MR. KINGLAKEsaid, that as his hon. Friend the Tinder Secretary for Foreign Affairs would be precluded from speaking a second time on the Motion before the House, he wished to invite his attention, before he replied to the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, to the subject of his notice—the way in which the operation of the Treaty of London, of the 8th of May, 1852, was affected by a Note addressed on the same day by Baron Brunow to the Danish Minister at the Court of St. James'. At a moment when that treaty was the cause of so much perplexity, confusion, and war, he might, he thought, be par- 826 doned for endeavouring to bring to the knowledge of the House a portion of the transactions which occurred on that 8th of May on which it was signed, and which had not yet, so far as he knew, been communicated to Parliament or to the country. It was true that, in his judgment, the casus fœderis under the treaty had not occurred. As he read it, it was a treaty which had no immediate application, and which could have no application until the King of Denmark had taken the necessary measures for changing the succession, not only in Denmark Proper, but in the two Duchies; and he ventured to believe that the country was fast coming round to the opinion that it would be grievous indeed if there was any word in the treaty which would compel us by force or diplomatic pressure to force on a reluctant people a ruler to whom they objected. His present object, however, was to bring under the consideration of the House the true nature of the arrangements which had been entered into on the 8th of May, 1852, including that which was withheld, as well as the treaty of which they were cognizant. But in order to give significance to the Question which he was about to put to the Government, it was necessary that he should give hon. Members some idea of the purport of the Warsaw Protocol of which they had heard so much. According to some, that Protocol, far from being what its terms purported, a concession made by the Emperor of Russia, was regarded as a retraction of a concession which had been formerly made by the Emperor Paul. But whether that was or was not the true interpretation, it was quite certain that the Protocol of Warsaw did carefully keep alive, and sought, as it were, to give new life to all those rights and claims of the Emperor of Russia which might accrue after the failure of the male issue of the present King of Denmark. Inasmuch as before the signing of that instrument there were many lives intercepting any claim on the part of the Emperor — as many, he believed, as seventeen — and inasmuch as the arrangements put an end to by the treaty and the renunciations to be obtained would limit to fourteen the number of those intercepting persons, it was quite clear that the Protocol of Warsaw, if it ever came into operation, enabled the Emperor to make a vast stride. This stride was so obvious that it never seemed to have been thought that Europe could be asked to give its sanction to the arrangements of the Warsaw Pro- 827 tocol. He had often heard it said that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had from time to time approved that protocol; but he was bound to say that, as far as he could gather anything from the papers which had been brought to his knowledge, the noble Lord ceased to be, in public at all events, a supporter of the proposal brought forward by the Emperor of Russia, from the time when the Protocol of Warsaw was submitted to the opinion of European diplomatists. It being, as he said, impossible that the arrangements made by the Protocol of Warsaw should be openly proposed to Europe, the Treaty of London carefully avoided recognizing them. The Treaty of London dwelt only specially with circumstances which were to occur until the failure of issue of the present King of Denmark; but it also provided, not in a special, but in a general way, for the manner in which Europe should deal with the condition of things which would arise in the event of such failure of issue. By the second Article it provided, that in the event of the failure of male issue of the present King and Queen of Denmark, it should be competent to the King to propose new arrangements to Europe, and those new arrangements should be taken into consideration by the parties to the treaty. There, then, an initiative was clearly given to the King of Denmark; and a power of dealing with that initiative, a power of receiving his proposal, was reserved to the other parties to the treaty. Accordingly, this second article has always been relied upon as the safeguard contained in the treaty; and when in the year 1853 there was a good deal of discussion on this subject, Lord Clarendon stated, and stated quite rightly, if this treaty was the only thing in existence, that the fears of those who desired to look to the state of things after the failure of issue of the present King of Denmark were provided against by the second article