Avam ve Lordlar Kamarasnda Trkiye ile ilgili Mzakereler (1833-1842)

Kaynak: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com

Haz. Hasip Saygl

2013 - stanbul

indekiler (linklendirilmitir)
RUSSIANS AT CONSTANTNOPLE. HC Deb 22 April 1833 ..................................................................3 RUSSIA AND TURKEY. HC Deb 11 July 1833 ......................................................................................4 RUSSIAN AND TURKSH TREATIES. HC Deb 17 March 1834 ............................................................ 12 RUSSIAN POLICY. HC Deb 19 February 1836 .................................................................................. 35 RUSSIA. HC Deb 14 December 1837 .............................................................................................. 65 RUSSIA. HC Deb 23 February 1838 ................................................................................................ 76 ADDRESSANSWER TO THE SPEECH. HC Deb 05 February 1839 ................................................... 78 TREATY WITH TURKEY. HL Deb 11 February 1839 ........................................................................ 132 CAPTURE OF ADEN. HL Deb 11 March 1839................................................................................. 133 THE SULTAN AND MEHEMET ALI. HL Deb 12 March 1839 ........................................................... 134 RUSSIA AND TURKEY. HC Deb 27 March 1839 ............................................................................. 136 TURKEY AND EGYPT. HL Deb 25 April 1839 .................................................................................. 138 TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 28 May 1839 .................................................................................. 139 THE EAST. HC Deb 09 July 1839 ................................................................................................... 140 TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 22 August 1839 .............................................................................. 141 COMMERCE WITH TURKEY. HC Deb 25 February 1840 ................................................................ 142 TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 27 March 1840 ............................................................................... 144 TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 04 May 1840 .................................................................................. 166 TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 01 June 1840 .................................................................................. 167 FOREIGN COMMERCAL POLICY. HC Deb 22 July 1840 ................................................................. 172 FRANCE AND EGYPT. HC Deb 06 August 1840 .............................................................................. 184 TURKEY, SYRIA, AND EGYPT. HC Deb 19 February 1841 ............................................................... 191 CHRISTIANS IN SYRIA. HC Deb 12 March 1841 ............................................................................. 192 TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 12 March 1841 ............................................................................... 194 SYRIA. HC Deb 06 April 1841 ....................................................................................................... 197 THE SYRIAN WAR. HC Deb 26 August 1841 .................................................................................. 198 SYRIA. HC Deb 20 September 1841.............................................................................................. 199 TURKSH COMMERCAL TREATY. HC Deb 11 February 1842 ......................................................... 204 SYRIA. HC Deb 11 February 1842 ................................................................................................. 205

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-Constantinople

RUSSIANS AT CONSTANTNOPLE. HC Deb 22 April 1833

vol 17 cc383-4383 Mr. Thomas Attwood

wished to ask a question relative to our foreign policy. It was well known, that for several years past Russia had coveted the possession of Constantinople. The public had heard a great number of alarming rumours during the last week which gave them reason to believe that Constantinople was already in the possession of the Russians. He wished 384 to have the happiness, therefore, to hear that steps had been taken by the Government to prevent a result which would be disastrous to the best interests of Europe, and inconsistent with the honour of England.
Lord Althorp

said, he knew nothing of Constantinople being in the possession of the Russians, and the negotiations on the subject alluded to were not in such a state that he could say anything on the subject. Indeed, it would be highly improper in him were he to take any means of gratifying the hon. Member.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-Turkey

RUSSIA AND TURKEY. HC Deb 11 July 1833

vol 19 cc570-83570 Mr. Henry L. Bulwer,

on being called on by the Speaker, said, that before he proceeded with the Motion of which he had given notice, he wished to ask whether any Government existed? *
Lord Althorp

who had just entered the House and taken his seat, replied, "Here we are."
Mr. Henry L. Bulwer

said, it did not follow because they were there, that they constituted a Government; but, as he presumed, from the noble Lord's answer, that he must consider them as yet in power, he would proceed with the Motion which he rose to bring forward. He begged in the first instance, to assure the noble Lord, that he made his Motion without any hostility to the Government, since he had never heard one word from the noble Lord in the House which did not do honour to his situation, and because from every opportunity he had had of knowing what the noble Lord had done out of the House, he believed, the conduct of the noble Lord to have been all that could be desired. But whatever confidence he had in Government, he thought that when such great events took place as those which threatened a complete change of the political relations of Europe, it could not, be supposed that this country viewed them with indifference, nor that the House was not anxious to be acquainted with the policy of the * In consequence of the Ministers having been defeated in the House of Lords on the Local Courts' Bill, various rumours had prevailed during the week of changes in the Administration. Hence Mr. Bulwer's question.571 Government directing its affairs. What he had to say, he should say in a very few words. In the first place, he did not consider that it was the intention of Russia to take present possession of Turkey. The destinies of nations were not changed by a coup de main. He looked upon its conduct merely as a proof and a developement of its plans, and not as their completion. By the Treaty of Adrianople, Russia with the same consummate policy which had ever directed her affairs, showed a generous abnegation of territorial acquisition in Turkey, in order that she might more widely and safely extend her moral power over that country. She made her agents, however, independent of the Turkish authorities, and even assumed the right of naming for a time the Turkish authorities themselves. The Sublime Porte was degraded in the eyes of its subjects, and the prestige which formerly hung around it was gone. This was all that Russia wanted. A government that depreciates itself cannot stand by itself, and its territories must soon become the province of another. The disgrace of the Porte naturally occasioned a variety of insurrections among its subjects; Mehemet Ali, of those subjects, was at first the most powerful, and afterwards the most formidable, and on the part of France was his revolt stimulated, as it was said by some of no contemptible nature. His army, at first forced to retreat, vanquished the brave but imprudent Hussein Pacha. The fate of the Sultan and of his capital depended on a battle which his general was likely to lose; and Russia offered herself at once as his protector and supporter, and was accepted. Admiral Roussin arrived at Constantinople, and engaged for the retreat of the Pacha on certain terms, which included the refusal of Russian assistance. To this
4

Russia refused her consent" you have asked for me, and you shall have me," she says; her troops marched accordingly on Constantinople. It was impossible not to admire the talent of a cabinet which actually compelled the Power it was determined to destroy, to receive it to its bosom as its best and its dearest friend. But he begged the House to observe, that in all these transactions of France on one side, and Russia on the other, we appeared as cyphers, and as far as the public knew anything, the whole fate of the East was about to be changed without our 572 knowing more of the matter than if we had been some petty German principality. But Russia excused herself, he understood, in this manner, and here it was that the House required a satisfactory explanation from the noble Lord. It was said, that some time previous to the Russian expedition, or consent of assistance, she informed us, and the Porte specially informed us, that events were taking place in Asia which would oblige the Porte to have recourse to foreign interference, and that we were asked by both parties to put a stop to Mehemet's progress, which a note from usa mere note from uswould have been able to do. That this note we delayed writing, and that thus Russia was forced to take the part she took. He mentioned this, in order that the noble Lord might explain the fact, or that the papers might be produced which would afford the explanation. The affair ended by Mehemet accepting the conditions the public were acquainted with, and the Russians, he presumed, were to withdraw from Constantinople, as the noble Lord said, or he would not otherwise surely have struck so strong upon the string of non-interference. Russia was to retire from Turkey; but what of that? If Russia retreated home, the mischief was done. Her moral ascendancy over Turkey was increasedit was for the increase of this moral ascendancy that she marched into Turkey. She meant, and wanted at this moment nothing more. Since 1776, Russia had extended herself over two-thirds of the coast of the Black Sea. Of the eleven millions of inhabitants in Turkey, three millions of Greeks and Armenians were attached to her yoke. By her commercial relations with different parts of the Continent, she had endeavoured to connect their interests with her, and by her power and magnificence, which with an oriental people had great sway, she had also endeavoured to obtain a strong hold over their imagination. Working with such materials and such means, she expected that if the Turkish empire dissolved, it would naturally fall into her possession, and with the consummate policy for which she was remarkable, she understood the art of waiting upon events, the termination of which she contented herself with calmly and deliberately preparing. Ultimately looking to the Dardanelles, her next step would probably be to get possession of Trebizond, which 573 would give a dpt for her military stores, and open an easy access to Persia or Turkey for her armies. This being the state of things, it seemed pretty clear, that if they were allowed to continue, with the immense power and concentrated designs of Russia, the weak and divided government of Turkey, that important part of the world, unless other influences interfered to prevent it, would necessarily fall under her sway. With these important changes before the House, to which he presumed the Government had cast the considerate eye of statesmen, the country, he thought, in a matter so important to its interests, might fairly claim to know the general outline of the policy of Ministers. This became a still more reasonable expectation, since the views of another party, rival candidates for power, were well known. A noble Lord, with whose general views he disagreed, but of whose character he entertained a high opinion, and whose kindness he had personally to acknowledge, had stated on a former occasion, that he did consider the diminution of Turkey for the aggrandisement of Russia an object of serious alarm to this country, which it would be his duty to prevent; some persons, however, were of a contrary opinion, and seemed rather to favour the idea of Russian dominion in the East as favourable to the general civilization, and to the happiness of the people of that part of the world. He acknowledged that, of all ideas, this seemed to him the most singular of any that ever entered the brain of any man acquainted with history. But as his opinions were briefly explained in an able and eloquent passage of a
5

pamphlet that had been written on the subject, he would read that passage to the House:" Yet is this to be effected by Russia, by a nation which itself has just emerged from obscurity, scarcely possessing a complete legislature, and not yet free from the fetters of Gothic vassalage. Would Turkey (if conquered) adopt the manners and embrace the religion of the conquerors? Without this can such a change be effected?will not a humane and beneficent modification of its own religion be more likely to improve its advantages? tinder the government of foreigners, to whom no allegiance is due but that of conquest, are we to expect the same coincidence in views, the same assistance in projects, as when national 574 prejudice, religion, and dutyin fine, all the principles on which Turkish government is founded, unite? Observe, the precepts of the Koran are the rules of legislation as well as of moral conduct. Would Russia be able to dissolve the fabric of a religion so pleasing and gratifying to the passions of eastern nations, after it has stood eleven centuries? If they could not do this, what could they do?" The writer was actually speaking of the proposed plan of Turkish civilization. The dominion of Russia had not, he believed, in general been favourable to the civilization or happiness of the conquered; but even if Turkey could be civilized and rendered more happy under the dominion of Russia, was that the case with the other nations to which the possession of Constantinople would only open the way? If a nation had one particular point to gain, a natural frontier, a peculiar river or mountain, for which it would be always ready to wage war, it might be a question whether it would not be sound policy to yield that point. But was that the case with Russia? Let the House look to any part of the world in which Russia had not manifested the same grasping desire to add to her possessionslet them look at the map, and see what she had taken in the north, the south, the east, and the west. What power had not suffered from her fatal neighbourhood? Half a century ago Russia was not half European, now Europe was half Russian. But the dominion of Russia had not, he believed, in general, been favourable to the civilization or happiness of the conquered. Even the Crimea from 1770 to 1790 decreased in population from 250,000 to 60,000a decrease of four-fifths in twenty years. He could conceive nothing more miserable than the lot of the Turks under the dominion of Russia. Shocked in every feeling, habit, and prejudice, and deeply imbued with the sentiment of predestination, revolts would be certain; the Russian punishments for revolts are known; and he thought humanity must pause before it would make even of Turkey another Poland. But it was not only by territorial increase that Russia had become formidable since the Treaty of Teschen, where she was first allowed to appear as a European power (a fault, said a diplomalist of the time, that it cost forty battles to efface). Since that period she had penetrated herself so deeply into the heart 575 of all European affairs, that there was nothing which could take place in the smallest and most distant nook of Europe in which she did not take an active and decisive part. Bold, where anything was to be gained by forcecrafty, where it was to be gained by intrigueshe took as much pains with her diplomacy as with her military force. Wherever an able man was to be obtained, she had rewards, and service, and distinctions at his disposal; wherever a secret was to be purchased, she had the money ready; whenever war was probable, her armies arrived at their destination before we were suspicious of their march. There was hardly a court in which she had not family alliances and secret agents. In Holland, in Portugal, in Spain, in all the states of Germany, and now in Turkey, her influence was predominant; uniform in her plans, she had never moved without an object, and, concentrated in her power, she never struck but with the whole force of her arm. Such was the Russia, which was slowly but steadily advancing towards Constantinople, and determined at no distant day to take possession of the Dardanelles, when all her energy, enterprise, and ambition would be directed to the extension of her maritime power. Such was the Russia, meditating upon which the greatest political and military genius of his age exclaimed, "Que l'Europe ait garde, ou en 50 ans, elle sera toute Cossacque." It was not such a Power as this that we could deceive by professions of
6

friendship, or turn aside from her course by courteous remonstrances. If we wished to stop herif we deemed it our policy to stop her while it was yet time, we must do so by employing the same language and maintaining the same bearing to her that she maintained to us. He would not insult or offend her, and he owned that the vote of the other night was, under all circumstances, a difficult one to decide upon; but, at the same time, he thought we should not shrink, or seem to shrink, from expressing an opinion fairly and openly upon her policy, and a determination to resist her further aggrandisement and aggressions. He thought we should not shrink from doing this, nor from averring that we did this; since, in spite of what might be said to the contrary, the great power of England on the Continent was a moral power, and she could influence the conduct of its sovereigns by influencing 576 the opinions of their subjects. For this reason, also, he asked for the papers for which he should conclude by moving; and it seemed to him more especially his duty at the present time; because, while he felt the more dread at the progress of Russiabecause, with her progress, her principles would advance alsohe found that there were princes who, for the sake of those principles which they imagined favourable to their personal interests, winked at an ambition which must be finally fatal to the independence of their subjects. No longer ago than last Christmas, it was pretty generally reported that Count Appony, the Austrian Ambassador at Paris, statedin speaking on the affairs of the Eastthat his Court had a greater apprehension of French principles than Russian ambition. Here, then, was a new hinge for politics. It was no longer the power of a state, but the opinions of a state, which were dreaded; and those opinions were the opinions of an enlightened country, with whom, on account of corresponding views and ideas, we had entered into alliance. Moreover, he found, that the enlightened opinions to which Russia was inimical, had been combated, and combated successfully over different parts of Europe. They were put down in Italy, in defiance of the most able and energetic remonstrances of Mr. Seymour. They were put down in Germany, in defiance of the most solemn promises and the most binding treaties. They were put down in Poland under circumstances which exalted every humane feeling, appealed to every political interest, and aroused every sense of national honour. They were yet combated secretly in Belgium, openly in Holland, and even the expedition against Mehemet Ali, who, though a powerful and enlightened prince, did not chance to be a legitimate sovereign, seemed founded upon the same policy; and we might learn at Vienna and at St. Petersburg, that armies were equally ready to start for any part of the world, for Rome or for Constantinople, as it might be necessary, to rivet the loosening chains of Papal or Mahometan despotism. He could not think, with these circumstances passing before his eyes, that it was the part of a great Minister and a great statesman to turn the attention of the people from events which might endanger their dearest rights, their national power and existence, 577 by a commonplace appeal to their pockets. It was the duty of a Government to curb, but not to put down the spirit of a nation to avoid war as long as it was possible, but to keep alive the hearts of the people for any emergency. Gentlemen talked of war as if it were a thing which always depended upon ourselves, and which we had to choose as we might happen to like it, or the reverse; it was a thing only to be forced upon us; but when we saw it inevitably coming, then we need not wait for the rest, but take the best opportunity of meeting it; and, though he agreed in thinking that war was a great calamity to any country, this he would say, that if there were any country which, under the present condition of the world, could hope to wage a prosperous and successful war, it was that country which was at once mistress of the seas and possessed of the sympathies of the civilized portion of man-kind. He used this language, not because he thought there was any necessity for us now to go to war, or that there need be such necessity. He knew, if such a necessity were to arise, the people would be ready to meet, it; and he did not wish foreigners, who did not understand us, to take that grumbling at our poverty, and our debt, which had always existed since the days of Marlborough to be perfectly and literally
7

true. The brave and gallant spirited people of England would shrink from no emergency in which their liberties and the liberties of Europe might require them to take a part. The burthens of the country had increased, but with the burthens of the country had also increased its resources; and though Russia had advanced from the Don to the Danube, from the Dneiper, to the Dneister, to the Pruth; though she had quartered herself in Moldavia and Wallachia, supplanted us in Holland, defied us in Germany and Poland, and entered, regardless of our diplomacy, the very gates of Constantinople, yet, notwithstanding, if Great Britain saw the necessity, or had the will, she never in a greater degree than at present, possessed the power to bid defiance to the armies and the principles of Russia. He hoped, therefore, we did not stand in disgraceful awe of a power which it would be equally as ridiculous to despise. He hoped that the noble Lord would explain frankly his views and feelings, such as would satisfy, both as to the course he might follow, and the policy he had pursued. 578 For his own part, he had only to hope, that, however warmly he might have alluded to our political relations, he had indulged in no unbecoming personal remarks, and, thanking the House for its attention, he concluded by moving for "an humble Address to his Majesty for Papers respecting the Measures pursued by Russia, in her late interference with the state of Turkey."
Viscount Palmerston

said, it was hardly necessary for him to state that he should consider it his duty to oppose the Motion, because the transactions to which the papers called for referred, were incomplete, and the character of the whole transaction would depend upon its termination. The papers asked for, related to the late interference of Russia with Turkey, and the part this country took with reference to that proceeding; and, as the results were not yet known, the House would at once perceive that the Motion of the hon. Member must be premature. The hon. Member had taken advantage of the Motion before the House, to express his opinion as to the general policy of his Majesty's Government with regard to Russia, and from the tendency of the hon. Gentleman's speech, he seemed to attach greater importance to the opportunity afforded him of declaring his sentiments on this subject, than to the production of the papers he moved for. There was always some inconvenience attending the entering into a detailed discussion on the conduct of the Government on foreign affairs, when the transactions to which it had reference were not, complete. The Ministers were, no doubt, responsible for their acts, but it was too much to expect that, while transactions were pending, Ministers should undertake to explain not only their own conduct, but the motives which influenced the conduct of others. It was probable that at the very time at which they were speaking the Russian troops had evacuated Turkey. The pledge to do so had been repeatedly and solemnly given, not only to this country, but to all the other Powers of Europe, and, it was certainly, premature to declare that Russia did not mean to keep her faith? The hon. Gentleman had urged it as an accusation against. Ministers that they had not interfered to defend the Sultan against Mehemet Ali, and prevent the advance of his army. He was not prepared to deny, that the 579 latter part of last year an application was made on the part of the Sultan to this country for assistance, but the Government was at that time not prepared to afford it; Ministers, in short, did not think it fit to afford assistance to the Porte at that particular juncture. No doubt if England had thought lit to interfere, the progress of the invading army would have been stopped, and the Russian troops would not have been called in; but although it was easy to say, after events had happened, that they were to be expected, yet certainly no one could anticipate the rapidity with which they had succeeded each other in the East. From this reply, and the subsequent rapid progress of the Egyptian armsa progress not to be anticipated from any preceding eventsthe Sultan felt himself called upon to apply for assistance to Russia, and from Russia he obtained it. The Russian government, in granting this aid to the Sultan, had pledged its honour, and in that
8

