HC Deb 25 June 1868 vol 192 cc2150-65
MR. GRANT DUFF

, in rising to put a Question to the Prime Minister in reference to some passages in his speech last week, at Merchant Taylors' Hall, said, the right hon. Gentleman was reported to have used on that occasion the following words:— When we acceded to Office the name of England was a name of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet. There was no possibility of that cordial action with any of the great Powers which is the only security for peace; and in consequence of that want of cordiality wars were frequently occurring. But since we entered upon Office and public affairs were ad- ministered by my noble Friend, who is deprived by a special diplomatic duty of the gratification of being here this evening, I say that all this has changed; that there never existed between England and foreign Powers a feeling of greater cordiality and confidence than now prevails; that while we have shrunk from bustling and arrogant intermeddling, we have never taken refuge in selfish isolation, and the result has been that there never was a Government in this country which has been more frequently appealed to for its friendly offices than the one which now exists. These were, surely, very wild words for a British Prime Minister to use, and although much might be forgiven to a man, especially to the right hon. Gentleman speaking after dinner, it must be recollected that he was not offending for the first time; for in the spring of 1858 the right hon. Gentleman made a speech at Slough which created at the time very great interest and excitement, and which was very freely commented upon in this House. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman used language which, when compared with that which fell from him the other day, could hardly be excused as the mere inspiration of circumstances, for it seemed to be a sort of common form which he kept by him for these occurrences when a Conservative Government happened to accede to Office. At Slough, in 1858, the right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said— But when I tell you, and I tell you seriously, that the question of peace and war when we acceded to Office was not a question of weeks or days, but of hours, I am sure you will remember that peace has been preserved while the honour of the country has been vindicated. Now, who, he would ask, was the person who was Foreign Minister in the Administration which went out of Office in the beginning of 1858? Who was that "troubler of Israel" whose designs, whose machinations, whose un-wisdom were such that cordial co-operation between the great Powers of Europe was rendered wholly impossible? That man, if his memory served him right, was Lord Clarendon, the very person of whom Lord Derby was reported as having, in his Ministerial statement on taking Office in 1866, spoken as follows:— And, my Lords, desirous more especially at this critical moment for the public interest that the thread of foreign negotiations should not be abruptly broken, I was anxious that those hands which had so long exercised the power of dealing with foreign affairs should still continue to do so, and therefore the first person to whom I made an offer of Office was my noble Friend the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Clarendon). My Lords, I made that offer in all sincerity, believing that between my noble Friend and myself there existed no material difference of opinion on political matters, and believing also that it was of the greatest importance to the country that in that particular Office his services should be retained, Now, he was informed by some Friends of the right hon. Gentleman that when he rose to reply to the Question which he was about to put to him he would say that nothing was further from his intention than to cast any discredit whatsoever on Lord Clarendon, and that Lord Clarendon had been but a very few months at the Foreign Office when the Conservative Government acceded to power. It was however the fact that Lord Clarendon was a Member of the Liberal Cabinet for something like two years, and that during those two years many most eventful occurrences had transpired on the Continent. Lord Clarendon was responsible—and that noble Lord was the last man who would deny his responsibility—for all the acts of the Cabinets of Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell with respect to foreign affairs of any importance after he took Office. He undertook, too, a mission to Paris, which he would hardly have done if he had entertained a feeling adverse to the policy which was being pursued by the noble Lord who was chiefly responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs. Before he sat down he must express a wish which he was sure was shared to the full by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, and to which he was sure he would in his heart give a most cordial "Amen," and that wish was that the First Lord of the Treasury would in his post-prandial speeches confine himself to observations on the internal affairs of the country. We, in England, thoroughly understood the right hon. Gentleman; we watched with interest his linguistic somersaults; we hailed him as the unequalled political Leotard. But, unfortunately, the reverse was the case on the Continent. There were very few persons who followed sufficiently closely the affairs of our country to understand them, and, consequently, the right hon. Gentleman had the misfortune to be constantly regarded as speaking seriously abroad when he did not mean to speak seriously at all. There was some little time ago an unfortunate man on the Continent—a most eminent political writer—who attempted to follow the career of the right hon. Gentleman, and he arrived at the conclusion that he was a demigod. Unfortunately, however, he became insane immediately after. But, among statesme and jurists on the Continent not one in a 100 really understood the exact political situation of England at the present moment. It could, however, he thought, be stated in a sentence. The Parliament of England, wearied with the labours which it had gone through since the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, had fallen asleep, and fancied in its dreams that the right hon. Gentleman was riding on its breast like a nightmare. The hon. Gentleman concluded by asking the Premier, Whether he had used at Merchant Taylors' Hall the language which he had quoted?

