ADDRESS FOR COPIES. (Hansard, 19 April 1875)

LORD CAMPBELL
, in moving an Address for Copies of the Treaties of Vienna in 1815, and of Paris in 1856, said: ^* My Lords, I have just suggested to my noble Friend the noble Earl (Earl Russell), who rarely comes among us, that he should take precedence with his Notice upon Germany and Belgium; but as he does not wish to do so, although the House may be in some degree impatient to hear what falls from him, or the Government upon that question, they will not, I trust, accord to me a less indulgent ear than otherwise they would do. My Lords, I readily admit that the Treaties, for Copies of which I am about to move, by adequate research might possibly be found without the intervention of your Lordships. They might, perhaps, be scattered in a collection of State Papers, or in a mass of guarantees for which a noble Marquess opposite moved some years ago. I shall therefore feel bound to explain in a few words the political idea or aim with which the Motion is brought forward. Should we be compelled soon to act upon the Eastern Question, now revived, in consequence of our engagements or our objects, Austria would appear to be the sole ally we are enabled to invoke with any prospect of advantage. Prance would no longer be depended on as formerly. Her wounds are too fresh, her powers too exhausted, as some think, even her resentments too absorbing. Neither the German Empire nor Italian Kingdom are bound by any treaty to come forward. Spain has never been accustomed yet to mingle in the controversies which relate to the subversion, or defence of Ottoman authority, and few would judge her now at. 1193 liberty to do so. Austria on the other hand is bound—and this in a few minutes will be clearer—by a regular and formal guarantee to act with us upon the subject. She has a population of 35,000,000, and an army in proportion to it. The wars of 1859 and 1866 have been disastrous to her. But how many disastrous wars has Austria formerly survived? To what Power may you apply with so much fidelity the well-known expression— Adversis rerum immersabilis undis. Since 1866 also she has been in a great degree re-organized, by that distinguished man (Count Beust), to whom it has fallen as a lot, to perform the greatest things, under the greatest disadvantages. My Lords, if that view is just, the step which Austria is alleged to be on the verge of taking, as regards Servia and Roumania, is deeply interesting to this country, because it would involve a final bar to all co-operation for the maintenance of Turkey. It would range Austria too completely with the adversaries of that Power, to leave an aptitude for union with its friends. The step to which I have referred, tends briefly to detach the Danubian Principalities from the Empire they belong to. This is not the moment to go into the train of reasoning by which that proposition is established. It is certain to present itself at once, to every mind conversant with the subject. How could Austria be invited to repair an infraction in the general arrangements of 1856, when the infraction sprang directly from the measures she had taken? How could she escape the new, although illicit, ties she would have recently contracted? With what dignity could Great Britain invite her to maintain a cause she had so openly determined to abandon? A barrier between Great Britain and Austria on the Eastern Question would spring up, would be matured, would be reciprocally felt, and neither Power could surmount it. It is, therefore, worth while to exhaust every method of, as it were, reclaiming Austria before the deviation is a final one, which any day it may become. Although the facts are not of the same magnitude, the situation is analogous to that we occupied before Nice and Savoy were annexed, before Denmark was invaded, before the Russian armies crossed the Pruth, before the war between France and Germany was unavoidable. Something is likely to 1194 take place, upon the continental world, involving future difficulties, which ought to be, if possible, averted. The course which I suggest is to bring certain documents conspicuously forward, and I proceed to say a word as to their nature, and to the effect which they are likely to produce, if now demanded, by your Lordships. The most important and the most applicable by far is the Treaty of April 15, 1856, in which France, Austria, and Great Britain, engaged themselves collectively and separately to defend the Treaty of March 30, 1856, embodying the general arrangements made after the Crimean War, from every infraction. Let the House remark the phrase. It is not only an engagement to come forward and defend the Porte against armed force, but to maintain the previous Treaty against every infraction. According to the language of the noble Earl the Secretary of State, as I have understood it, according to the language of the Ottoman despatch, which has not been replied to, Austria may be described as meditating an infraction on the system formed by the Allies who went to the Crimea. But when the Guarantee of April 15, 1856, appears, it is seen that Austria is bound to resist such an infraction and make war upon its authors. An Empire which respects itself, would scarcely