Lords Sitting of 24 July 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Evidence Law Amendment (Scotland)* (198); Police Force Expenses* (199).
Committee—Report—Revising Barristers (Payment)* (175); Mersey Channels* (182).
Third Reading—Rating* (158); County of Hertford and Liberty of St. Alban* (167); Customs (Isle of Man)* (165); Industrial and Reformatory Schools* (180), and passed.

SPAIN—THE CIVIL WAR—ALLEGED AID BY THE FRENCH.—QUESTIONS.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords—Before I put the Questions of which I have given Notice, I trust your Lordships will allow me to preface them with some observations. My Lords, at the commencement of this century, Mr. Pitt, in the great speech he made in proposing a warlike Motion, spoke of a country consecrated by heroism, and by the blood shed in its wars. I can say as much with respect of the land of Spain. It has been hallowed by the grave of Moore; it has been illustrated—I may say immortalized—by the victories won on its soil. It is impossible to travel a day's journey from Badajoz to Pampe-luna and not pass some place that has been made illustrious by the victories of the immortal "Wellington. These are reasons why we should take an interest in Spain—I do not say to the extent of interfering in her civil wars, although something might be said in favour of that course. In the year 1834 a Treaty was signed, in the month of April, and was afterwards confirmed and extended in August, by which England, Prance, Spain, and Portugal bound themselves in a cordial alliance to do all in their power to drive Don Carlos out of Spain. That Treaty was signed by two men who are no longer living—Prince de Talleyrand and Lord Palmerston, and these men were no novices in diplomatic affairs. In consequence of that Treaty, Don Carlos was pursued by warlike operations and driven out of Spain. I am not going to ask your Lordships to undertake a similar treaty or similar operations; but what I do ask is that Spain shall be treated with the common courtesy that is due to a civilized nation; and that, having a President and an Executive Government—in short, exactly the same sort of Government that now prevails in France—there should not be any unnecessary delay in recognizing her as one of the Powers of Europe. I do not ask any Question on this subject, because, of course, that must remain in the discretion of Her Majesty's Government—I mean the determination as to when the time shall have come, when

613
the period shall be arrived, when that recognition can be properly given. I do not wish to interfere at all with the discretion or judgment of Her Majesty's Government upon that subject. I conclude—and I am entitled to conclude—that when that time has come the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will no longer delay that recognition. At present, it is the great misfortune of Spain that she has no recognized Government, and that the Minister whom she has sent here—a most able and fit Minister—to represent her in this country, has not been received. But, my Lords, what I refer to especially are the rumours that have lately prevailed, and which go to show that the French Government has not only refused to recognize the Government of Spain—has not only abstained from any friendly action towards it—but has interfered in a manner contrary to all friendly relations, contrary to the Law of Nations. My Lords, these matters have been published in The Times and in all the English newspapers, and being published in them, I may say that they are known to all Europe. It is stated that on the frontier of France, instead of the Carlists who had crossed it being sent—as they would have been sent during the preceding French Government, or during the Governments of Louis Philippe or any previous Government, into the interior, and not allowed to recross the frontier—it is alleged that such persons—persons engaged in armed rebellion against the Government of Spain, have bean furnished—are now furnished—with passports, not as subjects of the Government of Spain, but as persons having authority from Don Carlos or the Chiefs of his army. That is an offence which is against the Law of Nations, and against all friendly relations between France and Spain. Another allegation is that an officer holding rank as a General has been admitted within the French frontier and allowed to pass from Bayonne to Perpignan and from Perpignan to Catalonia, in order to carry on armed rebellion against the Government of Spain. My Lords, I cannot but think that if this is true, it is a most scandalous act, and at variance with all the relations that should prevail between friendly Governments. When we found it necessary to go to war with America it was alleged by Mr. Gibbon
614
that the French and Spaniards had allowed arms to be provided for the rebels against His Majesty the King of Great Britain; and General Washington allowed to Lord Grenville and Mr. Hammond—whose son I am very glad to see sitting in this House—that if ships had been fitted out to prey upon the commerce of Great Britain, that was an injury to a friendly nation, and that compensation should be made for that injury: and compensation was accordingly made. I believe there is no country that professes friendship to another country and is with it on the usual terms of amity, that would not agree that the furnishing of arms and the allowing of armed officers and soldiers to traverse its territory with the view of invading that other country is a violation of the Law of Nations. I have therefore to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any inquiry has been made as to the alleged assistance allowed to be given to the Carlists of Spain by French authorities; and whether any remonstrances have been addressed to the Government of France by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I say that although we give no armed assistance to the established Government of Spain, yet we ought to feel a sympathy with a nation which during the war from 1808 to 1814 showed friendly sympathy with us, and which gave us every assistance that they were able to give—not by providing troops of great value, not by fighting our battles, but in supplying us with stores and all other assistance that they could possibly afford.
THE EARL OF DERBY:—My Lords, I wish to give the best answers I can to the very proper Questions of the noble Earl. I have, then, to say in the first place, that since I have held the office I now fill, no remonstrance or complaint, or appeal of any sort, has been addressed to Her Majesty's Government by the Government of Spain on the subject of that assistance which is alleged to have been given by French authorities or by French citizens to the Carlist party. I believe certain communications have passed upon that subject between the Governments of France and Spain, but I have not seen those communications; I have not been consulted or appealed to in reference to them, and I have no knowledge of their precise

