§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
§ EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, I rise for the purpose of asking your Lordships to give a second reading to the Bill which I laid on the Table yesterday. I introduced it on my own responsibility, without any consultation with the Government, thinking it better that I should do so, and leave to the Govern- 1388 ment to deal with the measure as they should see fit. The Bill relates to the calling out and embodiment of the Militia; and I think that, as a general question, such a Bill might very well be introduced at this time, when an exaggerated jealousy of the power of the Crown and of the maintenance of anything like a standing Army no longer exists. On general grounds, therefore, it is very desirable to extend the power of the Crown in this respect, and no mischief could happen to the country therefrom. I confess, however, that it is not merely for such reasons that I propose this Bill. It is on account of other circumstances that I desire to give the Crown this discretionary power, which they may use if the necessity should arise, and which may remain in abeyance if no such emergency should occur. Of course, it will be for the confidential Advisers of the Crown to give their opinion at any time whether the exercise of the power is required. The present state of affairs on the Continent is more than usually anxious and difficult. After the revelations we have lately had, and after the public correspondence which has lately appeared, it is utterly impossible to say what may be the exigencies which the Ministers of the Crown may have to encounter, and it is therefore desirable that before Parliament separates—which must soon occur—the Government should be armed with full power of acting in any way that may seem to them to be good. We are in a position of neutrality. A great war has arisen on the Continent, in which our near neighbours are involved. It might be supposed that after obtaining explanations on the subject we should have nothing to do but to watch the course of the war, and to perform towards each of the belligerents the duties which rest upon as neutrals. That, however, is not our real position; for besides the duties of neutrality, which are sometimes exceedingly delicate and difficult, we are engaged in Treaties by which we are bound to certain other Powers. I will state the engagements to which we are bound in respect of Belgium. The Treaty respecting Belgium, which was signed in London in 1831, is one of considerable detail. It defines the provinces belonging to Belgium and their boundaries; and in the 7th Article it goes on to say that Belgium, in the limits pointed out 1389 by the former Articles, shall form an independent and perpetually neutral State, and shall be bound to observe such neutrality towards all other States. The Powers who were parties to the Treaty—namely, England, France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia—then proceed to guarantee to His Majesty the King of the Belgians the execution of the preceding Articles. This, I imagine, means that they guarantee the territory, the provinces named in the Treaty, the independence of Belgium, and its neutrality. A more specific and defined obligation cannot well be conceived. It was a subject of some discussion at the time of the Treaty regarding Luxemburg whether it should be a collective guarantee or a guarantee both collective and separate, and whether there was not some difference in the obligations of those two guarantees. The late Lord Derby then remarked that the guarantee as to Luxemburg was similar to that of 1831, which guaranteed the independence and neutrality of Belgium, which was binding individually and separately upon each of the Powers. The late Lord Clarendon also said that he had always looked on our guarantee as an individual guarantee. It is clear, therefore, that each of the Powers is bound to preserve the independence and neutrality of Belgium. Now, there have been occurrences lately which make one apprehensive that the guarantee may require to be enforced by the various Powers who signed it. Your Lordships and the public are aware that some very curious papers have appeared lately, beginning with a document called a Projet de Traité, and that the Ministers of France and Prussia have issued letters in which most extraordinary facts in connection with that document are related. It is impossible not to feel some anxiety—some fear—for the future when we read that in 1866, and at more recent periods, the Prime Minister of Prussia and the confidential Ambassador of the Emperor of the French have been considering how that Treaty of 1831 shall be violated, how faith shall be broken, and how the independence of Belgium shall be destroyed. Belgium has given no offence. It is a prosperous kingdom, in the enjoyment of free institutions; and, although there have been disputes from time to time as to the railroads and other insignificant matters, I never heard any 1390 one deny that both under the late King Leopold, a most wise and sagacious Sovereign, and under the present King, it has pursued a course friendly to all other States, maintaining its own independence, and offending no other country. It is surely, therefore, an extraordinary discovery to find that the independence of that State has been a matter of concert and arrangement between other Powers. For my part, I confess I feel somewhat as if a detective officer had come and told me he had heard a conversation with respect to a friend of mine, whom I had promised to guard as much as was in my power against any act of burglary or housebreaking; and that two other persons, who were also friends of mine, had been considering how they might enter his house and deprive him of all the property he possessed. I