of the treaty. That being so, what would the House say when he stated, that on the very day on which the treaty was signed, as it were, while the ink of the treaty was drying, another paper was prepared, signed by Baron Brunow, and addressed by him to the Danish Minister, which, if acquiesced in by the Danish Minister and the other parties to the treaty, would absolutely annul the second article of the treaty, and would do a great deal more — would positively bring into force and make obligatory upon the King of Denmark the stipulations of the War- 828 saw Protocol? That such a paper was signed he was absolutely certain. He had in his care the original French of the paper in question, and he had also a translation which he had made of it. The French copy which he had in his pocket he had compared with a copy which he knew to be authentic, and he was therefore enabled with perfect confidence to state to the House that this paper was signed and addressed to the Danish Minister on the 8th of May, 1852. The Note was dated according to the Russian plan "26th April and 8th May" —old and new style—" 1852," and was addressed by M. de Brunow, the Minister of Russia at the Court of London, to M. de — the Danish Minister at the same Court. It ran thus—
The undersigned Envoy, &c, has received orders to deliver to him at the same time this present Note, in order to recall and renew the reserves expressed in the Protocol of Warsaw of the 24th of May (5th of June), 1851, which, after having been clothed with the sanction of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and His Majesty the King of Denmark, has been brought to the knowledge of other Powers.Then there followed a copy of the third section of the Warsaw Protocol, and then M. de Brunow ended by renewing, by order of his Court, the reserves then declared. He did not for a moment imagine that in this proceeding there was any idea of anything like treachery. He was perfectly certain that his hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) would be able to tell the House that there was no concealment among the Powers who were parties to the treaty, and that the Note in question was fairly communicated, not only to Denmark, but to all the other Powers who were parties to the Treaty of London. But although there was, as he had no doubt, this perfect freedom of communication between the plenipotentiaries who signed the treaty, still, for some reasons of State with which he was not acquainted, no communication of this important document — this document which varied and altered in a most important way the terms of the Treaty of London—had, as far as he had been able to ascertain, ever been made to Parliament or to the country at large. Therefore, as it appeared to him, the effect of this Note, if it was acquiesced in by the King of Denmark and the other Powers, was exactly the same as that of a document well known to diplomatists, called "a secret Article." It would operate exactly in the same way as a secret Article annexed to a treaty. His hon. Friend must not 829 tell him that a mere Note such as this was not a document of sufficient solemnity to undo the solemn engagements of a treaty; because it did so happen, either by chance or as. the result of an extraordinary amount of ingenuity—he could not say which— that the particular provision of the treaty was of such a kind, that without any violation of the principle that one treaty was not to be got rid of by anything less than another, this document would have the effect of altering the arrangements of the Treaty of London—because the provision of the treaty was that it should be competent to the King of Denmark to make proposals for changing the succession; and the effect of this Note, which was brought to his attention, and which revised the Protocol of Warsaw, was to limit his power, to limit his discretion as to making those proposals, and to bind him, with the degree of cogency which was involved in the receipt of and acquiescence in the paper, to a strict observance in the proposals which he made of the Protocol of Warsaw; therefore, if this singular Note addressed to the Danish Minister, and, as he understood, hitherto withheld from Parliament, was not acquiesced in by Her Majesty's Government, the House would be glad to have any correspondence which showed that it was objected to, protested against, or repudiated. If, on the other hand, it was acquiesced in, it must be regarded as a document which altered in a most material way the terms of the Treaty of London, and then it would be clear that the Treaty of London must never again be submitted to Parliament without being accompanied by a document which so importantly altered its terms. He begged, in conclusion, to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the communication of the Note to Her Majesty's Government was received by them with acquiescence, or was the occasion of any Correspondence which can be laid on the table of the House?