615
purport. And in as much as the Spanish authorities, who undoubtedly are the persons primarily concerned, have not thought it necessary to ask for English interference, and inasmuch as the matter is one in which it is not alleged that any British subject has taken a part, I have not thought it my duty to volunteer such interference. I believe that if we had offered it without being called on, that would have been an officious interference, not only in the diplomatic, but in the popular sense of the word, and that in all probability it would have done more harm than good. I have not the means of judging whether any of the statements which we have heard of assistance being given to the Carlists contrary to the Law of Nations are well founded, and I think it is probable that if Her Majesty's Government had addressed any remonstrance to the French Government, unasked by those primarily interested, the answer would have been, "What have you to complain of? You have not been hurt!" And I own that would have been a reply to which I should have found it difficult to make a rejoinder. When the noble Earl asks me to what extent I believe in these reports of assistance given from the other side of the French border, I am compelled to approach the question with very great doubt and great reserve—because it is not a subject with which I have had to deal, or on which I have official information. I take it, however, that there can be no doubt that a certain quantity of arms and supplies of various kinds have passed out of France across the frontier: but how far that may be due to any connivance or laches on the part of subordinate officials or to the active co-operation of the local population, or how far it may be due merely to the impossibility of guarding such a line of frontier as that of the Pyrenees, is a question on which I am not able to form an opinion. Undoubtedly, my Lords, if it be true—as the noble Earl has said it is—that armed forces have been allowed to enter and take refuge in the French territory, and then to recross the frontier and resume military operations in Spain, I apprehend that would be a breach of international law; but I have no knowledge that anything of the kind has occurred. And, with the greatest respect for your Lordships, I think these are matters of which it would be hardly
616
wise or proper of us to take cognizance—first, in the absence of any certain information as to whether the alleged circumstance ever occurred, and, next, in the absence of any complaint or expression of feeling from the parties who are primarily interested. My Lords, as to what the noble Earl says in respect of the sympathy we ought to feel for the Spanish nation, under the great difficulties in which it is at present involved, I most cordially concur. We cannot forget the great part Spain has played in the history of Europe, and we cannot but hope that she may hold as prominent a place in the future as in the past. But where it is a question of local feuds and civil war, I am not sure that the best way of showing sympathy with any country situated as Spain is, is not to abstain from all unnecessary interference. With regard to the subject of recognition, I observe that the noble Earl has very wisely refrained from putting any Question as to the precise moment at which the Spanish Government ought to be recognized. I need not enter into the circumstances which have led Her Majesty's Government to think that the time has not come for recognition—that it would be premature. I need not allude to the utterly unsettled condition of the country—it is enough to indicate what I think your Lordships well understand—that whenever that recognition is made, it would be much better that it should be the Act of the great Powers of Europe than that of one Power alone. There are other circumstances as regards the relations between ourselves and Spain. The Spanish Government has been a little tardy and has shown some reluctance in doing justice in cases where we had a right to expect justice. These are circumstances to be taken into consideration; but of one thing I am sure, and that is, that the question of the recognition of the Spanish or of any Government ought not to be made a question of political sympathy. You ought to recognize a Government as provisional when it is provisionally established; you ought to recognize a Government as permanent when it is permanently established. Whether the Government in question be a Republic or a Monarchy, it is entitled to exactly the same treatment at our hands. The question of recognition is one to be decided by the consideration whether