MR. DISRAELI

I think the House will agree with me that it will be convenient not to recur on this occasion to observations which were made ten years ago at a meeting in the county of Buckingham. If we enter into that question, and into discussions as to the political situation at the time, I fear we should have an adjourned debate on foreign affairs in this House, which would not, it seems to me, be desirable, especially as I am informed there is some chance of there being an adjourned debate in the other House of Parliament on a different subject. I think further that the House will agree that if the hon. Gentleman had confined himself to the Question which he had placed on the Paper, and to which I was ready to give an Answer, the time of the House, which is now valuable, might have been spared. Though, I may add, I do not grudge the hon. Gentleman the change which he thought fit to make in his mode of attack, and though I was quite ready to listen to his observations, which I conclude from his criticisms to-night are meant to be models of observations which are not eccentric, it still appears to me that we have hardly been repaid by the exhibition to which we have just listened, for the deviation of the hon. Gentleman from that more modest course of merely putting a Question which he at first proposed to himself to pursue. Really, what the hon. Gentleman wishes to know is whether I made some observations at a banquet in the City, at which I had the honour of being a guest, and whether I am prepared to vindicate them, especially with reference to the noble Lord, who, he told us, has at various times filled eminent posts in the service of Her Majesty, and who has more than once held the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? So far as I could catch the larger part of the passage read by the hon. Gentleman, and so far as I can judge from that which he printed for the public service in the Notices of Motion, the report appears to me to be substantially correct. I will not criticize expressions, which probably I may not have used, but as far as regards what would be attached to what I said the report appears to me to be substantially correct. In making these observations I spoke, as it was quite evident, of a system of policy that had prevailed for a considerable time, not only for a year, but for many years, and therefore the hon. Gentleman felt, as he was making his observations just now, that the application of my remarks to Lord Clarendon, who really had succeeded to the management of our foreign affairs only for a few months, must be of a slight and limited character. The hon. Gentleman has gone out of his way to connect the career of Lord Clarendon with seven years at least of management of our foreign affairs, respecting which I have expressed my opinion, and I do not think he did a friendly act to Lord Clarendon in so doing. I do not think he at all substantiated his case. Lord Clarendon was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during two years of that time, and we know very well that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does not take an active part in the management of our foreign relations. As for Lord Clarendon's visit to Paris, I do not want to enter into the causes of that visit. It is quite consistent with there being a state of foreign affairs of a very unsatisfactory kind, and which were not managed with adroitness and wisdom by those peculiarly responsible for them, that they should have recourse to the experience of Lord Clarendon to extricate them from their difficulties. As I am asked, I must state without any equivocation whatever that I believe this is substantially a correct version of what I said at the meeting in the City, and I believe that it expresses the literal truth, I believe that for five, six, or seven years, dating from the period when a Nobleman, once a distinguished Member of this House, took the management of foreign affairs in 1859, they were conducted, to use one of his own famous expressions, as they seldom have been, since the accession of the House of Hanover. It was obvious that Lord Clarendon who succeeded to Office for only a few months, could not be responsible for a system which had unfortunately prevailed for many years. Lord Clarendon inherited difficulties and he bequeathed them to his successors.

