OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 15 July 1859)

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

should have risen, Sir, to offer some observations to the House immediately after my noble Friend (Lord Elcho) sat down, but that I expected his remarks would have mot with some response from one or other of the noble Lords, or from some right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury 1310 bench. As my noble Friend has thought it right not to enter at any length into a consideration of the Resolution which he had proposed to submit to the House, neither will I intrude on the House by any lengthened observations. I quite agree with the noble Lord that there are no considerations which on public grounds should have induced him to withdraw from the notice of the House the Resolution which he intended to propose. The consideration of that Resolution, Sir, certainly could not have interfered with any negotiation which Her Majesty's Government have in hand, as far as we know—for the best of all possible reasons, namely, that Her Majesty's Government have undertaken no negotiations at all. And further, Sir, if rumour speaks truly, any proposition or negotiation would have met with very little encouragement at the hands of the noble Lords opposite. Neither would the consideration of the Resolution of my noble Friend have interfered at all with those friendly and cordial communications which may be supposed ordinarily to pass between Her Majesty's Government and a friendly Power; because, Sir, we are informed that when the armistice was signed that Her Majesty's Government had received no official information of the circumstance; and now we are informed that peace has been concluded, and that Her Majesty's Government are still without any information on the matter, so that consequently they have never been consulted at all in reference to it. Therefore, as far as the public interests are concerned, I do not think my noble Friend was called on to withdraw his Resolution; but although it might not have been inconvenient to the public service, I think it is pretty clear to the House that a discussion with reference to my noble Friend's Resolution would have been necessarily and singularly inconvenient to Her Majesty's Government. After debates, which certainly have seldom been exceeded in interest and importance, Her Majesty's late Government retired from office, and we now see their successors on the opposite benches. In the course of those debates the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton addressed a speech to the House in which he severely arraigned the conduct of the then Government in reference to their conduct of foreign affairs. He made suggestions on that occasion as to the course which Her Majesty's Government ought to have followed, and he also made statements as 1311 to the course which they had adopted. I took leave at the time to give an emphatic contradiction to the statements of the noble Lord, although I refrained from asking him from what quarter he had obtained his information as to our communications on foreign affairs. Certainly, Sir, it did not come from Her Majesty's Government, and it could scarcely have come from that quarter to which the noble Lord supposed those communications were addressed. I can imagine, therefore, that a discussion on my noble Friend's Resolution would have been most unpalatable to the noble Lord at the head of the Government when from every side of the House it would be pointed out to him that all suggestions which he made as to the course which Her Majesty's late Government ought to have taken were precisely those which throughout had influenced the councils of that Administration, and that the language which he said we ought to have held was not only the same in spirit, but almost identical in words with that which my noble Friend the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs made use of in his communications on the Italian question. Why, Sir, if a discussion had been taken on the Resolution of my noble Friend it would have been shown that the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Palmerston) obtained power which he now holds by misrepresentation of the policy of Her Majesty's late Government, and by statements which, as one of those engaged in office at the time, I felt it my duty to meet with an emphatic contradiction. Nor do I think, Sir, that the discussion would have been satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government on general grounds. Certainly, after the debates to which I have referred, and the accession of the noble Lord to office, great expectations were entertained by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the results of that change. There were many who called themselves friends of Italy, but still said that the policy of this country ought to be a policy of non-interference. There were many who hoped that the ingenuity of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and that of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, would enable them to combine those two policies, and thus attain the results which in both interests they wish to see attained. They wish Italy free, but at the same time they desire a policy of non-intervention on the part of this country. And expecting that a policy of this kind would be originated by the 1312 noble Lords opposite, I can fancy the disappointment of those hon. Gentlemen at hearing from the lips of the noble Lord that he had no policy whatever, that the policy which he should pursue was that chalked out by the Government who had been in office before him. Above all, Sir, what must have been the effect of that announcement abroad. There were populations who were on the verge of revolt, and looked to the name of the noble Lord at the head of the Government as that charmed name which