FRANCE AND PRUSSIA—QUESTION. (Hansard, 18 July 1870)

§ EARL RUSSELL

I wish to put a Question to my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the late negotiations respecting the differences between France and Prussia, of which I have given him private Notice. It is now unhappily but too certain that the calamity of war has befallen Europe. The first intimation we had upon the subject was by the statement of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs on the 5th July; and some days afterwards an announcement was made that France would declare war, and I have since heard that that declaration of war has been sent to Berlin. Now, if the French Government had stated what were their grounds for declaring war, and had not the French Chambers unanimously approved the course of their Government, I should not, as a Member of the British Parliament, have thought of putting any Questions on the subject, unless upon a regular Motion in this House; but it appears that the French Ministers have represented Her Majesty's Government as approving the course they have pursued. On the 11th of July, M. de Gramont said—"Up to the present all the European Cabinets appear to admit the legitimacy of our complaints," and on the 15th M. Ollivier, the Prime Minister, said— We commenced negotiations with the foreign Powers to invoke their good offices with Prussia, in order that the legitimacy of our grievances might be recognized. The majority of the Powers admitted with more or less warmth the justice of our demands. Now on these statements of the French Minister several questions arise. Of course, no one would wish my noble Friend to undertake the responsibility of doing more than he has actually done with the laudable purpose of preventing war; but I wish to ask him, in the first place, whether he will make a regular statement such as was made in 1823 and 1854, in the former year with reference to the failure of the negotiations for preventing a war with Spain, and in the latter year with reference to the war with Russia? I wish, secondly, to ask, whether 380 the "approbation with more or less warmth" of Her Majesty's Government simply applied to the belief entertained by the French Government that they had good ground to complain that Prussia had sanctioned the candidature of Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern for the Spanish Throne without informing France of it, or whether it extended to the threat of war, which was part of the communication made to the French Chambers at the same time? I ask, in the third place, whether the approbation of Her Majesty's Government—assuming that such approbation was given—extended to the further demands which were made by the French Government after the nomination of the hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern had been withdrawn; and I wish to ask why, if it was necessary in the view of the French Government that there should be a declaration to the effect that the Prince should never hereafter be a candidate for the Spanish Throne, that demand was not addressed to Spain, which was the Power supposed to be about to accept him? I think it would be more convenient if, instead of our asking for information on particular and incidental points, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would make an explicit statement, in the manner I have already intimated; but I think that, at all events, the House and the public in general have a right to know the truth as to this negotiation—short as it was, and which has ended so disastrously—and what part was taken by our own Government. I have not myself the slightest doubt that my noble Friend did not approve anything which he ought not to have approved, and that his efforts were directed to the maintenance of peace in Europe; but it is desirable that such information should be communicated to the public through the medium of an official announcement on which they may rely. I will not add another word, for I do not wish to enter into any discussion as to whether France was justified or not in its demands, and Prussia in its refusal.

§ EARL GRANVILLE

My Lords, it may be more convenient if I first answer the Question which the noble and learned Lord has first put to me. The recommendation to which he refers was made all but unanimously by a Commission which was very ably constituted, and its object was to strengthen the power of the Secretary of State with regard to suspected violations of neutrality—and especially with regard to the fitting out of vessels of war in British ports. I am glad the noble and learned Lord has put the Question, for it implies his continued belief in the wisdom of that recommendation. My reply is, that it is my intention immediately to introduce a Bill for that purpose. With reference to the Questions of my noble Friend (Earl Russell) I would first remind him that in the private Notice which he was good enough to give me, he mentioned two Questions only, one of which he has omitted to put, and that he did not mention the three last. I can only say that, of course I am most desirous to withhold no information from the House. I stated the other day what was the beginning of our policy, and added that we had continued to adhere to it—promising to lay before your Lordships at the earliest opportunity all the Papers connected with this very sad event. That promise I hope to perform in the course of a few days. I am entirely in your Lordships' hands, but I cannot help thinking that it would be more convenient, and perhaps fairer to the Government, that your Lordships should have those Papers in your hands before I make a general statement. I should prefer to make such a statement when liable to be corrected by what your Lordships have been able to read, instead of asking you now to accept an ex parte statement. With regard to the apparent discrepancy between the statement of M. de Gramont and my statement in this House, I am happy to say I believe there is no difference as to the facts which I then stated. I believe that neither M. Ollivier, nor M. de Lavallette, nor M. de Gramont could in the slightest way impugn the perfect accuracy of what I said. I think, indeed, your Lordships will see that I said less than the Papers 382 warranted me in saying. I understand, however, that it is not as to facts that there is any difference, but that M. de Gramont has drawn an inference—which is always of course a matter of opinion. That inference, which I do not admit, he thinks he draws from the fact that most of the European Governments certainly exercised their influence in promoting some peaceful solution of the question. That, however, is a question which your Lordships will be better able to judge of when the Papers are before you; and, therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will make no statement till that time, when it will be my duty to make the fullest statement possible. It is unfortunately too true that yesterday evening a declaration of war was forwarded from Paris to Berlin. That will necessitate an immediate proclamation of neutrality on our part. I am happy to say that a fortnight ago our relations with France, with Spain, and with Prussia were all of the most friendly character; and although during the last 10 days we have used the strongest language compatible with their dignity and our own self-respect, I am happy to state I believe that language has not affected those friendly relations up to this time. Whatever may be the habit of free discussion in this country, I am quite sure your Lordships will think that Her Majesty's Government are bound to maintain that attitude of dignified reserve which will best enable us to maintain our rights as neutrals, to show perfect impartiality and justice to both parties, and in the end, when these clouds give signs of passing away, to act with more usefulness whenever there is a chance of restoring peace.