pledge be reposed the most implicit confidence, to limit its assistance to the defence alone of the Sultan, and had promised to withdraw whatever force might be placed at the disposal of that sovereign, for the purpose of securing his defence, as soon as peace was established between the Porte and Egypt. The hon. Gentleman would find in these observations an answer to his question, as to the policy of his Majesty's Government with regard to Russia and Turkey. The hon. Gentleman also asked would his Majesty's Government allow the conquest of Turkey by Russia. He had no hesitation in saying, that it was of the utmost importance for the interest of England, and for the maintenance of the peace of Europe, that the Ottoman empire should remain entire, and be an independent State. Whether the inhabitants of this large empire were Mohammedans or Christiansthough he wished they were Christians was not the question, for the subject must be dealt with in reference to political, and not to religious interests; but if Russian conquest should lead to the Christianizing and civilizing the inhabitants of that country, such advantagesand no one could estimate them higher than he didwould be counterbalanced by the consequences which would result to Europe from the dismemberment of the Turkish empire. Undoubtedly, then, his Majesty's Ministers would feel it to be their duty to resist any attempt on the part of Russia to partition 580 the Turkish empire; and they would equally have felt themselves at liberty to interfere, and prevent the Pacha of Egypt from dismembering any portion of the dominions of the Sultan. The integrity and independence of the Ottoman empire were necessary to the maintenance of the tranquillity, the liberty, and the balance of power in the rest of Europe. At the same time, he had great doubts that any intention to partition that empire at all entered into the policy of the Russian government. Besides, he very much doubted also whether the Russian nation properly so calledwould be prepared to see that transference of power, of residence, and authority to the southern provinces, which would be the necessary consequence of the conquest by Russia of Constantinople. Such an event, too, would lead to a general war in Europe, for other Powers were as much, if not more, interested than ourselves in preventing such aggrandizement of the power of Russia. He therefore, thought, that sound policy, good faith, and every consideration of its own interest would induce the Russian government to abandon such a course, if it ever had the inclination to pursue it. He could assure the hon. Gentleman, that the British Government felt that the maintenance of the peace of Europe was an object of the greatest importance; and, as far as the Government of this country was concerned, without minding the taunts thrown out as to their pacific policy, they would do their utmost to preserve the peace of Europe. His Majesty's Government had been taunted with being afraid to go to war, and had been accused of truckling to other Powers in consequence of this fear. These accusations he (Viscount Palmerston) distinctly denied. If the present relations established between this country and France were pointed at in these sneers, he would only say, that he should look back with feelings of pride and satisfaction at the part he had acted in bringing about that good understanding. No apprehension could be excited in any reasonable mind on this score, for the circumstances of this connexion, both in France and in this country were greatly altered during the period that the present. Ministry had conducted the political affairs of Great Britain. At the same time he repudiated the idea that England was afraid of Russia. There certainly existed many reasons on both 581 sides for the wish to avoid hostilities. Russia herself must wish for peace; she was a very large country, and immense commercial relations were established between her and this country. On what principle could she wish for war, or on what principle could those, who in this country were so loudly calling on the British Government to draw the sword, justify the appeal to arms at the present moment? Did they contemplate the calamities, the fatal and disastrous consequences, attendant upon a state of general warfareconsequences in which the conquerors, no less than the conquered, shared? The taunt of being afraid of war in any sense but this was puerile; for no country on the face of the globe was likely to suffer less than England from war. From
9

all the unexampled sacrifices this country made during the last war with France, her internal resources and energies were such, she had recovered and repaired her means far sooner than any of the other nations which had been engaged in those hostilities. He had thus stated, to satisfy either the curiosity, or the anxiety, of the hon. Member, what had been the conduct of his Majesty's Government, and upon what principles they had proceeded. They had pursued the course which their duty to their country required; and if they had quietly beheld the temporary occupation of the Turkish capital by the forces of Russia, it was because they had full confidence in the honour and good faith of Russia, and believed that those troops would be withdrawn in a very short time, he believed he might almost say, before a few days had elapsed. On the ground of public convenience, therefore, and of the confidence he had in the fulfilment of her engagements by Russia, he thought the present Motion ought not to be agreed to.
Mr. Cullar Fergusson

declared, that he reposed no confidence in the pledges of Russia, and believed she would continue to violate them on every occasion, as she had already violated them, when it was her interest to do so. Had she not pledged herself to maintain the Constitution of Poland, pledged herself by Treaties, and had she not broken through them all? He would not trust her; for he was of opinion, that if she now retired from Turkey, it would only be for the purpose of rendering her return more easy, and her prey more sure. Such was her honesty 582 in his estimation. He agreed with the noble Lord in his commendation of the present friendly relations between this country and France, and thought the interests of every free nation in Europe dependent on the continuance of that good understanding, for he was convinced a conspiracy was in operation against the free institutions of Europe, and that Russia, who was at the head of this conspiracy, would never rest satisfied until she had subjugated every country within her reach. When Poland was crushed, the thraldom of the German States, and afterwards of this country, was contemplated by that overbearing Power. The noble Viscount had informed the House, that the Government had remonstrated with Russia on the subject of her treatment of the Poles. But why did he, then, prevent the House of Commons from associating itself in that remonstrance? The discussion which took place on the subject the other night, would, however, go forth to Europe, and show what sentiments were entertained by the British Legislature of the conduct, of Russia towards Poland. With reference to the Motion he acquiesced in the statement of the noble Lord, that it would be improper to produce the papers till the negotiations were entirely at an end.
Colonel Evans

thought it, right on the part of his Majesty's Ministers to resist the taunts which had been thrown out against certain parts of their public conduct, but at the same time he could not help expressing his surprise at the confidence which the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) seemed to place in the good faith of Russia. If they were to judge by its former acts, he would say, that there existed no grounds for such confidence, and that it was utterly unfounded; nay more, was altogether disproved by her conduct, not only towards Poland, but towards Turkey. With regard to Poland, she had been guilty of twenty years of infidelity and breach of faith; and with respect to Turkey, her conduct had been marked by want of faith and honesty. He was not anxious to see this country plunged into war, but he felt that if we, with France, had interfered immediately after the battle of the Pruth, we should have been right: but we allowed this opportunity to escape, and three months after the Russians had entered the Turkish territory as protectors, they declared that they had claims of their own, independent of the 583
10

other Powers, which they were determined should be satisfied. The same conduct pursued by us in India, and by the Spaniards in South America, for increasing their territories was now about to be resorted to by Russia with respect to the States by which her territories were surrounded. The gallant Officer referred to the Treaty which existed between this country, France, and Russia, with respect to Turkey, and said that Treaty had been violated by the Russians. When the question of the conduct of Russia had been broached on a former occasion, the answer of Ministers was then, as now, that their noninterference was grounded on the fear of a war. But when the Russians had reached Adrianople, then the fear of war appeared to have ceased, and the English and French Governments gent fleets up the Dardanelles to check the progress of the Russians. There was no Power in Europe greater than England, and no opponent whom we had less reason to fear, great as was its power, than Russia; and if any such fear ever did exist, it must be done away with by the Reform which had taken place both in France and in this country, and the consequent amicable alliance between the two countries. He hoped his Majesty's Ministers would not place reliance on the faith of Russia, and, above all, that they would prevent the continued occupation of the Turkish capital by that overgrown Power. He hoped that the very fact of this occupation would be a lesson both to England and France, and induce them to take the necessary measures to preserve Turkey as an independent State. He wished to state, that he agreed with the general policy of his Majesty's Ministers, notwithstanding their conduct towards Poland, and that he wished to see a little more vigour thrown into their measures, and he felt sure that, in the event of our being obliged to go to war, they would not be found unprepared for the occasion.
Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwer,

in reply, said, that after what had fallen from the noble Viscount, he would not press his Motion. He was satisfied with the expression of opinion which had taken place, and would, with the leave of the House, withdraw the Motion.

11

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-Turkish-treaties

RUSSIAN AND TURKSH TREATIES. HC Deb 17 March 1834

vol 22 cc306-49306 Mr. Sheil

, in rising to bring this matter before the attention of the House, observed, that having agreed on a former occasion to postpone his Motion in consequence of the pressure of other business, he considered himself so much the more entitled to attention at present, particularly as no other business pressed before the Easter recess. If it should be asked why he had introduced a subject so important to the attention of the House, his answer would be that, before he exercised the right vested in every Member of that House, he had taken care to make himself acquainted with it. He should at once proceed, without any preliminary observation, to the statement of the facts, incidents, and documents, on which he should ground his Motion. In the autumn of 1831, Ibrahim Pacha marched into Syria; on the 3rd of December in that year, Acre was besieged; it fell in May 1832. Ibrahim Pacha advanced to Damascus, which was taken on the 14th of June. On the 7th of July, the fate of Syria was decided by the battle at Homs. It was easy to foresee these successes, and to anticipate the victory of Egyptian discipline over Turkish disorganization. Was it not most strange that at this period we had no Ambassador at Constantinople? There was no Ambassador from the English or French Governments. General Guilleminot had been French Ambassador during the Polish war; but, in consequence of his interference in urging the Porte to take advantage of that crisis, he was removed by Sebastiani, at the instance of Count Pozzo di Borgo. Turkey applied to England in this emergency for aid. This most important fact had been admitted by the noble Lord in that House. That assistance was refused. Even Russia concurred in recommending, that succour should be afforded. Russia calculated, of course, on the refusal. Naval aid was all that was asked. It was obvious that it would have been sufficient to deter Ibrahim from advancing. He marched on, and forced 308 the passes of the Taurus. On the 21st of December, the battle of Koniah was fought, and the last Turkish army was annihilated. The moment for Russian interposition and the triumph of its crafty policy was now arrived. The emperor Nicholas, after England had refused her assistance, had sent General Mauravieff to Constantinople, with a letter, written in the language of fraternal endearment, to the Sultan, offering fleets and troops. This proposition was not at first acceded to, but on the 2nd of February, 1833, he applied for this sinister aid. As yet there was no English or French Ambassador in Constantinople. Lord Ponsonby, who had been appointed in November, did not arrive until the succeeding May. Admiral Roussin reached Constantinople on the 17th of February; on the 19th, he remonstrated (which England never did) on the occupation of Turkey by Russian troops. The Turkish government was struck with the force of his representationsbut on the very next day the Russian fleet arrived in the Bosphorus. Admiral Roussin employed his best efforts to induce Ibrahim to sign a treaty, but he was counteracted by Russia, of which there could be little question. The French Ambassador was alone. Had he been sustained by Lord Ponsonby and an English fleet, much might have been effected; but Russian diplomacy, sustained by 20,000 troops, prevailed. The Russian army disembarked on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, Admiral Roussin was foiled, and to Russian interposition the Sultan declared that he owed the salvation of his empire. In May, Lord Ponsonby reached Constantinople. What he could have done, had he arrived at an earlier period, was obvious; what he actually did was equally evident. Count Orloff arrived as well as Lord Ponsonby, and the result was a consummation of the plot which had been darkly and deeply laid. From the Divan let them turn for a moment to St. Stephen's Chapel. On the 11th of July, the hon. member for Coventry
12

had moved "for copies of papers respecting the measures pursued by Russia, in her late interference with the state of Turkey." On that occasion the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) made some most important statements. The noble Lord resisted the Motion, because the transactions to which the papers related were incomplete, and their character must depend on their termination. He admitted, 309 that aid had been asked of England by the Porte, and refused, and that if England had thought proper to interfere, the progress of the invading army would have been stopped, and the Russian troops would not have been called in. The aid granted by Russia was merely to repress Mehemet Ali. The integrity of the Ottoman empire should be maintained. The noble Lord said, "The taunt, of the Government being afraid of war is puerile, and I defy any man to show, that we have made any sacrifice of the honour or interests of the country for the sake of maintaining peace." He (Mr. Sheil) would not interrupt the order of the statement here by any commentary on this intrepid and chivalrous declaration, but would content himself with whispering "Poland" in the car of the noble Lord. The noble Lord concluded by saving, "that he had no doubt that Russia would honourably withdraw her troops, as soon as peace should be established, and fulfil the pledges which she had made in the face of Europe." The 11th of July was the day on which this speech was delivered. How little did the noble Lord conjecture, that only three days before, on the 8th of July, a Treaty had been clandestinely signed at Constantinople between the Sultan and Count Orloff, who, while he appeared to be engaged in the reviews, shows, and illuminations of the seraglio, was secretly and silently conducting the Sultan to the ruin which had been prepared for him. Of this treaty our Government knew and heard nothing until it was announced in the Morning Herald of the 21st of August. On the 21st of August a letter from the private correspondent of that Journal appeared, in which it was stated that, "while Count Orloff was apparently complying with the wishes of France and England, he was preparing a stroke which only became known the day after his departure, which has since covered the Ambassadors of those countries with confusion, and has placed Turkey in the bug of the bear. He prevailed on the Sultan to sign a treaty, offensive and defensive, by which Turkey is bound not to make any treaty or call for assistance from any other nation for ten years. One of the articles confirms all prior treaties, in particular that of Adrianople; another binds Russia to furnish every assistance necessary to protect her from internal and external enemies; and the third, interdicts her from resorting 310 to any other European power for ten years." The writer adds, that the other articles of the treaty were unknown; that the treaty was clandestinely concluded; that Lord Ponsonby and Admiral Roussin remonstrated, and were told that assistance had been asked in vain from England and France against Egypt, and that they had left the Porte no alternative; and that the Ambassadors had despatched couriers to their Courts for instructions. The writer said nothing with regard to the Dardanelles. This letter was, as he had said, published August 21, 1833, in London. On the 24th of that month, the gallant member for Westminster introduced the subject to the notice of the House. He asked whether the Russian troops had entered Turkey with the consent of France and England. He adverted to the fortifications of the Dardanelles, under the superintendence of Russian engineers, and added that it was rumoured that a treaty, offensive and defensive, had been entered into between the Sultan and Count Orloff, without the intervention or knowledge of the other Ambassadors. The hon. member for Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) referred to the letter in the Morning Herald, and trusted, that the noble Lord would not allow the House to receive its information from the newspapers, but would give it in the usual manner. The hon. Member trusted, that before the prorogation of the House, or on the earliest occasion, the noble Lord would lay before the House, not merely the treaty, but the communications connected with it. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to contradict rumours of a treaty so injurious to the honour and interests of England. The noble Lord replied that a treaty had been signed; that it had not yet been officially communicated; that he knew nothing, except on vague rumour, at that time, of what
13

the treaty contained. He said, that England had not objected to the entry of the Russian troops into Turkey, and that the Porte had, in the autumn of 1832, applied to England for assistance, but that the application was refused. On the 29th August, five days after, his Majesty's Speech on the prorogation of Parliament was delivered, and contained the following passage:"The hostilities which had disturbed the peace of Turkey have been terminated; mid you may be assured that every attention will be carefully directed to any events which may 311 affect the present state, or the future independence of that empire." From the King's Speech he should pass to a very momentous communication made by France to Russia, in the following October. The interests or France and England were bound up together in the whole question, but more especially with respect to the passage of the Dardanelles, as by the Treaty of Paris in 1802, the rights of France and of England were placed upon precisely the same footing. In October last Monsieur Le Grenee addressed the following note to Count Nesselrode:"The undersigned Charg d'Affaires of his Majesty the King of the French, has received orders to express to the Cabinet of St. Petersburg, the profound affliction felt by the French Government, on learning the conclusion of the Treaty of the 8th July last, between his Majesty the Emperor of Russia and the Grand Signior. In the opinion of the King's Government, this Treaty assigns to the mutual relations existing between the Ottoman empire and Russia, a new character against which the powers of Europe have a right to protest." To this note, Count Nesselrode replied, in the following offensive and almost contumelious language:"It is true, that this act changes the nature of the relations between Russia and the Porte, for in the room of long-continued hostilities, it substitutes that friendship and that confidence, in which the Turkish Government will henceforth find a guarantee for its stability and necessary means of defence, calculated to insure its preservation. In this conviction, and guided by the purest and most disinterested intentions, his Majesty the Emperor is resolved, in case of necessity, to discharge faithfully the obligations imposed on him, by the Treaty of the 8th of July, thus acting as if the declaration contained in the note of Monsieur La Grenee had no existence.St. Petersburg, Oct. 1833." This note was taken from the Augsburg Gazette, to which it purported to have been transmitted in a letter from Paris on the 23rd of December. Here let one remark be made, which would not break in on the distinct classification of facts. If the French Government remonstrated, it was to be presumed that the noble Lord did not remain silent. Where was his correspondence? Was a note as affronting written in reply, or was it even couched 312 in more caustic phraseology, and in the same style of contemptuous repudiation as the article in the St. Petersburg Gazette on the presumption of our interference in the affairs of Poland? To return to dates and facts, on the 1st of January, Count Pozzo di Borgo addressed the King of the French, and on that occasion the accomplished Corsican pronounced on Louis Philip an eulogium, accompanied with protestations, characteristic of both, of the party who indulged in, and the party who was graciously pleased to accept, the hollow panegyric. Six days after, in bringing up the address, M. Bignon delivered a speech, which was received with equal surprise and acclamation. He denounced the conduct of Russia towards Poland, and held out the aggressions upon Turkey as indicative of that deep and settled purpose, of which he had, in his official capacity, a perfect cognizance. In 1807, he said, Alexander had tendered all Southern Europe to Napoleon, provided he got Constantinople in exchange. He warned France to beware of the advances of Russian power in the East, and denounced, while he revealed her policy; and invoked his countrymen to awaken to a sense of the insults offered to the dignity of France, and the violation offered to her rights. To this speech the Duke de Broglie made an answer conspicuous in itself, and which his subsequent conduct rendered still more remarkable. He expressed his unqualified concurrence in all that had been said, and thanked M. Bignon for having given expression to the sentiments which he and his colleagues entertained. On the very next day, this very Duke de Broglie went down to the Chamber, and made a speech which was received with
14