should reply, under such circumstances, that I was very much astonished to hear it, and that I could not, in the future, feel perfect confidence in either of the parties to that conversation. Such being the case, one becomes apprehensive as to the security of Belgium, and one naturally looks to see what further security we can discover. A noble Earl not now present (the Earl of Malmesbury), who filled during one Ministry the Office of Foreign Secretary, and that of Privy Seal during the last Administration of the late Lord Derby, recently brought under your Lordships' notice a letter which I had not known of before, which he deemed authentic, and which, from his opinion of its value, is clearly of considerable importance. It relates a conversation of the French Emperor with a writer, who does not give his name, but signs himself "An Englishman." This gentleman appears to have been received with great courtesy by the Emperor, and was told that he was at liberty to make public the statements he might make in the course of the conversation. I naturally referred to this letter to see if there was any greater security for Belgium than I had hitherto supposed. I thought the Emperor might have declared that all these stories were entirely false, and that Belgium might rest assured, under the faith of the various Powers who had signed the Treaty. I am sorry to say I found no security of that kind; although I do find many things which may be considered an explanation of the Emperor's 1391 reasons for making a war of aggression on Prussia. The writer gives these as the Emperor's words—
I had no notion that war was at hand, nor am I even, at this moment, by any means prepared for it. I trusted that, when the Duc de Gramont had set me straight with France by speaking manfully in public as to the Hohenzollern candidature, I should be able to manipulate and handle the controversy as to make peace certain. But France has slipped out of my hand. I cannot rule unless I lead. This is the most national war that in my time France has undertaken, and I have no choice but to advance at the head of a public opinion which I can neither stem nor check.Now it may be a question whether the charioteer had not himself lashed the horses which he found himself afterwards unable to guide. But, putting aside that point, the main question is, what security have we for the performance of the obligations of France towards Belgium after this communication? There are, we know, some objects which are very dear to the popular mind in France. The fault of the French, if I may say so, is, that having great susceptibility with regard to their own honour, their own position in Europe, and their own territory, they are apt to forget what is due to other Powers, which may also have their susceptibilities. There cannot be a more striking instance of this than a conversation reported by the Prussian Ambassador at Paris, who said he was told by the French Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that if the King of Prussia would do certain acts, and write a certain letter, which could be laid before the Legislative Body of France, the difficulty would be settled. These two Ministers seemed to forget that there was another Parliament besides that of France; and that the Parliament with which the King of Prussia would wish to stand in a good light, and before which he would wish to be defended, was not the French Parliament, but the Parliament of the North German Confederacy. There is, I say, that defect in the French mind that, while anxious—and rightly so—for their own honour and position, they are neglectful of what is due to others. Such being the case, we know that there are two passions which have very much inflamed a great party in France of late years. The one has been a feeling of jealousy at the aggrandizement of Prussia—a feeling that Prussia was becoming a great Power in 1392 Europe, and would supplant France in the primacy which she has so often held in any transactions relating to the Continent of Europe. There is another passion which has burnt very, strongly in the bosoms of Frenchmen—a passion which has a regular name in the French language, and which is not only the subject of newspaper articles, but is the foundation of a very learned geographical work which was noticed in The Times a few days ago. That passion is the wish to increase her territory on the French side of the Rhine. Belgium stands in the way of that passion, and when, therefore, I am told that the Emperor has himself said he could no longer check or stem the French passion, but was obliged to put himself at the head of the people in order to make a great—and, in my opinion, most unjustifiable—war, because had he not done so he could not have remained on the Throne of France—it naturally occurs to me, as indeed it must to everyone, that a similar passion on the part of the French people may carry him onwards, and that if victories should distinguish the French arms at the beginning of the war, that passion may carry him away, without the power of checking or stemming it, for the annexation of Belgium. In view of the projected Treaty, and of the statements that have emanated from Count Bismarck as well as from the Emperor, it would be unwise of us if we pretended to shut our eyes to the danger, and did not admit that we ought to entertain apprehensions that the Treaty respecting Belgium may be violated. Let me again remind your Lordships of our obligations—obligations of the most sacred kind—into which we have entered to guarantee the independence and neutrality of Belgium, separately as well as conjointly with other Powers. I ask myself, then, what course we should pursue? The only answer I can make is, that it is not a question of three courses or of different paths. There is but one course and one path—namely, the course of honour and the path of honour, which we ought to pursue. We are bound, then, to defend Belgium. I am told that that may lead us into danger. Now, in the first place, I deny that any great danger would exist if this country manfully declared her intention to stand by her Treaties, and not to shrink from the performance of all her engagements. 