was to bring them all the advantages which they sought for? There were vacillating Cabinets and hostile powers all waiting to hear the policy of the new Government; and at last when listening with attentive ears, Europe read the announcement of the noble Lord's policy, it heard no more than that he had no policy of his own at all—that his policy was chalked out for him by his predecessors. My noble Friend abstained from going into the details of the question to which his Resolution referred, and I shall follow him in this course. I will not enter at length into a discussion of those matters, which necessarily would be somewhat disagreeable to Her Majesty's Government; I will only say that I think it is a caution to those who sit in this House, and depreciate a policy in total ignorance of what that policy is, to take heed by this example, and take care that when they accede to office, they may not be called on to accept in all humility the policy which they were the first to revile. I wish to make one observation to Her Majesty's Government in reference to existing affairs, and with reference to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of them. Before I do so, however, I desire to offer one remark to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), in reference to an observation which fell from him a few nights ago, when I asked a question in reference to a despatch which he had addressed to our Minister at Berlin, and which, according to the confession of some of his colleagues, contained advice as to the policy which Germany ought to pursue in reference to the present war. After I left the House on that occasion, the noble Lord referred to a despatch of my noble Friend the Earl of Malmesbury, commenting on which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) said that the course of policy pursued in that matter by the present Government was exactly the same as that which had been adopted by the preceding administration. Now, it is 1313 to correct that great misapprehension I wish to say a few words. If the noble Lord read carefully the context of the despatch he quoted, he would see that the circumstances were totally different, and that there was not the slightest analogy between the advice said to be tendered by the noble Lord and that contained in the despatch from which he quoted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham-shire (Mr. Disraeli) said, that the policy of the late Government had been to abstain from offering any advice to Germany in respect to what her interests required, as we felt that by so doing we should put ourselves in the position of being called on to give a moral guarantee for the consequences which that advice, if followed, might entail on the Power to which it was given. I confess that seemed to me to be the policy which the statesmen of this country were evidently required to pursue. But the noble Lord opposite quoted a despatch which had been addressed to Germany under totally different circumstances, and which was not applicable to the case put by my right hon. Friend. I cannot but think that both the noble Lords received that despatch ready opened from some precipitate colleague, who had not made himself master of the contents. Now, I wish to point out to the noble Lord, that by the articles of the general pact the Germanic Confederation is not obliged to join in hostilities on behalf of any member of the Confederation, merely because a portion of his territory not within the limits of the Confederation is attacked; but if any portion of his territory not included within those limits is menaced, it is for the Confederation to say, whether the case is one of federal interest and one in which the Confederation should interfere. Then, the position taken by my noble Friend the Earl of Malmesbury, in that despatch quoted by the noble Lord, is in effect this, "As long as there is no matter involved for which it is your interest to interfere, slumber—do not interfere; but as soon as German interests are involved, then I will not take the responsibility of giving advice to Germany in respect of the course which she ought to pursue, as I am not prepared to accompany it with a moral guarantee." From this, it is evident that my noble Friend declined to do exactly what the noble Lord opposite did; and in doing so, adopted, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire observed, a very dangerous policy. I would now call the 1314 earnest attention of the House to the present condition of affairs. It is impossible, I apprehend, to say whether the details of the peace which has been lately signed, will have to be carried out by a European Congress or not. Now, I am not going to discuss the terms of the peace. The details are so imperfectly known, that I think a discussion of them would not be conducive to the public interest. But I say this, that it is possible at any rate that the details of the treaty of peace may have to be carried out by foreign Powers. It may be that this country, if invited by other Powers—it may be her duty to take part in the deliberations to which the rest of Europe may agree. I do not desire to offer any decided opinion upon the point, because we have had nothing to do with the war, we have nothing to do with the peace, and I think it maybe a question whether this country ought to have anything to do with the arrangements for carrying the peace into effect. But, Sir, what have been the views of the existing Government in reference to that which is somewhat analogous to entering into a Congress with a view to the establishment of peace? We have had the declaration of a member of the Government as to the possibility of their being called on to mediate between the contending parties. