§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to ask two Questions of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs of which he had given him private notice. Could the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) was true, that an application was made some months ago by the Emperor of the French to the British Government to join in an offer of mediation, which offer was communicated by Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward; and also whether there had been any recent communication by the French Ambassador in London to the Foreign Office respecting a proposition made by the French Government, in accordance with the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield?
§ MR. LAYARDSir, the subject to which my hon. Friend refers is of so much importance, and is of so unprecedented a nature, that I shall venture to appeal to the House for its indulgence if, in answering the Question which has been put to me, I should say somewhat more than is generally allowed in answering a Question.
§ MR. ROEBUCKI object to that; but if you move the adjournment of the House, I will permit it.
§ MR. LAYARDI am, of course, in the hands of the House, but this is in the nature of a personal explanation. These are statements of fact; and if the House desires that I should move the adjournment, I will do so. Sir, the hon. and learned Member has risen in his place in this House, and, as he stated, in the name of a foreign Sovereign, has made to the House of Commons an accusation of the gravest nature against Her Majesty's Government. Sir, it is my duty to explain, in answer to that charge, what has really taken place. I appeal, therefore, with confidence to the House, and I think I can bring forward such facts as will show that the statement of the hon. and learned Member is unfounded.
§ MR. ROEBUCKI rise to order. I insist upon it.
§ MR. CONINGHAMThe hon. and learned Member is not dictator in this House.
§ MR. ROEBUCKI rise to order, and my appeal to you, Sir, is this—that nothing should be said in this House upon a question which is already before it as a matter of debate, to which an immediate reply cannot be given.
§ MR. SPEAKERAn hon. Member has risen and addressed a Question to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The Under Secretary is answering that Question. Nothing has occurred that is contrary to order.
§ MR. LAYARDSir, the hon. and learned Member, in the name of a foreign Sovereign, has stated that the Government has been guilty, not merely of evasion—
§ MR. ROEBUCKHere, Sir, I rise again. I say now, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman is going beyond the fair right of an answer. He has accused me of having done something. He says I have accused the Government of being guilty of something. I say this is not the proper time for making a statement of that kind.
§ MR. LAYARDI venture to submit 70 that the question is of such grave importance that it does net admit of delay, [Cries of "Question, question!" "Chair, chair!" "Go on, go on!"] I shall limit myself most strictly to a statement of facts. It has been alleged by the hon. and learned Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government has been guilty, not only of evasion, but of untruthfulness, in not having communicated to the House and the country a communication received from a foreign Government; and that they have been guilty of a breach of confidence in communicating to the Secretary of State of a foreign country a despatch sent to them in confidence by another Power. I venture to say that these are grave imputations. I do not know whether I am in order, but the thing is so important that I would venture to state to the House the very words which were actually used.
§ MR. ROEBUCKThis is a reference to a former debete.
§ MR. LAYARDI will answer the Questions that have been put to me very briefly. It has been asked, first, Has any communication been made to Her Majesty's Government by the French Government, inviting Her Majesty's Government to combine with the French Government in any proposed intervention, mediation, recognition, or interference of any kind? I stated on Tuesday night that no such communication had been made to Her Majesty's Government. I now repeat that statement without equivocation, in the broad sense of the word, that no such communication has up to this time been made. I mean, of course, since the communication of last November. I was blamed, too, the other night for not having stated that a communication had been made to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, who mentioned it in another place. The fact is, I was not at the time aware that such a communication had been received by my noble Friend, inasmuch as it was not delivered until late in the afternoon. I now repeat what has been previously stated, that Baron Gros, hearing that rumours were in circulation that the hon. and learned Member had stated that a communication had been made to Her Majesty's Government by the French Government, came to Lord Russell of his own accord, and stated that he had not received any communication on the subject for Her Majesty's Government, nor had he received any order to make a communication. I further Bay that Earl Cowley has no knowledge of such a com- 71 munication, and none has been made to him. I say, therefore, without equivocation, no such communication since last November has been made to Her Majesty's Government. I trust that will be satisfactory to the House.
