HC Deb 22 February 1888 vol 322 cc1172-95
MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

, in rising to move, as an Amendment to the Report of the Address, after paragraph 7, to insert— Humbly to represent to Your Majesty that it will conduce to our proper appreciation of certain of the subjects which Her Majesty has recommended to our consideration if we can be informed that no Correspondence has been exchanged between Her Majesty's Ministers and the Government of His Majesty the King of Italy, containing any assurances of a contractural character, which would constitute a binding pact upon Her Majesty's actual Ministers in the unfortunate event of a war breaking out during their tenure of office between the French Republic and the Kingdom of Italy, or, if such assurances have been given, that they should be brought to our knowledge, said, that if any justification were needed for the course which he had taken he found that justification in The Times newspaper. The Times had described his proposed action as being of— A most mischievous and unpatriotic character for which, if Mr. Labouchere were a responsible politician, no words of censure would be too strong. [Ministerial cheers.] He had no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree with their official organ; but The Times was no official organ of those who sat on his side of the House. The same epithets had been applied by The Times whenever any Amendment had been moved on the Irish question. In fact, The Times seemed to be of opinion that they ought to leave the affairs of Ireland entirely in the hands of the nephew, and Foreign Affairs entirely in the hands of the uncle, and thank God that He had sent such a nephew and such an uncle to take care of the business of the country. Prince Bismarck had lately said that he utterly despised the Press, and that it was the opinion of but one man seated behind one pen. Here they had in The Times' article the production of a most abusive and scurrilous henchman of the Government; and, for his own part, he should feel doubt and hesitation in any course which he proposed to take if The Times informed him that it was a patriotic, a right, and a proper course. The House would have observed that in the Austrian, Italian, and German Press there had been statements published respecting certain communications from Lord Salisbury which had been addressed to one or more of the Great Powers who formed part of the Triple Alliance. It had been stated by the Press of these countries that the communications were of such a nature as to encourage Italy to join the Alliance, and to leave all the members of the Alliance to form the conclusion that England was prepared in some way or other not only to approve, but also to support, the objects of that alliance. He had tried to elicit from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs what had transpired, and he gathered that there had been no Treaty. He never supposed that there had. He also gathered that there was no engagement obliging this country to give military aid to Italy. When the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had spoken they would be able to form their own conclusion, if he proved a little less reticent than he had been upon the subject, whether or not a promise had been indirectly given. There was an impression that there had been some sort of correspondence between the Government and foreign Powers on this matter. What was the Triple Alliance? Germany, a great military Empire, was bounded on three sides by great military Powers. Germany had acquired certain Provinces of France, and she was in perpetual dread lost any other Power should go to war with her, and France should take the opportunity to re-acquire her lost Provinces. From a German point of view it was a sound and excellent policy on the part of Prince Bismarck to obtain allies against these contingencies; and it not only rendered Germany safe, but also rendered Prince Bismarck the arbiter and the master of Europe. A Treaty on these lines had been entered into between Germany and Austria, and it had been published. A Treaty had also been entered into with Italy, but it was not quite clear as to when that Treaty was signed. They, therefore, knew so far that Germany, Austria, and Italy had entered into a defensive alliance, and that the basis of the alliance was that Germany should come to the aid of the other two Powers if they were attacked, and that Italy and Austria should come to the aid of Germany if that country was attacked by France, Germany at the same time being at war with Russia. That was a policy most advantageous to Germany, and to some extent advantageous to Austria. Whether it was so advantageous to Italy was more doubtful. But it was no business of England's whether it was or not. When Signor Crispi went to Berlin he had to take into consideration a serious fact. It was all very well for Austria to sign a Treaty with Germany; but if Italy did so she exposed her coasts and her African policy to the attacks of France, because her fleet or the fleets of her allies could not, for a moment, hold their own against the French fleet. It was understood that Prince Bismarck appealed to Lord Salisbury, and wanted him to say, or do, or promise something which would remove the apprehensions of Italy. He hoped that when the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs answered for the Government he would say distinctly whether it was a fact that this appeal was made by Prince Bismarck. What did Lord Salisbury do? He evidently did something. It was admitted that there was a correspondence, and what he wanted to know was when the answer was sent, and what the nature of the answer was. Could the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs deny the statement that the correspondence was sent round to all our Ambassadors in order to instruct them as to what the policy of Lord Salisbury was with regard to the alliance? The Tory Press had stated that in their view the correspondence contained a declaration of Lord Salisbury with reference to the permanent policy of England, and that that permanent policy was to maintain the status quo in the Mediterranean. The Times and the Government were great friends, but he did not know whether The Times was inspired when it stated that— If there should be any danger of a blow struck at Italy which would destroy the Italian navy and give France an undisputed ascendency in the Mediterranean, it would be the duty of England, for the security of her own Empire and commerce, as well as for the maintenance of the European equilibrium