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London, when speaking of the increase in our armaments, expressed an opinion that they were not only necessary, perhaps, for self-defence, but that they were also of great importance in giving weight to us with regard to our interference abroad. And similar language has been held by others of the noble Lord's colleagues. The right hon. Secretary for War used similar language when, in ad dressing his constituents, he said that "if called on to use our moral weight he assured them there was one thing of great importance, and that was what he termed our position as an armed power." And the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for India, used language of considerable importance in reference to this matter. I was unfortunate enough, in quoting a speech of the right hon. Baronet on a former occasion, to meet at his hands with a direct denial of the accuracy of my quotation, and therefore I have on this occasion provided myself with the recorded words which the right hon. Baronet used, I find, then, that the right hon. Baronet used these words— If we are to exert, as I trust we may have an 1315 opportunity of doing, the functions of a mediator between contending Powers, depend upon it that the effect of mediation will not be diminished when it is offered by a country strong in its own resources, which does not approach merely in the shape of a beggar, but which can say to both sides, 'The lire of conduct which it is our duty to pursue we are not merely seeking in formâ, pauperis, but we are a powerful State and have a right to ask you to comply.' I find that there is a similar report in the other papers. What, then, I want to call the attention of the House to is this—that this is not language of conciliation. That is not the language of mediation; that is not the temperate language befitting a Power professing neutrality; that is the language of menace; that is language which, sooner or later, will compromise the position of this country; and it is language to which I feel I cannot forbear calling the attention of the House of Commons. What I want to convey to the House is, that if that is the spirit of Her Majesty's Government it is very possibly the spirit in which they will enter into the council chamber of Europe, if they should be called upon to take part in the deliberation on the treaty of peace; and I can conceive nothing more likely to bring us into hostility than using language such as that language which, as I have said before, is the language of menace and intervention; and I trust that the House of Commons, if that language is to be used, will take the earliest opportunity of expressing its disapprobation of it. I will not proceed further with this question. All I hope is, that in the events that are to come, Her Majesty's Government will avoid that system of interference and intervention which has so perilously distinguished our diplomacy in past times. It was only the other day that I was reading one of the latest speeches addressed to the constituency of Liverpool by Mr. Canning; and I think it is language that ought to be emphatically remembered by every one who has the charge of the foreign affairs of this country. He said, "It had been too much the fashion of late to mix up philanthropy and sentiment with questions of foreign policy, and that at the risk of being considered selfish and narrow-minded he was content to take his ground with reference to foreign questions on the mere consideration of what was English interest." That I hold should be the policy of Her Majesty's Government. That policy should not be a policy of mere philanthropy and sentiment; but it should be a 1316 policy of British interests—one becoming this country, one not menacing to others, but only firmly asking that which they believe to be to the interest and honour of our own country.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL

(who was imperfectly heard): Sir, I certainly thought it quite unnecessary to take any notice of the speech that has been made by my noble Friend, who, having given notice of a Motion on this subject, seems to have reflected upon it, and to have come to the conclusion that he had much better not make it. I quite agree with him in that opinion, and certainly it is very harmless to indulge in a sort of triumph and jubilee when, in fact, he was at the same time retreating from the position which he had taken up. The noble Lord seems to have triumphed in considering that any wishes that my noble Friend and I might have had for freedom in Italy will be disappointed. That may be the case, but I sure I am not ashamed, and I do not think my noble Friend will ever be ashamed, of saying that our wishes were in favour of freedom in any country in which free institutions can be introduced. It is one thing to say that you will use the power of the country—that you will interfere with the means of a country, in order to introduce or to foster free institutions into another country, but it is another thing to rejoice whenever these free institutions prosper, and lament whenever they are blighted. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last has referred to Mr. Canning. I remember perfectly well the speech of Mr. Canning in this House upon the subject of the French invasion of Spain. The Spaniards had established free institutions in Spain. The French, at the bidding, or in concert with the despotic Powers of Europe, went into Spain to put down those free institutions. Mr. Canning declared that the policy of this country was neutrality; but at the same time he did not hesitate to say his wishes were that the Spaniards might be successful in resisting that invasion. The hon. Gentleman no doubt quoted Mr. Canning correctly; but, at the same time, Mr. Canning did not go beyond the line properly chalked out for the Minister of a free country in thus expressing his wishes, at the same time that he declared what the policy of the Government ought to be. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the conduct of the late Government. I am glad the noble Lord has not made it necessary for the House to discuss that conduct. I am ready to believe 1317 at all times that they were endeavouring, to the utmost of their power, with impartiality and care to preserve a neutral position and prevent the evils of war. I remember saying, when there was a question of the Earl of Malmesbury going to a Congress, that there was neither ability nor inclination wanting on his part to bring that Congress to a satisfactory termination. I said likewise, during the discussion upon the late vote of confidence, when the papers were not produced, that it was fair to presume that everything in those papers would be favourable to the late Government, and that, with the papers unseen it would not be justice to presume that those papers would make out a case of any want of impartiality and ability. If we had to go into all the particulars, there might have been certain points on which I might have said they had not taken the view which, in my opinion, was most likely to lead to a satisfactory result. I think that, especially in the beginning of this discussion with France, much might have been done that was left undone. I am glad not to enter into that discussion, or to have a debate on those circumstances. But then the hon. Gentleman, passing by the conduct of the late Government, thinks it fit with the very little knowledge he possesses, and with the little modicum of information that I thought it consistent with my duty to give, to find great fault with the present Government for the course which they have pursued. He refers to an instance for which I was blamed when advice was given to Prussia not to interfere, as we thought, prematurely in the war, and not to place herself in the ranks of the belligerents. In answer to that I quoted a despatch of the Earl of Malmesbury's, written in the strongest terms, in which the same advice was given. She was told that her coasts would be ravaged, and that England would give her no assistance. The more I inquired at the Foreign Office, the more strongly does that recommendation appear to have been given. It was sent to our Ministers at the German Courts, and it was even communicated to the German Ministers resident in this country, that their Courts might have full information of the views of the noble Earl, so strongly did he think it his duty to warn the German Powers against entering into this war. I do not regret the advice which Her Majesty's present Government gave to Prussia, to consider well and pause before she made herself a belligerent, if it 1318 had any effect in producing that moderate and, I think, wise course which Prussia has pursued. I believe that her refraining from entering at once into the arena of war did tend very greatly to circumscribe hostilities; and I believe that if she had entered at once into the war on the ground that the war was approaching the Mincio, it would have been difficult to say to what extent that war would have been carried on, or at what period peace would have been proclaimed. In a letter received this day from Naples I find it stated that the Government of that country was not disposed to enter into the war, but that if Prussia and Germany had entered into it public feeling was so strong that it would have been impossible to stem the torrent, and that Power would have joined in hostilities. I believe that then all Italy and all Germany would have been involved. I rejoice very much that peace is restored. The hon. Gentleman says it is a question whether we ought in any way to enter into a Congress upon it. That is a question of the utmost importance, but it is one upon which I think a premature opinion should not be pronounced. I understand that the Emperors of France and Austria are not completely agreed upon that subject, and at all events the question is not before us at present in a shape to justify us in attempting to decide upon it. It appears to me that the influence of England ought to be used, if it be used at all upon this subject, to confirm peace, to improve any treaty if it be possible to improve it; but it is no part of our duty to abandon that neutral and impartial position for which the hon. Gentleman takes so much credit to the late Government for assuming. For my own part, although I attribute great credit to the late Government, I must do justice to the present, and also to what I believe was and is the universal opinion of the people of this country. There were reasons, abundant reasons for that opinion. I ventured myself in addressing my constituents to state the case of both belligerents, and why I thought neither of them was entitled to the assistance of this country. I said likewise—and I am sorry to say that events seem likely to prove the truth of it—that I did not think the Emperor of the French in going to Italy was likely to consolidate the liberties of that country, at the same time it is impossible to lay down any particular rule beforehand for our guidance. The hon. Gentleman took credit to the late Government, which I am not 1319 going to dispute, but I deny that the credit of neutrality is entirely due to them. I can only say at present that we are bound to watch events narrowly, and, if we should be called upon by all Europe to consider any new treaty of peace that may be made, we are bound not to participate in any treaty which is not conformable to our notions of the honour, dignity, and freedom of this country. It is with a view to the maintenance of that honour and dignity that we are alone disposed to act. I can say nothing more at present, except that I am glad the noble Lord has abandoned his Motion, and that whenever it be desired to canvass the acts of the present Government I shall be quite ready to enter upon the discussion.