MR. LAYARD

said, that having had the honour of representing the Foreign Office in that House for five years, he trusted the House would allow him to endeavour to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman a straightforward answer to the Question. ["Oh!"] It was not his business to call the attention of the House to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but it was quite right that his hon. Friend should do so. The statements of the right hon. Gentleman were capable of proof or they were not; but they would not be proved by mere outcry and clamour from the other side of the House. He was concerned in the grave accusation made, and he thought the other side of the House might allow him to say a few words upon the subject. He did not attach much importance to the vapourings of the right hon. Gentleman; they were the subject of much merriment to many persons; but they were the cause of deep sorrow to those who desired to maintain the character of British statesmen whatever their politics might be. The right hon. Gentleman could not get out of what he said by "chaff," of which he was a master. He said— When we acceded to Office the name of England was a name of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet. There was no possibility of that cordial action with any of the great Powers which is the only security for peace; and in consequence of that want of cordiality wars were frequently occurring. With regard to Lord Clarendon, the right hon. Gentleman rode off with the excuse that Lord Clarendon had been only a few months Minister of Foreign Affairs; but the right hon. Gentleman kept out of view the fact that Lord Clarendon, holding at that time the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was constantly consulted upon foreign affairs, and had been sent upon the most important missions. He not only went to Paris, but he represented this country at the Conference upon the Danish question; and on various other occasions he was employed, if one might say so, on matters connected with our foreign policy. The right hon. Gentleman evaded the allusion of the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff) to his speech of 1858, in which he stated that peace or war was a question, not of months and days, but of hours and minutes, to the fact that the Minister who had so nearly involved this country in war was Lord Clarendon, and to the fact that, notwithstanding his knowledge of this, Lord Derby invited Lord Clarendon two years ago to join his Government and take the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to state definitely what were the wars that were "frequently occurring" during Earl Russell's tenure of Office, and when he represented the Foreign Office in that House? He did not ask him for a great many, but he would like him to name half-a-dozen? And what were the nations with whom there was that "want of cordiality" which led to these wars? He did not want any "chaff;" he wanted distinct answers—he had a right to demand them, and the House and the country had a right to them. When he was at the Foreign Office there were two wars. One was the civil war in the United States, and he presumed the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to say Earl Russell was responsible for that. Then there was the Danish war, which afterwards led to the Prussian and Austrian war. But what were the "frequent wars" which were caused by the then Government? He would remind the House and the country that the most persistent endeavours were made by the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman to violate the neutrality of this country and to involve us in war with the United States. It was perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman avoided committing himself; but did he restrain his followers? Why we might have been involved in war with the United States if a Motion upon the Alabama question had been carried, and it was defeated by a majority of only 11. Did the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion restrain his followers or urge them on? With respect to the Danish question, did not