and the preservation of a State to which we are bound by tics of sympathy and friendship, to exert all her power to avert the disaster. He utterly denied that it would be the business of England in such circumstances to use English treasure and blood to protect Italy. But if there had been a declaration of the permanent policy of the Government they must consider to whom it had been addressed. Italy should not be led by any assurances or hints to join an alliance against France, because England intimated to her that she might do so with impunity. If Italy joined in a war against France she must, like any other nation, accept the consequences. This country undoubtedly sympathized greatly with Italy during her struggle for independence and at the present time also. Prince Bismarck and Lord Salisbury knew this, and he had been making use of our sympathy with Italy to induce England to make an arrangement with that country, which practically would be an arrangement with Germany and Austria and Italy. Admiral Hewett, the late commander of the Squadron in the Red Sea, appeared to have a stronger opinion than The Times as to what the effect of this correspondence would be, for in a speech at a dinner or reception, given in his honour at Genoa it was stated by the Italian, papers—without contradiction—that he said he hoped and believed the Italian and British Fleets would soon fight together. Naturally, therefore, in France there had been great anxiety felt in regard to this correspondence. He believed the French Ambassador had been told that no arrangement had been entered into with Italy. It would appear that the French Ambassador, who had not seen, the correspondence, was told that there was no arrangement, while Austria and Germany, who had seen the correspondence, knew that there was an arrangement One of the most important French newspapers had stated that Lord Salisbury divided himself into two parts—the head of the Tory Party and the Minister for Foreign Affairs—and that he had given the assurances rather as the head of the Tory Party than as Minister for Foreign Affairs. They could not recognize such a distinction in this country. For his own part, he was opposed to any intermixture in Foreign Affairs, whether territorial or dynastic. He believed they ought to take advantage of their position as an Island and to remain mutatis mutandis, just as the United States did with regard to Europe. Some hon. Gentlemen might not agree with him in taking part in what they called the European Concert, but it was not a European concert. Europe was divided into two camps, and Her Majesty's Government, he complained, had taken one side and had concealed what they had done from the other, and, what was still more important, from the House of Commons and the country. The matter was an important one, because the Government had taken side against our neighbour and ally, France. They were told that the alliance was a league of peace; but leagues of peace ordinarily ended in war. It was formed to deprive France of any opportunity of retaking her lost Provinces in a war. He should be sorry to see a war; but if there were one, his sympathies would be entirely with France in such an endeavour. The worst feature connected with these transactions was the secrecy that had been observed. It was something monstrous that no reference should have been made to them in the Queen's Speech. They had had in the Speech from the Throne communications on a great many matters; but surely a statement as to the permanent policy of the country was much more important than any of those communications. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had alleged the state of Europe as a reason for withholding the correspondence. But the negotiations were over now, and whatever had been done was an accomplished fact, and he had never yet heard such an excuse pleaded when negotiations wore at an end. Austria, Germany, and Italy knew of the correspondence, but neither France nor Russia nor the House of Commons were in possession of it. There was another reason, possibly, why the correspondence had not been communicated—a domestic reason. The present Government was a Tory Government, but it had not a Tory majority, and he thought that the tension in the Unionist Members on his side of the House would be very strong indeed if they were told that by supporting the Government they were supporting a guarantee of Lord Salisbury in regard to Germany as against France. The country, he maintained, was in favour of peace, and it objected to all these engagements. We knew well that the country regarded France as our nearest and best ally, and he could well understand Lord Salisbury should wish to keep the matter quiet, and should not wish to submit what had been done to the appreciation of the entire country. He did not accept a policy of what was called peace at all price; he believed that we required a good Army and Navy for defensive purposes, and that if the Empire were attacked we ought to defend it; but if we got into a dispute with a foreign nation we ought first to submit the matter to arbitration, and we ought also to remember, if we were insulted, that there was an ultima ratio, which was the same in democracies as in Monarchies, But he was against all wars and all Treaties leading to wars where we had no direct interest in the matter. For example, it was undesirable that Bulgaria should fall into the hands or under the control of Russia; but this was not a matter of such interest to us that we should go to war for it; therefore, he would object to any engagement on this subject which might possibly drag us into war. It would be a little too absurd to insist upon Home Rule in Bulgaria when we were trying to put down the demand for it so much nearer home. During the last 150 years we had been at war with Austria, Russia, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Holland, and France—with France four times—but in no one instance had we gone to war because England was directly or indirectly attacked. But in most cases we went to war for that mirage, the European equilibrium, and we had spent or wasted hundreds of millions in these wars. Of late years we had got wiser, and in the wars between Austria and Italy and between France and Germany we had taken no part. But if our Rulers had had their way we should have taken part. Lord Malmesbury was anxious to enter into some sort of agreement by correspondence which would have dragged us into these later wars. Again, the Conservative Government, a little time before the Franco-German War, was for giving a Guarantee