astonishment by both countries. He contended, that no violation of treaty had taken place, expressed satisfaction with Russian policy, and stated, that there had been no material alteration made respecting the passage of the Dardanelles. M. Thiers, in reply to M. Mauguin, said nearly the same thing, and although M. La Grenee's note was yet fresh in every memory, and the Duke of Broglie's approval of Bignon's speech was ringing in every ear, expressed no sort or discontent at any one of the incidents which had taken place. M. Thiers, however, incidentally acknowledged, that it was a part of the treaty, that all vessels 313 of powers at war with Russia, should be excluded from the passage of the Dardanelles. Our own Parliament did not meet until the 5th of February, but before it assembled, an incident occurred which remained to be explained. The French and English fleets united proceeded to the Dardanelles, which Russia had spared no expense to fortify, and having displayed the tricoloured and "the national flag of England," as it had been nobly called, near the spot where Sir George Duckworth, when Lord Grey was Secretary for Foreign Affairs, expended a good deal of powder without much avail, both fleets sailed away, and instead of proceeding to Smyrna, gave preference to a more distant, but less commodious harbour, where, however, Russian influence was not quite so predominant as in that celebrated haven. The glory of this expedition belonged to the First Lord of the Admiralty, but it was to be conjectured that the achievement was suggested by the genius of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. But in what did it result? That remained to be told, and for the satisfaction of that curiosity he that night afforded an opportunity. Parliament met on the 5th. The King's Speech informed them that the integrity of the Porte was, for the future, to be preserved (the Sultan having been first stripped, and then manacled), and that his Majesty continued to receive assurances which did not disturb his confidence that peace would be preserved. The Duke of Wellington, in another place, adverted to the Treaty of Constantinople, and Lord Grey retorted Adrianople upon his Grace But, in the Treaty of Adrianople, there was, at all events, nothing that infringed upon our rights, as to the navigation of the Black Sea; and it was to be recollected that, whatever the First Lord of the Treasury might have said, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs declared that, "while he desired peace, of war he was not in the least afraid." In that House no interrogatories were put. On the 24th of February, the following paragraph appeared in the Globe, which, from its being the supposed organ of Government, deserved great attention, the more especially as they were left to the newspapers for their intelligence. That article stated:"Another treaty between Russia and Turkey has been concluded at St. Petersburgh, which was signed by Achmet Pacha, on the 29th of last month. 314 Enough has transpired to satisfy the most jealous that its spirit is pacific, and, indeed, advantageous to the Turkish empire. The Porte is relieved from the pressure of the engagements imposed on her at Adrianople; and we understand that the Principalities, with the exception of Silistria, will shortly be evacuated, and the sum exacted by the former treaty reduced one-third. Such relaxations of positive engagements are proof's either of the moderation and good sense of Russia, or of the influence which the union of England and France, and the firm and concerted language of those two Powers, have acquired in the Councils of St. Petersburgh." Was it not reasonable that this treaty should be laid before the House? It was to be observed, that, in any account of it, either in our journals, or in the Allgemeine Zeitung, not one word was said of the passage of the Dardanelles. The Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, indeed, were to be evacuated. That circumstance was a mere delusion, for Wallachia and Moldavia were as much dependencies on Russia as if they had actually been transferred. Their Hospodars were virtually nominated by Russia; no Turk could reside in the country; and every appointment down to that of the humblest officer, was effected through Russian dictation. Silistria was retained, the key of the Lower Danube, commanding all Bulgaria, and a place so important that the Greek emperors constructed a wall there to protect their frontier, and guard against the incursions of the barbarians. As to the remission of money, that concession was made to
15

an insolvent debtor; it was not the first time that Russia adopted the same course; the payment of a tribute was of little moment from a country which was almost incorporated in her dominions, and would soon meet the fate of so many of the Turkish provinces. But how did this treaty modify or effect that of the 8th of July? It did not at all relate to it. It concerned the Treaty of Adrianople, and, as far as they had nothing else on this question, the House was entitled to receive adequate information from the Government. With respect to the Dardanelles,a matter of signal importance to England, affecting her commerce, affecting not only the navigation of the Euxine, but giving Russia a control over Greece, and the entire Archipelago,it might be as well to states, 315 with brevity, the treaties that existed between England and Turkey, and those that existed between Russia and Turkey, previous to that regarding which information was demanded. By the Treaty of 1675, concluded by Sir John Finch, the navigation of all the Turkish seas was secured to England. In 1809, a little time after our rupture with the Porte produced by the attack on the Dardanelles, a new treaty was executed, by which the passage of the Dardanelles and the canal of Constantinople was secured to England. The 11th article provided, that, in time of peace, no ship of war should pass, no matter to what country it might belong. In 1774, by the Treaty of Kaynadgi, the passage of the Dardanelles was first secured to Russian merchant-vessels. In 1780 a quarrel took place respecting an armed vessel. In 1783 a new treaty was entered into, and another in 1792 (that treaty by which the Crimea, just like Greece, was declared independent, and then absorbed in Russian domination), and by both treaties the passage was secured to merchant vessels only. In 1800, Russia having obtained the protectorship of the Ionian Islands (their importance we felt in 1815, not so much because we desired to acquire, as to take them from a Power that aimed at predominance in the Mediterranean), entered into a treaty securing the passage of the Dardanelles to the merchant-vessels of those islands. In 1812, the Treaty of Bucharest was signed, by which Bessarabia was given up to Russia, and all former treaties respecting the Dardanelles were confirmed. In 1829, the Treaty of Adrianople was signed, and, with respect to the Dardanelles, contained the following passage:"7th Article. The Sublime Porte declares the passage of the Canal of Constantinople completely free and open to Russian merchant-vessels under merchant flags, from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, and from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea; upon the same principle the passage is declared free and open to all merchant-vessels belonging to Powers at peace with the Porte. The Porte declares that, under no pretence whatsoever, will it throw any obstacle in the way of the exercise of this right, and engages, above all, never hereafter to stop or detain vessels, either with cargo or in ballast, whether Russian or belonging to nations with which the Porte shall not be in a state of declared war. In the mani- 316 festo published by the Emperor Nicholas on the 1st of October, 1829, he said:"The passage of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus is henceforth free and open to the commerce of all the nations of the world." Thus the stipulation was, that all nations at peace (not, be it observed, with Russia, but with the Porte), should enjoy the right of unimpeded passage; but that had been effected by the treaty of the 8th of July? Would it be said that nothing was accomplished by it? If so, why was it signed without the knowledge of our Ambassador, and in a clandestine and surreptitious way? What were its provisions? Did the public Journals give a just account of it? Was it true, that it provided that no vessels belonging to a power at war with Russia should enjoy the right? If so, the alteration was palpable; and if there were no express declaration to this effect, let there be an alliance offensive and defensive, and the Porte was bound to consider every enemy of Russia as its own; the consequence was precisely the same as if the Porte surrendered to Russia the possession of the Dardanelles, and the last of the Sultans was the first satrap of Nicholas the Great. There did not appear to be any sound reason for withholding this treaty. It had been the subject of remonstrance by France, of debate in the French Chamber, of diversified commentary in the public journals. Why withhold it? There would be a strange
16

inconsistency in publishing all the enormous answers to protocols respecting Belgium, where the transaction was as yet incomplete, and in refusing to furnish anything but materials for surmise on this treaty. Ponderous folios of fruitless negociations on the affairs of Belgium had been given to the world. Let the Government act upon the principle adopted in that case, and give the English people the means of forming a judgment, of the policy which his Majesty's Ministers had adopted in a question where the national honour and interest were so deeply involved. It might be said"Trust in the Minister, be sure that he will not desert his duty, or acquiesce in any measure incompatible with the honour of England." He (Mr. Sheil) would be disposed to do so when he took into account that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was a political proselyte of Mr. Canning, who considered the interests and the honour of England as closely blended; and although the noble 317 Lord might have abandoned the opinions on domestic policy which were entertained by Mr. Canning when he was in the wrong, it was to be presumed that he adhered with a closer tenacity to those opinions in foreign policy where Mr. Canning was in the right. But this ground of confidence in the noble Lord was modified, if not countervailed, by the recollection, that in many recent transactions he had been baffled by that power which had gathered all the profligate nobility of Europe together, in order to compound a cabinet of Machievellian mercenaries to maintain the cause of slavery through the world. Look at Belgiumlook at the Russian-Dutch loan! The noble Lord, although guided by the prince of Benevento, had lost his way in the labyrinth which Russia had prepared for him and Poland. "We shall," he exclaimed, "remonstrate." Well, we did remonstrate, and despatched Lord Durham to St. Petersburgh (why was not Sir Stratford Canning there?) and what had been the result? If confidence was to be entertained in the noble Lord, it must be built on some firmer basis than his maintaining of the Treaty of Vienna. Instead of calling on the people of England to confide in him, let him build his confidence in the English people. They were fond of peace, but they were not afraid of war; and when the honour and dignity of England were to be maintained, he would find in them sympathy, and generous auxiliaries. Our fleet could blow the Russian navy from the seas; England was yet a match for the Northern Autocrat; and there was might enough left in her arm to lay low the colossus by which the Hellespont was bestrid. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving an Address to his Majesty, "that he would be graciously pleased to direct that copies of any treaties between Turkey and Russia, since the year 1833, and of any correspondence between the English, Russian, and Turkish Governments, respecting those treaties, be laid before the House."
Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwer

seconded the Motion, and trusted that the House would insist upon the production of papers, which, if they were what they ought to be, would give the House and the nation at large that important and interesting information which was so much wanted. He did not altogether, in considering this question, lay so much stress upon the 318 different treaties which had been mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman in his eloquent speech, because he looked upon treaties rather as declarations by the powers making them, of what they considered their respective interests for the time being, than any binding obligation. What he would lay stress upon, and what this country at large, as well as other countries laid stress upon, were the alarming practical demonstrations made by Russia in her inroads into Turkey, and all her subsequent proceedings. The Motion was not to be considered as a case of mere curiosity, or a desire to pry into the unimportant details of Ministerial policy; it was a case in which the House, as the Representatives of a people most particularly anxious on the point, were not only entitled, but were imperatively called upon, to have a clear explanation of the course of policy acted upon by the Government, and the grounds on which that policy had been
17

adopted: the question was one of the highest importance and interest to all Europe, and ought to be clearly understood in all its bearings. As far as the people at present understood of the policy of Government in this particular, that policy was disapproved of, and it was therefore desirable that Ministers, in their own vindication, should explain themselves. It might possibly appear that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had been overreached by the deep diplomacy of the Russian court; but at present he was generally blamed for not having followed one of two courseseither that of leaving the Sultan and the Pacha to settle their disputes by themselves, by abstaining from interference between them, and preventing other Powers from interfering; or that of interfering in the open, decided, and influential manner which became the power and dignity of the British empire. Neither of these courses had been pursued, and the country was therefore very naturally anxious and entitled to have an explanation of the matter.
Viscount Palmerston

, in replying to the speech of the hon. and learned member for Tipperary, did certainly not mean to complain of the manner in which he had brought this subject before the House; because nothing could be more good-humoured. The hon. and learned Member said, that as the House had got through most of the Estimates, and as there was nothing particular to do before the Easter 319 recess, they might as well amuse themselves by talking a little about foreign affairs; and, therefore, if the House would listen to him, he would make (as the hon. and learned Member certainly did) an eloquent and very entertaining speech about Russia and Turkey, and all the other Powers interested in the transactions that had lately taken place between those two countries. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that, in moving for these papers, he intended to throw no blame upon his Majesty's Ministers; but nevertheless, he should not feel it consistent with his duty to agree to the Motionnot even to that part of it which called for the Convention of July, and which was not included in the original notice, but which the hon. and learned Gentleman had since added; because he felt, and he was sure the House would admit the force of the observation, that if the state of the transactions to which the Motion related, were such as to make it consistent with the public service that the treaty for which the hon. and learned Gentleman called should be laid before Parliament, it would also be proper and consistent that other papers should be produced at the same time, for the purpose of explaining the transactions which gave rise to the treaty, and the bearing and effect of that treaty upon all the parties interested. But, in the present state of these transactions, he felt that it would not be consistent with the interests of the public service to lay those papers before the House. When a Minister stated that upon his responsibility, he required from the House that it would place confidence in him, and would not press for the production of papers which he, in the exercise of his judgment, thought it necessary to withhold. He fully admitted, that to resist the production of papers upon a subject of this kind, was to appeal, in a strong and pointed manner, to the confidence of the House; but, upon the present occasion, he hoped that the House would refuse to accede to the Motion. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not laid any sufficiently strong parliamentary grounds upon which to induce the House to concur in it. A Gentleman who, upon occasions like the present, moved for the production of papers, ought to show that there was a strong prima facie case of blame resting upon the Government; and that, for the vindication of the honour and dignity of the country, it was necessary that the pa- 320 pers moved for should be produced. He had listened with great attention to the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, but he confessed, that he could scarcely perceive any points upon which the hon. and learned Member even attempted to throw on the Government any degree of blame for the course it had pursued. The hon. and learned Member laid most stress upon the refusal of the British Government to give to the
18

Sultan that aid which was asked for towards the close of the year 1832. Upon that point it would be very easy to satisfy the House that no blame was imputable to the Government. The transactions between Mehemet Ali and the Sultan commenced, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, in October, 1831; and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had also very correctly stated, the decisive action between the troops at Koniah did not take place till December, 1832. Now, it was not usual for this country to be ready to interfere in contests between sovereigns and their subjects; and, although the Pacha of Egypt was unquestionably a very powerful subject, approaching, in many respects, to the situation of an independent ruler of a country, yet he was the subject of the Sultan, and, as such, must be considered by the Government of this country. The very circumstances which the hon. and teamed Gentleman alluded to, namely, the early period at which the contest began, and the length of its duration, proved that, till near its conclusion, it did not assume a character so different from that of the usual contests between the governors of provinces and the Sultan, as to lead to the supposition that the result would be very different from the usual results of those contests. The whole history of the Turkish Empire was full of successive revolts of powerful vassals against the Sultansometimes with success at the first on the one sidesometimes on the other; but almost invariably ending in the reassertion of the authority of the Sultan. It, therefore, would have required some strong reason to have induced the Government of England to interfere, by force of arms, in the contest between the Sultan and his rebellious subject, the Pacha of Egypt. Assistance was at length asked by the Porte in November, 1832, but the decisive battle of Koniah took place so soon afterwords, namely, in December following, that, from want of time, no interference 321 could have been exercised, on the part of this country, early enough to have prevented that catastrophe. [Mr. Sheil: Assistance was asked in October, 1832.] Not till the 3rd of November. M. Maurojeni, the first official bearer of the application of the Sultan, did not arrive in London till the 3rd of November, 1832. Even if the British Government had been prepared, at that moment, to despatch a fleet to succour the Sultan, and obviously a naval force was the only one which this country could send, it would not have arrived in time to have prevented the decisive battle of Koniah. But the House would recollect, that we were then engaged in other operations, which occupied the whole of our naval force on the peace establishment. Some hon. Members who did not approve of the proceedings against Holland, might say, that they were no satisfactory reason why we had not a fleet in the Mediterranean. But he considered it sufficient to say, that a naval force was required for the operations in relation to Holland, and that another part of our fleet was engaged in the Tagus; and, unless Ministers had asked Parliament for additional supplies, to send a third squadron to the Mediterranean, it would not have been possible to have found, at that time, a sufficient number of ships for that service. But, although his Majesty's Government did not comply with that demand of the Sultan for naval assistance, yet the moral assistance of England was afforded; and the communications made by the British Government to the Pacha of Egypt, and to Ibrahim Pacha, commanding in Asia Minor, did materially contribute to bring about that arrangement between the Sultan and the Pacha, by which the war was terminated. The House must not suppose, therefore, because the British Government did not yield that particular kind of assistance which the Turkish Government required, that it remained an indifferent spectator of the danger to which the throne of the Sultan was exposed, and took no steps to bring about a pacification between the Sultan and his vassal. If he understood the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he said, that because Great Britain did not grant any assistance, the Sultan was compelled to have recourse to Russia for aid, and that we had no right to complain of Russia for having enabled the Sultan to save himself from the danger with which he was 322 threatened. Great Britain never complained of Russia granting that assistance. He had stated, on a former occasion, when he was interrogated on that point, that Great Britain did not complain of the assistance which Russia
19

had afforded to Turkey, but, on the contrary, was glad that Turkey had been able to obtain effectual relief from any quarter; and he had stated, that our Government reposed perfect confidence in the assurances it had received from the Russian Government, that when the force so sent had effected the object for which it was despatchednamely, the defence of the Sultan and his capitalit would retire to the Russian dominions. In that confidence Ministers were not deceived; that force did retire; and, therefore, not only were they justified in not remonstrating against the aid given by Russia to Turkey, but they were fully borne out in their belief, that when that defence had been effected, the troops so sent would be withdrawn. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that from the year 1831 down to the month of May, 1833, there was no British Ambassador resident at Constantinople. The hon. and learned Gentleman was entirely mistaken. Sir Stratford Canning went, to Constantinople in the beginning of the year 1832; he went on a special mission to make an arrangement for obtaining an improved frontier for Greece. In that mission he succeeded; he obtained for Greece a most excellent frontier on the continental side, and having conluded that negotiation at the end of August, he quitted Constantinople in the beginning of September, 1832. From the early part of the year 1832, therefore, up to the beginning of September in that year, a British Ambassador was at Constantinople. As soon as Sir Stratford Canning had left Constantinople, or very soon afterwards, Lord Ponsonby, who was then Minister at Naples, was appointed to succeed him at Constantinople. The notification reached him in November, and the only circumstances which prevented him getting to Constantinople until the end of May, were the difficulties experienced in making the necessary arrangements for his conveyance, and the unfavourable state of the weather. Lord Ponsonby, moreover as Ambassador at Naples, was there engaged in transactions of considerable importance; but, if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought, that be- 323 cause Lord Ponsonby was at Naples, therefore the country was wholly unrepresented at Constantinople, he was mistaken. We had there a Secretary of Embassy; and he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House, that British interests did not suffer in any degree, in consequence of there being no person at Constantinople during that period, bearing the rank of Ambassador. The hon. and learned Gentleman had failed, therefore, to establish any ground of complaint against the Government for not having given the Sultan that naval assistance which was asked for in the beginning of November. Even if the fleet had been sentif it had sailed from the ports of England immediatelythat fleet could not have arrived before the battle of Koniah, nor could it by its presence have prevented that battle. [Mr. Sheil: The battle was in July.] The battle of Homs was in July; but the application did not arrive until the November following. Surely, the hon. and learned Gentleman would not argue, that by complying with the request made in November, we could have prevented the occurrence of an event which took place in the preceding July? The hon. and learned Gentleman afterwards proceeded to the treaty which was concluded at about the time when the Russian troops retired from Constantinople. [Mr. Sheil: The Treaty of the 8th of July.] Yes; the Treaty of the 8th July. When questions were put to him relative to that Treaty, in the months of July and August of last year, he had no official knowledge of it, because it was not communicated by either of the parties until after it was ratified; and the ratification was not to take place until two months after its signature. The hon. and learned Gentleman would therefore see that it was perfectly impossible that a treaty not to be ratified at Constantinople until the month of September could be officially known to him in August. The hon. and learned Gentleman had inquired whether the British Government approved of that treaty, or looked upon it with satisfaction? Certainly it did neither; because that treaty, even on the first glance, wore the semblance of being intended to give Russia some advantages with respect to Turkey, which she did not possess before, and which were not to be enjoyed by the other Powers of Europe. But he was bound to say, that the explanations which 324 had since been given of what were apparently the most objectionable parts of that
20

treatythe explanations given by both parties concernedhad tended, in some degree, to alter the impression which the announcement of that treaty necessarily produced upon the Government; and which it appeared to have produced also upon the mind of the hon. and learned Gentlemanespecially with regard to the bearing of the articles of that treaty upon the navigation of the Dardanelles. The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the Treaty of 1809; the eleventh article of that treaty was to this effect:"That whereas it is the ancient custom of the Turkish empire,"not the law of Europe, as the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the passage,"that in time of peace,"that is, when the Turk is at peace,"no ships of war shall be allowed to pass the straits between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean; and whereas it is the intention of the Porte strictly to cause that custom to be observed in future, Great Britain declares that she will, in future, conform strictly to that usage and regulation." According to the Treaty of 1809, therefore, British ships of war had no right, in time of peace, to pass the straits between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, without a special permission from the Sultan. Undoubtedly, on the first appearance of the Treaty of July last, it did seem that, under the circumstances in which that treaty was to take effect, a difference was established between the ships of war of Russia and those of other Powers, with respect to the passage of the Dardanelles. But the Government had been assured by both the contracting parties, that their understanding of that treaty was different, and that the war flag of Russia was placed on exactly the same footing as that of any other country with regard to the passage of the Dardanelles, even should the casus fderis contemplated in the separate article arise,the case, namely, of Russia being at war, and Turkey remaining at peace with this country,both parties declare and agree, that in that case the treaty would not give the Russian ships of war any power or privilege of passing through the Dardanelles, other than those conceded to the ships or war of any other nation.
Mr. Sheil

