LORD BROUGHAMsaid: My Lords, I believe that I may say—and I grieve from the bottom of my heart that I may now justly and correctly say—that I did not yesterday take too grave and gloomy a view of the event of the departure of the French Ambassador. It turns out—I ask now for no explanations from the noble Lord opposite—it turns out that, instead of using the word "departure" yesterday, I ought to have used the inauspicious word "recall." It turns out that the French Government, in the exercise of its undoubted discretion, has deemed it to be its duty to take a step which has not been taken since the year 1803. May God avert the omen! May no such years of war and mischief follow the late step as did follow its predecessor—the same step taken forty-seven years ago. I now give the noble Lord opposite an opportunity—which he will, no doubt, embrace, and which, per-adventure, even now he covets—to explain how it happened that you, my Lords, were given to believe yesterday by the most candid and straightforward Minister whom I have ever known, and by the most fair, and honest, and honourable friend whom I ever possessed or held dear in the world, he having evidently been kept in the most profound and unaccountable ignorance of the facts of the case—I now, I say, give the noble Lord opposite an opportunity to explain how he was induced to give me and you, my Lords, to understand, not indeed in terms, but taking all his statement altogether, in substance and effect, that the recall of the French Ambassador, by order of the French Government—which I viewed as an event of grave importance, and which he, according to his information, naturally and justly viewed as an event of inferior importance—was only for the purpose of enabling that very able, that very intelligent, and that very excellent person to give important information to his Government yesterday, that day being appointed for the interpellations on the affairs of Greece in the National Assembly. It turns out that there is not the shadow of a foundation for taking such a view of the case. It turns out that the French Ambassador was recalled, not to give any explanations to his Government, but because of, and in token of—for I have the despatch to prove it in my pocket—the grave dissatisfaction of the French Government with our conduct—a dissatisfaction echoed by the national representatives chosen by universal 160 suffrage of the French people—a dissatisfaction with the conduct of our Government, and with the breach of the promises by our Government to the French Government, made and given. My Lords, I shall be told, no doubt, to-night, as indeed I was told yesterday, that it was an accidental coincidence, this celebration of the birthday of Her Majesty and the departure of M. Drouyn de Lhuys for France. Be it so. I shall be told that no offence to Her Majesty was intended. Be it so. I shall be told, too, that any slight on Her Majesty would be an offence to the British nation. That is so. But, how does it happen that, if M. Drouyn de Lhuys was recalled to furnish explanations which were never furnished, his Chargé d' Affaires, M. Marescalchi, who was left in his post, and had not to furnish any explanations, did not think fit, as he was commanded not to think fit, to testify his respect for that auspicious solemnity by attending at the official banquet of our noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs? He did not attend it. I was told yesterday that there were reasons for the non-attendance of the Russian Ambassador at that dinner. [Laughter.] There is no reason for laughter; I wish to God that there was. [A Noble LORD: That there had been illness—measles in the family of Baron Brunow.] Yes! there was that complaint in the Baron's family, but it was two months ago. But what complaint was there in the family of M. Marescalchi, who has no family? or in that of the Bavarian Ambassador, M. Cetto? And yet the Russian, the French, and the Bavarian Ambassadors had one and all abstained from assisting at the celebration. I may be told that there was no doubt an explanation given in the French Assembly by the French Minister—I believe there was, for so my private information states, and it is confirmed by that in the public journals. Of all the party of order, every different section vehemently cheered the communication made to the National Assembly by General La Hitte, of an apparent rupture between the countries. God forbid that it should end in an actual rupture! I trust that it will not. I can prove that this was the reception which the communication of General La Hitte's despatch to M. Drouyn de Lhuys met from the National Assembly; but I supersede all despatches, after the way in which I have been treated. It is said that there was one exception to this vociferous cheering in the French Assembly, and that there was a 161 dead silence among the party of the Mountain, the party of disorder, anarchy, and Wood, but among no other: for all the friends of order—moderate Republicans as well as Legitimists—vehemently cheered the inauspicious communication of General La Hitte. There was no sympathy with those cheers on the part of those degraded characters who form the Mountain, nor on the part of their still more contemptible and degraded leaders, who, by issuing orders from London, where they are protected, are doing all they can to stir up disaffection and enmity between the French people and the French Government. I know this, my Lords, from my own sources of information, and also from communications made to me by the French Government when at Paris. The complaint of the French Government is, that London is made the focus of all intrigues against its existence—that it is the source from which all communications are made to the parti Rouge—so called because it takes the colour of blood as its appropriate ensign. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, the parti Rouge takes its orders from the Caussidieres and the other crapulous leaders and miscreants who now infest this country after they had been forced to desist from infesting France. The French Government complain bitterly of this—I am taunted with it when in France. I am asked, "Why we allow it?" I can only reply, "We have no Alien Bill;" and I beg it to be distinctly understood that I express no regret that we have no Alien Bill. It is a misfortune; it is a necessary evil. Yet, I would not suffer any infringement to be made on the principles of the constitution to meet a particular case like this. I know, however, that all parties in Paris circulate the report that the leaders of the vile Red party are not so ill received as they ought to be in this country. I am sure that they are not received at all by any Members of Her Majesty's Government; and I trust that they are not received by any man who values his character, through the whole extent of the country. I leave others to determine what was meant by the strange and ominous silence of this Red party on the reception of General La Hitte's communication. For, I assure you, my Lords, that I am well informed that this party, whilst it is engaged in stirring up the hatred of the French people against the French Government, and against the friends of order, is equally actively engaged in stirring up ill-will and bad blood 162 between the people of England and France by every calumny and mendacity which they can circulate against us in their vile and worthless publications. It is said, my Lords, that all this will blow over—and, I believe it will; but the misfortune is, that after blowing over, these evils do not leave things in the same posture, in the same favourable attitude in which they found them; and I verily believe, that if these little blasts should continue to blow over us, they will eventually lead to a breach of that peace, the advantages of which to England, to France, to Europe, and to humanity at large, "pass all understanding." One word more, my Lords, before I conclude these observations, which have almost been extorted from me. General La Hitte, having gained the concurrent voice and the hearty support of all the friends of order to his communication that he had recalled Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys from this court, proceeded to add, that in his letter, which was read from the tribune, he had directed M. Drouyn de Lhuys to communicate it in extenso to my noble Friend and former Colleague, Lord Palmerston. That declaration drew forth a repetition of the uproar of applause to which I have before alluded, only it was still more cordially and forcibly echoed. Now, one of three things must have happened. Either M. Drouyn de Lhuys must have disobeyed the positive orders of his Government, and did not communicate the despatch which he was ordered to communicate, and must have said that his absence was only temporary, and intended to smooth everything over—in which case he will never be employed again by any party whatsoever, for no ambassador can be permitted or would ever dare to disobey a positive order on such a subject; or he must have communicated the despatch, which he had received and was ordered to communicate, to Lord Palmerston, and Lord Palmerston had neglected to communicate it to the noble President of the Council; or, if Lord Palmerston had communicated it to his noble Friend, his noble Friend-must have taken a view of its importance very different from that which has been taken by myself and all the rest of the world, without an exception. Be this as it may, I am bound to declare my opinion on the rights of this question, and it is most important that I should guard what I now say. The judgment which I shall form on the rights of this question, whether the Government of England or that of France is in the wrong, or whether 163 Lord Palmerston and Mr. Wyse or General La Hitte and Baron Gros are in the right on the merits of this matter, will be quite apart from anything I have said on the unhappy circumstance of the recall of the French Ambassador. I shall form my opinion fairly and impartially, with a leaning, however, which every good patriot ought to have, towards his own country, and with a wish to find its Government in the right. Under no other bias than that shall I come to any conclusion on this subject; and if I find that the French Government is in the wrong, and if I find on the best information which I can obtain that we are in the right, I shall be the first and the most zealous to support by all the force and weight of the British empire our Government against the Government of France. I hope and trust that even now my noble Friend the President of the Council will give us such information as may soothe the discontent and the disappointment, and the somewhat irritated feelings which exist out of doors, both in this city and in Paris, and I may even add throughout both countries, in regard to the parties who have given rise to this interruption of international tranquillity.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEI am sure that not only the House, but my noble and learned Friend opposite, will appreciate the motives which induce me, at the commencement of the very short statement I have to make, to say that that statement will be confined simply to setting my noble and learned Friend right in matters of fact, without any comment whatever upon those facts, or upon the observations which have fallen from him. My Lords, I have nothing to retract from the statement which I made yesterday. At the time I made that statement I knew, what I also know now, that when the French Ambassador left this country, he left it having received and having presented no letters of recall. If these letters of recall had been sent to him from Paris, they could not have been received at the time when he left London, and up to this moment no such notice of recall has been left with Her Majesty's Government. I also wish to say that I know that the French Ambassador