Now, Sir, it is well known that M. Drouyn de Lhuys wrote a despatch proposing to Her Majesty's Government to invite the United States to claim an armistice, in order that terms of accommodation might be arranged between the contending parties in America. Although that despatch was dated the 10th of October, the communication was not made till the 10th of November. That despatch was read to Her Majesty's Government, but no copy of it was given. In the papers relating to North America, marked No. 1, which have been laid upon the table of the House, that despatch is alluded to and it is stated in the first paragraph of a letter from Lord Russell to Earl Cowley, dated November 13, that Count de Flahault came to the Foreign Office and read a despatch relating to the war in North America; but no copy of that despatch was given to Her Majesty's Government. A very unusual course, with respect to that despatch, was taken by the French Government, before Her Majesty's Government had sent an answer to the proposal. The proposal itself, which had not been communicated to Her Majesty's Government otherwise than by reading it, was published verbatim in the Moniteur of the 13th of November. I hold in my hand a copy of the Moniteur containing that despatch, and it is a curious fact that the published despatch ends by requesting Count de Flahault to read the despatch to Her Majesty's Government; but it does not say anything about leaving a copy of the despatch. The answer to that proposal, in the shape of a despatch to Earl Cowley, was sent off on the 13th of November, the very day on which it was published in the Moniteur. The answer was delivered to M. Drouyn de Lhuys on the 14th; but it was considered so important that the whole truth should be known, the French Government having taken the unprecedented course of publishing their despatch before receiving the reply of Her Majesty's Government, that Her Majesty's Government decided on publishing the answer on the same day it was delivered, and accordingly the answer appeared in the Gazette on the 14th. The French Government explained why they had published the despatch. 72 They stated that various rumours were abroad that the facts were very much exaggerated, and they thought it necessary to enlighten the public mind on the truth. Well, on the 15th, the day after the publication in the Gazette, the following despatch was sent, with our published despatch, to Mr. Stuart, who was Chargé d'Affaires at Washington, but it was received by Lord Lyons, who by the time it had arrived out had returned to his post—
Lord Russell to Mr. Stuart.Foreign Office, Nov. 15, 1862.Sir,—I inclose for your information a copy of the London Gazette of last evening containing the answer returned by Her Majesty's Government to a proposal from the Government of the Emperor of the French that the Governments of Great Britain, France, and Russia should jointly propose an armistice to the contending parties in North America.That is all that was stated. No copy of the French proposal was sent, because Her Majesty's Government had not one at that time in their possession. Well, Sir, on the 28th of November Lord Lyons wrote to Earl Russell—The intelligence that France had proposed to Great Britain and Russia to join her in advising the belligerents in this country to agree to an armistice reached New York by telegraph from Cape Race on the 25th inst. The substance of your Lordship's answer was received at the same time. Yesterday the text of the French proposal, of your Lordship's answer, and of the principal part of the Russian answer, was forwarded to New York by telegraph from Halifax.I may say that all the papers of the United States had got the entire text of the proposal and answer, and both were extensively commented on, and awakened a great deal of interest and excitement throughout the United States. M. Mercier the French Ambassador at Washington, had received a copy of the despatch of M. Drouyn de Lhuys on the 22nd, but did not communicate it. But on the 25th, the day of the arrival of the telegram, M. Mercier himself went to Mr. Seward and communicated to him the text of the proposal of the French Government. So cautious had Lord Lyons been, that he never broached the subject to Mr. Seward; and if hon. Members will refer to the papers which I have quoted, they will see a despatch from Lord Lyons on the 2nd of December, in which he says the first time Mr. Seward had spoken to him about the French proposal was the 1st of December—Mr. Seward, without my having in any way led to the subject, spoke to me yesterday of the proposal made by Franco to Great Britain and 73 Russia to unite in advising the belligerents in this country to agree to an armistice.I hope the House has followed me as regards dates. What I have stated will, I think, prove this—First, that it was not the English Government that published the proposal, but the French Government published their own despatch before we answered it; secondly, that it was not Lord Lyons but M. Mercier who communicated to Mr. Seward the copy of the proposal; and thirdly, that it was Mr. Seward who spoke first on the subject to Lord Lyons, and not Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward. Having given this explanation, I will add nothing to these facts, but I will leave it to the House and the country to draw their own conclusion.
§ MR. ROEBUCKI wish to ask another Question of the hon. Gentleman, and that is, whether an application was not made by the French Government in the early part of the spring, between February and April, very much to the same effect, and whether the transaction to which I referred was not that application?
§ MR. LAYARDSir, I have requested every search to be made in the Foreign Office for every despatch on the subject. Every despatch, I believe, has been looked over, but I can find no other except those I have named.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILWas there any verbal application?
§ MR. LAYARDI have stated to the House what is my solemn conviction on the entire matter.