HL Deb 12 May 1885 vol 298 cc293-300
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I wish, my Lords, to make a statement of a personal character. I see that some Members of Her Majesty's Government in "another place" have been employing themselves upon a speech of mine delivered last week—an amusement on their part to which I have no objection, only that they have, in my judgment, in this case very seriously and materially misquoted it. And as no comment has been made upon it here, I am necessarily obliged to take this irregular mode of correcting the misstatements that have been made. But, in the first place, I may observe that Mr. Trevelyan, another Colleague of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), a few days ago made the following statement concerning my speech which is wholly with out foundation. He stated:— Lord Salisbury thought it wise and prudent to speak of the Government with whom we are engaged in critical negotiations as swindlers and bankrupts. I have only to say that that is an entirely unfounded statement. But I should not have thought it necessary to take notice of Mr. Trevelyan's observations, but that a similar, though not quite so extreme, a misstatement has been made by the Prime Minister himself. And although it is rather an egotistical thing for a man to trouble your Lordships with the accuracy or inaccuracy of quotations from his own observations, I think that when you have been misquoted by a Prime Minister you have a right to complain. The Prime Minister is said to have stated last night— I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) has abandoned as desperate all attempts to defend the language.…of the Marquess of Salisbury, who pointed out that the choice for Russia was between owning to the character of a swindler and owning to the character of a bankrupt. Again I say that I never said what the Prime Minister imputes to me that I did say. But not only will it be found that I did not say what he imputes to me, but that his interpretation of my speech, if it is to be held as an interpretation, is in direct defiance of the language that I did use. I was explaining to my audience that, for the purpose of deciding whether it was wise to rely for the guarantee of our Indian Empire on the promises of Russia, it did not matter whether Russia had intentionally broken her promises, or had broken them because she was unable to keep them; and to illustrate that I used the commercial analogy that you would not trust a man—that it would make no difference with regard to your trust of a man—whether his inability to keep his promises had been due to commercial misfortune or to commercial dishonesty, for in either case you would not hold him to be a person who could be absolutely relied upon. Now, what I have to complain of is, that Mr. Gladstone, and I think also the Marquess of Hartington, imputed to me that I had charged Russia with dishonesty—that either substantially, or as an alternative, I had pointed out that her conduct had been that of a swindler. My Lords, my statement was exactly the reverse. I distinctly said that I did not charge the Russian Government with dishonesty. My words were these— I do not attribute to the Russian Government any intention to deceive. Now, was it fair, was it honest, with these words staring them in the face, they should say that I had charged the Russian Government, either conditionally or substantially, with being swin- dlers? But I did not say it only once. I said afterwards, that when the Russians said they would not take Merv and allowed Merv to be surrendered to them, it was very possible that they were not acting with any intention to mislead the English Government, but that circum stances were too strong for them; and I closed those observations with these words— Making the fullest allowances for the difficulties of the vast Russian Empire, and for the impossibility of controlling the military element, which is the only sure foundation for the Throne—making all these allowances, I still say that, where we are now, with the lessons of history behind us, it was not wise to seek, as the main object of our policy, to rest the defence of our Indian Empire on the guarantee of Russia. That is a very different thing from charging the Russian Government as an alternative, or as a separate proposition, with being a swindler. I emphatically deny that I ever did any such thing.

Earl GRANVILLE

The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) is perfectly right in making this personal explanation, and I, for one, am extremely glad that he has made it; but I must say that I think the accusation which he has brought against my Colleagues is not a very sound one. The noble Marquess, in the course of his denial, has just stated that, in describing the conduct of the Russian Government, he brought in the analogy of swindlers and bankrupts—

The Marquess of SALISBURY

Not in describing the conduct of the Russian Government, but in discussing the question how far honesty of purpose had to do with the subsequent promises given.

