HC Deb 09 February 1864 vol 173 cc329-35
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

I cannot avoid taking the opportunity which this Motion gives me to address a few words to the House upon what I will call the extraordinary answer which was given to-night with reference to the Danish Papers by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. That is a question by which the heart of this country is stirred—which agitates nearly every portion of the Continent, and upon which this House and the country are agreed in demanding the most complete information, not only as to the facts that are passing, but as to the conduct pursued from day to day by Her Majesty's Government, and the course they have pursued for weeks past. The hon. Gentleman, being asked when we may expect information on these points, quietly tells the House that no papers at all can be given before a period of three weeks. Three weeks Why, what may not have happened in three weeks? In the space of three days we have seen the Duchy of Schleswig overrun; we have seen a gallant people beaten down by an overpowering force. And yet on such a question as this the Government tell the House of Commons that they are to remain contentedly in the dark for a period of three weeks Now, I beg to point out to the House that as regards Japan papers were promised in Her Majesty's Speech; but, respecting Denmark, complete silence was observed, and no information was promised to the House of Commons. And as to the difficulty of publishing these papers, the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, when he chooses to do so, is at no loss for means of giving information to the public as to his policy and the course which he is going to take. We know very well that in the course of the autumn the noble Lord, before the ink of a particular despatch was dry, hurried it off to the London Gazette, and in the columns of the Gazette it was published even before it reached the Power to whom that despatch was addressed. I think the House will conceive from the answer of the hon. Gentleman and from the course taken by Her Majesty's Government on this subject that they fear discussion. They know very well, with the feeling which always prevails in this House, that there shall be no discussion of any question until the House has ample means before it of forming a junction, and they hope by delay to tide over the critical time, and to avoid a discussion in this House of their policy, and of the course they have pursued. I therefore appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government to rectify what I may almost call the tortuous policy of the Foreign Office, and to give us the assurance that, at the earliest moment, the most complete and most ample information shall be afforded to the House of Commons.

MR. LAYARD

I think the hon. Gentleman has wasted a good deal of virtuous indignation. There is no desire on the part of the Government either to avoid discussion or to waste time in this matter. The hon. Gentleman has filled the office which I have the honour to fill at present, and ought to be aware that there is great difficulty in preparing for publication a complete set of papers upon transactions of this kind. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman knows we cannot lay on the table of the House documents communicated by Foreign Powers without first consulting them as to whether or not they desire them to be published. That is a matter of courtesy, and it is a rule which is always followed. I can only say that I saw the printer to-day, and also communicated with the clerks at the Foreign Office. The other night I stated that I hoped these papers would be speedily produced, and I then expected that they could be produced next week; but they are so voluminous that I am assured this is impossible if we wish to present the papers in a perfect form. I have no doubt if the House desires to have them in instalments, portions can be furnished; but I doubt whether the House will thus obtain the exact information which it desires. I can assure the House that every possible speed shall be used in expediting the production of the papers. They shall he laid on the table at the very earliest moment—I cannot give any other answer. But I assure the House there is no intention on the part of the Government to retard even by one day the publication of these documents.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, I think we have not yet received a satisfactory answer on the part of the Government. The affairs of Germany and Denmark were of so grave a character some time ago, that it might well have been a question with the Government, whether they should not have advised the Sovereign to assemble Parliament at an earlier period. That was the feeling of men of different political opinions. But there are, I know, very grave reasons which might operate to restrain the Government from giving that advice, except under most urgent circumstances. However, if Parliament were not summoned earlier than usual, I think Her Majesty's Government were bound, the moment it assembled, to place in our hands the documents necessary to form an opinion on this all-engrossing and all-important subject,—a subject upon which the question of peace or war, even of a general war, may ultimately depend, and with regard to which at this moment we are completely in the dark. The technical answer of the Under Secretary is most unsatisfactory. He tells us that he went to the printer to-day. Sir, the Under Secretary ought to have gone to the printer long before; he ought to have gone every day and, if necessary, every hour before Parliament met, to the printer for these papers. He ought to have insisted upon these papers being ready to be presented to Parliament the first night. I took occasion on the day Parliament was opened to notice the strange omission from the Royal Speech of any promise that papers on the subject of Germany and Denmark would be produced. What was the answer of the noble Lord? He said his object was that the Speech should not be too long. Yet he found space to insert in that Speech a promise that the papers respecting Japan—no doubt, an interesting subject, but, contrasted with the European question of Germany and Denmark, a matter of comparatively trifling importance—should be forthcoming. There was room for that in the Speech. But when I pressed the noble Lord for these papers, he treated the matter with derision, and said, "You shall have papers; you shall have plenty of them, and I hope hon. Members will study them. I have read a good many of them" (said the noble Lord), "and I have got a surfeit of them." It was clear to me at that time that Her Majesty's Government had no settled determination to present these papers to Parliament. I must draw my conclusion from the omission from the Speech and the tone of the noble Lord's reply; and, I must say, that if the Government had any intention to produce these papers, the non-introduction of them into the Speech was a great inadvertence, and one which I think it would be difficult to vindicate. Practically, I take it for granted that the mass of these papers, either in manuscript or in proof sheets, are now prepared, and that permission to print them has been obtained from all foreign Powers. That is a mere formal affair. The printer of the Foreign Office, who was rubbed up today for the first time, was asked how long it would take to complete these papers: and, frightened at the mass of documents before him, no doubt made the same sort of calculation which he would have done if an ordinary thick pamphlet on the Schleswig-Holstein Question—and we have seen many such—were brought to him. He said they would require three weeks to print. But if you have all the materials ready, and the credit of the Foreign Office be at stake, you must endeavour to compensate for former laches by distributing these documents into the hands of several printers; and I will be bound to say, with proper diligence, that you might produce these papers to Parliament in eight and forty hours. The House ought to insist on these papers being placed in their hands in forty-eight hours, or otherwise it is relinquishing the fulfilment of a high duty.