1393 I am persuaded, for my part, that neither France nor Prussia would then attempt to violate the independence of Belgium. It is only the doubt, the hesitation that has too long prevailed as to the course which England would take which has encouraged and fostered all these conversations and projects of Treaties, all these combinations and intrigues. I am persuaded that if it is once manfully declared that England means to stand by her Treaties, to perform her engagements—that her honour and her interest would allow nothing else—such a declaration would check the greater part of these intrigues, and that neither France nor Prussia would wish to add a second enemy to the formidable foe which each has to meet. France, having Prussia to deal with, would not like to encounter Prussia and England, while Prussia, having France opposed to her, would not like to have France and England united against her. I am persuaded that both would conform to the faith of Treaties, and would not infringe on the territory of Belgium, but till the end of the war remain in the fulfilment of their obligations. When the choice is between honour and infamy, I cannot doubt that Her Majesty's Government will pursue the course of honour—the only one worthy of the British people. The British people have a very strong sense of honour and of what is due to this glorious nation. I feel sure, therefore, that the Government, in making that intention clear to all the world, would have the entire support of the great majority of this nation. I need hardly speak of other considerations which are of great weight. I consider that if England shrank from the performance of her engagements, if she acted in a faithless manner with respect to this matter, her extinction as a great Power must very soon follow. Nor can I suppose that when the First Napoleon, a man of almost unequalled genius, who knew so well the interests of nations, and who above all calculated the value of a great military position, said—"Antwerp is a pistol held at the head of England," he did not know what he was saying, and did not estimate rightly the value of that important place. Although circumstances have much changed since that time, the force of that opinion is still as great as ever. Perhaps I may say, indeed, that the importance of Ant- 1394 werp has greatly increased since the time when the First Napoleon projected an invasion of these shores. It might have been thought possible then, by the cleverly-devised scheme which he intended to carry out for getting the command of the Channel for 24 hours, for a number of small boats from Boulogne and the French Coast to cross the Channel and invade this country. I do not imagine that anyone would now suppose that any collection of small boats at Boulogne would be otherwise than sunk in the sea before they reached our coast. It could not be otherwise; but it is quite a different thing with regard to the Scheldt. Difficult as the navigation of the Scheldt may be from its mouth to Antwerp, you find there deep water. A formidable navy might be collected there, and, without any enemy who had not command of the land venturing to assail them, an expedition might be prepared, as in a former war, which would be really formidable to this country. Now, the present noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the Government of the late Earl, addressing his constituents when Lord Stanley, said England had one great ally—her best ally—and that was the sea. That is perfectly true; but in former days—in the days of Elizabeth, and George III, and at various intervening periods—we have had the assistance of great storms, which have dispersed our enemies when they sought to reach our shores. But the science of navigation has since greatly changed, and that passage which it was difficult for a ship to make, when Providence protected William III. by bringing him safely over and which destroyed the Great Armada by a frightful storm, is no longer so difficult. Those advantages can no longer be reckoned upon as deciding whether an enemy should land upon our shores. Of course, the Government will take care to have not merely one fleet to protect our shores, but other fleets in distant parts of our dominions sufficient to protect our interests. Under the able First Lord of the Admiralty everything that science and preparation can suggest will, I am sure, be done; but still there is the fact that at such a port as Antwerp great steamers may be prepared and an expedition fitted out. These are questions of policy which, however, I do not regard as the main question to be con- 1395 sidered; the main thing is, how we can best assure Belgium, assure Europe, and assure the world that we mean to be true and faithful—that the great name which we have acquired in the world by the constant observance of truth and justice, and by fidelity to our engagements, will not be departed from, and that we shall be in the future what we have been in the past. But in proposing this Bill as a means of enlarging the power of the Crown of sending an expedition—if the King of the Belgians should wish for the aid of an expedition—I must say that the great thing of all is that the Members of the Government of this country should declare openly and explicitly that they mean to be true to our Treaties, and faithful to our engagements, and will not sully the fair name of England.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Russell.)