EARL GRANVILLE

Well, I must own I read the statement with astonishment that anybody in the position of the noble Marquess should make use of the words he did. It is true that the noble Marquess said that circumstances might be such as to overpower Russia; but I cannot conceive anyone applying a similar description to one of your Lordships, when circumstances might be such as to overpower you, and then to go on and bring in the analogy of swindlers and bankrupts. I leave it to your Lordships to say what other meaning could have been attached to his remark than that which was attached to it by my Colleagues, for I cannot conceive but that any one of your Lordships would consider it a personal affront to himself. The noble Marquess vindicates himself by saying that he explained to his audience that there was no dishonesty on the part of the Russian Government, and that he had not charged them with it. I am glad to hear his explanation; but was that the line of Lord Randolph Churchill? Did he accuse the Russian Government of nothing in that remarkable statement of which the noble Marquess took upon himself to assure the constituency of Hackney that it was impossible to impeach the historical accuracy of the statement of facts it contained. The two facts must be taken together—that Lord Randolph Churchill did attack the honesty of the Russian Government, and the noble Marquess described his statement as historically unimpeachable, and that the noble Marquess then brought in the comparison to swindlers and bankrupts. I am quite prepared to accept in the fullest manner the disclaimer of the noble Marquess; but I think it was impossible for my Colleagues, and the public at large, to take the speech as anything else than a direct insult to a great Power, with whom, I am happy to say, we are still in friendly relations. The noble Marquess having introduced the subject of his speech, I should like to say one word about the evidence which he gave respecting the historical accuracy of all that Lord Randolph Churchill had said. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) said, last night, that it was wrong from beginning to end. I do not go fully into the arguments of the noble Duke; but I gave myself the intellectual treat of reading the very spirited and brilliant attack which Lord Randolph Churchill made on Her Majesty's Government. Your Lordships will easily understand how mortified I felt when I found that the noble Lord's respect for myself was not at all equal to the admiration I feel for those great abilities which I agree with the noble Marquess and the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Argyll) have placed Lord Randolph Churchill in so predominant a position amongst the Leaders of his Party; but as to the accuracy of his statement, even from a cursory reading of it, I marked no less than nine passages, some of them inaccurate, and some of them exactly opposed to the fact. The noble Marquess, in his speech, took upon himself to vouch for the historical accuracy of Lord Randolph Churchill's speech, and I should like to allude to a few of those points. First of all, what is frequently complained of is that there are sentences without any context; secondly, that there are long extracts with sentences left out. The very first charge he brings against me, in succeeding Lord Clarendon, was that I had accepted the Russian General—General Kauffman—as an arbitrator between England and Russia. That statement is absolutely without foundation. Sir Andrew Buchanan informed us that the Russian Government wished to see and consult General Kauffman, being ready to agree in our views if he agreed to them. So far from my accepting him as arbitrator, I said, after a time, that we could not wait until the Russian Government had received reports from their own officials. With regard to the allusion to a document which was said to be addressed to Europe in general and to England in particular, the noble Duke behind me pointed out last night that the document was not addressed to England at all, but that it was a Circular addressed to the Russian Representatives abroad, and that it was not officially communicated to us, even although allusion was made to the substance of that despatch. There are allusions to other manifestoes of the Russian Government which I cannot find, and which I do not believe to exist. There is a little point, not of great importance, as to the accusation brought against Mr. Gladstone, that in one year, after a certain event, he wrote a certain article in The Nineteenth Century in 1874. I believe that The Nineteenth Century had not begun to be published until three years after that date. Then there is a description of a Circular of General Lomakin which is perfectly inaccurate, and which is brought against us as a reproach. The date of that Circular is 1874. The noble Lord went on to say, after leaving us in the mire of this Circular, that the Conservative Government came into power a year afterwards—in 1875. I think it will be in the recollection of your Lordships that the late Conservative Administration began at the beginning of 1874. But there are still more important misrepresentations. The noble Lord said that the boundary of Afghanistan had been defined, and that the Russians had passed over that boundary. I do not impute these things to any intentional misrepresentation on the part of Lord Randolph Churchill; but I think the explanation which my noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) gave yesterday is more probable—that what he has said has been through inadvertence in not consulting the original documents, and in accepting too readily secondary information. With regard to this defined boundary, as a matter of fact, no less than two despatches of Lord Clarendon stated that it was perfectly ill-defined. It is true that afterwards we made a sort of definition of it; but your Lordships who have studied that question know that the definition was not of a clear or precise character with regard to the dependencies of Herat, and that is the very question which has not been settled up to this date, in which we assert one thing and the Russians another thing, and in which we are now trying to come to an amicable arrangement. If, whenever the noble Marquess or Lord Randolph Churchill, in the heat of debate, make inaccurate statements, and if one of them immediately vouches, without examining the facts, as to the perfect exactitude of those statements of the other, it certainly goes hard against Her Majesty's Government. There is another question which the noble Marquess mentioned in his speech—I mean the question of prestige. He said he disliked the word, because it was French, and because it savoured of conjuring; but he liked the thing. Then he described how the thing might be called harmless in itself, but that on the imagination of Orientals it might have an important effect, in that it might bear the appearance of concession, and therefore do harm. With regard to the dislike of the word prestige, I have a very great notion that Orientals are not such complete fools as we sometimes assume them to be. The intelligent Natives in India are very well aware of what is sensible and what is foolish in the conduct of the Government with regard to its foreign relations and safety. But there is one great danger, which is that they may be influenced by the opinion that conies from this country; and when the Leader of the Conservative Party rushes off to make an electioneering speech in Hackney, and to make a declaration without any real knowledge of the facts, which tends to show that England is entirely in the wrong, and that Russia has been triumphant all along, and gives that cue to all the Conserva- tive writers and speakers in the country, I think great responsibility rests upon him with regard to the effect produced by that assertion, not only in England and in Europe, but in India itself. As the noble Marquess has challenged the conduct of my Colleagues in allusion to what he said, I shall only repeat that, while I entirely accept his explanation—and I shall be very glad indeed if it goes through Europe and through Russia—I disclaim the imputation which he has put upon them. I cannot admit that my Colleagues have been in the least degree in fault in the matter.