wish to be in a position so ambiguous, and might be led to pause, before decidedly approaching it. As regards the Treaty of January 3rd, 1815, between Prance, Austria, and Great Britain, I refer to it for the obvious purpose of establishing that, after a struggle of nearly 20 years, Austria had the same mind, the same policy, the same determination as that which guided her in 1856; that she was equally resolved to join the Western Powers in order to maintain the European balance and the general tranquillity. The Treaty of January 3rd, 1815, bears a similar relation to the general arrangements of Vienna as the Treaty of April 15th, 1856, bears to the system founded by the Congress of Paris at that period. Both are outworks and defences of something which immediately preceded them; of something larger than themselves. But the Treaty of January 3rd, 1815, may be regarded as the emanation of Prince Metternich, whose very signature concludes it. It 1195 is the best reply to those who, in order to disparage the validity of what was done in 1856, might treat it as a modern, momentary, fanciful departure from the established line, the House of Hapsburg have pursued. No sooner is the Treaty of January 3rd, 1815, recalled to notice at Vienna, than it is seen that the Guarantee of 1856 is but a second application of the principle Prince Metternich had traced, and which in days of renovated force, authority, and splendour, as his design the Austrian Empire had adopted. Another word is not required on that part of the subject. My Lords, as to the effect on Austria these Treaties may be expected to produce, should the Motion be adopted, I have incidentally alluded to it. They must render clear to many what no doubt the Foreign Office have already explained to some, that an erroneous course is on the verge of being pursued, and one of which the full results have not been adequately realized. The fact is less astonishing, and less a topic of reproach, when we reflect upon the void in Austrian counsels, which the absence of Count Beust, was likely to occasion. As things stand, it should not be forgotten that, in all Governments, opinion is in some degree divided. It would be strange, perhaps, if history was entirely revealed, to see how many critical conclusions, have been narrowly arrived at. But we remark the process even in Committees. It betrays itself in every set of men by whom any kind of business, political or military or financial, is transacted. It is therefore worth while, at even at a late moment, to add a weight to that scale at the preponderance of which you are legitimately aiming. The chance of acting with effect on such a view, is greater in the Austrian Empire than elsewhere, because within it, avowed duality exists; because the conflict of ideas, of interests, of races is perpetual; because the relation of old and new authority is not entirely adjusted; because there are springs of influence whose force can hardly be appreciated, until it suddenly appears; because there is a Press in many tongues to bear on the Executive. A system composed of 17 Diets, of a dozen nationalities, of two Assemblies at Vienna, of two at Pesth, together with a Federal authority beyond them, may not be free from disadvantages, but it is calculated 1196 to secure a certain independence of opinion, a certain latitude of judgment, on any question which arises. At least you may assume that a considerable number of influential persons, from statesmanlike opinion, are opposed to that line of thinly-veiled aggression on the Porte which the Identic Note of October last, unfortunately indicates. The publication of these despatches by the House, supplies them with an arm, which cannot be effectually encountered. It must materially aid the Foreign Office in any effort they are making. The Foreign Office can only appeal to men in power. The despatches strengthen those who are combined to watch, and even those perhaps who are entitled to control them. At the same time I indulge in no excessive confidence, in no unbalanced hope as to the result to be arrived at. The negotiation with the Danubian Principalities may possibly occur. In that event the House would have done something to impede or to retard, continued movement on a path, unhappily adopted. In that event the House would also have done something, when future controversies happen, to divest this country of all responsibility, for the loss of an ally, and for the presence of an European complication.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