Lord Russell interfere to bring about peace? [Mr. BENTINCK: No, no!] The hon. Member for Whitehaven, who seemed to know everything, said "No;" but he (Mr. Layard) could answer on that point. Lord Russell did not succeed; but no one could deny that his endeavours were to preserve peace. If the noble Lord's endeavours failed, they failed in consequence of the speeches made by the party then in Opposition in the House of Commons—he would not say in consequence of speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but by his supporters, who brought forward questions and urged the House to go to war in support of Denmark. A noble Marquess—no longer a Member of that House (the Marquess of Salisbury)—who by his consistency was an honour to it, and who, if he were present, would boldly admit the fact, wished to force on war. One of the main causes of the war between Denmark and Prussia and Austria was because the Danish Government were led to believe by their Minister in London that if they went to war they would be supported by the Conservatives, who would have a majority in that House. ["Oh, oh!"] He stated that as a fact, and no one acquainted with the subject would venture to deny it. He knew of no other wars except those he had mentioned occurring on the Continent or elsewhere during the time when Lord Russell was Foreign Minister. The House was aware, that while sitting on the Opposition side of the House, he had himself abstained from taking part in discussions on foreign affairs, as he was not desirous of showing any feeling against the noble Lord the present Foreign Minister, but, on the contrary, had always felt glad when he was able to support the noble Lord. He had never made a speech against the noble Lord, though he had disagreed with him on many points; but when it was said that the late Government were the cause of this and that war, and were never able to maintain cordial feelings with foreign Powers, he had a right to inquire in what respect there had been a change. The Danish war; was the inevitable result of events. The great principle involved was German unity, the Danish question being a pretence for the time. But after the war ceased a time of quiet came about, as generally happened in such a case. Since the present Foreign Minister had been in Office no question likely to lead to war had arisen ["Oh, oh!" and cries of "Luxemburg!"] What credit had the noble Lord in settling the question of Luxemburg? The noble Lord had admitted that he had great difficulty in agreeing to mediation. Had it not been for pressure from without the noble Lord would not have mediated; and it was only at the last moment, when the Emperor of the French was about to apply to Holland to exercise a mediation, that the noble Lord at last consented. What happened afterwards? The noble Lord and the Earl of Derby stated that when entering into the guarantee it was not their intention to keep it; for that was the meaning of what was said by them respecting the efficiency of the guarantee. If any German statesman were asked what construction was to be put on the words used by those two noble Lords, he would declare that that announcement destroyed all faith in the mediation of this country. With Turkey the noble Lord opposite had followed the policy which Lords Russell and Clarendon pursued; and, indeed, that was the only policy which could have been adopted. As to the Spanish claims, in regard to the Mermaid and the Tornado, they were not settled to the present day. The noble Lord had told the House that the English claimants had right on their side, but that he would wait until some British subjects had done wrong to Spain and then he would set one wrong against the other. As regarded the Alabama dispute, matters still remained in the same state as when Earl Russell's Government went out of Office. He thought that the country would not accept the Answer which the right hon. Gentleman had given that evening, and he called on the right hon. Gentleman to state what were the wars in Europe, or elsewhere, which had been brought about by want of cordiality between this country and other Powers?