to defend the neutrality of Luxemburg, which Guarantee would have dragged us into war; but the people were too strong for them. While prepared to defend the British Empire, the people of this country were determined not to be dragged into foolish wars which did not concern them. At this time England was taking sides in a dispute which was dividing the Continent, and what had been done was absolutely concealed. It would be said that no assurances had been given; but this was a mere play upon words. Matters had been so arranged that what had occurred could be denied in this House. But an illustration of what had happened was furnished by an account, just given in The Times, of an interview between Signor Crispi and the late Count Corti. Signor Crispi suggested the probability of a close friendship between Italy and England in certain contingencies; Count Corti replied that the investigating spirit of English Members of Parliament rendered it difficult for English Ministers to come to a positive understanding, and Lord Salisbury would not do it. There was not a word to show that Lord Salisbury would not have done it if he had dared. Possibly the difficulty mentioned had been got over in such a way as to evade the investigating spirit of the House of Commons. He saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) in his place. Now, he had never heard the right hon. Gentleman express any sort of confidence in Lord Salisbury's policy; but yet now he seemed to consider Lord Salisbury as a sort of reformed Jingo. For his own part, he did not believe that Lord Salisbury was reformed in the least, and had no kind of confidence in him; and he would give a reason. Last year he called attention to a correspondence which had taken place between this country and Foreign Governments in regard to Bulgaria, and he showed that Lord Salisbury had addressed despatch after despatch to almost every Government in Europe, imploring them to enter into an alliance with him against Russia. At last it came to such a pass that Prince Bismarck and the other Ministers, having something else to do, treated these appeals with contempt, and would not reply to them. That was since Lord Salisbury returned to power, and that was why he had no confidence in Lord Salisbury. When they were considering what Lord Salisbury had said, they must remember what had happened previously in regard to Treaties. They must remember that he sprang upon his own allies and friends the secret Treaty with regard to the Berlin Congress. When that Treaty had been surreptitiously signed, he denied that he had entered into it. But he positively prosecuted the man who stole that Treaty and published it, and afterwards admitted that it was a Treaty. They must remember also that Lord Salisbury was not only Foreign Secretary, but also Prime Minister. Ordinarily the Foreign Secretary had to act with the Prime Minister. But Lord Salisbury had to act with himself. He adopted a course as Foreign Secretary, and then appealed to himself as Prime Minister to confirm it. When the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) was in the Government, having rather more sane ideas upon foreign policy, he, to a certain extent, kept Lord Salisbury in order. But how about the present Cabinet? There was not one of them that understood the A B C of foreign politics. They were a very respectable body of men; but he should like to see one of them quarrelling with Lord Salisbury on a point of foreign policy! Lord Salisbury's policy had always been the same—a policy of hatred of France—["Oh, oh!" and "No, no!"]—and jealousy of Russia. Not hatred of France? Why, it was shown only last year, when the French Government asked us to join in a ceremony to celebrate a great and important political event—the taking of the Bastille. [Ministerial laughter.] He doubted whether the hon. Member opposite—he did not know where he sat for—the hon. Member who laughed—could tell him in what year the Bastille was taken. There was not one man in France—Orleanist, Bonapartist, or Republican—who would venture to dispute that the capture of the Bastille was a great and important political event. Lord Salisbury objected to that festival, because he was at the head of an aristocatic Government, and he did not like to see a great and prosperous Republic so close to us. That Republic somehow got on without large grants to a Royal Family. It somehow got on without the aid of hereditary aristocracy to manage its affairs, and he could perfectly understand how it was that Lord Salisbury disliked to see the prosperity of Franca. The noble Lord would no doubt be glad to drag us into war to save his policy in Ireland. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, the noble Lord said he was fighting for the maintenance of the integrity of the British Empire, and before now we had been dragged into war to prevent the march of democracy. In the last century, during the whole period of the great war, no liberal reform was effected. The policy of the Conservative Government then was precisely that of the present Government. He remained where the Chancellor of the Exchequer was when he said that he would not give a blank cheque to Lord Salisbury, though the right hon. Gentleman had changed. Either this correspondence was important or not. If it was not important, it ought to be published to re-assure the country. If it was, them was every reason why France and this country should be made acquainted with it. It was for the House of Commons to judge of the importance of these matters. At such a time as this especially we ought to remain absolutely unfettered. What Germany, Austria, and Italy knew, France ought to know, and the people of this country ought to know. He would recommend Lord Salisbury to follow the example of Prince Bismarck instead of being his servile tool. Prince Bismarck took the people of his country into his confidence. Why should not the present Government do the same? The refusal of the Government to take the people into their confidence was the best proof that it was desirable—and not only desirable, but imperative—that the country should be taken into confidence. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

MR. O. V. MORGAN (Battersea)

said, his reason for seconding the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was that he was opposed to all secret treaties. He hoped the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would be able to assure the House that there was no Treaty, whether secret or otherwise, or engagement, entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Italy.