held communications with my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs previous to his having quitted London, and that he went furnished with a variety of documents which could not be known to the French Government, 164 and for the purpose of affording explanations to them on the facts of the case. I will not say what the result of those explanations may be, but I do most earnestly hope that that result may be such as to prevent any sort of interruption in the friendly intercourse between the two countries, and to the unbroken continuance of which—and I can say no more—I individually, and not only I individually, but Her Majesty's Government collectively, attach as much importance as my noble and learned Friend opposite. Now, with respect to one matter of fact of less importance, to which my noble and learned Friend alluded, adverting to the peculiar and, in some respects, unlucky accident of this occurrence having taken place on Her Majesty's birthday, and inquiring why this circumstance was not connected with the mode and period of the recall, why M. Drouyn de Lhuys, the Ambassador, abstained—of course, in consequence of his quitting London—from attending the dinner given in honour of the birthday—why he so abstained, and also why a very excellent and distinguished person, who now fills, or will fill, the place of Chargé d' Affaires in his absence—why he did not attend, and what significance his absence can have—all these suppositions and inferences, my Lords, only come to this, that M. Marescalchi did not go where he was not invited to go. I may further add, for your Lordships' satisfaction, that the Russian Ambassador, who abstained from attending on that occasion, intimated to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that he was prevented by indisposition. With respect to these matters of fact, I trust the House will excuse me if I do not follow the example which has been set, under circumstances of unnatural, and I hope unfounded, excitement in the French Assembly. I do not think there was much tending to edification in the example set either by the Minister who made that communication, or the Assembly to which it was made. But there was at least this point worthy of notice, and perhaps of imitation, that the communication so made was not followed by discussion on either side.
LORD BROUGHAMobserved, that after M. Drouyn de Lhuys had left England, in consequence of his letters of recall, M. Marescalchi ceased to be Secretary of Legation, and became Chargé d' Affaires. Be found these words used in the despatch of General La Hitte to M. Drouyn de 165 Lhuys—"The President has invited me to direct you to return to France after having accredited M. Marescalchi as Chargé d' Affaires. You will be pleased to communicate this despatch to Lord Palmerston. "Lord Palmerston was therefore informed that M. Marescalchi was no longer Secretary of Legation, but was become Chargé d' Affaires. For "invite" was a courteous French phrase meaning "command;" and there were many cases in which an officer who refused an invitation of this kind from his superiors would be tried by court-martial. It was thus clear, that before M. Drouyn de Lhuys left England he had communicated to his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) that M. Marescalchi was become Chargé d' Affaires; and, under such circumstances, he hoped that his noble Friend had invited him, in common courtesy, to his official dinner. With regard to the fact that there had been no letters of recall, their Lordships were still desired to believe that M. Drouyn de Lhuys went to give information to his Government, and that there were no hostile communications between that Government and our own. But what said General La Hitte's despatch?—"We have received, on this point, the most formal promises, which, however, have not been observed." And what then followed?—"You are charged to apply to the English Cabinet, to make certain demands; and, those demands not having been agreed to, it has appeared to us that the prolongation of your sojourn in London is no longer compatible with the dignity of the Republic." M. Drouyn de Lhuys read this despatch to Lord Palmerston, and it was a recall of the Ambassador of Franco to all intents and purposes. Whether it was in the diplomatic sense a formal letter of recall he would not pretend to decide; but he considered it, as he said before, a letter of recall beyond all controversy.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEagain contended that no letters notifying the recall of M. Drouyn de Lhuys as French Ambassador had as yet been presented to the English Government; and, to his knowledge, no intimation had either been entertained or expressed by the French Government of sending such letter of recall to Her Majesty's Government prior to the departure of M. Drouyn de Lhuys.
LORD BROUGHAMobserved, that in the view which his noble Friend took of this part of the case he was perfectly justified in repeating the assertion respecting 166 the non-existence of any letters of recall; but he contended, on the other side, that he (Lord Brougham) was justified in treating the despatch of General La Hitte as a recall complete. The French Government considered it as such, and had resolved to please the people of France by showing, that it felt our conduct towards them to be incompatible with the dignity of the French Republic.
§ After a few words from the Marquess of LONDONDERRY,
LORD BROUGHAMI have been told by those who were present in the other House that the statement made there on this subject is utterly inconsistent with that just made by my noble Friend. I never understood my noble Friend to express any doubt of the despatch having been communicated to Lord Palmerston.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEI did not state that the despatch had not been read; I could not have stated that, but no copy of it was left.
§ Subject dropped.
§ House adjourned to Monday, May 27.