VISCOCNT PALMERSTON

The right hon. Gentleman appears to me to have taken a leaf out of the book of the Austrian and Prussian Governments, who called upon the Danish Government to revoke a Constitution in forty-eight hours, when that act could only be performed through the instrumentality of the Rigsraad, which had to be summoned for the purpose. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman—and he may believe me or not, as he likes—that I took it to be so much a matter of course that papers on so important and pressing a subject as that of Denmark and Germany should be laid before Parliament, that I considered it to be surplusage to put it into the Royal Speech. If it is an omission, I am sorry for it; but, so far from its arising from any doubt whether the papers should or should not he presented, I should have as little thought of doubting my own existence as the absolute obligation of the Government to present these papers to Parliament as soon as possible. The right hon. Gentleman, or at least the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald), must be well aware of the labour of putting into print writing and a vast mass of documents. It is not only the labour of printing it, but the matter must be looked over afterwards by competent persons, so that no mistakes of the press may occur, and that all be accurately done. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary has said, that if the House desires that this correspond- ence should be produced in parts, that course may be adopted; and it may perhaps have this convenience, that hon. Members can have time to read Part I. before they are called upon to read Part II. However, I will assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that there shall be no delay in preparing and laying before Parliament the fullest information that can be required for forming an opinion on the subject.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

I believe the noble Lord, that no unnecessary delay in the delivery of these papers will in future occur; but it is clear from the statements that have been made, that great and unnecessary delay has occurred in the production of these papers up to the present time. It is impossible to doubt that the Government believed that it would he necessary at some time or other to lay these papers before Parliament. But what we maintain is, that there has not been that energy in preparing these papers during the recess that this House and the people of England expected, and which ought to have been shown in regard to papers of such vast and vital importance. They have, in fact, been kept back in the Foreign Office, and are not in that state of preparation in which they ought to have been at the opening of Parliament. I now assume that we shall have the papers far earlier than we were promised ten minutes ago, and I trust we shall not be disappointed in the hope which we are now led to entertain.

MR. HENNESSY

I asked on a former occasion, when the papers in regard to Poland would be produced? I wish now to inquire whether they will contain a certain despatch which is of the utmost interest, because of the importance which is, I am informed, attached to it at Vienna and Berlin, and which has reference to the Danish question? It is a short despatch from Lord Russell to Prince Gortschakoff, which was sent off in the autumn, but recalled by telegram, and which was then sent to St. Petersburg in an altered form. I am informed that Count Rechberg and M. Bismark have called attention to Earl Russell's speech at Blairgowrie, and to the statement, which is believed to have been contained in the original despatch, that the dominion of Russia in Poland was forfeited owing to the fact that Russia had not complied with the Treaty of Vienna. It is stated that Austria and Prussia intend to apply the very same doctrine to the case of Denmark, and to hold that, the conditions of the Treaty of London not having been fulfilled by Denmark, the Treaty of London is therefore void. Now, it is very important to get at that despatch. I should therefore like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the original despatch sent from the Foreign Office with the sanction of the Queen, and signed by the Secretary of Stale, and which, on certain representations from abroad, was withdrawn and altered, will be laid before Parliament?

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

I wish also to put a question relative to papers—to the American despatches. This morning a blue-book has been published, containing despatches on American affairs, some from the other side of the water, and others from the American Minister here. There has been, however, a despatch of great importance and of extremely peculiar character which has been printed in America, and reprinted in the ordinary channels of information in this country. The date of this despatch—that there may be no doubt about it—is the 11th of July, 1863. If I understand it aright, that is a despatch from the American Foreign Minister which was read to Lord Russell, and a copy of which was left with him. It is evident that that despatch is far more material than any that have been laid on the table to-day. I beg to ask whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to communicate a copy of this despatch, and at the same time the answer of Lord Russell, conveyed either through Lord Lyons or Mr. Adams, or sent direct; or perhaps the hon. Gentleman is prepared to state that no answer was made to that despatch?

MR. LAYARD

When that despatch is communicated to Her Majesty's Government it will be published; but Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any such despatch. No such despatch was ever presented to the Government. I do not quite understand the despatch to which my hon. Friend (Mr. Hennessy) alludes; I think there is not; but if he will communicate with me privately, I will see if there is such a despatch, and if there be such a document it shall be produced.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

Do I understand the Under Secretary to say that there is no despatch from Mr. Adams to the Foreign Office, conveying the demands which were made by Mr. Seward, in his despatch to Mr. Adams; and, if there is no despatch, that there is no memorandum of any verbal communication, conveying the same insolent demands?

MR. LAYARD

I presume the noble Lord alludes to a despatch which has been printed in the papers, taken from the papers laid upon the table of Congress, to the effect that compensation will be demanded for the destruction of American ships by any vessel built in English ports. I have already stated, that although that despatch has appeared in the newspapers, it never was communicated by Mr. Adams to Her Majesty's Government, and we have no knowledge of such a document.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

Has no verbal communication passed?

MR. LAYARD

No verbal communication has taken place in that sense, or in any sense resembling it.

Motion agreed to.

House at rising to adjourn till Thursday.