617
we believe a permanent and settled form of government has been established in the country. I cannot give any further answer to the Questions of the noble Earl.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, having preceded the noble Earl in the Foreign Office, and as I was there when the civil war broke out, I may be allowed to add a few words to what has been said on the subject. It is evident that in bringing the subject before your Lord-ships, my noble Friend (Earl Russell) has been moved to it not only by the regret that so fine a country and a noble race should be thrown into anarchy, but also by the recollections of his youth and of his mature age. As I understand it, the answer of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) amounts to this—that it is exceedingly difficult to deal with this sort of allegations, made on one side and the other, without the Government of this country having any means whatever of knowing what is the true state of the case. I do not go so far as the noble Earl, and hold that one friendly Government is on all occasions precluded from making communications to another upon such a subject, without being called upon by the parties primarily concerned, because I think that where two friendly countries have been following the same policy of neutrality towards a third, suppose one of these countries were guilty of an overt act tending to the violation of that neutrality, it would not be inconsistent with dignity or necessarily harmful, if the other should communicate with it in respect to the course it was pursuing. When I had the honour of holding the Seals of the Foreign Office, no official communication was made to me on this subject; but undoubtedly I had private and unofficial communication with the Representatives of Spain, who did complain that this assistance was given by France. I was also in like communication with the Representatives of France, and, as is usual in official communications, very different statements were made as to the facts by the different sides. The Spanish Representatives asserted, and the French denied. It was stated on the part of the French that the instructions to their agents were positive not to give any such assistance, and that if those instructions had not always been obeyed, it was due to the difficulty arising from the character of
618
the country—from the extent of territory—and to the great sympathy of some of the inhabitants of France with the Carlists. As to any official communication on the subject, there was none; and I quite agree with the noble Earl that under the circumstances, it is not necessary, nor would it be right, to make any communication to the French Government in reference to it.
EARL RUSSELLasked the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether it was not the duty of the British Consuls on the frontier to furnish information on these subjects to our Government, and whether the noble Earl would not give them instructions to do so?
THE EARL OF DERBYreplied that it was a part of the duty of any Consul, where local circumstances rendered it important, to give the Foreign Office information as to what was going on. To a certain extent that had been done. If the war went on and assumed a more serious character, there would be good reason for exhorting our Consuls to be diligent in the matter; but he could not say that at present there was any reason to find fault with the way in which the duty had been discharged.

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE—CONSULSHIP AT SAIGON—QUESTION.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to fill up the post of British Consul at Saigon, which is now vacant?
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, there was no information at the Foreign Office of the existence, or even the probability, of the vacancy assumed in the Question of his noble Friend. The Consul was absent on leave, obtained in the early part of this year. In his absence, the Consul left as his deputy a gentleman who was a partner in a firm at Saigon. He was not aware whether that gentleman was a British subject; but he believed he was very well fitted to discharge the duties in the temporary absence of the Consul. He did not think there was any reason for avoiding a new appointment in the case of a vacancy.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next a quarter before Five o'clock.