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, he thought that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down proved the truth of the saying that "Those who complain without cause always complain without temper." He could not compliment the hon. Gentleman on the diplomatic language of his speech. The hon. Gentleman found fault with the expression in the Prime Minister's speech that on the present Government acceding to Office "the name of England was the name of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court." Was not that the truth? It was by a "meddling and muddling policy" and by going certain lengths in respect to Poland and Denmark and then withdrawing, that suspicion and distrust were excited on the Continent and great evils were produced in this country. Lord Russell, in a memorable despatch, had laid down the principle with respect to other nations that whenever the people of a country thought that they had a sufficient grievance they had a right to rise in arms against their rulers, mid after such a decimation was it surprising that Fenian and other disturbances should have broken out?

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I had expected that after the remarks of my hon. Friend near me either the right hon. Gentleman opposite, appealing to the indulgence of the House, which is usually accorded under such circumstances, or some other Member of Her Majesty's Government, would have risen in his place and have replied to the observations which have been made from these Benches. I am, of course, assuming that the Members of Her Majesty's Government do not entirely shrink from accepting the responsibility which attaches to the language used by their Chief. However that may be, I cannot rise on this occasion without expressing my deep regret that occasion should have been given to the hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Grant Duff), in the exercise of his discretion as a private Member of this House, and without any concert with me, to challenge the speech which was delivered by the right hon. Gentleman at the Merchant Taylors' Hall. I must confess that whatever appetite for controversy I may possess is usually abundantly satisfied by the occasions for controversy that arise within the walls of this House; and therefore it is to me a matter of the most sincere regret that the First Minister of the Crown should have used language in another place that has led to this discussion. But the hon. Gentleman behind me having brought forward the subject, I must take the opportunity of respectfully but firmly protesting, not merely against the particular passage to which reference has been made, but against the whole strain of this oration, and of many other orations which the right hon. Gentleman, departing in this respect from the practice of his predecessors, has made it his custom to deliver, sometimes to his constituents in Buckingham, sometimes to a sympathizing audience at the Merchant Taylors' Hall, sometimes at demonstrations of Conservative working men, and sometimes to the deputations of the supporters of the Established Church in Ireland, led on by the chief Orangemen of Ireland. In these speeches the right hon. Gentleman has systematically adopted a tone, in the first place, of inflated and exaggerated eulogy of himself and of his policy; and, in the second place, of censure and of condemnation so sweeping and so violent towards those from whom he differs as he rarely ventures to adopt in this House. Having thus entered my protest against the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in his speeches, I will now endeavour to state the facts which appear to me to bear strongly upon the particular passage to which the hon. Member behind me has drawn the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said in that passage that when he acceded to Office the name of England was a name of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet; and then he proceeded to make other assertions of the same kind with which I will not trouble the House. On his asser- tions being challenged, and its being pointed out to him that his censure must principally apply to Lord Clarendon, the right hon. Gentleman takes refuge in the allegation that Lord Clarendon had only held the office as Foreign Minister for a few months before the present Government came into power, and he gives us to understand that it was to the policy of the Cabinet—and especially that of Earl Russell, the predecessor of Lord Clarendon—that he intended his observations to apply. I think it is obvious that after Lord Clarendon had been for nine months at the head of the Foreign Office, it is scarcely accurate to say that he was representing any policy but his own. But with respect to the policy of Earl Russell, I think that the censure of the right hon. Gentleman, if it falls anywhere, must fall, not upon the late Government, but upon Parliament, for the right hon. Gentleman himself thought fit to challenge the policy of Earl Russell in a Motion with respect to the Danish question, which, after being discussed many nights, was rejected by this House, which approved the policy of Earl Russell, and rejected that of the right hon. Gentleman. I admit that there is great temptation on occasions similar to that at the Merchant Taylors' Hall to resort to these sweeping censures of the policy of one's opponents. There is nothing so dangerous to a speaker as to know that he is speaking to an audience who cannot detect his errors and his fallacies. The right hon. Gentleman unfortunately yielded to the temptation. It is, however, true, as has been stated by the hon. Gentleman behind me, that this is not an accidental error on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a part of his system. The hon. Member has shown that in 1858 and in 1868 the right hon. Gentleman used the same established formula in passing a sweeping condemnation upon his opponents—a condemnation which in no case should I care to retort; and that on both occasions the statements of the right hon. Gentleman have been contradicted out of the mouth of his own Chief. In 1868 the right hon. Gentleman says that the name of England in 1866 was "a name of suspicion and of distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet;" to which the hon. Member replies that in 1866—the same year—Lord Derby urgently requested Lord Clarendon to give him that valuable assistance which had made the name of England "a name of suspicion and of distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet." I ask, had or had not the policy of Lord Clarendon rendered the name of England "a name of suspicion and of distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet?" The right hon. Gentleman endeavours to shift out of the words; but the hon. Member who has just sat down does not resort to any such subterfuge; he boldly takes the bull by the horns, and lays the blame upon Lord Clarendon.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

No; I said that the blame lay upon Earl Russell.

MR. GLADSTONE

But you told us that it was quite true that the name of England in every foreign Court was a name of distrust and suspicion.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

Yes; I said it was brought about by Earl Russell's policy.

