PAPERS MOVED FOR. (Hansard, 8 March 1864)

MR. KINGLAKE

moved for an Address for a Copy of Papers dated in the years 1850, 1851, 1852, or 1853, relating to the Protocol of Warsaw, or to the Treaty of London of the 8th day of May, 1852. The object of the Motion was for the production of certain papers relating 1700 to the Protocol of Warsaw and the Treaty of London. He was aware that the papers were very voluminous, and that a proper selection would to some extent be necessary, and that something like an understanding had been come to between the Foreign Secretary and the Earl of Malmesbury, with regard to the description of papers which were to be produced. He did not intend to make any complaint with regard to that arrangement, but he hoped it would not be considered altogether conclusive, nor that he was going beyond his province in suggesting to the House the class of papers requisite for its information. When the Treaty of London was disturbing the peace of Europe, it was surely of great importance that they should know, if they could, with whom that treaty originated, who it was that pressed that treaty on the consideration of this country, and above all what arrangements, if any, were made at the time the treaty was signed. Unless he was wrongly informed, he believed the measure which ultimately ripened into the Treaty of London, was brought before the attention of Europe in several Conferences which began in 1850; and it was his belief that when the particulars of those Conferences were produced, they would begin to understand what it was that had so painfully agitated the mind of Germany with reference to the Treaty of London. When they had the Protocol of the 4th of July, 1850, before them, they would see how it was the Germans persevered in rejecting the name of the Treaty of London, and in employing the phrase "to the Protocol of Warsaw." The truth was that when the noble Lord at the head of the Government in 1850 assembled the European Powers to consider the Danish succession, Prussia did not attend the first conference; and though Austria was present she declined for a time to take part in the sanctioning the arrangements then come to. The arrangement was explained in the annexe, but it was not mentioned in the Protocol, which mentioned those representatives who were present. The annexe described the arrangements which the Powers came to, but to that arrangement no German Power was a party; and that went much towards explaining how it was the Germans were discontented with the Treaty of London, because they found that the Powers of Europe in London assembled, had disposed of the succession of a German Duchy, without the assent, in the first instance, of 1701 any of the German Powers. He believed it would also appear from the correspondence what Power it was which, having then a great ascendancy in Europe, before the signature of the treaty forbade any appeal to the German Confederation. They would know how it was that deliberately and in cold blood an appeal to the German Confederation was forbidden by a Power then having a great ascendance in Europe. On a former occasion, when he asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question in reference to this matter, he mentioned that a Note had been addressed by Baron Brunnow on the 8th of May, 1852, to the Danish Government, and he asked whether that Note had received the acquiescence of the Government, and if not, whether it was the foundation of any correspondence which could be produced. In answer to that question the Under Secretary of State said that, by a reference to the library, it would be found that the Note and its inclosure were communicated to Lord Malmesbury, who was at that time Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and that he simply acknowledged its receipt—that no correspondence whatever took place, and that he had none to lay before the House beyond its simple acknowledgment. When the hon. Gentleman made that statement, he must have been entirely ignorant of the existence of the paper which he (Mr. Kinglake) should presently read. The object he had in view in asking the question was to show that, at the time the treaty was signed, a statement of the way in which Russia would understand the Note was addressed by Baron Brunnow to M. de Bille, and that statement was to the effect that the mere acquiescence of M. de Bille would amount to an authoritative acquiescence, and a reduction and cutting down of the treaty itself. What he now feared was, that the matter did not rest, as the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs supposed, on mere acquiescence. He was enabled to say that there was a Note addressed by Baron Brunnow to M. de Bille, and replied to on the 24th May. M. de Bille, after speaking of Baron Brunnow's Note as one intended to recall the reserves contained in the Protocol of Warsaw of the 5th of June, 1851, the 73rd section of which he set out, continued— The above-mentioned Note having in consequence been deposited in the archives of His Majesty the King of Denmark, the undersigned 1702 has received orders to apprize M. de Brunnow of that fact. For the rest, he is ordered to declare that it is equally understood on the part of his Government, that the stipulations of the treaty of the 8th of this month neither can nor shall change in anything the nature of the reserves in question, which accordingly will preserve, after the signature of this treaty, the same force and value which they had before the treaty was concluded. Therefore the House would see that by the force of these two Notes an engagement was entered into between Russia and Denmark cutting down the effect of the treaty. He believed it would also appear that the reply of the Danish Government was not communicated to the other Powers who were parties to the treaty. If that was so the matter would wear a somewhat graver aspect than when he first alluded to it, because in that case the change which was wrought in the treaty would be a change wrought without the cognizance of the other Powers who were parties to it. He argued before that, as a matter of inference, the House would have a right to draw its conclusion from the mere acquiescence of Denmark. That which he before called upon the House to infer he was now able to assert, and he had proved his assertion by reading the Note to the House. He now begged to move for the papers to which he had referred; and to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether the Note which he had read was in fact addressed by M. de Bille to Baron Brunnow, and whether it was communicated to Her Majesty's Government?