My Lords, I hardly think my noble Friend is serious in his Motion for the production of those Papers. If he is, I hope he will not press his Motion to a division; because if he should do so I shall feel bound to oppose it;—not because there is anything which it would not be wise to disclose, but because they have been published already, and therefore it would be a waste of money to publish them again. Both the Treaties were laid before Parliament—not at the time they were made, but afterwards, and both may be found in the ordinary collection of State Papers in the Library of this House, and, I suppose, in many other public libraries. No doubt, if there were any general desire to have those Papers reprinted for general circulation, the Government and Parliament would 1197 yield to it; but I do not think there is any such desire, nor is it likely they would be much read or referred to, and therefore I do not suppose your Lordships would be disposed to agree to the Motion. But I take it that the object of my noble Friend was not so much to obtain those Papers as to have the opportunity of stating his views on the question to which they have reference—not on the Eastern Question generally, but as to that particular part of the Eastern Question which is involved in the action taken by the Roumanian Government. My noble Friend has a perfect right to do that, and to express his opinions on this or any other subject of international policy, and I am sure we shall always listen to him with interest; but I must point out that there is a difference between the position of an independent Member of your Lordships' House discussing such a question and that which would be held by the person who, however unworthy, for the time being represents this country. My noble Friend finds fault with the policy of the Austrian Government, and he has a right to do so; but if I took his view to the full extent—which I by no means say I do—I should not consider it a convenient course to express my opinions here, while the case is still under consideration, instead of communicating with the Austrian Government in the usual manner. I took an opportunity some weeks ago, in answer to my noble Friend, of stating the position in which things then were. There has been no change since that time. I do not deprecate discussion of the subject; but if we are to discuss it, I think your Lordships will be of opinion that we shall be able to do so with more advantage when the Papers are before your Lordships, and you are made acquainted with its details. I shall only say now, what I feel bound to say after the statement of my noble Friend, and it is this—That the Austrian Government does not express, and never has expressed, any intention to violate existing Treaties; the Austrian Government admits the binding nature of those obligations, and simply places—as I said before—a different interpretation on a portion of those Treaty obligations from that adopted by us. It is admitted that the Roumanian Government is entitled to enter into certain conventions with neighbouring States— 1198 and the only question is as to whether Commercial Treaties are included under the head of Conventions that may be entered into by that Government without the sanction of the Porte. The Austrian Government hold that they are. We, forming the best judgment we can, are of a different opinion. I can add that all the Powers are agreed in this—that providing the power claimed for Roumania in respect of Commercial Treaties can be legitimately exercised, no practical harm could arise from that power being used, and I have very little doubt that if the Porte were approached in a proper manner, its sanction would not be refused. The question, then, is narrowed to this—Some of the leading Powers hold that Roumania has this right without the sanction of the Porte, while we are of opinion that she has not the power without that sanction; but we have said all along that we are quite prepared to advise the Porte to grant it. I cannot regard this business in the light of a European question or as one involving serious danger.

LORD CAMPBELL
asked the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, when the Papers on the subject would be produced?

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
I cannot at present say; but if I see a chance of the Correspondence being so protracted that there would be no opportunity of discussing the question this Session if we waited for its close, I shall at once lay on the Table all the Papers that we can put before Parliament.

LORD CAMPBELL
said, that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had not even attempted any answer to the train of reasoning by which the Motion was supported. If however he thought that the production of the Treaties would do more harm than good and would not be so much an aid as an incumbrance, he was of course entitled to resist it, although no argument was offered in that sense. He (Lord Campbell) would not divide the House when he knew that they were anxious to go on to the next Notice, nor was he able to contend with the majority of the Government. But he should decline to withdraw the Motion and leave to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the responsibility of its being negatived.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
Without wishing to prolong the discussion, I must say 1199 that I think my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs has given very good reasons for not laying the Papers on the Table at present. If the noble Lord presses his Motion, the majority against him will not be composed exclusively of the usual supporters of the Government. In a case in which there is a difference between this country and other Powers, it is desirable that your Lordships should be in possession of all the information the Correspondence can give us before the question is discussed by your Lordships' House.