§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, I think it would remove some possible misapprehension with regard to the terms upon which the approaching Congress is about to meet, if the noble Marquess at the head of the Foreign Office does not object to answer the Question which I have placed upon the Notice Paper—
Whether Her Majesty's Government consider the words in the invitation to the Congress, 'That in accepting it the Government of Her Britannic Majesty consents to admit the free discussion of the whole of the contents of the Treaty of San Stefano, and that it is ready to participate therein,' equivalent to the stipulation made by the Earl of Derby when Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—'Her Majesty's Government must distinctly understand before they can enter into Congress that every Article in the Treaty between Russia and Turkey will be placed before the Congress, not necessarily for acceptance, but in order that it may be considered what Articles require acceptance or concurrence by the several Powers and what do not.By the words of the invitation to the Congress, it would appear that the basis upon which the Powers, including Russia, have arrived at some understanding is, "the free discussion of the whole of the contents of the Treaty of San Stefano." Now, I can hardly regard that as conveying the same limitations or as equivalent to the stipulation so strongly insisted upon by Her Majesty's Government in the communication of the Earl of Derby, then Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on the 21st of March to Count Schouvaloff, and referred to in the despatch of the noble Marquess on the 1st of April. Lord Derby said—Her Majesty's Government must distinctly understand before they can enter into Congress that every Article in the Treaty between Russia and Turkey will be placed before the Congress, not necessarily for acceptance, but in order that it might be considered what articles require acceptance or concurrence by the several Powers and what do not.Now, there seems to be a considerable difference between going into Congress, in the one case, on the basis of simply discussing the Articles of a Treaty, and in the other, making it a condition, not only that every Article of the Treaty 1248 should be placed before the Congress—it is not said for discussion—but in order that it should be considered what Articles required acceptance or concurrence by the Powers and what did not. Discussion was, doubtless, implied in both cases, but the object in the stipulation of Lord Derby went further. The Treaty was to be discussed with a view to consider which Articles required the acceptance or concurrence of the several Powers, who, as I understand, were signatories of the Treaties of 1856 and 1871. In the one case, the validity of the Treaty is virtually admitted; in the other, the acceptance and concurrence of the Powers are assumed to be previously requisite. If the noble Marquess can state that the conditions before entering into a Congress, as laid down by Lord Derby, are to be adhered to, any doubts which have been raised upon the subject will be removed.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I am not sure that I follow my noble Friend correctly, and whether I am able to grasp the idea which he wishes to place before the House; and, therefore, perhaps, my answer may not be satisfactory. I would call my noble Friend's attention to the fact that it is not the terms in which Her Britannic Majesty's Government accepted the invitation to the Congress which constitutes the point for which we are contending, but the terms in which the Russian Government have accepted it. Let my noble Friend substitute for "the Government of Her Britannic Majesty," "the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of Russia," and then the passage will read—
That in accepting it the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of Russia consents to admit the free discussion of the whole of the contents of the Treaty of San Stefano, and that it is ready to participate therein.It appears to me that this is an acceptance of a discussion of the totality of the Treaty; and if there is really any difference between the two formulas, as it is an acceptance of the discussion of the whole Treaty, while the stipulation referred to my noble Friend is one for placing the Treaty before the Congress in order that it may be considered what Articles require acceptance or concurrence, then, the whole being greater than the part, I take it that the admission in the acceptance is larger than 1249 that required in the stipulation; but I freely admit that it requires a microscopic eye to discover the difference.
§ THE EARL OF HARROWBYI cannot allow this opportunity to pass without expressing my great satisfaction at the prospect which now exists of settling this question. It is not too late to secure the good-will of all the Christian populations of the East, and I am sure that the good wishes of your Lordships, and of the country, will accompany the Government in their endeavours to solve in Congress this great and difficult question, in which endeavours they have had to encounter difficulties exceeding those experienced by any previous Administration. There is everything to expect from a meeting like this, to which the whole of the Governments of Europe send the most eminent of their Ministers; and I trust that the results of the Congress will be to secure to Europe a lasting peace—at least, like the Congress of Vienna, a repose of 30 years. The present and past condition of the Christian Provinces of the Turkish Empire has been a scandal to Christianity; and, looking to the advancement of knowledge which we all possess of the subject, I hope that there will be something nobler shown to the world than a struggle for superiority or the extension of dominion in the East. I hope, too, that the settlement of this question will induce those nations, who are now armed to their uttermost and exhausting all their resources in preparation for war—to the scandal of Christianity and civilization—to abandon this ruinous policy, and turn their attention to internal improvement, which is so much wanted.