, interrupting the noble Viscount said, if Great Britain were at war 325 with Russia, then, by virtue of the treaty, her ships would be excluded from the Dardanelles. By the treaty of 1809, as he understood it, a right was given to all merchant vessels to enter the Dardanelles. He conceived the effect of the Treaty of the 8th of July, was this:if England were at war with Russia, and not with Turkey, then Russia would have a right to close the Dardanelles upon our merchant ships, by virtue of the treaty. Was that so?
Viscount Palmerston

continued: The Treaty of July related solely to ships of war. By the Treaty of 1809, England bound herself, that so long as Turkey was at peace, British ships of war should not assume the privilege or passing up and down these straits, except on special permission in particular cases. By the Treaty of July no difference was made between the ships of war of Russia, and those of England, in the event of those two countries being at war. By the Treaty of 1809 it was declared, that the ancient usage of the Turkish Empire being to close the straits against the ships of war of all Powers, they were to be closed equally against those of Russia, which might wish to come out, and those of other Powers which might wish to pass up.
Mr. Sheil

The treaty was offensive and defensive. By the Treaty of the 8th of July, Turkey was bound to assist Russia. Then, if England was at war with Russia, Turkey must exclude our ships from the Dardanelles. Was not that the interpretation of the treaty?
21

Viscount Palmerston

The treaty did not apply to merchant vessels at all. The words, specifically, were "ships of war," not merchant ships. At the same time, he did not mean to say, that under its provisions merchant vessels might not, in effect, be practically excluded from the Black Sea. He did not mean to say, that that treaty had been viewed by the Government with satisfaction; or that it was a treaty with reference to which the British Government had not expressed its dissatisfaction;but he must say, that the assurances and explanations which it had received from the contracting parties to that treaty greatly tended to remove its objections. Although it was a treaty to which the Government of this country would do well to direct its watchful attention, still he was inclined to think, that, if this country pursued that course which alone was consistent with its dignityif it acted with 326 firmness and with temperif it showed no unnecessary distrust, and at the same time reposed no undue confidencehe was inclined to think, that the case might not arise in which that treaty would be called into operation; and that therefore it would, in practice, remain a dead letter. If the hon. and learned Gentleman called for all the communications that might have passed between the English Government and the governments of Russia and Turkey, with reference to that treaty, he was bound to say, that it would not be for the interests of the public service to produce that correspondence at the present moment; moreover, he did not think it would at all tend to forward that object which he was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman had at heart,the maintenance of peace, so long as peace could be maintained consistently with the interests and dignity of this country; and the hon. Member was, he was sure, of opinion that the independence of the Turkish empire essentially and directly concerned the interests of this country; when the hon. and learned Gentleman said, he should like to know what had been the language of England towards Russia, and of Russia towards England, he was sorry that it was inconsistent with his public duty to gratify the curiosity of the hon. and learned Member. He could only assure the hon. and learned Member this, that the language of England towards Russiaas he trusted it had been towards every Power with whom we preserved diplomatic relationshad been such as was consistent with our dignity and good faith; and, with respect to the language of Russia, it was, on all occasions the duty of the English Government to look rather to the acts of a foreign Power, than to the language which that Power might hold on any particular subject or occasion. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that he did not imagine he (Viscount Palmerston) should acquiesce in all his observations, in the same manner as the Duke de Broglie had acquiesced in everything said by M. Bignon. The hon. and learned Gentleman was under a mistake with respect to the transactions to which he alludeda mistake not in itself unimportant, and which, considering the present intimate relations which subsisted between the French and English Governments, it was very desirable that he should be set right. The speech of M. Bignon, to which the hon. 327 and learned Gentleman adverted, consisted of two entirely separate and distinct parts: one was the Report which he made as chairman to the Committee to which the address had been referred; and the other was a statement of his own opinionsas a member of the French Chamber, on the general state of the affairs of Poland, and of the other countries of Europe. The acquiescence of the Duke de Broglie was specifically confined to the first part of that speech, in which M. Bignon spoke as chairman of the Committee; it was not extended to that portion of his address in which M. Bignon expressed his own sentiments as a member of the French Chamber. This was the explanation which the Duke de Broglie gave on a subsequent occasion; and, if any hon. Member would look to what then took place, bearing in mind the distinction which he had pointed out, he could not fail to see, that the implied censure of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not borne out by facts. The relations at present subsisting between England and France were, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, more intimate, more confidential,
22

and more friendly than, he believed, they ever were at any former period of our history. He hailed this as a matter of satisfaction; for it was a proud thing that these two countries had divested themselves of those feelings of jealousy and enmity, which for so long a period impeded the advancement, and interfered with the best interests of both. They had now cemented a friendshipof some years' durationwhich had only grown stronger, and more lasting in proportion as the two governments had become better acquainted with each other. This was matter of pride and of satisfaction, because it proved that mutual friendship was founded on mutual honour and good faith. It was obvious that such a union could not exist longer than was consistent with the interests of both countries; but when two such States were bound together by the ties of interest, and the bonds of integrity, confidence, and honour, the House might well consider, that they must form in Europe a power of no mean importance. From the very constitution of both, that power could not be exercised, except for the general benefit of society; and their union, therefore, so far from being an object of jealousy to any other Power, ought, 328 on the contrary, to inspire Europe with increased confidence in the maintenance of peace, and in the promotion of the happiness and prosperity of all other nations. The hon. and learned Gentleman would, he was sure, excuse him for not exactly stating why the British fleet went to the Dardanelles, why from thence to Smyrna, what it did when there, and why it returned from Smyrna to Malta. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman it was sent to the Dardanelles for good reasons, that it went to Smyrna for equally good reasons; and that it was for good reasons, but for British reasons only, that it was sent back from Smyrna to Malta. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the Ministers ought to consent to the production of the papers for which he had moved, because they produced certain papers connected with the Treaty of the 15th of November, 1831. But why were those papers produced? Because the King of England had entered into a treaty which had necessarily been laid before Parliament, and those papers were presented as being explanatory of that treaty. In the present case, however, England had been a party to no treaty whatever; there had been a treaty signed by other Powers, and that treaty had been made known to us, in the ordinary course of diplomatic communications. Parliament had always hitherto been accustomed to place, and he trusted it would continue to place, sufficient confidence in the Ministers of the day, to believe them when they stated, that the circumstances of the moment rendered it inexpedient that certain communications should be laid before the House. On these grounds he objected to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. For the reasons which induced him to decline acceding to the production of these papers, he was not desirous of entering into any minute discussion of the transactions to which the Motion referred. Communications were still carrying on with respect to these matters; the discussions, if he might so call them, were not yet completed; and it was contrary to the practice of Parliament to compel the Government to produce correspondence, pending a negotiation in which the interests of the country were materially involved. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to render it impossible for these negotiations to lead to any satisfactory result, there was 329 no better mode of attaining his object, than calling upon the Government for the production of an imperfect and unfinished correspondence. If, on the other hand, the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to attain the same objects as the Ministers had in view; if he wished to assert the dignity of this country, and to uphold its interests, but at the same time to preserve peace so long as peace could be maintained, he would not press this Motion. If he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, he was prepared to consent to giving his Majesty's Government additional means of asserting the dignity, and of protecting the interests, of this country, if those ends could not be attained by negotiation. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman reserve those means until the time when the Government called upon him and the House to give them;do not let him force prematurely upon the Ministers what they did not call for. They hoped and trusted that peace would be preserved; but it could be preserved only
23

by the House reposing confidence in the Government. So long as Parliament should think that Ministers were fit to administer the affairs of this country, Parliament was bound to repose confidence in them with regard to our foreign relations. If Parliament thought that the interests of this country could not safely be confided to such keepingif, in the present case, they were not willing to trust Ministers with the maintenance of the honour of the country, without calling upon them, from day to day, to come down to the House, and produce their last despatches, for the purpose of enabling the House to judge whether the answers to those despatches were right or wrongif such were the opinion of the House, let the House declare it, and let his Majesty's Ministers retire; but so long as the House thought the Government fit to be intrusted with the affairs of the country, so long would the House agree with him, that it was improper to force them to produce a diplomatic correspondence, the production of which, in their opinion, would be detrimental to the interests of the country. For those reasons he objected to the production of the papers moved for by the hon. and learned Gentleman; and although Ministers had received an official communication relative to the treaty to which the hon. Member had referred, yet, 330 in the present state of the correspondence, the same objections apply to the production of the treaty, as exist to the production of the correspondence arising out of it; and he was, consequently, not at present prepared to agree to the production either of the one or of the other.
Colonel Davies

said, he was not going to enter upon the question whether Ministers had conducted our foreign relations well or ill; but he would ask whether there was any more important consideration in our foreign polity than the preservation of the due balance of power in the cast of Europe? It was the duty of every prudent Ministry to watch the rapid growth which had for years been increasing, of the colossal power of Russia. Ever since the days of Catherine all the acts of chicane and subtle diplomacy had been directed to this darling object of grasping ambition. It was humiliating to reflect how this country had been outwitted by Russia in 1828, when a vote of thanks was proposed in that House, by Sir John Hobhouse, on account of the battle of Navarino. Then the Treaty of July, characterised as the salvation of the Turkish empire, and of the peace of Europe. And yet within two months, the Russian army was marching into the very heart of the Ottoman empire. He looked upon the blocking up of the Dardanelles less in an individual light, than as it formed a part of the system of Russian policy, which he generally deprecated.
Colonel Evans

said, that even if there had been no other ground for the Motion than the notoriety of the case which his hon. and learned friend had stated, that in itself was sufficient. It was impossible, under the known circumstances, not to conclude that a most material change had occurred in the relative position of the Powers of Europe, and, that in itself formed a prim facie case, justifying a Motion for demanding information. The noble Lord had said, that it had been impossible for England to stop the onward march of the Paella of Egypt. But, even admitting all the statements of the noble Lord to be perfectly accurate upon that point, they formed no ground why, at a future period, some more decisive step should not have been taken. The speech of the noble Lord appeared to him the most unsatisfactory that he had ever heard from him. It was perfectly true that the noble Lord had gone into a va- 331 riety of dates, and into much statement, in order to show, that the Government had not the means of interfering; and yet, when any hon. Member of that House complained of the extent of the military and maritime establishments, and wished for a reduction in the Estimates, they were told to look at
24

the lowering and unsettled state of the Continent. Of course that reason might be a very good one for maintaining a large military establishment; but, at all events, the House ought not to expect also to be told, when an emergency arose, that the Government was unable to act from the want of means. Nor could he understand how any such reason could with justice be given. It was, indeed, quite evident, that with anything like judicious conduct, France and England, in close alliance, must possess sufficient means at their command to take a decided and effectual course in such a matter. He therefore attached very little importance to the dates gone into by the noble Lord; and, without having any desire to censure the conduct of Government, he felt it to be desirable for the House to indicate the necessity of a more decided course of policy being pursued upon any future occasion. The real question was, what was the alteration which had taken place in the position of Turkey as an independent Power? That that was a question of the deepest interest to this country, it was impossible for any one to doubt. The late Government and the present Government had both acknowledged, and declared, indeed, that they considered the maintenance of the integrity of Turkey as essential to the preservation of the peace of Europe and the interests of England. Such being the case, he felt deeply indebted to his hon. and learned friend, for bringing the question before the House. Certainly, it appeared to him, and he thought it an undeniable fact, that Turkey was reduced very low by recent events. On the one hand, the Pacha of Egypt had conquered from the Porte a large tract of territory; and on the other hand, Russia, on the invitation of the Porte, had occupied Constantinople fur the preservation of Turkey. These two things were amply sufficient of themselves, supposing no treaty whatever had followed, to place Turkey in a very different position from that which she had before occupied. But when the Treaty of July came to be considered, the case was 332 still more palpable. He was extremely glad to find, that the Treaty of July was disapproved of by the noble Lord, and that the noble Lord had expressed himself strongly to that effect; but, he found in that expression a full justification for the Motion of his hon. and learned friend. He understood that treaty to be merely offensive and defensive, and, if that view were correct, it would have the effect of placing England, with respect to Turkey, in case of war with Russia, in an entirely new position. Before that treaty, in case of a war with Russia, the Dardanelles were open to a British fleet, but under that treaty, the Dardanelles were barred, and the Russian ports in the Black Sea were secure against a British fleet. That was a most serious and injurious change. But if the French Minister was correct, it was a change that could not be permitted. According to the declaration of the Minister of France, the Treaty of July between Russia and the Porte, was in direct opposition to the laws of Europe, and was inimical to the maintenance of the peace of Europe. Information ought decidedly to be given on that point, in order that the House might judge of the actual position in which the question stood. He did not mean to say, that he had not confidence in his Majesty's Government, but he was anxious to see the acknowledged policy of the Government supported by a strong expression on the part of that House. He wished to see that House come to such a vote as should induce the Government to take a sterner tone than that which it had hitherto taken, in speaking to Russia. He wished to see the Government, as Turkey had fallen, rely on other means to check the growing power of Russia. A new, active, increasing, and vigorous Power had appeared, and the Government would not do its duty, if it did not raise up the Pacha of Egypt as a counterpoise against Russia in that quarter of the world. The present condition of affairs in the East was most injurious; it had not the advantage of either peace or war. An expensive squadron was kept afloat, and yet that squadron was not efficient for the purposes of active operation. It would be better for France and England at once to adopt a vigorous course of proceeding, and sustain the balance that was essential to the peace of Europe. He hoped that, under these circumstances, his hon. and learned friend would not press 333 his Motion to a division, as the noble Lord had felt it his

25

duty to refuse the information; and be satisfied by knowing that the Motion and the discussions must lead to beneficial effects.
Sir Robert Peel

said, that the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, would have made a speech much more satisfactory to his mind, if the noble Lord had said, that acting on his own responsibility as a Minister of the Crown, he had thought it his duty to refuse the papers called for, without assigning any other reason for that refusal than, that in his opinion their production would be injurious to the public service. He wished the noble Lord had acted upon the principle of the advice once given by Lord Mansfield to a military governor of one of our West-India Islands, who had to pronounce his judgment on some cases in his character of Chancellor of the Colony"Give your decision," said the noble Lord, "but by no means trust yourself with explaining the reasons on which you decision is founded." If the noble Lord had taken that advice, and had abstained from giving his reasons for refusing the papers called for by the hon. and learned Member, he would have done much better than by making a speech. The noble Lord had complimented the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech as eloquent, ingenious, and humorous; there was yet another epithet, that he might have bestowed upon it, for he might have called it an unanswered speech. Whether it was unanswerable or not he would not pretend to decide, but certainly it was left unanswered. The noble Lord said, it was not fair to call upon his Majesty's Government to give the House information on these pending negotiations, and produce the last despatch, to see if it were properly answered. But what had been the course taken by the House? Had it pressed for information? He must say, that never had any representative body been left more in the dark than that House on foreign affairs, and never did one show more forbearance. Why, was it not notorious, that the knowledge, imperfect as it was, which we had obtained of these important matters had been gleaned from debates in the French Chamber of Deputies, and from extracts from foreign newspapers? Was this a state in which to leave the representatives of the people of this country on matters in which the 334 country was so deeply interested? He would come to the reasons on which the noble Lord had grounded his refusal, and, certainly, he must say, that though he might not, under some circumstances, feel disposed to withhold his assent from the noble Lord's refusal, had he assigned no reason for it beyond the fact, that he did not think it right to grant them; yet when he examined the reasons assigned by the noble Lord, he could, by no means, concur with him, that they were such as would justify the course he had taken. The noble Lord said, first, that in matters which were still pending, it would not be fair to Ministers to call upon them to produce a copy of their last despatches; but, he would ask, was that a correct view of the case as it stood? Were they to wait for the required information till the whole affair should be finally settled? But if that were to be so, how long might they not have to wait before they could form their opinion as to what was going forward! The second objection of the noble Lord was, that such information could not be called for by the House without casting blame on Ministers. This he must beg leave to deny. The Government called on the House to vote the Estimates for our military and maritime force: those Estimates had been already in great part voted, and, surely, it was not unreasonable to say, that the House might ask for some explanation as to our relations with other states, and the relations existing between some of those states, as they might affect us, without meaning thereby to cast any blame on the Government. Could any intention to cast such blame be fairly implied from the very natural desire of that House to know how this country was situated with respect to the chance of that to us most important subject, a foreign European war? The noble Lord maintained, that no papers ought to be given, because negotiations were still in progress. But the noble Lord, surely, could not support that principle. Were the affairs of Holland and
26

