QUESTION. EXPLANATION. (Hansard, 28 February 1859)

§ THE EARL OF CLARENDON
I wish to ask a Question of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which I have given him notice, with respect to a discrepancy between the statement made by my noble Friend in this House, and a statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons on Friday night, relative to the evacuation of the Pontifical territories by the armies of Austria and France, the importance of which my noble Friend will admit. On Friday night the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:— I have satisfaction in informing the noble Lord that we have received communications which give us reasons to hope that ere long the Roman States will be evacuated by the French and Austrian troops, and that with the concurrence of the Papal Government. The fair inference—indeed, the only possible inference—for that statement is that France and Austria have determined to evacuate the Papal territory, and that the Papal Government approved their doing so. That such was the impression produced on the House was shown by the speech of Lord John Russell, who immediately followed the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who said:— It was a matter of great anxiety to know, in the first place, whether Her Majesty's Government took that view of their position—namely, that they are in a favourable situation to use their influence, and to give advice to those Powers with whom these differences have arisen—to tell both France and Austria what is their calm 946 and deliberate view in the situation of the affairs of Europe. I rejoice to find that Her Majesty's Government have taken that view of their position. But we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman not only that declaration, but that advantages have already flowed from the interposition which has taken place, and that it is the intention of those great Powers to evacuate the Roman territory. That was the impression made on the House of Commons, and as the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer took no means to contradict or to modify the view which Lord John Russell took of his statement, that impression remains. But a short time after the discussion had closed in the House of Commons my noble Friend opposite, on being asked a Question in this House, stated as follows:— I have no objection to state that Her Majesty's Government have received communications which give them reason to believe that, within no distant period of time, the armies of France and Austria will be withdrawn from the Papal States and at the request of the Pontifical Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says the armies will be withdrawn with the "concurrence" of the Papal Government; but my noble Friend says they will be withdrawn at the "request" of the Papal Government. The discrepancy is quite clear, and may be of very great importance; because, if the French and Austrian Governments have agreed to withdraw their troops, and if that is approved by the Papal Government, there is an end of the question; nothing remains to be done, except, perhaps, as to the time within which the Papal territories are to be evacuated. But, if no communication whatever has taken place between the French and Austrian Governments on this matter, or between either of the Governments, and the Pope simply desires that their troops should be withdrawn, the case may assume a very different aspect. I should, of course, hope, as it would universally be desired, that those two Powers would not persist in continuing to protect a State which declares it is able and desirous to protect itself and that henceforward does not want them. But it is easy to see that contingencies may arise; that France and Austria may not agree as to the mode in which the evacuation is to be carried out; or that one or other may impose conditions on the Pope which he may think not consistent with his dignity to grant, and that this question may still linger in that state of uncertainty and suspense which has already become so dangerous to Europe. Therefore, if my noble 947 Friend sees no objection, I shall take the liberty to ask him precisely what is the information which has been received by Her Majesty's Government; and I am the more anxious that this information should be given in order that there may be no discrepancy as to the facts, to mar the discussion on Friday night, which, like the one on the first night of the Session, is likely to produce most beneficial effects throughout Europe, by showing the perfect unanimity with which men of all parties desire that the faith of treaties should be maintained inviolate, and peace secured by removing all possible pretext for war.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
My Lords, I am extremely glad that my noble Friend has made his inquiry, and I am ready to give every information in my power to my noble Friend and to the House; but I think that his observations as to the discrepancy between what was stated by his right hon. Friend in the House of Commons and my answer to my right rev. Friend in this House seem rather to savour of a distinction without a difference. We meant, my Lords, exactly the same thing; and at the time our knowledge was confined to the fact that the Papal Government had requested, of its own accord, I believe, and not from any hint given to it by either of the other Powers—but however that may be, that it had requested the evacuation of its territories by both the Austrian and French armies. My Lords, I said I believed, therefore, that before long the Papal territories would be evacuated; and that was no piece of credulity on my part, because I cannot conceive that, if requested by the Sovereign of the Papal States to withdraw from his territories, either France or Austria would hesitate for a single moment to do so, having no right to remain there after the Sovereign of the Papal States requested their absence. Therefore, my Lords, both my right hon. Friend and myself were surely justified in saying that, having received a communication that the Pope desired the evacuation of his territories, that evacuation would soon take place. But, my Lords, we had, besides that, and previously to this information, received a general intimation from Austria that if the Pope desired the evacuation of his territories by her army she was ready to comply with the request. We had also previously received from France a general statement that she was also anxious to withdraw from Italy, and that if Austria 948 would also agree to withdraw, and if the Pope wished them both to withdraw, she was ready to evacuate those territories. But since I had the honour of addressing your Lordships the other night, the French Ambassador called upon me and stated positively that the request had been made to his Government, and that the French Government are willing and anxious to withdraw their troops. Though I have not had the same communication from the Austrian Ambassador, there is no doubt Austria will do the same, inasmuch as some time ago they stated what I have already stated to your Lordships. Of course a movement of this magnitude and importance cannot take place in a few days, and without some previous arrangement. With respect to these arrangements, or the conditions on which the evacuation will be made, if any, alluded to by my noble Friend, I am not in a position to inform your Lordships, because my knowledge is strictly confined to the fact I stated the other night—namely, that the Pope has demanded the evacuation of his territories; and therefore I conceive there is no reason or excuse for those Powers remaining in the Pontifical territories.

LORD BROUGHAM
was glad to find that the two statements were believed to be substantially the same. But be it that there was no more than a distinction without a difference, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) represented, or be it that the two statements were not identical, at any rate we had now possession of the fact, and he trusted the hopes of a settlement that had been raised might prove well grounded. He must however take this opportunity of asking his noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) respecting those continued warlike preparations which were still going on and were producing general anxiety from their supposed inconsistency with the peaceable intentions proffered. We had heard from quarters entitled to every respect, not in France merely, but in England, that those preparations really had no connection with the unfriendly position in which the French Government has stood for the last two months in relation to other Continental Powers; and he must be excused for regarding these warlike preparations as not to be viewed with indifference by ourselves from their bearing upon this country. It would therefore be to him a matter of the utmost gratification to learn that the preparations in question arose from the state of the magazines, arma- 949 ments, fortresses, and other means of defensive, or it might be offensive policy; that whatever had been lately done, would have equally been done had nothing happened on the 1st of January indicating hostile views; that in fact the preparations which had caused uneasiness, bore no relation to any change of policy in the councils of our nearest neighbour. It would be most satisfactory to find that the Ministers entertained this opinion. Indeed, he could hardly doubt it when he saw them choosing the present moment for bringing on discussions on Reform such as to shake the stability of their Government.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
I do not quite understand the noble Lord's question.

LORD BROUGHAM
My question is whether the military and other preparations so much talked of as going on in France, notwithstanding the profession of peaceable intentions, are not such as the state of the magazines of the country require, and which would have been going on independent of anything that may have happened since the 1st of January? Those preparations, I believe, have been the origin of all the alarm and apprehension that have taken place with respect to the intentions of France.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
My Lords, I cannot satisfy my noble Friend's curiosity as to the state of the magazines in France; but I know what the French Government say with respect to the reported preparations for war in that country. They state that these preparations are being carried on merely to fill up the usual requirements of the military service, and that there is nothing special in those preparations, or anything to cause alarm in the slightest degree.