THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he wished to obtain an explanation from the noble Earl (Earl Granville) relative to an 798 apparent discrepancy between the statement of the English and French Governments as to what had passed on the subject of the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France. It was only last night it came to his knowledge that a general impression had been created in Europe as to the discrepancy and difference between these two accounts, and it was alike desirable and necessary that the earliest opportunity should be given to Her Majesty's Government to furnish some explanation as to what had been alleged, not apparently authoritatively, but certainly and beyond doubt with the sanction of the late Minister for Foreign Affairs of France. When, on a previous occasion, he (the Marquess of Normanby) brought the Motion relative to the annexation of Savoy and Nice before their Lordships, he alluded to a paragraph, containing a semi-official announcement, in a French ministerial paper, as to the communication that had been made in the other House of Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It was stated that, as far as the communication went, they did not complain, but that at the same time it was not complete, official communications having taken place between the French and English Governments on the subject subsequent to the month of July. This statement was probably made on the part of the existing Government; but at an earlier period most of these transactions passed under the administration of the late Foreign Secretary. A letter from Paris in the Independance Belge, with which Count Walewski, the French Minister, was known to communicate in that shape, stated that the account given in this country was partial and incomplete. Now, in this country we should never think of attaching the importance that public opinion abroad attached to these sort of communications; but the French Minister, as well as ex-Ministers in France, were apt to communicate in a somewhat authoritative tone on public transactions in letters to newspapers not identified by any bonâ fide signature. The French Chambers had no tribune—they had not even a number of red benches with a throne at one end and a gallery at the other, and they were compelled to have recourse to this mode of justification. The letter or communication that had appeared in the journals represented that Count Walewski did so and so; that the explanations given in this country were not complete, and that at a later period a communication was 799 made by Count Walewski to Lord Cowley, that in consequence of the interference—the active interference—of England for the purpose of procuring the annexation of the Central States of Italy to Piedmont, the Emperor of the French had thought it necessary to revert to the intention of annexing Savoy and Nice to France. He was not going to pronounce any opinion on this new application of the "logic of facts." The communication went on to state that no doubt what transpired between Count Walewski and Lord Cowley would be communicated to the Government of England; and the letter, speaking in the name of Count Walewski, stated that whenever the matter was presented to both Houses of Parliament, it would be found that these circumstances were accurately stated by him. He would not now pronounce an opinion on the subject, but should be glad to hear that no such circumstance had occurred; because if there was no contradiction, it showed that what was stated in the other House was not a complete account of the whole transaction. Should this statement prove to be correct, and should there have been such a communication between the two Governments at a later period other than that stated by Lord John Russell, the public would not have been in full possession of the facts. If what Count Walewski is supposed to have stated, or to have authorized some one to state, on the subject was correct, there was no person, however much inclined to retain their notions of the disinterested patriotism of the King of Sardinia, who could doubt that the French Government would never have spoken in that way of their projects unless they were already sure, by something that had passed before, that the King of Sardinia was ready to agree to barter away his ancient hereditary dominions and the affections of his subjects for the possessions of another Power, which perhaps were of more value and more gratifying to his personal ambition. In conclusion, he wished to ask whether it was true that the French Government, during the administration of Count Walewski, made any communication to Lord Cowley on the subject of the annexation of Savoy and Nice, subsequent to those which had been stated to have taken place in the other House of Parliament by the Foreign Secretary; and if so, at what period such communication came to the knowledge of the British Government; and whether, supposing any such communication 800 to have taken place, any allusion was made to the policy of the British Government in Central Italy, and as regarded the annexation of Savoy and Nice?
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not enter into the statements in an anonymous letter in a Belgian newspaper, but he had no hesitation in telling the noble Marquess that Her Majesty's Government had received no official communication of any such communication having been made by Count Walewski to Lord Cowley. At the same time he was not in a position to deny that some conversation might have passed on the subject between the late French Minister for Foreign Affairs and Lord Cowley.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYthought he had laid the ground for explanation, if it so happened that the Foreign Minister of this country refused, or did not consider it consistent with his duty, to present an official communication of what passed between the two Governments; and the account which was offered instead of documents did not agree with the statement of the other party to this transaction, it would be satisfactory to have stated the final purport and effect of any communication that passed between the Ambassador at Paris and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the annexation of Savoy and Nice.
§ EARL GREYremarked that his noble Friend (Earl Granville) had told them that there had been no official communication between the French Minister and the British Ambassador at Paris; and he should like to know whether by that their Lordships were to understand merely that there was no written communication—because he for one believed, and he thought their Lordships would agree with him, that any communication of such great public importance made verbally by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs to the British Ambassador was an official communication. Therefore he wished to know whether it was in that sense only that Her Majesty's Government were not informed that this annexation was in contemplation.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, his noble Friend did not mean to rest his answer on there being no written statement. A communication might he made without its being written. The fact was, that there were no despatches, no communication at all of a formal character between the two Governments between the times stated by his noble Friend the Secretary for Fo- 801 reign Affairs, when he made his statement in July last to the House of Commons, and a recent time, when some further communications had taken place between the French Government and Her Majesty's Government on the subject of Savoy. When his noble Friend said he could not deny that some conversation had passed between Lord Cowley and Count Walewski, all his noble Friend meant to convey was, that between July and January the subject may have been occasionally alluded to in conversation between Count Walewski and Lord Cowley, but there was no official communication of the views of the French Government made by Count Walewski to Lord Cowley, which the latter was bound to transmit to his Government. The subject was, so to speak, dropped between July and January, and his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary had stated most accurately all that had passed on the subject.
§ EARL GREYsaid, it had been rumoured that a distinct warning had been given by Count Walewski, that in the event of a certain line of conduct being followed by this country, the measure for the annexation of Savoy would be pressed by the French Government. Was he to understand that such a state of things was generally unfounded?
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that he did not mean to assert that there had been no mention in conversation between Count Walewski and Lord Cowley of the annexation of Savoy from July, when the communication was made to which his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had alluded in the other House, up to the date of the recent communications between the two Governments on this subject; but that nothing had passed which had been considered by Lord Cowley as matter for a despatch to his Government, and it was therefore strictly correct, as had been stated by his noble Friend (Earl Granville), that no official communications had passed between the two Governments on the subject of Savoy since last July till very recently.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he knew Lord Cowley well enough to be convinced that he would have dealt with anything communicated by Count Walewski as a matter of diplomatic communication. He begged to draw the attention of the Under Secretary of State to the fact that as yet there had been no statement with reference to what was alleged to have 802 passed between Count Walewski and Lord Cowley which might not, in his opinion, if the report were correct, be made the subject of communication. The only denial his noble Friend had made was, that Lord Cowley did not consider any statement made by Count Walewski of a nature to make it a matter of official communication; and if so, the statement attributed to Count Walewski might be erroneous, as far as Lord Cowley was concerned, since it was impossible that a person of Lord Cowley's experience must not have felt that a communication or conversation of a probable change of policy on such an important point notified by the French Minister and based on the objections felt to the conduct of his own Government, was subject-matter for immediate official report on his own part.