Belgium yet settled? And if they were not, what became of the rule, that no papers should be produced till the negotiations were at an end? [Viscount Palmerston: A treaty had been concluded in that case.] Yes, but had that treaty led to the final settlement of the question between those two states? And would the noble Lord say, or had he said, that the House should have no papers on that 335 subject until the whole matter should be finally arranged? Were the affairs of Portugal yet settled, or had there been any treaty signed in that case? And yet the noble Lord had not felt it his duty to withhold ample explanations, verbal and documentary. Did that, however, imply any degree of blame on the Government? No, it only showed, that when affairs affecting our relations with other States were trembling in the balance, the representatives of the people should know the exact situation in which the country stood. The noble Lord's third argument was one which, in his opinion, went far to destroy the validity of the two preceding. It was, that explanations had been already made to the Government, which had abated the fears entertained as to the objects of Russia. Why, if that were the case, should the knowledge of such gratifying information be withheld from that House? For see the situation in which that House was placed. It was in possession, no matter how, of the knowledge, that a certain treaty, injurious to England, had been formed between Russia and the Porte; upon that treaty the hon. and learned Member had ventured to put a certain construction; and then, said the noble Lord, "Oh, you are mistaken; the treaty, as appears by an explanation which the Government had had with Russia, is not of the character you assign to it." But what was the character of the treaty the noble Lord did not explain. Surely, if anything could tend to increase the probabilities of peace, a point so heartily to be desired, it would be a knowledge of that explanation which had so happily removed the anxiety and apprehension of his Majesty's Government. As the matter stood, the House had merely a knowledge of the measure which had excited the dissatisfaction and alarms of the noble Lord, and it was left to guess at the character of the satisfactory and soothing explanation. Surely, if the explanations were so satisfactory as to induce the noble Lord to dismiss from his mind all fear and apprehension as to the ultimate intentions of Russia, he must see, that it was his duty, as well in point of policy, as in point of form, to produce them. But then the noble Lord had a fourth reason against granting the information moved for. The noble Lord said, they were to attend to the acts of foreign Powers, and not to their treaties. That was a novel doctrine. 336 [Viscount Palmerston had not said, their treaties, but their language.] Well, their language. Now, that might be a very good reason why the angry correspondence should be withheld; but surely it was none why all knowledge of the peacemaking explanation should be refused. If the House knew nothing of the treaty which had excited the anxiety and apprehension of his Majesty's Government, and an explanation had occurred with Russia which had allayed that anxiety and apprehension, he would readily admit, that the treaty, the offensive document, ought not to be forthcoming. He would say, "Do not rake up the dying embers of a disagreement which, however much it did threaten, now no longer exists." But the present case was certainly the reverse. The House knew of the exciting cause; and it was to be left to rankle, although an explanation had occurred which ought to render it innoxious. "But then," said the noble Lord, "I think it very likely, that the Treaty of July may never come into operation." Why, the same might be said of almost any offensive and defensive treaty. The noble Lord said, that a casus fderis might arise, and certainly one might never arise; but if one did ariseif by any circumstances England should be at war with Russiawould not the Dardanelles, under this treaty, be closed against England? The treaty was not made to operate in peace, but in case of war; and if war should arise, why then the noble Lord would, doubtless, come forward in that House, and state, that the Dardanelles were closed, and that he (the noble Lord) had proved a false prophet. Such were the reasons which the noble Lord had given for refusing the information moved for by the hon. and learned Member. How far they were satisfactory it would be for the House to
27

judge; but certainly to him they bore a different character from that intended by the noble Lord. At the same time, though the reasons were so futile, as the noble Lord, on his responsibility as a Minister, had stated to the House, that the information desired could not be granted without prejudice to the public service, he would concede to the Minister that which he could not give up to the orator. He might think the noble Lord a very inconclusive reasoner, but he would show that respect to his dictum as Minister, which he must withhold from his logic. What 337 were the merits of the question before the House? What had been the real conduct of Russia with respect to interference for the preservation of Turkey? Upon that point the character of all subsequent proceedings depended. The noble Lord had declared, that he, as a Minister of the Crown, rejoiced that Russia had replied as that Power had done to the application of the Porte for assistance. The first declaration being made, it was useless for the noble Lord to complain of the consequences of Russian interposition. If the position of Europe were such, that in order to protect the independence and integrity of the Turkish empire, no other assistance could be given but that which Russia could afford, and if the noble Lord rejoiced that Russia was able to afford it, he might lament the virtual destruction of Turkish independence, but he had no right to accuse Russia as the cause of it. For they might depend upon it, from the relative position in which Russia and Turkey stood towards each other,after the recent war between those two Powersafter the condition to which Turkey was reduced by that warafter the long jealousy that had prevailed between the two countriesthat the occupation of Constantinople by Russian troops, even for a friendly object, sealed the fate of Turkey as an independent Power. Russia might withdraw her troops, as she had withdrawn them, in punctual fulfilment of her promises; our Government might have perfect confidence in all the declarations of Russia; yet the fact of her having occupied Constantinople, even for the purpose of saving it, was as decisive a blow to Turkish independence, as if the flag of Russia now waved on the seraglio. But, said the noble Lord, the Government could not take any step for the preservation of Turkey; it did not receive any formal application from the Porte for assistance until the August or September; and a great battle was won by Ibrahim Pacha in July. What! were then his Majesty's Government so ignorant of what was passing in the Levant, that they must wait for a formal application from the Porte, before tendering her either advice or assistance? When the noble Lord saw an ally of England falling into such great difficulties, and the maintenance of the independence of that ally was of such vast importance, was it necessary for the 338 noble Lord to have a certificate delivered in due form by an ambassador, before he could go to her assistance? No, no, that was not the reason. The noble Lord had given the true reason why no step was taken for the defence of Turkey. All the disposable fleet, the noble Lord said, was occupied: but how occupied? In blockading the Tagus and the Scheldt. That was why assistance could not be given to Turkey, and that was what had made the noble Lord rejoice at the succour afforded to the Porte by Russia. The fleets of England were enforcing the blockade of our allies the Dutch, and maintaining neutralitythey of course practised non-interferencewith our allies, the Portuguese, in the Tagus; and, therefore, the noble Lord was thankful to Russia for rescuing Turkey. That being the case, all the rest of the conduct of Russia was natural, and, indeed, almost necessary. The indemnity taken by Russia was moderate, and in accordance with reason, and not to be complained of with justice by the noble Lord. To crown the whole, when the crisis of the fate of the independence of Turkey had arrived, there was no British Ambassador at Constantinople. True there was one charged by his Majesty to fill that office, and to protect the interests of England with the Porte; but winds were unfavourable, and bound him to the port of Naples. Although there was a British man-of-war in waiting, yet such had been the difficulties or the dangers to overcome, that the Ambassador of his Majesty was six months in making his way to Constantinople. Such was the frightful danger of those terrific seas, and of that inhospitable climate, that though the very crisis of the fate of Turkey
28

had arrived, still a British Ambassador, with a British man-of-war waiting his command, could not dare the dangers of the deep. In other times, indeed, far different scenes had been recorded Otium Divos rogat in patentiPrensus go, simul atra nubesCondidit Lunam, neque certa fulgent Sidera nautis. In the present case, however, the British Ambassador appeared to have prayed for the otium, before he encountered the danger. It might have been expected, that, since the days of Horace, the art of navigation had so far advanced, that it would have been possible for a British 339 Ambassador, on board a British man-of-war, in the extreme crisis, in the agony of a friendly empire to which that Ambassador was deputed, to have braved the risk, and made the extraordinary attempt to reach Constantinople, even in the winter. But, after all, the noble Lord had a triumphant answer to all objections. "There exists," says the noble Lord, "the closest alliance between England and France." He could but remark, that whenever the noble Lord was thrown into any difficulty as to any part of our foreign European policy, he at once found a ready means of escape, by congratulating the House upon the close alliance which existed between this country and France. Doubtless, a friendly alliance with France was extremely desirable; but why was it always, upon all occasions, to be adverted to as a compensation for the loss of all other alliances? He was not aware, that the noble Lord would have thought it necessary to introduce any reference to the declarations of the French Ministers in the Chamber of Deputies, when discussing the Treaties between Russia and the Porte. He should have thought, that the noble Lord would rather have discountenanced any allusion to foreign debates, and more especially to those marvellous contradictions of the Due de Broglie, which astounded all Europe. But as he did not think the practice of either attacking or vindicating the ministers of another country for speeches delivered by them, was a practice to be encouraged, he should abstain from all further allusion to the matter. There might, however, be a peculiar reason in this case, for the allusion of the noble Lord to our intimate alliance with France. It was, probably, because that alliance was so intimate, that French example and French policy have controlled our proceedings with respect to Turkish independence. That might be, and most probably was, the real explanation of the course which the British Government had taken. How could France, with justice or honour, hold a high tone towards Russia with respect to the interference of Russia with Turkey? Was it nothe would not say a notorious factbut was it not the universal impression in all Europethat Ibrahim Pacha was acting against the Sultan on a secret understanding with France? Was it not the impression of all Europe, that the army of Ibrahim was, in all the prin340 cipal departments, officered and directed by French officers acting with the consent of France? Was that true, or was it not? He did not mean to say, that there was a formal and recognised alliance between Ibrahim and France, but that France was sanctioning and encouraging the acts of Ibrahim, by means as efficacious as if such an alliance had existed. If that were so, and if England felt herself so bound by her intimate alliance with France, that her hands were tied upthat she was compelled to connive, at least, at an aggression upon Turkey, which France had directly encouragedthen we see in these circumstances reasons for the forbearance of England betteror at least more intelligiblethan any that the noble Lord had stated. Could France refuse to Russia the right of occupying the dominions of the Porte after the course which she herself had taken with regard to Algiers? Did not France intend, without reference to England, or to Russia, or to the Porte, to take permanent occupation of Algiers? If France did intend that, contrary to the solemn declaration made by her sovereign, Louis Philippe, on his accession to the throneif she did intend to appropriate to herself a possession of the Porte, which, though virtually independent, still acknowledged the superiority and sovereignty of the Porte,and if France had also, either directly or indirectly, encouraged the Pacha in his attack on Turkey,then Russia had a right to reject the remonstrances of France, and to protect Turkey in spite of France. If, too, Great Britain, was so intimately bound by her boasted alliance with France, as to be forced to support the
29

policy of France, then, though the Ministers did not avow it, he could understand why they were forced to leave to Russia the task of protecting Turkey from the irruption of Ibrahim. These were the grounds upon which, he thought, that we might have expected, and might have foreseen, from the interference of Russia, those consequences which had since ensued. Whether the treaties entered into were pregnant with future danger to this country or not, was a matter he should reserve for future discussion, if an opportunity was afforded him. For the present, he claimed the right to know what were our relations with Russia,what were our relations with Turkey, 341 what were the treaties which had been entered into between those two Powers which at first gave rise to serious apprehensions on the part of this country,which apprehensions, the noble Lord said, had been removed by subsequent explanations? This constituted a body of information which the Representatives of the people of England, in the present state of foreign affairs, had a right to require, and which the British Government ought to give by a formal and authorized communication to Parliament, instead of leaving the House of Commons entirely in the dark, or, at least, with no other means of acquiring knowledge, than those which might be imperfectly supplied by foreign newspapers, or the debates in foreign Chambers.
Mr. Secretary Stanley

said, the right hon. Baronet, while he had professed in the course of his speech an earnest desire that the good understanding which happily existed between England and France should be continued, yet seemed at least to make it a matter of reproach that that subject should have been adverted to by his Majesty's Government with pleasure. He held it to be matter of congratulation that two countries the most powerful, the most enlightened, and, he would add, the most liberal, were engaged in bonds of such close and intimate union, and thus affording the prospect of a continuance of that good feeling which promised not only peace and security to themselves and to Europe, but which promised generally to ensure the maintenance and support of liberal principles. The right hon. Baronet had introducedhe knew not why, except, indeed, for the sake of conveying reflections on the conduct of Francethe question of the occupation of Algiers. In what situation Algiers might be placed he knew not, nor would he enter upon the question further than to state, that he believed the possession of Algiers rested precisely in the same position as it did when the right hon. Baronet quitted office. Algiers and France stood in relation to each other precisely in the same position as they did prior to the late Ministers' retiring. And without entering any further into the question, he would express his belief that, if there was any one nation in Europe to which the possession of Algiers would be less advantageous, and its abandonment of greater benefit than another, that nation was France itself. Certain he 342 was, that the possession of that settlement by France was not injurious to the interests of England, or the advancement of the civilization of Europe. Now, he was ready to admit to the right hon. Baronet (and he did not think that his noble friend meant to call the fact in question) the kind feeling which that House had uniformly evinced upon all questions connected with our foreign policy. He was ready to admit, that this and other great political questions were surrounded with many difficulties upon their taking office; and those difficulties, he must say, were left them as a happy legacy by their predecessors. There were three great questions to be disposed of; namely, the dispute between Belgium and Hollandthe affairs of Portugaland the state of Turkey. It was urged by the right hon. Baronet, that the state of affairs with respect to two of these countries was anything but satisfactory; and yet that papers had been laid on the Table respecting them without giving or implying any offence to the Government by the motion. This might be true: it was, in fact, true. But did the right hon. Baronet recollect, that the speech of the hon. Member implied a censure on Ministers for their conduct on the occasion in question? "Why," said the hon. and
30

learned Member, "did not Ministers do this, and why did they not do that?why are we to be left in the dark by having these papers refused to us, when similar papers were granted to the House on former occasions?" But that hon. Member should bear in mind that the periods of the negotiation were different. The affairs between Belgium and Holland were not, it was true, settled at the period alluded to; but the negotiations had reached that point when it was proper that every necessary information should be laid before the House. Then, again, it was urged, that the affairs of Portugal were not settled when papers were laid before the House. This was certainly true. But how stood the fact? We had shown hostility to Don Miguel. Nay, we had sent a hostile fleet to demand of him redress for the injuries inflicted on our trade and commerce in a time of peace, and, in order to justify this conduct, it was necessary to lay before the House the long series of injuries which we had to complain of. Both these events required the production of the papers which had been laid before the House. But, on the present 343 occasion, his noble friend's argument was this:There is nothing parallel in the case of Turkey to those other cases: here there has been no termination of negotiations; on the contrary, they are still pending, and in such a state as would not warrant our laying these papers before the House. It had been urged, that if any angry discussions had taken placeif doubts and difficulties had arisenif there had been crimination and recrimination on the one part and on the other, then it would be right to refuse the papers. But his noble friend's case was this:There had been strong objections taken, and remonstrances made, and explanations had been given from time to time, which were more or less satisfactory, but which at length went so far as to remove a portion of the impressions under which those remonstrances were made. Still, however, remonstrances were made, and the negotiations were, in fact, at this moment going on; and his noble friend felt, as a British Minister, that it would be injurious alike to the interests of the Crown and the country, if, pending those negotiations, the papers called for were to be laid before the House. He went further, and, in conjunction with his colleagues, entreated the House to wait a little, and when the proper time came, all the information necessary should be given. The right hon. Baronet had thought proper to go back to the question of interference or non-interference in the year 1831. The right hon. Baronet asked why it was, that Members should wait until they had a formal announcement from Turkey on the subject, knowing, as they must have known, the state of weakness to which that Power was reduced. It was true that Ministers did know her state of weakness, as well as the causes which led to it, although they were not at all responsible for either. But, said the right hon. Baronet, why was it that Ministers, knowing to what she was reduced, did not send our fleets and armies out at once to her relief? or, at least, why did they not tender their advice to the Sultan? Why was it that they had not an Ambassador at the Porte? Could they plead that they were in want of the necessary information on the subject? Why did they not advise and say to the Sultan, "We recommend you to come to terms with your powerful vassal before he becomes too great for you?" He did not wish to meet the right hon. Ba- 344 ronet with a retort instead of an argument, or else he might tell him that there was a period, between 1828 and 1829, when advice at least might have been given to Turkey; he might tell him that, before the battle of Varna, and also before the signing of the treaty of Adrianople, a period during which we had no Ambassador at Constantinople, some friendly advice and assistance might have been available; but none was given. It was the signing the treaty of Adrianople which weakened, if not destroyed, the independence of Turkey. His Majesty's Ministers might have erred in not giving advice or assistance to Turkey; but they were justified in not offering, if not compelled to offer, any resistance to the march of Ibrahim Pacha. He maintained that, in policy, we were not called upon to do so. The right hon. Baronet might indulge as he pleased in throwing out insinuations as to the secret assistance afforded by France in fomenting internal disturbances in Turkey; but he boldly asserted, that what stopped the progress of Mehemet Ali was the distinct declaration of France and England,
31

that they would not permit the occupation of Constantinople by his troops. The right hon. Baronet argued, that his noble friend had conceded the whole question when he stated the difficulty which would have attended sending a British squadron to the Dardanelles. Now, what was the state of our affairs at that period? The right hon. Baronet seemed to think it a reproach to his Majesty's Government that the naval peace establishment of the country had been insufficient, at the time alluded to, to enable them to maintain three distinct operations. To those who complained that we had a squadron in the Downs, and another squadron at the mouth of the Tagus, it might well be a valid argument that we had not a fleet at the Dardanelles. But, at a period of profound peace, when we were on terms of perfect friendship with Russia, and reposed confidence in the assurances of that power, his Majesty's Government did not think it necessary, nor had they the means of sending distinct squadrons to the Downs, the Tagus, and the Dardanelles. "But," said the right hon. Baronet, "having permitted the Russian forces to take possession of Constantinople, you have no right to complain that Russia availed herself of the opportunity to enter into a treaty with Turkey, securing to herself advantages which she 345 would not otherwise have enjoyed." Now, if the treaty which Russia concluded with Turkey had been of the character supposed by the right hon. Baronet, his Majesty's Government would have had every right to complain. When they were acting in a spirit of perfect confidence towards an ally, that ally would have had no right to conclude a secret treatya treaty without their knowledge or concurrencefor the purpose of forwarding his own particular purposes. If such an act had been committed, it would have been a great breach of faith, not at all discreditable to England, but highly discreditable to Russia. But, although the treaty did not bear the character which the right hon. Baronet imputed to it, the British Government thought it right strongly to express their sense of the unsatisfactory nature of some of its provisions, and to require explanations concerning them. With respect to the Dardanelles, the explanations both from Russia and Turkey had gone far to remove the most powerful objection which was supposed to exist against the treaty, namely, that in time of war the Dardanelles were to be shut against some nations, but open to others. Now they had the strongest assurances, both from Turkey and from Russia, that in the passage of the Dardanelles no advantage was to be enjoyed by Russian armed vessels over the armed vessels of any other nation; and that, in time of war, the passage was to be absolutely closed against ships of war of all nations. The right hon. Baronet had spoken of the treaty as if it were one offensive and defensive between Russia and Turkey, and as if Turkey had bound herself to close the Dardanelles whenever she should be required to do so by Russia. But what were in fact the terms of the treaty?That Russia and Turkey being in perfect amity, in time of peace the Dardanelles were to remain free; but that, in time of war no armed vessel belonging either to Russia, or to any other power, should be allowed to pass. But what was gained by Russia in consequence of this arrangement?In time of war Turkey was bound by the treaty to close the Dardanelles against the fleets of any and every nation. Before she concluded that treaty, Turkey possessed the power of closing the Dardanelles to both, or to either of two belligerents. By the treaty she was bound to close it to both belligerents. She was bound not to permit the vessels of other 346 nations to go up the Dardanelles: she was bound not to permit the vessels of Russia to come out of the Black Sea. He did not mean to say, that this provision might not be in some respects advantageous to Russia. In time of war it might tend to defend Russia from the attack of a hostile fleet. But the offensive supposition entertained in the first instance, that Russia was to call upon Turkey to close the Dardanelles at pleasure against any other vessels but Russian, had been entirely done away by the explanations subsequently given. The right hon. Baronet had asked, what his Majesty's Government had gained by acquiescing in the treaty?They had never acquiesced in it; they had stated their dissatisfaction with portions of it. It was in his (Mr. Stanley's) power, but as a Minister, he felt that he ought not at present to do so, to detail the satisfactory explanations
32

which had been received on the subject. The plain state of the case was this:For the purpose of protecting Constantinople against Mehemet Ali, which his Majesty's Government, notwithstanding the right hon. Baronet's supposition, were anxious to do, the Russian force being in readiness, entered Constantinople. Having afforded assistance to the Sultan, and England and France having combined in requiring Mehemet Ali to proceed no further, Russia withdrew from Constantinople. In the meanwhile, however, she had concluded a treaty with Russia; and a portion of that treaty appearing to his Majesty's Government to be very objectionable, remonstrances were made by this country and France, and explanations had been received which, though in a great measure satisfactory, were not wholly at an end. His noble friend, acknowledging the courtesy with which the House had hitherto treated his Majesty's Government on this subject, expressed his confident persuasion that the House would not take any step which might compromise the honour and dignity of the Government, and, therefore, would not call upon his Majesty's Ministers for the premature disclosure of a negotiation which had not yet been completed.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

said, with respect to the treaty of the 8th of July, the House must come to the conclusion that it was not satisfactory, else why refuse to produce it? At the time when the noble Lord was addressing the House on this 347 subject on a former occasion, a treaty had been secretly and surreptitiously entered into between Russia and Turkey, which it was found bore very hard upon the interests of this country, and strongly in favour of Russia, the worst Power in Europe. It appeared to him that, if the treaty was in itself of a suspicious nature, no explanation of these two Powers ought to induce this country to sanction it. He thought that the papers called for ought to be laid on the Table, but if the noble Lord thought otherwise, he for one would not press for their production at present. If the Russian ships of war were to pass the Dardanelles to the exclusion of men of war of other nations, he should like to know what construction was to be put upon that?
Mr. Secretary Stanley

rose to explain. It had been stated in the treaty, that no foreign ships of war were to be allowed to pass the Dardanelles, and upon inquiring whether Russian men of war were included in the words "foreign ships of war," the answer was decidedly the affirmative.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