Amendment proposed, At the end of paragraph 7, to insert the words—"Humbly to represent to Your Majesty that it will conduce to our proper appreciation of certain of the subjects which Her Majesty has recommended to our consideration, if we can be informed that no Correspondence has been exchanged between Her Majesty's Ministers and the Government of His Majesty the King of Italy, containing any assurances of a contractual character, which would constitute a binding pact upon Her Majesty's actual Ministers in the unfortunate event of a war breaking out during their tenure of office between the French Republic and the Kingdom of Italy, or, if such assurances have been given, that they should be brought to our knowledge."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.)

I think that Members of this House must have been somewhat puzzled to imagine with what purpose the hon. Member rose to make the statements which he has just delivered, because there were some of them that were of a nature that was most mischievous in their tendency and reckless in their particulars. The House has been reticent with regard to foreign affairs, and during the time I have been privileged to represent the Foreign Office in this House I have had, I may say, a very easy time of it. I think an acknowledgment is due to the Members of the Opposition that, at a time of great anxiety, when forces were known to exist perilous to the peace of Europe, they have not, by any act of theirs, rendered the task of Her Majesty's Government more difficult. It is right that at fitting opportunities explanation, should be asked of Her Majesty's Government; and whatever the hon. Member may say, I believe that the present Government will be always ready to give to the House of Commons all the information that the safety of the country and its interests will allow. But, Sir, when questions are asked that, if they are not mischievous, are idle, questions which all Governments who have had to conduct difficult affairs well know are exceedingly difficult and dangerous—not inconvenient to them as a Ministry, but inconvenient to the interests of the country and the world—then, I think, a Government does well to be reticent, and the House of Commons is very much changed if it will not respect their prudence. The hon. Member began by expressing his contempt for Press criticisms, and when criticisms are idle one does right to despise them; but, at the same time, he himself relied largely on Press rumours. His speech was made up of quotations from rumours, and I think those who have followed the foreign intelligence of newspapers and the comments on them in this and other countries will observe that those rumours are exceedingly various and contradictory. The hon. Member has chosen—I suppose it suited his purpose—to adopt many of them. They could not all be true, because they did not all agree; but he adopted those that suited him, and then went on to treat them as if they were proved facts. Now, Sir, before going into the terms of the Motion, I still must express my regret that the hon. Member for the moment should have quoted such rumours as authentic, and should have quoted altogether unauthenticated statements that demands had been made upon Her Majesty's Government on the one hand, and overtures had been made by Her Majesty's Government on the other. I am quite sure that he had no authority or foundation for those statements. As to my having admitted anything of the kind last year, I certainly did no such thing. Now, Sir, I just ask the House to remember the terms of the Motion, because the hon. Member has now formulated charges which he has put to the House in various questions in a vague and indeterminate manner. [Here he read the Amendment.] Now, the hon. Member has emphasized a theory by his questions, and has demonstrated the offence of such an assurance as he assumes to have been given. He has given no grounds for such belief other than conjectural statements which have appeared in the newspapers—I appeal to the recollection of hon. Members—of what probably might be the course of Her Majesty's Government in conceivable circumstances. But the hon. Member founds a confirmation of his statement—that there exists an agreement between Her Majesty's Government and Italy that in certain contingencies we would take sides against France—upon a speech which was attributed to the gallant Admiral in command of the Mediterranean Squadron on some ceremonial occasion, in regard to which he asked a Question in this House. On that occasion I stated, in reply to the hon. Member, that I could not accept such a charge against the gallant officer on a second-hand report in a newspaper, for the paper itself did not profess to report the words he used. Now, I am happy to say that the statement is amply confirmed by a telegram which I have received from Admiral Hewett, which says— Have read Sir James Fergusson's reply to Mr. Labouchere. I wish to say the statement in Press is absolutely false and without foundation. I do not quarrel with the hon. Member for asking the Question, because it would be a very important declaration, no doubt; though I think it might have been received with some caution. Well, Sir, I have already, on more than one occasion, stated to the House, in answer to the hon. Member, that we were under no engagements pledging the employment of the Military and Naval Forces of this country, except such as are already known to the House; and it appears to me that, for all practical purposes, that gives a negative answer to the hon. Member. At least, I am unable to understand that any other reasonable interpretation could be put on my words. The only promise which we could have been asked to give in the case of war breaking out between France and Italy would have been a promise to take sides with France on the one hand, or with Italy on the other. I am here to tell the House that no such engagement was ever asked or given. Keeping myself, therefore, strictly within the terms of the answer I before gave, I would say that it included the answer I now give, because the words I gave to the House would