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

I shall not enter into the dispute which has arisen; but I have to complain of the course pursued in relation to this matter by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville). I should like to point out that my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) simply called attention to a portion of his speech, and gave an explanation of it. He is here in the position of a person attacked by another speaker in the other House, where he cannot be heard. The noble Earl, however, takes advantage of this explanation to make a speech against a speech delivered by Lord Randolph Churchill in the other House, and which I have no doubt that noble Lord is himself perfectly able to defend.

EARL GRANVILLE

The noble Marquess vouched for the facts stated by the noble Lord.

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

I am not going to argue about the facts; but my complaint is that it is impossible for anyone, even for the noble Earl, with all his knowledge of Central Asian Papers and the other Papers connected with the question, to say that every portion of the context is properly quoted or not. I object altogether that the noble Earl should answer a speech "elsewhere"—that he should answer a speech not made in this House, but in a place where the noble Earl's Colleagues might have answered the speaker if inaccurate statements were made, or statements calculated to misrepresent views or facts. I am also very sorry that after the speech which the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) made last evening, and which was not intended to be of a Party character, the matter should have been referred to, and that the noble Earl did not leave his Colleagues in "another place" to an- swer the attacks made upon the Government.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) desired to make an explanation, which we all readily accept; but in the course of it he made a strong attack on our Colleagues. Now, the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) very unreasonably complains of what my noble Friend (Earl Granville) has said in reply. The noble Marquess used the right he possessed to make a strong attack on the Government, and surely we have right to make a reply? In these matters there must be surely some degree of equality. It is simply impossible that attacks of the kind delivered by the noble Marquess opposite at Hackney can be confined to one side of the House. It is very hard upon us and our Leader in this House if he may not make a reply, and if Lord Randolph Churchill occupies a position of so much importance, and is so greatly connected with this matter, my noble Friend is entirely justified in what he did. If there is one subject more than another in regard to which we should be careful in the language we use it is one which touches our Indian Empire.