§ EARL GRANVILLEWith regard to the Bill the second reading of which the noble Earl (Earl Russell) has moved, I understand that he has introduced it more as a symptom of a wish to support the Government, and for the sake of giving himself and the Government an opportunity of speaking on foreign affairs, than from any wish to press it on your Lordships. I think, moreover, that although it is the intention of the Government to deal with the subject-matter of this Bill, it is so worded in many respects that your Lordships would not desire to adopt many of its expressions, and it could not be made applicable to the present Militia, who are recruited under arrangements and conditions differing from those which the noble Earl contemplates. I therefore venture to ask him to withdraw it, and to leave the matter, which is not without importance, in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to the speech the noble Earl has made, I hope the noble Earl will not think it any want of respect on my part if I do not follow him in the whole of the matters which he has brought before your Lordships. I somewhat regret the want of confidence which he has not stated, but which certainly the tone of his remarks was calculated to convey—as to Her Majesty's Government being aware of the duties which are imposed upon them at this critical period. The noble Earl speaks without any responsibility, ex- 1396 cept that great responsibility which attaches to the personal authority of which he cannot divest himself. I speak without any personal authority; but with the great responsibility imposed on me by the Office I have the honour to fill, and by my duty to the nation whose Foreign Affairs, with the help of my Colleagues, I am intrusted to administer, which require me to speak, even in debate, in a way nearly every word of which must be carefully considered and weighed. Now, I made a statement a week ago as to the policy of Her Majesty's present Government, and I certainly thought at the time that that statement was received with some favour by your Lordships on both sides of the House. I am not aware that any new event has happened since Thursday last; because, although there have been further explanations as to the Draft Treaty, to which my noble Friend has alluded, they do not perhaps materially vary the different and sometimes conflicting impressions which men's minds received from an incident which I agree with him was of a painful character. A Motion has been made in the House of Commons for a copy of the Treaties guaranteed by this country, and out of respect to your Lordships I thought it right that I should to-day lay the Return on your Lordships' Table. I am rather glad that I resolved to do so, for as regards one slight fact my noble Friend might unintentionally have misled some of your Lordships. Not trusting to his admirable historical memory, nor referring to the Treaty itself, he has quoted from a printed statement which is not quite correct. He has quoted entirely from the Treaty of 1831, which does not really exist, for it was cancelled and somewhat modified by the subsequent Treaty of 1839. It is much better, therefore, that your Lordships should judge from the actual document. In saying this, and shrinking from any legal construction of particular clauses of a Treaty, I venture to state most positively that Her Majesty's Government are not unaware of the duty which this country owes to the independence and the neutrality of Belgium. When stating last Thursday the course I proposed to pursue, I stated that I believed your Lordships would agree with me that it was no part of my duty, but was the reverse of my duty, to make superfluous 1397 declarations as to any possible contingency. To that declaration I firmly adhere, for I believe it was a wise one; but that determination does not debar the Government from making even a specific declaration, at the proper time and in the proper season, upon particular and definite contingencies. Much is said about reticence and reserve. Now, I believe none of your Lordships who had any business transacted for you would approve an agent absolutely, without reticence of thought or language, talking to the whole world of a matter which concerned you; and if that is the case in private life, I think it applies still more strongly to those who are charged with the direction of the affairs of great nations in very delicate and difficult times. I can understand the eager curiosity of the public with regard to declarations from Her Majesty's Government at this moment—a curiosity that is rendered the more intense by the approaching termination of the Session, when the Government will no longer have the opportunity of making specific declarations to Parliament. I can conceive those declarations being necessary either in order that the Government may ascertain whether the fooling of the country will