TREATY OF WASHINGTON. (Hansard, 20 March 1872)

§ MR. HORSMAN
Sir, in putting the Question which stands in my name, I wish to say that, if it will be more convenient to the Government that the answer should be limited to the terms of the Despatch that is just going out, I shall be quite content with that statement as a specific answer to my Question. In the meanwhile, leaving the Prime Minister to exercise his discretion, I will put the Question in the form in which it stands on the Paper, and I will ask the Prime Minister, Whether he can give an assurance to the House that, with reference to the Alabama Treaty, no new proposals shall be made or accepted by the British Government as binding on this Country until they shall have been made known to Parliament, and an opportunity afforded for an expression of its opinion upon them?

MR. GLADSTONE
Sir, I quite appreciate the courtesy of the offer that my right hon. Friend has made to limit the scope of his Question to the Despatch which, as I have stated, was to be sent to the American Minister with a view to his being in a position to transmit it to America by to-morrow's mail. At the same time, I do not feel myself under any necessity of accepting that offer. I must necessarily answer this Question without having had the opportunity of consultation with all my Colleagues; but I have had an opportunity of examining and reflecting upon its terms. I am sensible that the shortness of the Notice given of it grows out of the circumstances of the case, and is not any ground of complaint against my right hon. Friend. However, I feel myself able to state sufficiently 325 the general views of the Government in respect to a Question of this nature; and I am not able to give the promise for which the right hon. Gentleman asks. I will say, however, that I am by no means of opinion that Parliament ought to remain in substantial ignorance of the course of these great affairs, even while they are in what I may call their current state. Parliament ought to be informed, and must be informed of the spirit, aim, and direction of the policy of the Government. Parliament has been informed through the medium of the Speech of the Queen, and through the medium of discussion in the two Houses, of that spirit, aim, and direction, and of the leading propositions on which the Government has founded its policy. Were there to be any alteration in the spirit, aim, and direction—so far I go with my right hon. Friend—it would be the duty of the Government to take care that Parliament was made aware of it. Beyond that, and beyond referring to the declarations that have been already made, I do not think it is possible to meet the demands of my right hon. Friend. What is that demand? "That, with reference to the Alabama Treaty," something shall not be done; but I cannot accept that as a limitation, because the principles applicable to the Alabama Treaty would be applicable to every other negotiation of great and critical importance. But, as the Question is put, it has reference to the Alabama Treaty, and my right hon. Friend asks that no proposals shall be made or accepted by the British Government as binding on this country until they shall have been made known to Parliament, and an opportunity afforded for an expression of its opinion upon them. [Mr. HORSMAN: No new proposals.] I beg pardon for omitting the word "new;" but it is immaterial, because any proposals would be new. I have heard my right hon. Friend himself, and I have heard other Gentlemen raise questions of very great importance and delicacy and difficulty, by giving an opinion in this House that the Treaty-Making power of the Crown ought to be limited, and that the Houses of Parliament ought to be made parties to the acceptance of any treaty. Those discussions I have always conceived to be within, not only the competence of the House to entertain, but the competence 326 of any Member to raise; and if I have an opinion on one side of the question, I admit there is much to be said on the other side. But the present Question of my right hon. Friend goes very much, indeed, beyond this point. It asks that no new proposals shall be made or accepted by the British Government as binding upon this country until Parliament is consulted. Every proposal made by any Government is binding on the country according to the terms in which it is made; and therefore, in point of fact, the demand is that nothing shall be proposed in the course of these negotiations without the assent of Parliament prior to its promulgation to the world, or, at least, until the lapse of time sufficient to afford an opportunity for the expression of its opinion. If it were possible, which I do not believe it to be, that such a demand as this could be answered by the House in the affirmative, I should say it would reduce the position of any Government charged with international negotiations to such a state that it would be far better that the Houses of Parliament should place diplomatic negotiations in the hands of Committees, or, perhaps, as an improvement upon that, in the hands of a Joint Committee, for it would render such negotiations entirely impossible; and though errors may be made under the present system, success and the avoidance of error would become absolutely impossible under the system of duality which it appears to me the Question points to. I hope my right hon. Friend will not suppose that what I have said has any special reference to what is contained in the Despatch which the Government are sending out, or that it is on account of that Despatch I have thought it my duty to give the answer I have now given. My answer is founded entirely upon a general and, as I must think, an immovable principle of public policy; and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me for having referred to it in answering his Question.

§ MR. HORSMAN
I wish to explain that I have been a little misunderstood. What I mean is that there shall be no variation in the terms of settlement without the Parliament of Great Britain having the same opportunity that is now possessed by the Senate of the United States of considering a proposal after it has been made and accepted.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to put a form of Question which may elicit an answer less open to misconception than that which has just been given. Are we to understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the Despatch sent to-day to the American Minister is based upon the same principles and cast upon the same lines as the declarations made by the right hon. Gentleman at the opening of Parliament?

MR. GLADSTONE
I think I cannot answer the Question better than by referring to the words I have already used, and which I consider to be a perfectly distinct and irrevocable pledge—that is to say, that if there were any alteration in the spirit, aim, and direction of the policy of the Government, in my opinion it would be a primary matter of duty that we should take care that Parliament should not remain in the dark.