§ MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the case that the Prussian authorities, at the instance of the English Government, promised a safe conduct to a French Plenipotentiary to attend the Conference, and after having done so refused to grant the safe conduct; and if such has been the case, what course has been taken by Her Majesty's Government?
MR. GLADSTONEThe course of the transactions with respect to the safe 123 conduct for the Foreign Minister of the Defence Government of France has been somewhat minute and difficult to follow, and I will not attempt to state, in answer to my hon. Friend, the whole of the details. But as he has raised the question, and as there is, perhaps, a notion abroad that there has been something like a breach of faith, I will state enough to give, I think, a fair view of the matter. In the first place, a request was made on the 27th of November, through M. Tissot, the French Charge d'Affaires, that a safe conduct might be afforded to M. Jules Favre through the Prussian lines in order to allow of his attending the Conference on Eastern affairs in London. This request was forwarded by Lord Granville through the kind intervention of Count Bernstorff, the German Ambassador. The answer received from Count Bismarck was that a safe conduct was at M. Jules Favre's disposal, but that it must be sent for by M. Favre—and the reason he gave for that peculiar method of proceeding was that a flag of truce sent in by the Germans had been fired upon by the French. Whether this statement is erroneous or not we need not stay to inquire; but it was the reason given why M. Favre must send for the safe conduct. The safe conduct was not sent for at that time; but on the 13th of January M. Jules Favre applied himself to Count Bismarck, and the answer given was that the application should not be made to him (Count Bismarck), but to the German military authorities. As late as the 18th of January Mr. Odo Russell wrote to Lord Granville, stating that no difficulty had been made in the matter on the part of the military authorities or by Count Bismarck, and that the French Minister had only to apply for, in order to receive, the safe conduct. But on the 22nd of January, when the bombardment of Paris had begun, the military authorities of the German army declared that no one could be allowed to enter or leave Paris during the period of the bombardment; and that, no doubt, is the circumstance which may have been construed by some into an abrupt refusal on the part of the Germans of that which had been previously conceded. No doubt it was a refusal; but it was a refusal with a reason assigned: and at the same time as the German authorities came to that conclusion M. Favre him 124 self on the very next day—for it was on the 23rd of January—wrote to say that there were various reasons, which he would not state in detail, irrespective altogether of this conclusion of the Germans, which would prevent him from absenting himself from Paris during circumstances so critical as those which at that time had arisen. With respect to the proceedings of Lord Granville in this matter, the endeavours we have made to procure the presence of a French representative at the Conference will appear quite clearly in the Papers which have been laid upon the Table, and which I hope will be very shortly in the hands of Members.