support them in any given course, I can also understand it to be necessary in order to enlighten both the Governments and the people of foreign nations. With regard to the first I have no doubt whatever. I am quite sure that if the Government follow judiciously and calmly, but firmly, the course which the honour, the interest, and the obligations of this country dictate, they will receive the full support of your Lordships, of the other House, and of the public at large. But I ask your Lordships to give us some little discretion in point of the manner and the time in which we make such declarations. I think that even before Parliament separates I can promise that your Lordships will be able to judge whether the steps which we took last week were judicious or not, in making, without anything of an offensive or menacing character, an intimation of what we believed to be right perfectly clear to others, and I trust that, whatever may be the opinions of individual Members of this House, your Lordships will not believe that when once we have made a clear intimation of our intentions in any respect, anything will pre- 1398 vent us from adhering scrupulously to the position we have taken.
§ VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEMy Lords, it must be a source of great satisfaction to your Lordships that my noble Friend at the head of our Foreign Affairs, while naturally acting under the reserve which his official position requires, has given us to understand that the Government are fully aware of the duties devolving upon them—that they partake of the feeling which cannot but exist in this country, and that when the time comes they will give evidence of the perfect harmony which exists between their sentiments and intentions, and those for which we give the country credit. I think we are bound to be satisfied with that declaration—especially if, as I understand, we are to have a further communication before the rising of Parliament, which will give the House an opportunity of expressing its feeling still more distinctly and deliberately. At the same time we owe the noble Earl who opened the debate (Earl Russell) thanks for the exposition he has given us of the subject, for the enunciation of sentiments which, coming from him, carry such great authority with them. We may rest satisfied that before Parliament breaks up we shall have a declaration of the intentions of the Government, which, though made under proper reserve, will no doubt satisfy us that while maintaining peace as far as possible, and acting upon the true and sincere principles of neutrality, we are prepared to redeem our pledges and to keep steadfastly before us what the honour of the country requires.
§ EARL RUSSELLWhen I referred to the obligations of the Treaty of 1831, I was quite aware that that Treaty had been modified by the subsequent Treaty of 1839; but I wished to quote the view taken of it by the late Lord Derby in 1867. I think the noble Earl (Earl Granville has said all that he could be expected to say. He has admitted the obligations of Treaties, and no one would wish him to say how the Government would act in any particular contingency. I never supposed, indeed, that the Government were not fully alive to their responsibilities and duties at this crisis.
§ After a pause—
§ EARL RUSSELLcalled attention to the fact that he had moved the second reading. After the Bill had passed this 1399 stage he should leave it in the hands of the Government; but he thought its principle required to be affirmed.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI really do not see the practical advantage of reading a second time a Bill which, in its wording, and even in its enactment, would be inoperative. It would require so much alteration in Committee that I think, on reflection, the noble Earl will think it better to allow the Government to treat the question in their own way.
§ EARL RUSSELLI think it is important that the principle of enlarging the power of the Crown in calling out the Militia should be affirmed.
§ LORD CAIRNSI hope that on consideration the noble Earl will not press the second reading of the Bill. It might be a matter of little consequence in this House whether a Bill was actually read a second time, with which the noble Earl says he does not mean to persevere further; but out of doors, and out of this country, the second reading of a Bill containing the 5th clause might give rise to very unfortunate results. Of course, in Committee, that clause could be removed; but if it were known that a Bill containing it had been read a second time, it might occasion embarrassment and misrepresentation.
§ EARL RUSSELLAfter what the noble and learned Lord has said, I am quite willing to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, provided they concur in the general objects of the Bill.
§ Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.