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, that his hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Launceston (Mr. Haliburton), who had asked a question with regard to the Chesapeake, had very properly abstained from making any remarks upon the part of the case which was still the subject of judicial inquiry, and he (Mr. Layard) should, of course, pursue a similar course. With regard to the seizure of the vessel, his hon. Friend had stated correctly what had taken 830 place. It was well known that some agents of the Confederate States took a passage on board the Chesapeake, that they rose on the captain and crew, killed one of the officers and wounded two others, put the captain and crew on board a pilot boat, and finally carried off the vessel and took refuge in a harbour of Nova Scotia, called Sambro. An American gunboat entered that harbour and carried off the vessel illegally and by force. As soon as information was received of what had taken place, Her Majesty's Government sent instructions to Lord Lyons, to ask for an immediate explanation, and for redress in case the statement which they had received proved to be correct. But he was happy to be able to state, that long before Lord Lyons received those instructions, Mr. Seward, of his own accord, having heard of the occurrence, but being at first doubtful as to what the facts really were, expressed to Lord Lyons the intention of the United States Government to afford ample satisfaction, if the statement made with regard to the occurrence should prove correct. When Mr. Seward ascertained what the facts really were, he lost no time in making a full and ample apology, expressing his regret for what had taken place; and that part of the question, therefore, was settled. He had no objection to lay on the table the papers connected with the seizure of the Chesapeake; but as some time might elapse before the papers could be produced, he thought it only just to Mr. Seward to read the despatch written by that gentleman to Lord Lyons, and the answer returned to it by his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. Mr. Seward's despatch was as follows:—
§ "Department of State, Washington,
§ January 9th, 1864.
§ "The undersigned Secretary of State of the United States has the honour to present his respects to the right hon. Lord Lyons, accredited to this Government as the Minister Plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty, and to state that he has submitted to the President certain papers which were placed in the hands of the undersigned by his Lordship on the second day of this month, and which are described as follows: 1. Memorial of Susan Henry; 2. Affidavit of John E. Holt; 3. Memorial of John E. Holt; 4. Affidavit of John E. Holt; 5. Provincial Secretary to the Mayor of Halifax, December 19th, 1863; 6. Mayor of Halifax to Provincial Secretary, December 19th, 1863; 7. Same to same, December 22nd, 1863; 8. City Marshal to Mayor of Halifax, December 21st, 1863; 9. Police-constable Hutt to City Marshal, December 21st, 1863. The undersigned is authorized, in the first place, to express to his Lordship his ap- 831 preciation of the delicacy of manner in which his Lordship has thus, without formal complaint, brought to the notice of this Government the fact that the commander and other officers of the United States' steamer Ella and Annie in their recent visit to Halifax, in pursuit of pirates who had captured the American steamer Chesapeake, and taken refuge within British jurisdiction, directly violated the sovereignty of Her Majesty, by the assumption of power and authority in the name of the United States, as well on board the said steamer Chesapeake as on board the British schooner Investigator, while within British waters, without having obtained consent thereto of the authorities of Her Majesty's Government there or elsewhere. The undersigned observes that in some of these papers it is represented that the acts of power and authority referred to were at tended with circumstances of severity, rigour, and insult to British subjects. The' undersigned, how ever, thinks, that it sufficiently appears from the papers that the rigour and severity alleged were not greater than were necessary to secure the per sons of the pirates, in pursuit of whom the officers complained of were engaged, and to deliver them up to the British authorities of that place. lie hopes that this view of the case may be taken by Her Majesty's Government. The undersigned would observe, in the next place, that the Chesapeake and the prisoners were promptly delivered to those authorities, in compliance with the instructions of this department. The undersigned is further authorized to assure Her Majesty's Government in the spirit of a former communication made by the undersigned to his Lordship, relating to the capture of the Chesapeake in British waters, that the President disapproves and regrets the acts of force, power, and authority which was exercised by the officers of the Ella and Annie within British waters on the occasion mentioned, as the violation of the law of nations and of the friendly relations existing between the two countries, so greatly to the satisfaction of the United States, and to the advantage of both nations. The President has reason to believe that the proceedings thus disapproved were taken by the officers concerned under the influence of a patriotic and commendable zeal to bring to deserved punishment outlaws who had offended against the peace and dignity of both countries. The President, while he recognizes this circumstance as modifying the character of the transaction and mitigating the censure to be bestowed upon it, nevertheless freely concedes that it does not constitute a justification for the violation of the sovereignty of Great Britain, which those officers have committed. He has, therefore, directed that they shall be censured for this violation, and he will take such other means as may be necessary to prevent a recurrence of the grievances complained of. Fully determined to make all the amends that are due to Great Britain in the premisses, the undersigned will await the consideration of Her Majesty's Government upon the case as it has now been submitted. The undersigned avails himself, &c.