not bear the interpretation that we were under any obligation to use military or naval action. I would pass from this point were it not for the remarkable and most unfortunate language—if it could be taken as responsible language—by the hon. Member as regards the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards France. He said we have taken side against our neighbours the French; and that it is the policy of Lord Salisbury, actuated by hatred of France and animosity to the French, to slight their progress, and to desire to drag us into war with France. Sir, there is not a responsible statesman in France who would attribute such a policy to Lord Salisbury, least of all any statesman who has had to do with him since his conduct of the foreign affairs of this country. On the contrary, I am certain all would acknowledge that Lord Salisbury, in his communications and intercourse with and treatment of France, has been actuated on every point with the greatest consideration for that country. In fact, I have heard from some hon. Members who have some authority to speak on public affairs doubt whether he had not been too cautious and indulgent in some questions of difference with France. I do not believe that that is the case, for I believe that international differences are best settled by due consideration for the rights, the position, and the feelings of other Powers. But it is altogether untrue that Her Majesty's Government have pursued any conduct inconsistent with the good relations which happily exist between this country and France, which I certainly hope shall continue to exist, and which we have every promise and hope of being able to maintain. Our relations with France are naturally in agreement, because we have no reason to think that the external policy of France in the important affairs so much debated in the world differs from our own. We believe that the policy of France in relation to foreign affairs is conducted in harmony with the obligations of the Treaties to which France and Great Britain are alike parties. And, that being so, we believe the foreign policy of France is moving on parallel lines with that of Great Britain. But as the hon. Gentleman has pushed his inquiries further, and in case any hon. Member is inclined to back him in pressing for Correspondence of the most delicate nature, then I must address some further observations upon that point to the House. Well, there must have been Correspondence. Is it conceivable that when the affairs of Europe have been in the somewhat critical condition in which they have stood for a year and a-half past—I may say ever since the disturbance in Bulgaria—that there should not have been constant Correspondence with many Powers, and that of a very confidential and delicate nature? All such Correspondence and discussions with foreign Powers with reference to the maintenance of peace in Europe must, if it is to be more than purely formal, enter into questions concerning the maintenance of peace, and the causes which operate for and against peace. It must have reference to the motives, the character, and the objects of other Powers from whom breaches of the peace may possibly be apprehended. There must be estimates expressed of the consequences of any action calculated to cause a breach of the peace; and, more, there must be a contemplation of the effects which naturally result from calling into action the enormous forces that are now gathered together by any military Power, and the changes that might follow war, and the degree in which, in common with other Powers, the interests of this country might, and probably would, be affected. Therefore, evidently there must be Correspondence upon the policy which this country and other Powers, parties to the treaties of Europe, would necessarily follow. It is obvious that a discussion of this kind, if it is to be full and free as it ought to be, is not of a nature to be published to the whole of Europe. The hon. Member says the time has come when this Correspondence should be made known. I wish the time had come when such Correspondence as it is usual to lay before Parliament could be laid before Parliament. I am afraid the time has not yet come. I hope any prospect of a disturbance of the peace of Europe is not greater, but less than it was a year ago. Some scepticism was expressed when Lord Salisbury declared a year ago that he saw no reason why the peace of Europe should be broken, and he confidently hoped for its maintenance. I think it says a good deal for the correctness of his forecast that that prophecy has so long proved true. We cannot prophesy, but we may hope; and until that hope is fulfilled I think the House of Commons will see that the time has not arrived when there should be any publication and that such Correspondence as must take place in such cases could not be made known without great breach of confidence—without an act of great impolicy, and, more, without depriving this country in future of its right to be consulted on the public affairs of Europe, and of its beneficial influence in the maintenance of peace. If we cannot place before the House the Correspondence in full, which I regret to say cannot be considered yet complete, still more is it impossible that fragmentary portions of it should be disclosed, whether in reply to clearly designed catechisms addressed to the Government, or even in an Address to Parliament. I do not believe the House will lend itself to such a request. It is manifest that fragmentary declarations such as the hon. Member tries to draw from me would create a false impression of the position, and it would be even more dangerous, perhaps, than to publish the Correspondence in full. I have, therefore, to say that Her Majesty's Government do not feel themselves justified in answering, or even discussing further, the questions which the hon. Member asks as to this Correspondence, and we must oppose a simple negative to any Motions which he or his hon. Friends may make for the purpose of eliciting information upon this question at the present time. The hon. Member has referred to some negotiations which