated and enforced by the Earl of Clarendon, who succeeded me at the Foreign Office, upon the Russian Minister at this Court. The Emperor of Russia accordingly wholly abandoned that proposition; and therefore, how anybody, even in the extreme of factious misrepresentation, can say that that course of conduct on my part had anything to do with the breaking out of the war with Russia. I cannot understand. I now come, Sir, to the question that has been put to me with regard to Mexico, and I own that the subject is one upon which I must necessarily be very brief and general. Mexico, most unfortunately, has been divided into two envious parties, both of whom have been guilty of many outrages on British subjects in pursuit of their respective objects. It appears that the British Minister is considered favourable to one side, and that the Minister of the United Stales is considered favourable to another side; but whatever may be the truth of these representations it is undoubtedly true that both from the one side and from the other, both from the Centralist party and the Constitutional party, British subjects have suffered great outrages. Their property has been taken from them, and in certain cases where it has not been given up they have been brought to be executed, and in one instance it required the greatest efforts on the part of the British Minister to save the life of a proposed victim. As to the outrages that occurred in the first instance the late Government employed a squadron to procure redress, and this House is aware of what followed. I can only say that Captain Dunlop did his duty with great zeal and great discretion. But, unfortunately, since the arrangements then made, there is a fresh arrear of outrages to be complained of, and the serious question to be considered is, what should be done to protect British subjects against them. Undoubtedly it is the duty of the Government to protect them, and I may say that no effort will be spared to effect that object. With regard to Mr. Otway, he has lately received leave of absence, in order that he may come to this country and make his defence against the charges which have been brought against him. He himself considers those charges totally unfounded; but I regret to say that he has not entered so much into particulars as to enable me to lay papers on the table which will show that ha is in the right and the British merchants in the wrong. In conclusion, I have only to repeat that for the protection of British property as much will be done as can possibly be done in the circumstances.

MR. BOWYER

remarked, that the noble Lord had stated that it was the duty of the Government to give such advice to the German Powers as might prevent the theatre of the war being extended. That was a very specious and plausible expression. In one sense every one would assent to it, but it was difficult to see to what extent the meaning of that expression might not be carried. He understood that the advice given by the Government to the German Powers was that they should observe a strict neutrality.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

I did not say that we had given any advice to the German Powers. I said that we had been in correspondence with the Court of Berlin.

MR. BOWYER

said, he understood that the despatch in question stated the view which the Government took of the course that the German Powers ought to pursue. Those Powers had not the advantage which we enjoyed of being an island; they were placed in a very different position to us. They had seen with considerable alarm this revolutionary war carried on by France and Sardinia against Austria. He called it a revolutionary war because it was carried on with appeals to nationalities, and by attempts to stir up the subjects of independent States, with whom neither France nor Sardinia had any cause of quarrel, to revolt against their Sovereigns. He was not unwilling to see the principle of Italian independence carried out; he had always felt that the question of Austrian power in Italy was a difficult one; but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the present war was one of open and avowed conquest and carried on by revolutionary means, and in a manner quite new to the history of Europe. He did not wonder, therefore, that Germany saw with great anxiety the progress of the enormous, powerful, and apparently irresistible army of France. The noble Lord said that no advice had been given to the German Powers; still the House had a right to gather from what he said that the opinion of the Government was that the German Powers should remain perfectly passive in this matter, and should wait their turn, for their turn would come, to be devoured by France. He thought the Government would act very wisely by leaving the Germans to mind their own business. They were perfectly competent to understand what the interests of their great Confederation and of their different States required from them; they understood this much better than we did. If a powerful country like England gave advice to those German Powers, it must necessarily interfere with their policy to a considerable extent. As an island and a maritime country, England had much less to fear from France than the Germans had. We ought not to exercise the influence of this country to prevent the Germans from taking such a course as they thought might put some check upon the aggressive and conquering policy of France. He was not afraid of the consequences of an attempt to invade this country. If it took place he believed it would be defeated most effectually; but he did not feel quite so confident as many persons did that our turn might not come to repel the aggressive and conquering spirit of which he had spoken. On the contrary, he believed that Austria had been to a great extent fighting the battle of England when she opposed that conquering spirit of France. He looked with hope, and not without satisfaction, to the new state of things that had been brought about in Italy by the success of France. At the same time, he would warn the Government and the House, when they talked about sympathy with France, to remember that our turn might come, and probably would come, and that when Franco had overcome and swept back Austria, and had undertaken, probably next year, a successful war against Germany, the time would come when we should have to stand on our defence, and those who were so anxious to express sympathy with France would find it misplaced and see that they ought to have looked beyond present circumstances, when France sought to wipe out the defeat of Waterloo.