MR. GLADSTONEI beg to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, in the communications with the Russian Government, which have lately been presented to Parliament (No. 24, 1878), it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reserve to themselves the liberty of withdrawal from the Congress upon the proposal, by way of amendment of the Treaty, or otherwise, to discuss any matter of which they might hold the discussion to be inadmissible, and without sharing in, or waiting for, the discussion itself?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, I confess that when my right hon. Friend gave Notice of this Question the other day, I did not very clearly understand it; nor can I, indeed, now say, after having given to it considerable subsequent consideration, that its meaning is quite clear to me. It looks rather like an argumentative Question, and I should not be in Order by answering it with anything in the form of an argument. If it is merely a Question as to fact; as to any reservation on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in their communications with the Russian Government, as to their right of withdrawal from the Congress before discussing any matter of which they might hold the discussion to be inadmissible, I do not think there is anything in this Correspondence which touches upon such a question. The Correspondence between the Government and the Russian Government has reference solely to the desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government to have a fair and distinct understanding, that if they entered the Congress every Article of the Treaty will be placed before the Congress.
MR. GLADSTONEMr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to speak in order to explain the Question, I should be glad to do so. ["No, no!" and "Order!"] I say with the permission and indulgence of the House. [Cries of "Order!"] I shall not touch on any argumentative matter. This is a question to which I attach the greatest importance, and this is the reason that I ask that indulgence may be given me. [Loud cries of"Order!"] When hon. Gentlemen think I am trespassing, I have no doubt they will avail themselves of opportunities not unknown to them to signify their views. I may have misunderstood the effect of the Correspondence itself, and what I propose to say will, perhaps, enable the Government to set me right. The quarrel between the Russian Government—["Order!" and "Oh! "]—the difference between Russia and England upon which, for the present, the Congress has terminated, has arisen in this way. That the Russian Government—["Order, order!"]—that the Russian Government had admitted the right of every Power to raise whatever question they pleased; that that Power might please—["Order!"]—but 523 claimed for themselves, if I understand it aright—
§ MR. ROEBUCKI rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether for any single Gentleman, however powerful he may be, to bring on a discussion under the privilege of putting a Question, without some Motion or other before the House, and without any other Member being able to make any remark, is in Order?
§ MR. SPEAKERIn answer to the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, I have to say that when the right hon. Gentleman, on rising, said he desired to give an explanation in order to make his Question clear, so far he was entirely in Order; but I am bound to add that some of the right hon. Gentleman's subsequent observations related to matters which were rather for debate.
MR. GLADSTONEI appealed to the indulgence of the House, and did not wish to make any claim at all of right when I asked to make an explanation. I knew I had no claim otherwise to trespass on its time. But as you, Sir, have ruled against me, perhaps I may be permitted to put the matter thus—Does Her Majesty's Government propose to leave to the Russian Government the same liberty of withdrawing from the Congress at such period as it may think proper in and during the discussion, as it claims and intends to do for itself?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI understand it to be a matter of course that any Power could have the right of withdrawing from the Congress, and therefore it was of importance that Her Majesty's Government should ascertain before going into the Congress, whether certain matters were or were not to be treated as inadmissible, and as necessarily leading to the withdrawal of the Powers. That was why Her Majesty's Government put the question, with the view of ascertaining whether the whole of the Treaty would be put before the Congress. But I am afraid it is impossible for me to give an answer to my right hon. Friend, without entering into an argument, which would not be convenient to the House, or perhaps altogether in Order.
MR. GLADSTONEI will take the opportunity of considering whether I shall raise the question on going into 524 Committee of Supply to-morrow, with the view of defining the ground of discussion when we come to the general discussion. I now beg to ask the further Question of which I have given Notice—namely, To ask Her Majesty's Government, with respect to the proposal of Germany, made on the 15th of March, that a preliminary Conference should be held at Berlin to settle the course of procedure at the Congress, Whether the refusal of Her Majesty's Government, on the following day, to discuss that proposal so far as the point in dispute was concerned is to be considered as absolute; and, if so, whether they can conveniently state the reason for that refusal?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe despatch of Lord Derby dated the 16th of March (No. 13) seems, I think, to answer the Question. The proposal having been made by the German Ambassador, Lord Derby says—
I told his Excellency that so far as related to the question immediately before us—namely, the competence of the Congress to discuss any part that it might think fit of the Russo-Turkish Treaty, I saw no advantage in the preliminary Conference which was proposed. Her Majesty's Government had publicly and frequently expressed their determination not to go into Congress, unless this point were conceded; and I could not hold out the expectation that they would be induced by any amount of discussion to alter their decision. As regarded the question of a preliminary Conference generally, I was not in a position to express a positive opinion, though much inclined to doubt its probable usefulness. On that subject I should prefer to wait for further explanations as to what were the questions intended to be dealt with in this manner, and why it was thought better not to reserve them for the meeting of the Congress.The points which are put by my right hon. Friend are answered in that despatch.
§ MR. FORSYTHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether application has been made to the Governments of Germany, France, and Italy to permit the Correspondence with them relative to the meeting of the Congress to be made public; and, if so, whether those Governments, or any of them, have refused such permission?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought his hon. and learned Friend and the House would excuse him from answering that Question. It was scarcely consistent with the spirit 525 of the answer which had been given, that Her Majesty's Government did not feel at liberty to publish confidential Correspondence, for him to answer the Question.