QUESTION. (Hansard, 11 March 1878)

§ EARL STANHOPE,
in rising, according to Notice, to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the event of the ensuing Conference taking place at Berlin, he will urge that under no circumstances is it desirable that the Representative of either of the Belligerents should preside?—said: My Lords, I am aware that it is the general practice, when a Conference or a Congress takes place abroad, that the Representative of the country in which the Conference is held should preside. We have heard that the coming Conference —if it is to be held at all—will take place at Berlin. It follows, therefore, that Prince Bismarck will preside. My Lords, I saw on Thursday last, in The Allegmeine Zeitung, a statement to the effect that the condition of the Prince's health is such that he is not likely to fulfil this arduous duty; and, in that case, supposing he does not, what will happen? I think, 1037 my Lords, it is possible—nay, even likely—that the senior Representative of the Great Powers, Prince Gortchakoff, the senior in age, and therefore in experience, may be called upon to take the Chair. I might be told this is most unlikely; but when we consider how long and intimate a friendship has existed between the German Chancellor and Prince Gortchakoff—an intimacy commencing 28 years ago at Frankfort —when one reflects how it has produced the most tremendous results which have ever altered the map of Europe, it is very important that some attempts should be made to avert such a contingency. Not only are the two Chancellors intimate; but I must also remind your Lordships of the friendship which exists between the Czar and the Emperor, and that after the Franco-German War the first announcement of the conclusion of peace was sent to the Czar from the Emperor, and that announcement concluded in these words— Never will Prussia forget that to you it is due that the war did not assume larger proportions. May God bless you for it.—Your grateful friend for life. "We are told now that this peace has been signed between Russia and the Porte, and the first telegram containing the news has been sent by the Czar to his uncle the Emperor of Germany. I shall be told, perhaps, that such a contingency as a Russian Councillor presiding over the Conference has never been contemplated by Her Majesty's Government, nor by any other Power. But have we forgotten the Conference of Constantinople? Will anyone say that a Chairman does not exercise great influence over the deliberations of any assembly whatever? Can anyone say that the Presidency of the Russian Representative at Constantinople was not fraught with great results? And can anyone say that the results of that Conference, if it had been presided over by any other Minister but General Ignatieff, might not have been widely different, and that Turkey might not have accepted its proposals? Russia had more than half drawn her sword—it is as much unsheathed at the present time as it was during the sitting of that Conference. It seems to me that the contingency I have pointed out may arise, and therefore I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name.

LORD CAMPBELL
said, that if this had been a Question asked by the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) without his having previously given Notice, he (Lord Campbell) should not have been in Order in interposing between it and the reply of the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs; but, inasmuch as the ordinary Notice of the Question had appeared on the Paper in such a way as to invite remark, he would take the opportunity of offering a few observations, and he hoped the Government would not complain of his so doing. First, he would state how thoroughly he concurred in the opinion expressed by the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope)—that the Representative of neither belligerent should preside at the Conference. According to the last accounts, it appeared that Prince Gortchakoff was going to Berlin, and that the Conference would sit there. Everyone who knew anything of Berlin, locally or politically, must see the great advantage which Russia would derive from that circumstance, even although her Representative might not preside at the Conference. He should, therefore, like somewhat to enlarge the inquiry which the noble Earl had addressed to the Foreign Secretary. If the coming Conference was to attain the objects of Europe and of this country, it appeared to him that it was essential that it should differ altogether from that Black Sea Conference which, although it led to some practical results, was almost without dissimulation a register of a decision previously arrived at. There had been some solicitude about the terms now arranged between Russia and the Porte. That solicitude was legitimate as regarded the question—a more important one than the question of the Presidency of the Congress—whether the approaching Conference would have a thorough power to endorse or to reject upon a basis that was entirely provisional? In order to that purpose, full information should be given to the Representatives upon all the points submitted to the Conference. If Her Majesty's Government could give the House some assurance on that point, it would not, he thought, be inappropriate.

LORD DENMAN
said, it had been stated in 1871 by the late Premier— It will he beyond the power of any Government adequately to discuss the subject (the limitation of the Black Sea) while the 1039 Conference is sitting."— [3 Hansard, cciv. 1505.] He, therefore, thought it would be very much to the interest of the country if noble Lords would abstain from constantly asking Questions in reference to the approaching Conference. Those Questions were so embarrassing, that, as an hereditary Adviser of the Crown, he would recommend Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament during the whole of the time the Conference was sitting. It was perfectly dreadful to see youthful Peers getting up in their Lordships' House and presuming to advise their Sovereign or the Ministers as to the course they should pursue when this country was invited to take part in a great International Conference. What had the House to do with the internal arrangements of an International Conference? The remarks which had been made were an insult to the Nations which were to be represented at the Conference. They were not to assume to dictate to Sovereigns, to Nations and their Representatives. Parliament had now been sitting for seven weeks, having been hurried up to London; and. a very uninteresting sitting it had been for them to listen to Questions which appeared to him not to be worthy of a Legislative Assembly. He considered that Her Majesty owed them seven weeks, and instead of an Ambassador waiting, as Sir Robert Murray Keith did at Sistova, in Bulgaria, five months for instructions from his Government, we, who had the same confidence in our Plenipotentiary which was felt in 1791, would by that time—seven weeks—pro-probably hear that the Conference had come to a satisfactory issue, from constant communication with Her Majesty and her Ministers, and be able to see its provisions ratified.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
My noble Friend behind me (Earl Stanhope) has asked me, whether we will urge that under no circumstances is it desirable that the Representative of either of the belligerent Powers should preside at the Congress? My noble Friend is no doubt aware that generally—I believe invariably—at all Congresses and Conferences that have been held in recent times, the rule has been that the Representatives themselves, on their first meeting, should elect the person who should be their President, and settle the course of their 1040 future proceedings. A further custom has also grown up which, by lapse of time, has acquired almost the force of a rule, that, unless there be a special reason to the contrary, the Representative of the Power in the capital of whose country the Conference or Congress is held is the person elected for the purpose. It would, therefore, follow that if the Congress was held at Berlin, the Presidency would probably be offered to Prince Bismarck; and I have no reason to suppose that, if he attends the Congress at all, it would be his intention to decline it. If he were to do so, I apprehend that, according to usage, what would happen would be this—that the Congress would proceed in the same manner as before to choose another President. I ought to add that, as far as I am aware, or can learn, there is no special power or authority attached to the position of the President on such an occasion. He is primus inter pares. It is simply an honorary distinction. He has precisely the same rights and powers of dealing with subjects submitted to the Conference that any other Member has. Under these circumstances, I do not think it would be desirable to do that which certainly would be a very unusual step—to make it a condition of going into the Congress that special rules of exclusion from the Presidency should be applied to the Representatives of one of the Powers principally concerned. I am not aware that there is any precedent for a course of that kind being followed, and it is clear that no general rule can be laid down for the exclusion of the Representatives of the belligerents. There have been cases, and there maybe so again, of Conferences attended by the Representatives of the belligerent Powers alone, and if a universal rule of exclusion were to be applied to them, there would be no person to preside at a Conference. With regard to the further Question put by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Campbell), I understood him to ask whether the Congress would have full material to form a judgment on the whole question which is to be submitted to it. That is undoubtedly a matter of great importance. I hold, as I believe everyone does, that it would be useless and foolish to go into a Congress unless that Congress is to have a real and not merely a nominal power of dealing with the various matters 1041 before it. We are in communication with other Governments upon the subject, but I am not in a position at present to say anything more on that subject.