have been carried on by Her Majesty's Government, and, I think I may say, with success. We have had some delicate topics to discuss with other Powers. We have certainly some questions with other Powers, and especially with France. With regard to the Correspondence regarding these questions, I was obliged repeatedly to decline to give the House information as to the terms of the agreements which were being drawn up before they were completed. But I think the spirit in which that Correspondence was conducted, and the results to which it led, may give the House some confidence in the attitude which Her Majesty's Government maintain towards Prance and other Powers. I agree with one thing the hon. Member said—namely, that no war should be undertaken unless our national interests imperatively demand it, and that we should not go unnecessarily or hurriedly into the affairs of Europe, and make onerous engagements. The hon. Member referred to several great wars which have taken place from which this country was happily free; but in those cases Great Britain was happily free because its interests were not concerned except as regards her interest in the general peace of the world. But since Her Majesty's present Government existed, we have not had to ask for any votes of credit. There have been no wars and no rumour of war, although we have not been without our difficulties. But the declaration in Her Majesty's Speech that says she is happily at peace with all Powers is most entirely true, and if a policy has been pursued that so far has maintained peace and harmony with all the world, I venture to think the Government will justify the confidence which I believe the House reposes in their foreign policy.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)

I shall not detain the House at any length by entering into what I may call the polemical portion of the speeches delivered by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, because I am extremely desirous not to give a polemical aspect to anything I may say; and I distinguish between the criticisms which maybe made upon particular expressions and the general aim of my hon. Friend in the Motion which he has made, which I do not construe—I may be wrong, and I am not responsible for the wording of the Amendment—as a Motion intended to force the hand of the Government in respect of later Correspondence, but as intended rather to give vent to a feeling which dwells in the mind of my hon. Friend, that so much has been said both in foreign newspapers and others, and that what has been said in newspapers has been in connection with facts of so much gravity that it is hardly possible for the House of Commons to meet at this period without endeavouring to obtain some satisfaction from Her Majesty's Government as to the general attitude which they assume. Viewing the Motion in that light I own I am at a loss to understand why it should be made the subject of such severe censure. I am not about to censure the right hon. Gentleman in meeting that Motion as he has done, and if he understood it to be a Motion intended to force the production of Correspondence upon matters of the utmost delicacy, and on matters still undeveloped and incomplete in connection with the present state of Europe, I think he would be perfectly well founded in that objection. I have heard with extreme satisfaction, but I do not think it necessary to make it the subject of detailed comment, the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government have been able to conduct the transactions of their foreign policy in close harmony with France, and I pass on from that declaration, which I wish to leave in terms as simply unqualified as it is in my power to use. I think the hon. Member for Northampton may in some degree congratulate himself upon the tenour of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in respect of his Motion. The object of the Motion, as I understand it, is to give some satisfaction to the House upon the question whether engagements have been made by the Government relating to contingencies not yet developed. The terms of the Motion are, in one respect, perhaps, even a little narrower than possibly they might have been, because the question put is whether there is any correspondence between Her Majesty's Ministers and the Government of His Majesty the King of Italy— Containing any assurances of a contractual character which would constitute a binding pact upon Her Majesty's actual Ministers in the unfortunate event of a war breaking out during their tenure of Office between the French Republic and the Kingdom of Italy. But we may be committed to transactions which provide for our future course, and which may tend to narrow our liberties in respect to contingencies which may arise. I trust that so far as any uneasiness is felt, that uneasiness ought to be allayed with respect to engagements which may have been taken affecting this country during the tenure of Office of the present Government, for it has happened to the present Government, as it has sometimes happened to former Governments, to make engagements which have bound this country, not only during their tenure of Office, but beyond it, quite irrespective of who may be at the helm of Administration. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he has told us to-day that he in no respects departs from the terms of the answers he has hitherto given us, but that he conceives that those answers, with the statement he has made to-day, constitute, for all practical purposes, an answer in the negative to the Question put by the hon. Member for Northampton. He did not use the word answer, but evidently his meaning was an answer in the negative to the Question. [Sir JAMES FERGUSSON: Hear, hear!] Under these circumstances I cannot doubt that the hon. Member for Northampton must feel considerable satisfaction at the result of his bringing forward his Amendment, and will not press it to a Division, which would undoubtedly have the effect of a hostile vote. I feel very anxious upon all occasions that no measure should be taken of a premature character which will tend to fetter the free discretion and free agency of this country in contingencies which have not yet developed themselves. Without going into details, there are two considerations which, I think, are obvious, and of great force and power, as tending to discourage any proceedings of that kind. One is, that they have an obvious tendency to cast doubt upon the existing relations between the Crown of this country and those among the Powers of Europe, to which those contingent engagements are supposed to be not favourable. The other and most serious objection is this, that it is impossible for us to foreshadow the exact attitude, methods, tendencies, and intentions, of the Powers in those contingencies which have not yet arrived. Let me give the House an instance of this. I remember that on the eve of the breaking out of the Franco-German War, an announcement appeared in The Times newspaper with respect to Belgium, and with respect to the communications between Prussia and Belgium that had shortly before occurred—I will not say how many days or hours it was before the outbreak of the war, certainly it was on the eve of the war, if not to be measured by hours at any rate by days. That was a declaration which brought about no change in the attitude of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the war, but which might, if the sequel of the declaration had taken a different course, have very suddenly and materially altered our position. It is, however, needless to argue this question, because from the words that have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman on the present occasion—and in speaking of this occasion I do not mean to speak with censure of what he has said on former occasions—I hope that we are agreed as to the impolicy of anticipating events with regard to which it is almost impossible for us as yet to form a full and accurate estimate. I rejoice to rest on that agreement. But my hon. Friend is, I think, not to be censured for having endeavoured to obtain from the Government assurances on, this subject. His doing so has, I know, been justified by him on very broad grounds—namely, of his total want of confidence in the present administration of the foreign affairs of this country; but it appears to me that we do not require that breadth of ground in order to justify the desire for information which he entertains. It is true that numbers of rumours, undoubtedly not all in accordance with one another, but rumours upon matters of great consequence, and circulated in a tone of very-great confidence in many quarters, have been before the world; and although it may be easy for the right hon. Gentleman, viewing these rumours from the interior of the Foreign Office, and know- ing what credit or discredit ought to attach to them, to dispose of them summarily, still they have affected the public mind, and have affected it in proportion to the extreme and enormous importance of the subject to which such rumours relate. Much depends on the sensitiveness of the public mind at the moment, and I am sorry to think that there is one circumstance, though it is difficult to place it in any precise relation to the contingencies possibly overhanging Europe, which has excited a great depth and I may also say a tenderness of interest and anxiety in this country which can hardly be overstated, and which has increased this sensitiveness—I mean the critical state of the Crown Prince of Germany. It is unhappily beyond all human power to influence the course of that illness which has produced such a profound sentiment at once of pity and of admiration, and which, as we know, affects a life that is, without exaggeration, only to be described as a life of inestimable value to Europe. All these things have made it desirable in the view of many of us, that we should have such an assurance as can be given to us—general declarations with respect to the policy of her Majesty's Government. I am, upon the whole, satisfied with the declarations that have been made, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am confident that there is no disposition on this side of the House more than in any other quarter of the House to press him for any undue or premature disclosures. I do not think it necessary on the present occasion to enter into any general statement of confidence or want of confidence in Lord Salisbury. The occasion does not call for it. I will say, however, that without binding myself for the future or going beyond the subject immediately before us, it unquestionably has been a matter of lively satisfaction to me to find that the course taken by Lord Salisbury on more than one question of late has been entirely in accordance with what I deem sound principles for the regulation of the foreign policy of this country. I will not give an invidious turn to this observation by referring to periods when we may have been at issue, and sharply at issue, upon matters of foreign policy. I am only too glad to think that the occasion has arrived—and I trust that many such occasions may be still before us— when we may entertain a reasonable hope that the variety of view which prevails amongst us in regard to other public questions, need not find any sharp or injurious expression in regard to the great foreign interests of the country. There is no occasion for me to detain the House at any length upon this matter. We are under circumstances where brevity is possible and every way expedient, and that is a most satisfactory position. I am very glad to find that my recital of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman has met with no expression of dissent from him, and I earnestly hope that whether, as we all devoutly pray, the peace of Europe is maintained for long years to come, or whether the grave circumstances that exist unfortunately unfold themselves in circumstances graver still—I earnestly hope that there may be a great approach to union of sentiment and of feeling in this country in regard to the course we should pursue and in regard to the immense advantages conferred upon us by our insular position, and with reference to the inexpediency of our engaging in any wars excepting those that are manifestly demanded by the calls of duty, which, of course, include all the real interests and all the true honour of the country. Of one thing I am quite certain—that that union of sentiment will double the moral force of this country in all the contingencies which may arise, and will immensely increase the means she will have in her power of fulfilling the very important part which must attach to her in all events where the great interests of mankind are concerned.