§ "W. H. SEWARD.
§ "The Lord Lyons, &c."
§ In reply to that despatch, Lord Lyons was informed as follows:—
§ "Foreign Office, Feb. 3, 1864.
§ "My Lord, your several despatches of the numbers and dates specified in the margin, respecting 832 the case of the Chesapeake, together with the papers which have been received by the Secretary of State for the Colonies from the colonial authorities in North America, have been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, for their opinion on the different questions raised in them. The greater part of those questions have reference to the administration of the law in the colonies, and I need not trouble your Lordship with the view taken of them by the Law Officers of the Crown. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, to whom I have communicated the opinion of the Law Officers, will doubtless give full instructions to the several colonial authorities. The readiness which Mr. Seward in his first communication with your Lordship, manifested to make all proper and suit able reparation for the acts of the United States' officers, has rendered it unnecessary for me to insist upon the questions which, under other circum stances, it would have been my duty at once to instruct your Lordship to discuss with the Government of the United States—namely, the wilful and flagrant violation of Her Majesty's territory by the officers of the United States' cruiser Ella and Annie. The Government of the United States having subsequently made, as reported in your Lordship's despatch of the 12th January, a full apology for the violation of Her Majesty's territory, committed by its officers in the case of the Chesapeake, it is only necessary for me to authorize your Lordship to state to Mr. Seward, that Her Majesty's Government accept that apology in the same spirit in which it has been offered, and are truly glad that the matter has been settled in a manner honourable to both parties, and calculated to improve the friendly relations which Her Majesty's Government are always anxious to maintain with the Government of the United States.
§ I am, &c.,
§ "RUSSELL."
§ He (Mr. Layard) trusted that this apology and the answer of his noble Friend would be satisfactory to his hon. Friend and the country. His hon. Friend the Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Kinglake) had made what he evidently thought an extraordinary discovery in an extraordinary manner; and for his own part he felt anxious to know what were those peculiar sources of information which had led his hon. Friend to the discovery of the document of which he had made a translation. It might, however, have saved his hon. Friend some trouble if, instead of applying to those mysterious sources, he had come either to himself or had consulted the librarian of the House, who was always so ready to assist every Member, in which case he would have found that a copy of the original document, with a translation, was laid upon the table of the House no longer ago than 1856. He would have found that it was moved for by Mr. Hutt; and he would have obtained access to the Protocol of Warsaw relating to the Danish 833 Succession, to the Treaty of 1852, and the Note of Baron Brunow with its inclosure, and he would have found that the Note and its inolosure were communicated to Lord Malmesbury, at that time Minister for Foreign Affairs. Lord Malmesbury simply acknowledged its receipt. No correspondence whatever took place, and therefore there was no correspondence to lay on the table of the House beyond the simple acknowledgment. Into the important question of the nature and value of the Protocol of Warsaw, it would not be right that he should follow his hon. Friend. It was a question of very great importance, and one on which it would not become him, at the present moment, to enter.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the hon. Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Kinglake) appeared to belong to that nondescript class of politicians who were singularly fortunate in finding "mare's-nests." This was a very large nest, but its dimensions were entirely owing to the inflation the matter had received in the present discussion. He would suppose a simple transaction—the ordinary case of a contract between A and B. If A chose to write a note to C, could any one say that such a note would in any way alter the effect of the contract between A and B? The five Powers of Europe entered into a treaty, and the Minister of one of them chose to write a Note to the King of Denmark about some portion of that treaty. The treaty itself remained unaffected by that Note, which became waste paper, and the hon. Member for Bridgewater amused himself by translating it.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.