proceededWhere, he would ask, was Russia most vulnerable? Certainly in the Black Sea, the great resort of her ships of war. But, in the event of a war, in stepped Turkey, and said, "We'll throw the shield of our mantle around you, and protect you where you are most vulnerable." If it should be the case that the Dardanelles were now rendered impregnable by the aid of Russian engineers, would this not be of itself a violation of the treaty? Would it not amount to an act of cowardice on the part of Russia? But if this were so, if fortifications had been carried on on the land side, as well as on the Straits, it was impossible that any ship could pass without the permission of Russia. It was the duty of this country to guard itself against the domineering power of Russia, who was in fact aiming a vital blow at the existence of every Power in Europe. Nay, not content with this, she contemplated the overthrow of our possessions in the East. By her inroads into Persia (inroads unopposed by us) she had obtained the keys of that empire, as she had recently obtained those of Turkey. The fact was, that the growing power and desire of dominion manifested ought long since to have been put
33

a stop to; and it would have been put a stop to long ago, had England and France acted with the necessary firmness. With respect 348 to Ibraham Pacha, we might, he believed, by our fleets have prevented his invasion of Turkey; but as he had no positive information upon this part of the case, he would not attempt to implicate Government upon slight grounds. There was one great difficulty under which a British House of Commons always laboured when they required information to be laid before them. If the negotiation were still pending, they were told that the demand for information was premature, and would, if complied with, be subversive of all the objects which Ministers had in view. But if the negotiation were at an end, then they were told that all was over, and that it would be irritating and productive of unpleasant feeling to rip old matters up again. He wished to say one word or two, to which he begged the attention of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a question of great importance, and one in which the feelings of all classes in this country were interested. He alluded to the case of Poland. He did not ask his Majesty's Ministers to alter the policy they had pursued with respect to that persecuted and unhappy country beyond this. There were at present in these kingdoms numbers of those unfortunate patriots, who had been driven from their native soil by a Prince under whom they lived, under a treaty to which this country gave a guarantee. They were driven by persecution to insurrection and revolt, the treaty was violated and trampled upon, as were the unfortunate Poles who trusted to it. But this was not all; every attempt to extend relief to the sufferers in Poland was severely punished. It was but lately that an Ukase had been published in Russia, by which the father was prohibited from relieving the son, or the wife from assisting her husband or her child; so that this great and glorious band of freemenmen who had displayed courage in the field and wisdom in the council, were made slaves at home, or driven exiles and wanderers abroad. It was for the national honour that his Majesty's Government should take the case of these brave men into their consideration. He did not press for an answer at present to this appeal. He would only add that, as strangers and as brave men in distress, they were entitled to the hospitality of the nation, and deserved whatever assistance we could afford to bestow upon them.
Sir Edward Codrington

said, that with 349 respect to the battle of Navarino, it was a mistake to suppose that that was the cause of the distress to which Turkey had been reduced. The Emperor of Russia was most anxious that the treaty agreed to by the other Powers should be entered into with Turkey, and had sent an express to his fleet on the subject instead of taking the circuitous route of London. The Russian officers had their master's orders to co-operate with him (Sir Edward Codrington) on this subject, as he was in possession of all the necessary information. But, unfortunately, the change of Government at home prevented the treaty from being entered into; but if it had, then the other Powers would have compelled Russia to abide by it, and there would have been no war between Russia and Turkey. The armies of Russia, and not the fleets of that empire, had done injury by invading Constantinople. With respect to France, he could not agree with the right hon. Baronet, that France had shown a want of sincerity in her proceedings. It was a mistaken notion that France approved of the conduct of the French officers in the service of Mehemet Ali.

34

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1836/feb/19/russian-policy

RUSSIAN POLICY. HC Deb 19 February 1836

vol 31 cc614-69614 Lord Dudley Stuart

rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the effect on British interests of the policy pursued by Russia. He felt that he laboured under many disadvantages, arising not only from his own inadequacy to discharge the task, but also from the great difficulty of inducing hon. Members to turn their attention to our foreign policy as respected Russia. No question could be of greater importance than that now before the House. It affected all our most essential interestsit affected our national honourit affected our naval supremacyit affected our commercial interestsit affected our station, our influence in Europe, and the security of our possessions in India. There was one misapprehension against which he was anxious to guard. Some Gentlemen well knowing the warm interest, the enthusiasm, if any were pleased to call it so, which he took in the Polish nation, might imagine that, in making this motion on the subject of Russia, as Russia was the enemy of Poland, his object was merely to call attention to the Polish nation. He begged, therefore, to state distinctly in the outset that that was not his chief object. His object was greater and more extensive; and if he felt it necessary to make this explana- 615 tion, it was not because he imagined there was any indifference in the House to the wrongs of Poland, but because some persons, considering that nothing was now to be done for that unhappy nation, might imagine that by lending their attention to any observations which he (Lord S.) might offer, they would be wasting their time, and, attending to a subject in which nothing; practical was to be done. He, therefore, earnestly entreated the House to forget the person who was addressing them, and to attend only to the factsto view him on this occasion not as an advocate, but one who would call attention to British interests. This question was not Polish, or if it was in any degree, it was something moreit was Russian, Turkish, Indian, English, EuropeanWe were accustomed to pay little, or but transient attention to that which we were in the habit of hearing frequently. Russia was often mentioned as being great, but let the House consider for a moment what Russia was. The Emperor of Russia ruled over an extent of territory in Europe greater than all the rest of Europe put together, and this was joined by a tract of country, by dominions in Asia, three times as great as the possessions of Russia in Europe. From the capital of Russia to the confines of the Russian territory, bordering on Persia, and from those confines to our Indian possessions the distance was the same. On the north Russia came within thirty miles of the west coast of Norwaya coast abounding with secure natural harbours, which were never frozen, and from the farthest of which to our own coast of Scotland, the distance was not greater than from Lisbon to London. The ground within seventy miles of Stockholm was Russian; Warsaw was hersshe approached within 100 miles of Dresden. She had crossed the Danube, and possessed Kalisch, which was nearer to Paris than to Moscow.They would be able to judge of the true and formidable character of the power of Russia by a reference to its progressive advancement. Catherine in her time reigned over 22,000,000 of subjects; Alexander reigned over 36,000,000; and Nicholas at the present time ruled over 55,000,000 of people, not taking into the account his subjects in Asia, The Russian army at present amounted to 700,000 soldiers. Of the Russian navy he (Lord Dudley Stuart) did not exactly 616 know the amount, but it consisted at least of sixty line-of-battle ships. What was the character of the population over which Russia ruled? It was a population completely devoted to the Sovereign who swayed the sceptre, whom they viewed and reverenced as the chief of their race and the head of their Church, and to whom they were bound by the triple tie of race,
35

language, and fate. No property was held in Russia that was not subject to the disposition of the Autocrat. So supreme was his power that one stroke of his pen banished to distant countries any of his subjects, no matter what the rank, birth, or property of that subject might be. There was no career open to any man but one connected with the State. No matter what his riches, if he were not in the service of the State he was as nothing. The very clergy were known to wear military orders. That organization disposed them to look for acquisitions and aggrandizement. But one enthusiasm pervaded the entire populationthat of advancing the pre-eminence of their country and its superior power over the Test of the world. The very climate encouraged that feeling. The population looked forward to attaining the luxuries and enjoyments denied them in their own country, but which they knew were to be procured elsewhere. The Government of Russia encouraged that feeling. All their policy and arrangements were directed with that view. The moment a soldier left the country on foreign service he received four times his ordinary pay. All these circumstances united made the desire of aggression and territorial acquisition natural and necessary to the Russian empire. A reference to history would show that aggrandizement was the entire object, and had been the successful aim of a country, which, not long since, was scarcely recognized as an important Power in Europe. Russia, to which the policy of other countries appeared now all submission, was, half a century ago scarce accounted among the States of Europe. How, then, had she come to a station in which she appeared to hold in intimidation the rest of Europe? He would refer to the important acquisitions which Russia had progressively made. In 1671 she acquired the territory on which St. Petersburgh stoodnamely, Ingria, with Esthonia and Livonia. In 1674, she acquired Little Tartary, and obtained the entire government of 617 the Crimea. She made further acquisitions in 1725, and in 1792 took possession of Odessa. Let the House remark the great, though gradual, spirit of aggression and aggrandizement that marked her history from 1671 to 1792. Nor did she stop there. In 1793, she effected the second partition of Poland, and in 1795, she got possession of the remainder of Lithuania. The Emperor Paul took possession of Georgia, after having guaranteed the Throne to the reigning family. In 1809, Russia obtained Finland and part of Lapland. In 1812, she obtained Bessarabia, and in 1814, extorted from Persia all the provinces south of the Caucasus; year after year, thus Russia advanced. In 1815, her territories were extended in the North Sea, and in 1828, she pushed them beyond the Araxes. By the treaty of Adrianople in 1829, she obtained possession of the coast of the Black Sea, to the extent of 200 miles, although at the time of that treaty she declared she had no desire of extending her territorial acquisitions. In 1832, she destroyed the Constitution of the kingdom of Poland, and having, in the face of treaties, destroyed its nationality, reduced Poland to the condition of a Russian province. Her acquisitions did not end there; they came down to the present day. In 1834, she got an accession of territory in Asia, and obtained the command of the passage of the Dardanelles. These acquisitions were greater than those of any country in Europe except Russia herself. She acquired an uninterrupted territory to the Balticaye, beyond the Baltic, from the North Sea to the Euxine. Let them look to the different position Russia held now to what she held in 1815, when what was called the settlement of Europe was effected. In 1815, France ceded Italy, Belgium, and the boundary of the Rhine. England gave up Java, Pondicherry, and a large portion of the West Indies. What did Russia give up? Nothingactually nothing. On the contrary she gained the acquisition of Poland. In addition to this, look at her present position. Was not Poland a complete province, and was not the ground completely laid for establishing the ascendancy of Russia in Germany? Moldavia and Wallachia were Russian in all but the name Silistria was in the hands of Russia, and she was thus in possession of one of the strongest fortresses of Europe. The right bank of the Danube was abandoned 618 by the Turks. Greece, dismembered from the Turkish empire, was subject to the influence of Russia, Egypt was but an agent of Russia, and the strength of Persia was so impaired that it was only
36

preserved by the timely interposition of this country. If therefore they looked at the state of Russia now and in 1815, would any man say that the balance of power continued? Noit was destroyed. Let them not believe that Russia would rest satisfied with the encroachments she had made. Her whole designs were to increase her acquisitions, and to that end she would direct the power she already had in her hands. They saw (hat from her very climate, and the circumstances and character of her people, she was naturally disposed to seek aggrandizement. History told them, that the aggrandizement of her dominion she had at all times sought and would continue to seek. If to decide on the intentions of individuals, we only saw that the acquisition of certain things are of importance to them, we did not require particular proof to come to the conviction that they would look for, and if in their power, lay hold of them, unless, indeed, we knew them to be influenced by scrupulous considerations. But if we knew that the person was an. unscrupulous person, then our conviction was complete, and all we had to inquire further was, whether there was any possibility of his accomplishing those designs about which we had no longer any doubt. Now, there were two narrow channels which commanded the whole of this most important and most powerful empire. Every creek, every river, every port on the coast had an arsenal in the dominion of Russia. These two channels wereon the north, the Sound; on the south, the Dardanelles, both of which had always been coveted by Russia. This her whole history demonstrated. If we wanted any further proof to convince us that Russia did desire, and would obtain, whenever she had the opportunity, those two passes, particularly the one of the Sound, we had only to turn to history, and observe what had been hitherto her conduct with regard to that great key of Constantinoplethe Dardanelles. Peter the Great coveted it; Catherine laid claim to, and almost obtained it; while Alexander desired to obtain it from Napoleon, saying that it was the key of his house. He was ready to cede a large sovereignty in EuropeItaly, and to give undisputed possession 619 of Albania, Bosnia, Egypt and Assyria to Napoleon, if he would only let him have the pass of the Dardanelles. But that great man's profound, views taught him that this was not to be ceded to the demands or entreaties of Alexander. He saw the effects of consenting to these demands. It did not appear that he saw them all; but he saw enough to prevent him from assenting to those demands. He rejected them; he never could be brought to listen to them; and, on that occasion, Napoleon saved the Turkish empire. It might be said he saved Europe. He endangered Europe on other occasions by his own ambition it was true but by that single refusal to put the Dardanelles into the power of Russia he saved Europe. Peter the Great, Catherine, and Alexander, ail laid claims to that pass. Had Nicholas no wish to have it?had he no intention of obtaining it? Let the late war with Turkeylet the motives of that war, as explained lately to the world by the publication of the very secret despatch of Russia's most able diplomatistlet the conditions upon which that war was terminatedlet the last treaty of St. Petersburghlet the conference at Tplitz declare. Now he believed that there could be no doubt that Russia did desire this important passage, and that she would acquirethat she would takethat she would seize it whenever she had an opportunity. We saw that the constitution of her people pushed her to it, that her interests required itthat was to say, supposing her aggrandisement to an enormous extent was her interestand that nothing could contribute to it half so much as having that passage. We saw that all her sovereigns had attempted to get possession of it, and seeing alt this, what had we to set against it? Her protestations, and nothing but her protestations! The protestations of Russia! Of what value were they? Who was therein that House that placed confidence in the protestations of Russia? If any one did, he begged to refer that hon. Member to some facts. He presumed that nothing could be better authority for facts than the Speech of his Majesty from the Throne, Now he begged hon. Gentlemen to go buck a few years with him, and to consider this declaration from the Throne of England in July 1828, on the closing of the Session. In that Speech were these words: "His Majesty the Emperor of Russia has consented to wave the
37

exer- 620 cise in the Mediterranean Sea of any rights appertaining to his Majesty in the character of a belligerent power, and to recal certain instructions he has given to the commander of his naval forces in that Sea, directing hostile operations against the Ottoman empire." That was in July 1828. On September the 12th, 1828, the news arrived that the blockade of the Dardanelles was established. So that we came to this conclusion, that at the very time his Majesty was telling his assembled Parliament that Russia would not use her belligerent rights, in consequence of course of the assurances he had received from the Court of Russiaat that very time Russia bad determined upon exercising those very belligerent rights which she had told us she had renounced. On February 5, 1829, his Majesty came down to Parliament and said, that he was obliged to confess that he had been deceived; that he had had false protestations addressed to him; and he told the House that his Imperial Majesty had considered it necessary to resume the exercise of his belligerent rights in the Mediterranean Sea, and had established a blockade of the Dardanelles, Those were examples of the faith of Russia; and we knew from them how much value to set upon her protestations. But without going back to particular instances of her perfidious conducther whole history was nothing but a tissue of perfidies. Without going back to her conduct to Poland in this last war, than which nothing could be more perfidious, professing to the Governments of Europe that her only object was to re-establish Poland under the conditions of the treaty of Vienna, and that was one means which she used for preventing the Powers of Europe from interfering with her; but putting aside that, putting aside many instances of her treacherous conduct in Sweden, he only asked the House to go back to her course of conduct with regard to the more immediate subject under the consideration of the House, with regard to Turkey. First, what did she do with regard to the Greek insurrection? She offered Turkey to put an end to it. This offer was declined. In April she signed a protocol, binding herself not to interfere in the affairs of Greece. In September she secured the acceptance by Turkey of a convention, in consequence of her declaration that she would not interfere with the affairs of 621 Greece. In July following she signed a treaty with Turkey, by which she renewed her engagement of the April preceding, and added to that treaty a power to enforce that engagement by force of arms, if necessary. In October, the battle of Navarino was fought, in which the Russian Admiral was engaged, and destroyed, in time of profound peace, the Ottoman fleet. Having succeeded in detaching France and England from their alliance with Turkey, by her advocacy of what she called the European cause, she declared war against Turkey. In that declaration of war, she said she would not avail herself of those advantages she might obtain for the purpose of enlarging her territory. That war proceeded, and was at length terminated by the treaty of Adrianople. He begged leave to read to the House some of the provisions of that treaty. He was obliged to read it from "The Quarterly Review," because, when he inquired for the treaty in the library of the House, which he of course expected to find, he was informed that unfortunately the volume of State Papers, which contained that treaty had been destroyed by fire on the burning of the two Houses of Parliament. The treaty was made in 1829. Russia got, by that treaty, the Delta, at the mouth of the Danube, which was the high road to central Europe. She got Anapa, the key of Circassia, both military and commercial. She got 200 miles of coast, and three military positions; moreover, two fortresses, one the chief place of a pachalic beyond Georgia. The separate act annexed to article S, stipulated for the nomination by Russia of the hospodars for life; the abolition of the imposts in kind, which formed the principal source of revenue from the provinces; the expulsion from them of all Mussulmans; the demolition of the Turkish fortress, Giurgova; and the establishment of a quarantine, separating them from the Porte, and uniting them to Russia. There were many other advantages which Russia obtained by that treaty; but he had mentioned the principal ones that tended to increase her power. There was also an article inserted, stating, that if any one of those stipulations came to be infringed, without the Minister of Russia obtaining prompt and
38

full satisfaction, the Sublime Porte should be responsible; and the Court of Russia would consider any such infringement of her rights as an act of hostility on the part of Turkey, and that she 622 would have an immediate right to reprisals. Having obtained those advantages, Russia had the assurance to put forth a manifesto to the world, declaring that the Court of Russia bad constantly remained a stranger to every desire of conquest, to every view of aggrandisement. After this, he did not think that any one would venture to contend that the protestations of Russia were worth considering. She had made solemn treaties, solemn asseverations, and solemn protestations; but the more solemn, and the more binding they were in words, the surer was it that they had been, or were to be, violated. Why, these protestations were no reasons for supposing that she did not wish to keep possession of the Dardanelles, and thereby render Turkey a mere province of her own. Let the House just consider what would be the consequence to this country, and to Europe, of Russia being in that situation. In the first, place, if Russia came to Constantinople, she would make a large stride towards becoming a great naval power. At that instant she would have a fleet of 100 sail of men of war. This was an important consideration to England, But there were many more consequences which would result from Russia being in that situation, and if he hesitated in presenting them to the House, it was not because he had any difficulty in knowing what they were, but it was on account of the multitude of enormous consequences which, rushed into one's mind at the contemplation of such an event. What would be its effect on our commerce? The effect would be enormous. He begged the attention of his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, to that question. He was sorry to perceive that his right hon. Friend was not in his place upon this occasion He must say, that he did consider it the duty of his right hon. Friend to have been present. But, perhaps, be might be in the House. [It was intimated to the noble Lord, that the right hon. Gentleman had been in the House.] His hon. Friend told him that the right hon. Gentleman was in the House just now; why did he go away? ["Hear."] [An hon. Member; he is here.] If so he begged his right hon. Friend's attention to the subject. It was a subject worthy his consideration. No subject could possibly affect the duty of the President of the Board of Trade more than this question did. He laid that down broadly; and let 623 not his right hon. Friend imagine, by pretending to consider the subject of no consequence or of small importancehe was happy to see his tight hon. Friend return to his placelet him not imagine, because this question was brought forward by so humble an individual as himself, that the subject for that reason was of small importance, and one in which the whole commercial world did not feel a deep and important interest. The acquisition by Russia of the Dardanelles would have at once the effect of depriving us of the whole of our commerce with Turkey; at all events, it would have the effect of diminishing it and that in a very serious degree. Our trade with Turkey was of great importance. It was a very large trade, and it was a continually increasing trade. Our trade with Russia was a decreasing trade. He would ask his right hon. Friend if it was not true that our trade with Russia in all those articles most profitable to this country was diminishing? Let his right hon. Friend look to the Russian tariff. He had not got it, but some hon. Gentlemen had it in their possession. Did not Russia by that tariff prohibit every article of our manufactures; She admitted, it was true, some articles? but those were articles which were necessary to enable her own manufactures to rival us in the markets of Central Asia, at Constantinople and other places. Those were articles in which our trade was increasing with Russia, and those only. Russia was most inimical to us; while Turkey, on the contrary, admitted our productions with no duty, or with a nominal duty; and he thought his right hon. Friend, filling the high situation he did, would do well to consider the subject, and turn his attention to it with a view of adopting measures which might strengthen the alliance between England and that country, whose commercial arrangements were favourable to us, and not to permit the other country, who was hostile in her commercial arrangements, as well as in her political views and all her feelings, to derive advantages from
39