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I venture to congratulate the House upon the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has thought it fit to deal with this very grave and important question. It is worthy of the ancient reputation of this House, and of the responsibilities which belong to statesmen who have occupied the very responsible position which the right hon. Gentleman has occupied in times past. On the part of the country, much more than on the part of the Government, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone and temper of his speech. The Government is fully conversant with their responsibilities and their duty in these matters. They have laboured earnestly to maintain the peace of the world, and in all negotiations which have taken place during the last 18 months that has been their guiding principle and object, while they have also kept in view the interests and the obligations of this great Empire. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the fact of our insular position. We are well aware of the insularity of the position of this country in more respects than one. But we cannot be unconscious of those obligations which we have incurred in the past, and the duties which we owe to the great industries of this country; and we are conscious that any disaster, any misfortune, which might overtake these industries by an accident of war, would be visited heavily on the head of the Government responsible for these disasters. The right hon. Gentleman has referred in solemn and touching words to one circumstance which affects, I believe, the whole of Europe—the illness of the Heir to the Throne of Germany. We cannot but enter fully and with the greatest possible sympathy into the sorrow and anxiety which attach to the whole people of Germany in the circumstances in which His Imperial Highness is now placed. We cannot dare to estimate the consequences of the loss of so valuable a life. We trust and believe that the spirit which has animated the Empire of Germany in the desire to maintain the peace of the world will still continue to animate the Government of that Empire. But whether that be so or not, we believe that the whole of Europe looks upon the sick bed of the illustrious Prince with the most earnest desire that his life may be spared, knowing that that life is one of the guarantees for the peace of Europe. I entirely concur with the right hon. Gentleman as to the impolicy of anticipating events. But the light hon. Gentleman has also fully recognized that any responsible Government of this country must, in their proceedings and negotiations with Foreign Powers, take into account the possibility of events which might disturb the peace of the world; and that correspondence is not in a condition at any time to be presented to the House unless it is complete—unless it can be presented with the full sanction of those Powers with whom it is conducted. We rely— and we feel that the House will rely—upon the explanations which have been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson), and which have been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as a full and sufficient explanation of the position of this country with regard to other Powers. We have maintained, and we hope to continue to maintain, the most cordial and friendly relations with France. There is not an atom of foundation for the suspicion that this Government has, in any way or in any respect, offended against that cordiality which we desire to maintain with the inhabitants and with the Government of a friendly and neighbouring Power. We believe that the interests of the two countries are bound up together intimately, and that no greater misfortune could happen to England or to France than that there should be any serious difference which could bring about a war between the two countries. Our chief duty is to maintain the interests of this great Empire. Our duty also is to consider the interests of other countries—their susceptibilities and their feelings; and we shall continue to exercise and discharge that duty with a full sense of our responsibility to the House and to the country.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

said, he did not know whether the Government wished him to go on with his Amendment now.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he hoped it might be agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman to go on with his Amendment; but he did not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman to proceed now, if he was of opinion that by doing so he would in any way damage the subject with which he proposed to deal. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was aware that the exigencies of Public Business required despatch.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, it being then 10 minutes to 5 o'clock, if he began his speech he should not have time to finish it that afternoon.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, in that case he should not offer any objection to an adjournment till to-morrow; but he hoped they would have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends that the debate would close to-morrow.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

said, he thought that was a fair demand to make; and so far as he had any influence—with due consideration towards others—in the matter, it would certainly be used in that direction.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre,)—put, and agreed to.

Further Proceeding on the Report of the Address deferred till To-morrow.