MR. GLADSTONE

And the state of things he brought about was continued by Lord Clarendon, who identified himself completely with the policy of Earl Russell. And yet this was the Foreign Minister whom Lord Derby was so anxious to enlist among his ranks upon the formation of his Government. Again, in 1858, the right hon. Gentleman attributed the fact that war was about to break forth in Europe to the fault of the foreign policy of the Government which preceded that of Lord Derby. But Lord Derby in that instance also gave similar testimony, for he had said, in 1855— I stated to Her Majesty that I conceived it would have been an immense advantage to any Government to have among its members one who is perfectly conversant with the whole diplomacy of the last two years, and with the feelings and proceedings of various Courts of Europe."…[That is to say, the feelings of suspicion and distrust.] "I took the liberty to add, with regard to my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, (the Earl of Clarendon) that I entertained the highest opinion of the ability, the industry, and the zeal with which he had discharged the duties of his Office……The only part of the course I have pursued to which I look back with the least doubt or incertitude is with respect to the propriety of my abstaining from making any communication either to the noble Earl directly, or to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) near him." [3 Hansard, cxxxvi. 1347–8.] In 1855 Lord Derby emphatically recognizes the services of Lord Clarendon, and asks him to join his Government; while in 1858 the right hon. Gentleman, referring to the accession of the Conservative Government, declared that war had become a question not of weeks or days, but of hours. In 1866 Lord Derby passes a similar eulogium upon Lord Clarendon; and in 1868 the right hon. Gentleman says that when Lord Derby's Government came into power the name of England was viewed with suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court. I must again protest against the language of the right hon. Gentleman; and it is only because I wish to spare the time of the House that I abstain from entering into a particular review of the speeches and the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman, which much of their matter would go far to justify me in doing. I do not complain of these speeches because I do not think they are injurious to us in a party point of view. On the contrary, I think they are weapons perfectly harmless for any such purpose; and if they have the effect for a moment of exhilarating the spirits of those who pay visits to the right hon. Gentleman, and of causing an agreeable interchange of sympathy and compliments between him and them, I really cannot grudge either him or them any amount of such gratification as they can derive from them, especially when the statements of the right hon. Gentleman have been so fully contradicted by Lord Derby. An attempt has been made by the right hon. Gentleman to shift the gist of his attack from Lord Clarendon to Earl Russell; but before I sit down I must remind the House of one thing that had almost escaped my memory. Late in the days of the late Government, the right hon. Gentleman made a special and heavy attack, not upon Earl Russell, but upon Lord Clarendon. But it was impossible for him then, as it is now, to injure that distinguished statesman—strong as he is in the admiration and affection of this country and the esteem of foreign Powers—so long as we can place against these Phillipics an emphatic and point-blank contradiction from the mouth of Lord Derby, the Prime Minister under whom he served.