its at our own expense. Then if Russia obtained possession of the Dardanelles, we should lose immediately all our great, important, and increasing trade with Turkey; we should lose also our trade through Turkey to Persia; and as Russia, if once she got possession of the Dardanelles, would have the mastery immediately of 624 Persia, we should lose also another important branch of our commerce, which was our trade to Persia through the Persian Gulf. He believed it was well known that our trade there was increasing immensely. He had heard that many new factories had arisen in different parts of England, where a few years ago none existed; and he believed that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, knew of some of them; because some had been erected in Devonshire, Factories had been established in that county for the manufacture of coarse goods, all of which were exported to the Persian Gulf, which employed a vast number of ships. Ships were now building on the coast of Devonshire, of a size which had never been seen there before, for the transport of these goods to the Persian Gulf. That trade we should lose also. He would enter into details showing the increase of our trade with Turkey, but he believed other hon. Gentlemen much more competent than himself, and better acquainted with this branch of our trade, would come forward and discuss it. But what would not be the effect, let him ask, upon the security of our Indian possessions? This was a great and important subject. He had heard with great satisfaction to-day of the election of a noble Lord who lately ruled over that empire, as the representative of the city of Glasgow. He knew not if the noble Lord was present. He hoped he might be, because he would be glad that he should state his opinions to the House upon the subject. The instant Russia obtained possession of Constantinople, all spirit of resistance to the Autocrat would be extinguished in Persia by the loss of that moral influence which the independence of Turkey now exercised over that feeble country. Persia would lose all confidence, and give up all resistance; and we might rely upon it that not many years would go by before Persia became, in fact, a Russian province. Now Russia, in possession of Persia, would come for the first time in immediate contact with an Indian population. What would be the effect? Did Gentlemen think that her influence would not be spread all over our Indian possessions? Did they think that it would not have an effect in Calcutta, and that our enormous empire would remain uninfluenced by such an event? On the contrary, we should see the power of England on the 625 wane, and that of Russia rising up. The reverence now felt by the people for England, and their awe of her, would sink, and their dread of Russia would take its place. To Russia all eyes would be turned. All those who were discontented; all those who wished for a change; all those who would not lose anything by the overthrow of our Government in Indiaall those persons would turn their eyes to Russiawould direct their hopes and expectations to Russia; and did Gentlemen think that Russia, who was always craftywhose schemes were not those only of conquest, but deep-laid schemes of subtle policy, which was to bear fruit not next year, not the year after, but in time to comedid they think that Russia would not use all her means in order to create discontent and disorganization in our Indian possessions? We required an army in India already. For what purpose? To control the population. Our Indian empire was called an empire of opinion. That could not be denied. Let Russia take away that opinionlet her undermine itlet her lessen the hold England had upon the opinion of the people there, and what would become of her? That empire would melt away, and escape from her grasp. At all events, the moment Russia became contiguous to our Indian possessions, we must immediately send out an increase of force to the East Indies. Now, he knew there was a great desire in that House for economy. He had always been for governing the country upon the most economical principle; and all who were for retrenchment in the public expenditure must with him be for preventing any occasion for a large increase of the army in India. But what outlay would the sending out an additional force occasion? 10,000 men would not be a large amount; probably the least that could be sent? What would be the cost of sending out 10,000 men to India? He had been informed by
40

gentlemen well versed in those matters, that you could not send out one soldier from this country to India who did not, before doing one day's duty, cost the country 100l. Then if 10,000 men were sent out, there would be an expense incurred of one million sterling at one fell swoop. But take into consideration the cost of maintaining troops in India; it was three times as much as in England. The infliction of such an increased expense on the country was enough to appal the most courageous Chancellor of the Exchequer 626 that ever filled that office. He had mentioned the moral effect of Russia getting possession of Turkey and Persia. He thought it was most important. He had not dwelt at all on the facilities it would give her for invading India; because that might be considered a mere chimeraan impossibility. That might be the case: he hoped it was so. But this was certain, that the possession of Persia would give Russia more facilities for that enterprise than she now possessed. If Persia fell under the yoke of Russia the attempt might be made. There would be great difficulties he admitted; but at all events one great obstacle would be removed; and he would just say this, that though we might think it impossible that Russia should obtain admission into the East Indies, that was an opinion not entertained at St. Petersburg. At the War-office there were plans prepared for the purpose of such an invasion; different stations were laid down, and means calculated, not only of one plan of invasion, but of several plans. These might all be vain and idle castles in the air. He did not wish to insist upon the subject. He did not attach much importance to it; but to the moral effects of the possession of Turkey and Persia by Russia he did attach the greatest possible importance. But these, although great, important, and terrific consequences, were not ail. Let us come nearer home. With Russia in possession of the Dardanelles what would become of our political influence in Europe? How would the influence of Russia not be augmented? Russia even now could scarcely disguise-nay, did not disguise, her dissatisfaction at the changes which had taken place in the Peninsula. Did hon. Gentlemen think that when in possession of Turkey and Persia, and so much more able to defend herself from any attack than now, she would not show her dissatisfaction much more effectually? Disturbances might possibly break out in Italy. The people were far from being satisfied. If any disturbances did break out there (and Russia would take good care that disturbances should break out), Russia would immediately interfere. The consequences to Austria would be tremendous. She would become involved and surrounded almost by Russia. There would be Sillstria terminating on Austria at one point; Turkeyand Greece as a matter of coursewould be mere provinces of Russia; and 627 did the House think that Austria would, under such circumstances, be able to maintain her possessions on the coast of the Adriatic?. Again, by invading Italy, Russia would, become almost an immediate neighbour of France, whom she would trouble. At all events, it would be necessary for us greatly to increase our fleet in the Mediterranean; and not only so, but constantly to keep up a much larger naval force than was now required. We saw then that our political influence would be diminished, and our commerce would be seriously affected. As our commerce would be affected, so our revenue would be diminished, while our necessary expenditure would be seriously and frightfully increased. But if one-tenth part of these consequences only were to accrue, he would Bay that we were not justified in neglecting the subject. We could only be justified if we had arrived at the conviction that Russia, having those schemes which he had shown she had always entertained, having those designs and those wishes, was still not in a situation to carry them into effect. Were they sure that there was no danger in Russia gaining possession of the Dardanelles? How did they know she would not take possession of it? She had a large fleet in the Black Sea now; fifteen line-of-battle ships and six or seven frigates. With those only she might transport a sufficient force to take possession of the Dardanelles. Let it be remembered that from Sebastapol to the Dardanelles the voyage was three days, with the winds that prevailed there during nine months of the year. Constantinople could offer no resistance. The Turkish forts were not sufficiently strong to arrest the passage of such a fleet,
41

even if they wished to do so; but how did we know that they would be willing to resist? The Turks were in the habit of seeing Russian men-of-war pass up, but they had not been in the habit of seeing English men-of-war. The fleet might pass by Constantinople. If necessary, it might slip through with a strong current without any difficulty, and go down to the Dardanelles and take possession of them. Why, Turkey had not thought of resisting. The Dardanelles were no more in a state to resist a sudden attack than any town in England in which there was no garrison. And let it be remembered that when Russia once got there, what was the strength of the Turks to oppose her? She had nothing but 628 those castles and fortifications which had been lately remodelled by Russian engineers, whom the Emperor was kind enough to lend to his faithful ally, the Sultan, for that purpose. If Russia get once with sufficient force into the Dardanelles, how would you dislodge her? How could you? Let Russia once get there, with such a force as she now had in the Black Sea, and you would not get her out again without a general war. Would any one wish to have a war? You could not get her out without an army. Was any one desirous of voting a sufficient supply to maintain a large army for that purpose? Where was the army to come from? Had we got it at Malta? He believed we had 6,000 or 7,000 men in Malta, and 3,000 or 4,000 in the Ionian Islands. But even supposing we had at Malta 11,000 men, and no less force would be sufficient to wrest the Dardanelles from the grasp of Russia, had the commanding officer orders on the arrival of the news which would justify him in sending out an expedition? Had he a sufficient number of ships together? Had he the necessary stores ready? No; in all probability the commanding officer at Malta would have to write home to the Government here for instructions; that is to say, his courier would have to make two sea voyages, and to cross the continent twice, before an expedition could reach the Dardanelles, to attack the Russian force on the land sidethe only accessible sidewhere she would doubtless have a numerous army. Had not Russia the command of the whole mercantile marine in the Black Sea? The trade of Odessa itself employed no fewer than 200 sail of merchantmen in the Danube alone. With these means, could any one doubt, that long before either England or France could land any force before the Dardanelles, Russia would have an army of 100,000 men there? Was he not justified in saying that Russia could not be dislodged from such a position without a general war? Russia would have no difficulty in finding a pretext for aggression. She was now the ally of the Sultan of Constantinople. Mehemet Ali was now making preparations to attack him: he might alter his line of attack, and it could not be doubted that Russia might easily find a pretext for her interference. She would consider her faithful ally in danger, and not with any ambitious view, for 629 Russia did not know what ambition or what an incessant desire for selfaggrandisement wasbut from a generous and disinterested desire to assist her ally, might easily obtain possession of the Dardanelles. Was not this an occurrence very likely to happen? Had he not shown that it might be very easily accomplished? These were enormous projects of gigantic designs, well worthy to attract the attention of this country; but they were not the whole of Russia's designsthey were only a part of them. To whatever part of the world they turned their eyes, wherever they looked, there might they find evidences of Russia's projects; there might they find the fruits of her desire of aggrandisement. There was the Prussian commercial leaguea great subject, well worthy a separate discussion. He hoped it would meet with the attention it deserved, and that the hon. Gentleman opposite who had brought the question forward in the course of the last Session, would renew it in the present. That league threatened our interests and our trade. No man could contend that it would have no effect on our commercial interests. He might be told that the smuggler would come in and protect English interests, and that all these restrictions and proscriptions were inefficacious and illusory. If so, why had we been so anxious to destroy the continental system of Napoleon, and why had we evinced so earnest a desire to put him down? What excited so much alarm, if his exclusive system and prohibitory enactments were to have no effect whatever upon this
42

country? He admitted that the smuggler would diminish the evil. He would weaken the blow, but he would not render it harmless. A country took all the produce she could afford to pay for; but if she had to pay the smuggler, of course the whole amount of her trade must be diminished by the amount she paid him. If he were told that the price of the produce would be raised, and that though the country might not expend an equal amount, the manufacturer would give as great a price for a less quantity, and that therefore the country would not be injured, he denied it. That trade was the most advantageousnot which gave the manufacturer the greatest profit, but which employed the greatest amount of labour. It might be said that the fact of the manufacturer deriving larger profits 630 might enable him to give higher wages. He denied that. The effect was directly the reverse. When there was a reduced demand for goods, there was a superabundance of labour. This Prussian league, he maintained, had been projected and accomplished at the instigation of Russia, whose creature Prussia was. How had it been brought about? How was it that so many States whose feelings must be averse to it had been induced to join in it, and thereby to sacrifice their independence? The Prussian league had destroyed the independence of the States of Germany. The great prerogative and power of a national assembly was that of imposing taxes and granting supplies. What, then, became of the independence of a country which devolved upon a foreign state the most important duty of its national assembly? Their authority was with a foreign power; their independence was gone. The States had been induced to form this league by the high-sounding promises, and the pompous words of Prussia-German Unity was the phrase held out to them; the confederation of all the States in one common German name. Russia knew perfectly well that the confederation of States would soon become an immense and preponderating power, and that Prussia would have to look abroad for the assistance of some foreign State, which she hoped would be Russia. There was an, other most important project of Russia, to which this was a mere instrument. One of the projects of Russiaa more favoured onea more dangerous scheme, not only an ancient and never-forgotten one, but one which involved the greatest amount of national feelingwas the establishment of a grand union of all the Sclavonian nations in the world. She was once Muscovy, she had become Russia, and she wanted to be Sclavonia. The great lever for the accomplishment of this design was the Greek religion. In all countries where that religion was professed, not only within but without the Russian territory, Russia kept up a constant intercourse with its chiefs, loading them with presents and caresses, and heaping upon them all the favours and allurements which a Court could bestow. They had their eyes constantly turned towards Russia, their thoughts were ever bent upon the Emperor, to whom they looked up as the head of their Church, and by whose means they hoped one day to be raised above the heads 631 of another clergy to whom they were at present inferior. In other parts of the Sclavonian nation, where the Greek United Church prevailed, she paid writers to advocate her favourite theories; and some learned men, inspired perhaps by more worthy views, but entertaining mistaken notions, had for a long time, in different parts of Germany, been using all their exertions, and all their influence, to promote the Sclavonian Union. This was one of their means of menacing the Austrian Government. It was well known how jealous that power was of Russia, and how earnestly she had urged this country to oppose the power of the Autocrat. Well might England lament, with deep and bitter regret, that the advances made to her by the statesmen of Austria, who entertained larger, better, and more comprehensive views than our own, had been rejected and despised. Prussia was the creature of Russia, and had done everything to second, and nothing to thwart, her designs. Upon her present creature, however, she would one day turn, and Prussia would be dismembered, when Russia, in the prosecution of her crafty projects, required her no longer. Another of the projects of Russia, her most darling scheme, the one which she cherished most dearly, because its accomplishment would afford her the means of repelling and resisting the power of this countrythe only nation which could
43

check her progresswas to become a great maritime nation. She had already at Cronstadt, seventy miles from Finland, a flotilla of 400 vessels. She had not ventured to raise an army there, the people of Finland were too disaffected, and she had only one regiment, 1,500 men, who were employed in the late Polish war. She was now organising a great naval force, amounting already to 12,000 men. Nothing could be easier for her, with such means, than to obtain possession of the whole western coast of Norway. All along that coast were natural harbours, formed of narrow inlets, which contained water quite deep enough to admit ships of the line. It was only necessary to glance at the map to understand the importance of this position, ft must not be forgotten, too, that Norway and Sweden furnished the best sailors in the world, together with abundance of excellent timber. With such advantages what was there to prevent Russia at once becoming a great naval power? And what 632 extent of resistance would be necessary to be effectual, when she issued from these ports in the west of Europe, and was joined by an American, and most probably by a Dutch fleet also? If there were only the most distant chance of such events coming to pass, how could this country be apathetic, and refrain from taking every step in her power to resist the aggressions of this gigantic and rapidly increasing Leviathan of the North? And what was the character of this Government, which was now threatening Europe, and menacing subjugation to the whole world. Was it a mild, wise, beneficent, and enlightened Government, diffusing around the blessings of peace, good order, good Government, free commerce, and all those advantages which flowed from a well-ordered administration of any of them? On the contrary, wherever Russia extended her sway, there you found savage torture, grinding oppression, unblushing venality, odious corruption, the treacherous system of espionnage, spoliation, moral degradation, and slavery, with all its attendant evils and horrors. Napoleon, when he subdued nation after nation, and carried his conquests far and wide, conciliated even those whom he subjected to his rule by introducing internal improvements and ameliorated administrations. Other conquerors had done the same in different periods of history; but what benefit, he would ask, had Russia ever conferred upon any country she had subjected to her despotic sway? They used to hear of Russia civilising the barbarians of the earth: the time when such language could be used was gone for ever. He believed that those who had once used it were now conscious of their folly and their ignorance, and cared little to be reminded of their former sentiments. If they wanted to know the character of Russia, they had only to inquire into the history of her late conduct towards Poland and towards her unhappy people, who did not take up arms until they had been goaded to resistance unheard of, and unrevenged for fifteen years together, and who at last, with rare magnanimity, when they had got into their hands the brother of the Autocrat the man who had turned the whole country into one scene of miserythe man who had watered it with the tears of its inhabitantsthe man who had filled the prisons, and exercised every species of oppression it was possible to conceive 633 suffered him to depart unmolested and unhurt. What had Russia done in return? Had she contented herself with putting down the insurrection, and re-establishing her authority? No. They all knew the manner in which she had treated the Poles. They saw the nobles and the patriots of Poland in exile, they heard of their property being confiscated (the intelligence of fresh confiscations had arrived since the commencement of the present Session), they heard of children being torn from their mothers' arms, under pretences the most hypocritical and disgracefulof families being carried off to the most distant regions of the empire, to be made Russians of of churches desecrated and altars outraged, and yielded up to the ministers of another religionof the very language of the people being suppressedof a system of conduct so foul and so atrocious, as to fix upon the Russian nation the stain of being the enemy of the human race. They knew of all these things. He said emphatically, they knew of them. On former occasions they had been met with "ifs." "If," said hon. Gentlemen, "these things be so, then deplorable oppression and, cruel outrage do exist." There was no necessity for proof
44

now. The acts of Russia were known and admitted. No man could stand up and pretend to entertain the slightest doubt on the subject. Such were a few traits in the character of the Russian Government. He would not expatiate upon it. There was no man, he would venture to say, in that House or in the country, who did not feel indignant at its tyranny. The English nation loved peace; no man, he believed, was desirous for war; but he did not hesitate to express his belief, that if affairs should come to that crisis when war with Russia would be necessary, there would be no man, not even among those most averse to war, who would not derive some consolation from the idea that the oppressors of Poland were to be chastised. He might be told that other nations who had attained a great eminence had fallen, and that Russia might fall also. Did history furnish any example of a country whose aggrandisement had been procured by the means, and in the manner in which that of Russia had been promoted, having in that aggrandisement the elements of weakness and the seeds of decay? The aggrandisement of Russia was not the result of the achievements of a great conqueror. It had not 634 been achieved by conquests such as those of Alexander the Great, or Tamerlane, or Napoleon. It was the result of a steady, regular, subtle system. He would beg to read to the House a short extract, which so well and so accurately described the mode in which Russia accomplished her aggressions, that he need offer no apology for its introduction. It was from a most valuable work, one which every gentleman who had any desire to make himself acquainted with the policy of Russia, or the manner in which it could affect this country, ought to have constantly at hand, and would do well to study. He meant The British and Foreign Review, "The process of incorporation (said the writer) is progressive and patient. Hitherto she has betrayed no hurry, yet her progress has been rapid beyond all parallel. Her's is not the sudden conquest of a gifted leader, but the regular advances of a system of incorporation of a vast empire, which she is now commencing as a work of infinite labour; and until it is completed she dare not awaken Europe from its slumbers. She must not threaten and alarm; she must soothe and undermine. She does not excite combinations against her; she sows dissensions before her. The chains she carries do not clank, her footsteps have no echo; her shadow blights where her hand cannot reach; and when she conies, it is to abide." He might be told that Rome conquered and fell. It did. And so did Byzantium, but not for ten centuries afterwards. Russia slowly made her way, and if she were downcast occasionally, it was only by a passing cloud. Catherine II. for a while desisted from her designs upon Turkey, and Napoleon reduced Russia to a secondary power. But did either defeat induce her in reality to desist from the designs she had formed? No: they only enabled her to watch an opportunity for advancing with redoubled vigour. If England wished to curb Russia effectually, and to interpose an efficient check in the way of her incorporation of power, she must do so not only in one point, but in all. She must raise up insurmountable barriers in every quarter to which her ambition was directed. She must not be satisfied with protecting Turkey merely; she must protect other countries, and raise other barriers. Poland held the door to Turkey on the one side, and to Germany on the other; and both Poland and Turkey would always in the long run share the same fate. 635 The first pretext for the partition of Poland was the existence of the plague, and the formation of a cordon sanitaire. To secure the independence of Turkey, every opportunity must be seized on for securing the nationality of Poland. He had thought it his duty to bring this subject before the House. He might be asked why he had put himself forward for the task? He knew the question was a great and important one; he felt how inadequate he was to do it justice. His motives, however, were a strong sense of duty, and an earnest desire to rouse this country, to awaken her from her lethargy, and to direct her attention to the designs of Russia; and seeing that none of those who were so well qualified for the task had declared their intention of executing it, hehumble as he washad taken it upon himself. A whole year had passed and nothing had been doneno motion had been made with reference to Russia. These were his excuses for putting himself forward. He did
45