LORD STANLEY

Sir, I am sure the House will feel that it is with the greatest reluctance that, holding my present Office, I take a part in this discussion But I must say that if a general debate is to be raised on the foreign policy of this country it should be raised in a form more convenient than that which the hon. Member for the Elgin burghs (Mr. Grant Duff) has adopted on the present occasion. In a matter of this kind I do not complain of the want of Notice, because a Minister ought always to be prepared to defend his policy; but at the same time I must be permitted to express my opinion that a desultory discussion brought on in this way and dealing with half a dozen topics at a time is not a discussion that can result in any practical good. Now, the remarks of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, whatever they may be held to import, were not in any way a charge against either the capacity or the character of Lord Clarendon. The foreign policy of the Liberal party during their seven years' tenure of Office was in the main the policy of Lord Russell. For my own part I will abstain from criticizing that policy, although I think a great deal might be said against it, especially with reference to Poland and Denmark In regard to the American Civil War, on the other hand, I give Lord Russell credit for having endeavoured to maintain a position of neutrality for this country. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Layard) says, what I will do him the justice to say is correct, that during the term of my administration of foreign affairs he has abstained as a rule from party criticism on subjects of foreign policy, and has seldom called the acts of that Department into question; but I must say I think he has made ample amends to-night for his customary silence. The charges he has brought forward are, to say the least, as sweeping as any which have been attributed to my right hon. Friend; and I think I can show that they are as unfounded as they are sweeping. First of all, the hon. Gentleman referred to the question of the Spanish claims, and said, "What have you done with them; have you settled any one of them?" Now there are but three Spanish claims of any importance which have turned up since I have been at the Foreign Office. First of all there was the case of the Queen Victoria, which was settled by diplomatic action on the spot. Then there is the case of the Mermaid. Now I will not stop to comment on the interpretation put upon certain words which I used in the debate on that subject, for the important fact to be borne in mind is that within six weeks after that discussion in this House the Spanish Government determined, as I all along believed and hoped they would do, to refer the matter to arbitration, and accordingly it has been so referred, and the arbitration is now going on. Then there is the case of the Tornado. What was done in regard to that? I do not wish to prejudice the position of any of the parties who are now before the legal tribunals, but I think that everyone who reads the voluminous Parliamentary Papers on the subject must admit that that is not a case which would have justified us in pressing for more from the Spanish Government than that strict letter of the law to which the parties were entitled. Then the hon. Gentleman has referred to the Alabama question, and has stated that it remains in the position in which it was in 1866. Now I admit that the claims of the American Government are not settled, and, indeed, I stated in this House not long ago what was the actual position of the question; but it is simply the reverse of fact to say that the Alabama claims now stand in the same position as they did two years ago. I am not going to enter into detail as to events which happened before I accepted the Seals of the Foreign Office; I admit that the circumstances were different. But in 1866 the Government had given a refusal to the proposal to arbitrate. The position which the question at present occupies is as follows:—We have accepted frankly and freely the principle of arbitration, and there is now only one remaining point of difference between the two Governments. The American Government desire to couple that arbitration with one condition which I think is not very material to the real issue to be tried, but which we consider as inadmissible. At all events I believe the matter is placed in such a position that there is no probability of an international quarrel, or an acrimonious dispute arising out of it. Then the hon. Gentleman entered into another wide question of Luxemburg. He said, "It is all nonsense for you to pretend that you maintained the peace of Europe." Now I never made any such pretension, because I do not believe that any one individual or any single Government can, under such circumstances, claim to have preserved the peace of Europe. But I contend that in a critical moment, and under circumstances of great difficulty, we did all that it was possible for us to do, with due regard to the interest and the security of England, in order to preserve the peace of Europe, and that with the assistance of other Governments we succeeded in attaining our object. Of course, if France and Prussia had determined to go to war, we could not have prevented them; because no one can suppose that we intended to take an active part in the conflict, and it could only have been by a threat of such interference that we could have succeeded in compelling them to keep the peace. What happened was this—both France and Prussia were committed to a position from which it was difficult for them to recede, and under those circumstances they naturally looked for the friendly assistance of a third State in order to be extricated from it without loss of honour. What the hon. Member says as to the reluctance which I felt in giving the guarantee is perfectly true; I think any Minister in the same position would have felt it, and that anyone who did not feel it would have shown a reckless indifference to the interests of the country. I gave the guarantee unwillingly and as the only means left, as I believed and still believe, of preventing—I will not say a war, but at least, a rupture between the parties. To say, however, that it was given under any external pressure is entirely a misapprehension. I must say that the hon. Gentleman's survey of foreign politics, though rapid, was exceedingly comprehensive. But there now remains only one question for me to touch upon—namely, that of the East. The hon. Member seems to think that I recommended when out of Office a different policy from that which I have adopted since I have held my present position. Now that is not the case. I believe the Greek nation have a great future, and I shall be very glad to see them attain it; but I think we should not be justified in breaking through long-standing and recognized international agreements out of sympathy with any nation or any race of men. If I have seemed to show favour to the Porte at the expense of Greece I am not conscious of it; and if I have ever seemed to be so, it has not been from a desire to favour one side as against the other, but from a desire to adhere as strictly and rigidly as I could to the engagements into which England has entered, and to the principle of an impartial neutrality.