not wish to embarrass the Government. He believed they well knew that his desire was to support them. He only wished them to adopt that line of policy which he conceived tended to the promotion and advancement of British interests. He knew that no Government, whatever were their views, could act satisfactorily without the cordial support of that House and of the country. Even the Minister who entertained views on this subject nearly approximating to his own, even his Majesty's Judge Advocate General (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson) whose absence he regrettedwere he where he ought to be, and where, from his high station, long experience, and great stake in the country, he believed the House and the public would feel pride and pleasure in seeing himhe meant in the Cabineteven he, he felt assured, would not recommend the adoption of the measures nearest his heart, unless he had satisfactory evidence that the country felt with him, and was ready to second his views. He well remembered that in bringing forward the motion which his right hon. Friend had made on the subject of Poland those motions which had rendered his name so dear to every friend of freedom in Europe and the civilised worldhe had not only ably, eloquently, and ceaselessly, asserted the rights of the unfortunate and distressed Poles, but had also dwelt strongly on the dangers to which Europe was exposed 636 from the encroachments and ambition of Russia. He was not an advocate for war, he acknowledged the propriety of maintaining peace, and adhering to a strict system of economy; but it was incumbent on us to arrest the further progress of Russia, by adopting a high tone in our communications with that power. If we wanted peace, we must impress Russia with the conviction that we were ready to go to war with her if necessary. He hoped that the House, which was at present so thinly attended, would see the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, rise in his place, after he had returned to it, to state his opinion on this question. He hoped, also, that the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, and the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, would speak out, and that all those who filled a prominent station in that House would express their sentiments upon the subject. He wanted to know whether, if Russia chose to close the Dardanelles, we ought not to resent it, and whether we were to look on with indifference while the Turkish Empire crumbled to pieces? He thought it was the duty of this country to interfereand that was now especially the duty of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in order to prevent such a misfortune; and this could only be done by adopting a firm tone. If his noble Friend had, as he believed that he had, a higher ambition than merely retaining his place, and was anxious to have it mentioned by the future historian that under his administration the interests of England were maintained by the dignity, and firm and profound views which he had adopted, and which the country had a right to expect from the person who was at the head of the Foreign Department of the country, his noble Friend should at once take steps to remove the apprehensions that prevailed in the minds of Englishmen with regard to the conduct of Russia. It was his intention to move for the production of a number of papers. In the first place, he intended to call for the production of the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, which at the present moment much occupied public attention. He could not understand the purport of this treaty, if it was not to prevent English ships sailing through the Dardanelles, the object apparently was, to prevent European ships of war going through the Dardanelles without the permission of the Emperor of Russia. 637 It applied, however, not merely to vessels of war, but by implication to all merchant vessels. How was itif this treaty was not enforcedthat the Ambassador of England to Russia had to disembark from the frigate in which he had sailed from England, and go on board a steam-vessel which had been disarmed for the purpose, previously to being allowed to enter the Dardanelles? Lord Durham sailed from England in a frigate; but the Pluto steam-ship had her guns taken out of her, that she might be allowed to carry that nobleman through the Dardanelles. An insult was offered to England in the treatment manifested to Lord Durham. The Russian authorities at Odessa refused to salute that nobleman as an ambassador, on the ground that they did not know the vessel he sailed in from a merchant ship. How was it
46

that an English ambassador was not allowed to go into the Euxine in a frigate. Since that time, however, Russian men of war with their guns run out, and their colours flying, had repeatedly passed the Dardanelles. This then was the way in which Russia was treated in contrast with the way in which England was. What effect could such conduct have on the minds of the people of Turkey, with whom it was so much our interest to stand well, other than pointing out to them the predominance of Russia, and the pusillanimity of England. The treaty of Unkiar 'Skelessi furnished Russia with a pretence for the occupancy of the Dardanelles. By this treaty, Turkey guaranteed to Russia that no vessel of war belonging to any other country should pass through these straits; and did not this treaty enable the latter power to say, "You have not sufficient power to enforce it; I will assist you in putting it in execution, and therefore I will place an armed force there." It was his firm conviction that, by the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, Russia might at any time demand the exclusion of all foreign vessels from the Black Sea as well as be allowed to prevent their entering. It was stated that Russia was only to do this in case of war, but that power was in a state of warfare at the present moment. She was at war with Circassia, and therefore she might require that the treaty should be enforced to the fullest extent. The first article of the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi states that "This alliance having solely for its object the common defence of these 638 States against all attack, their Majesties promise to have a mutual and unreserved understanding as to all objects which concern their tranquillity and safety respectively, and to send to each other for this purpose materiel, succours, and most efficacious assistance." This is afterwards further explained by the secret article of the treaty, which states:"In virtue of one of the clauses of the first article of the patent treaty of defensive alliance concluded between the Sublime Porte and the Imperial Court of Russia, the two high contracting parties have engaged to lend mutually materiel, succours, and the most efficacious assistance for the safety of their respective States. Nevertheless, his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, wishing to save the Sublime Ottoman Porte the expense and the inconveniences which might result to it from lending such materiel succour, will not demand this succour. Should circumstances place the Sublime Porte under the obligation to furnish it, the Sublime Porte, in lieu of the succour which it is bound to lend in case of need, according to the principle of reciprocity of the patent treaty, should limit its action in favour of the Imperial Court of Russia, to shutting the strait of the Dardanelles, that is to say, not to permit any foreign vessel of war to enter it under any pretext whatsoever." Another treaty was entered into between these two Powers at St. Petersburgh, in January, 1834, carrying out the principles laid down in the treaty he had just quoted. There were two allusions to these two States in Speeches from the Throne, but it was clear, from the language put into his Majesty's mouth, that Ministers were not aware of what was going on. In the Speech from the Throne, made at the close of Parliament, the 29th of August, 1833, it is stated, "The hostilities which had disturbed the peace of Turkey have been terminated, and you may be assured that my attention will be carefully directed to any events which may affect the present state or the future independence of that empire." On the 4th February, 1834, the following language is put into his Majesty's mouth:"The peace of Turkey, since the settlement that was made with Mehemet Ali, has not been interrupted, and will not, I trust, be threatened with any new danger. It will be my object to prevent any change in the rela- 639 tiona of that empire with other Powers, that might affect its future stability and independence." It appeared, however, that almost on the same day, certainly in the same week, a treaty was entered into at St. Petersburgh, by which the Sultan ceded an important territory to Russia, and by which the latter Power would be able at all times to enter Turkey. He had repeatedly heard that the object of the Crown was to prevent the dismemberment of the Turkish empire, but at the time these declarations were made, treaties were entered into directly contrary to their effect, and obligations were contracted which would at any time afford sufficient grounds to Russia to adopt any steps she pleased towards Turkey. He did not
47

think that Government should, or ought, or could, with anything like justice, refuse to produce the papers he called for, having reference to these two treaties. When Mr. Sheil, the hon. Member for Tipperary, brought forward his motion on this subject in 1834, he was met with the objection that the production of the papers at that moment would be attended with inconvenience. The noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs entreated the House to abstain from calling for the papers until they could be laid in something like a complete shape before the House. The treaty was now signed and in full operation, and after what was said on that occasion, he could not suppose that the Government would refuse the production of the correspondence now. If no negotiations were going on, then it was right that the country should see what had been said by the Government. It would be in the recollection of the House, that when his right hon. Friend, the present Judge Advocate-General, made his motion, it was opposed by the Government, "because," said they, "we have already done more than you propose to do; we have made most energetic remonstrances, and therefore it is of no use for you to address the Crown on the subject." Those remonstrances, however, were of no use; Russia still pursued the same system of reckless barbarity towards unhappy Poland. There was then a prim facie case made out for the production of that part of the correspondence of our Government with Russia relating to her conduct towards Poland, which the representatives of the people had a right to demand. He was not a man who called himself of no 640 party; he belonged to the Whigs, and it was his pride to call himself one of them, who had done more for the country than any other party, and who alone could carry on the government of the country with effect; but when he thought of the conduct of the Whigs towards Poland, he felt no pride in the name of Whig, and so far from giving him satisfaction, it penetrated his heart with shame. We had already incurred the charge of disgraceful pusillanimity by abandoning Poland, let us not become liable to the imputation of insanity by surrendering the Turkish empire into the hands of its enemies. He could not help feeling that they had much to answer for in abandoning Poland to her fate; and he trusted that they would not have the additional charge brought against them of abandoning Turkey also to Russia. The noble Lord concluded by moving an address for a copy of the Treaty of Constantinople of the 8th of July, 1833, called the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi; the Treaty of St. Petersburgh of the 29th of January, 1834; and also for a copy of any correspondence between this Government and the Governments of Russia and Turkey, relative to these treaties, and any correspondence with the Government of Russia relating to the remonstrances made by England against the conduct pursued by Russia towards Poland.
Mr. Thomas Attwood

rose to second the Motion. He was sure the House could not but admire the ability and good feeling which pervaded the important statements which the noble Lord had that night laid before it. If this country had, as she ought to have done, put on the appearance of war, there would be no occasion for war now. Now we must go to war. He said that if the Government did go to war the people of England would support them. It had been stated that the day was passed for vindicating the treaty of Vienna. If so, there was an awful responsibility on the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, for it was by his hand that Poland fell. Sir Edward Codrington, with his fleet, could have saved Poland in 1831, had he been permitted by the noble Lord to enter the Russian ports, which he could easily have done. In 1833 the Sultan asked the noble Lord for a fleet from England, to aid him in putting down the rebellious Pacha of Egypt, but the noble Lord said "No; we have one fleet at Lisbon, 641 another fleet at Antwerp, and we cannot raise a third fleet to assist Turkey, and assert the power and independence of England." The noble Lord ought to have come to Parliament for supplies. He ought to have pawned the crown jewels, rather than suffer the character of this
48

great nation to fall, without an attempt to vindicate himself and his allies. The noble Lord must take care to prevent Russian intrigue operating on his mind. The noble Lord had more than once insinuated that his (Mr. Attwood's) wish for a war with Russia arose from an anxiety to get paper-money, and also that his constituents might get orders for arms; but he would not say that Russian influence or intrigue had operated with the noble Lord when he suffered that Power to attain such sway. He could not help saying, that by the course which had been followed the honour of England had been sacrificed. He charged the noble Lord with having been guilty of a dereliction of duty, in not watching sufficiently the interests of this country. The noble Lord long ago ought to have laid on the Table papers calling for an addition of men to the army; and if instead of fitting out a fleet now, it had sailed two years ago, the Russian fleet never would have been at Sebastapol, and this nation might have done what she pleased in the Black Seas. It was said that this country could not support the expense of a war as long as we had a gold standard, but she could do so with good paper. If they could go to war with gold, well and goodbut he would say, at all events, let them have war rather than be trampled on by Russia. The noble Lord (Palmerston) was now preparing a fleet. Why did he not do so before? Perhaps, he would say, as Lord Liverpool did, when the French were entering the Milanese territory, "I could not have threatened because, I was not prepared." In place of threats, let the noble Lord act. He need not fear; Russia is weak. She had been making preparations for the last three years. They allowed her to increase in strength, but had the noble Lord acted with the spirit of an Englishman or an Irishman, he might without difficulty have pushed Russia gradually from the Dardanelles and the Danube, and have humbled her in the dust. If the noble Lord were now to demand all at once, Russia would not submit. He was glad to find that 642 so much was now to be asked, because he trusted Russia would refuse, and then by a war all that was desired from her might be secured. Great Britain had been grossly insulted by those barbarians. No Englishman, unless from interested motives, would deny this. Out of doors a war with Russia was most popular. ["No."] Yes it was. He did not say with the aristocracyhe spoke of the people. In the mercantile navy of this country, a deadly hatred prevailed against Russia, and plenty of volunteers might be had in the event of a war. It might not be popular with those who were interested in loanswith the Jews. When he mentioned the word "Jews," it was not in disrespect to that illustrious nationhe alluded to the money-jobbers, to those muckworms, as Lord Chatham called them. Few would be opposed to a war with Russia, unless those connected with loans; and no man interested in loans and stockjobbing should have a seat in that House. No man who was interested in the national burdens should sit in the House. No man wish large investments in Consols should be allowed to administer the law, or have a voice in vindicating the honour of England. They were aware that, in case of a war, Consols might again fail, as they did in 1796, to 58. Now a word with respect to the insults of Russia to this country. He paid great attention to those subjects. He knew them well, but the villainous public press, what was called the fourth estate, concealed them from the public. Let them looknot into newspapers, but into books published upon the subjectinto libraries, and into treaties, and they would find that every thing which fell from the noble Lord was true. In 1827, a treaty was entered into between France and England, and Russia, for supporting the independence of Greece, and Russia then engaged not to pass the Pruth. Immediately afterwards the English fleet destroyed the Turkish fleet at Navarino, and soon after this was done Russia said that she had a private ground of quarrel with Turkey, and sent her army across the Balkan to Adrianople, which she never would have, done if the Turkish fleet had not been destroyed. The Duke of Wellington was then at the head of affairshe, and a worse man than the noble Lord, who was at the head of the Foreign Department, he meant Lord Aberdeenrefused to go to war. Count Nesselrode imposed upon 643 them, and stated, "Oh, we have a private quarrel with Turkey our honour is involved, and you ought not to prevent us vindicating it." The Duke of
49

Wellington pocketed that insult, and, as he had told the House three years ago, he would never forget or forgive it. The Russians afterwards passed their fleet from the Baltic to the Dardanelles, and the Duke of Wellington, then at the head of affairs, suffered them to do so. His Grace, however, made another remonstrance to Count Nesselrode, who responded, "Oh! we are very sorry; no insult was intended, and we only acted as the guardians of our own honour." The blockade of the Dardanelles then followed, and the Duke of Wellington submitted to the insult of the required submission of every English ship cleared from Constantinople before the date of the blockade to a clearance before it passed free. He appealed now to English honour to resist this mode of treatment, and he would call upon the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department to "show pluck," and compel the fulfilment of treaties, and to sweep the aggressors from Turkey. This, he was satisfied, could be done without a war: but, even in that extremity, he was sure the people of England would lend to the noble Lord their best aid and assistance.
Lord Pollington

said, that the House, he was sure, would feel much indebted to the noble Lord for calling their attention to this subjectof no less importance to this country than to the fate of that heroic people of whom the noble Lord was the able and the constant advocate. The apathy of this country towards the cause of Poland was most injurious to its own interestspermitting Russia, as it had done, to take possession of Wallachia and Moldavia. Since the last Session of Parliament, he (Lord Pollington) had been to the Sclavonian possessions of Austria, and he could assure the House that there was not a Dalmatian Greek who was not most anxious to throw off his allegiance to Catholic Austria, and, in obedience to the advice of his priests, become a serf of Russia, to whom he looked up as to his national and most powerful protector.
Mr. Barlow Hoy

said, he did not wish for war, nor did he believe the people of England wished for it. The House was indebted to the noble Lord for bringing this subject under their consideration, but 644 his speech embraced too great a variety of subjects. Like the wave produced by a stone thrown into the water, the subject went on extending itself till it became indistinct. There were only three ways in which British interests in India could be injured. First, by interfering with the religion of the natives. Secondly, by colonization. There was no instance of a country having been colonised that did not ultimately separate itself from the mother country. It so happened to the Dutch, to the Portuguese, to the Spaniards and to the English in America. The third was by degrading their own service in India to the level of the natives. The moment this was done their hold of India was lost. He considered the day very distant, indeed, when Russia should be able to invade India successfully. It was hardly possible, from the numberless difficulties of such an enterprise that it could ultimately succeed. He could not approve of the policy pursued by England towards Turkey. They had no more right to assist in the separation of Greece from Turkey, than Turkey would have to separate Ireland from England. The battle of Navarino was most injurious and disgraceful to England, and proved highly advantageous to Russia, No country in Europe was worse treated than Turkey. They had to contend at the same time against European Alliance, against the Pacha of Egypt, and against Servia. Besides this they were always oppressed by a system of quarantine. The noble Lord talked of the aggressions of Russia; but let him look at England, and see the extent of her aggressions in India since the time of Lord Clive. Sufficient attention had not been paid to their foreign policy since the question of Reform began first to be agitated in that House. The
50

noble Lord who brought forward this Motion seemed to think that it would not be a very difficult matter for a fleet to pass the Dardanelles at night. A short time back he proceeded to the Dardanelles in a Maltese vessel. It was dark when they approached. A light was instantly displayed, and in a few minutes several shots were fired. This, with the Turkish cantonments, stationed in the plains of Troy and in other parts adjacent, proved that the Turks were not so inattentive to the passage as the noble Lord seemed to suppose. If Turkey were disposed to keep up her connexion with Russia she could not 645 be frightened out of it by mere demonstrations. This besides, would be a contemptible mode of proceeding. It had been said that all might be easily done by a union with France. For his part, he could not approve of these unions between two or more great Powers. Weak States might unite for their mutual protection, but it was not so with great Powers. Such a union was not required. If war should become necessary, he hoped England would stand alone in the contest, as she bad done before.
Viscount Palmerston

rose and said, whatever might be the effect of the speech of his noble Friend who had made this motion, and however he might agree with some parts of that speech, and disagree with others, there were, at least, two sentiments expressed by the two hon. Gentlemen who had followed the noble Lord in the present debate, with which he could not agree. With respect to those sentiments so expressed, he (Lord Palmerston) must take leave to give utterance to his most entire dissent. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Attwood) had expressed his anxious desire to see this country engaged, as soon as possible, in a war. In that wish he could by no means concur. On the contrary, he wished that this country should continue at peace, and he firmly hoped and believed that peace would continue, But if the day should arrive when, by the aggression of other powers, this country should find itself engaged in a war, he certainly could not concur in the fervent wish of the hon. Member for Southampton, (Mr. B. Hoy) that against the combination of other powers this country should have the good fortune (according to the hon. Member) to stand alone and unassisted. He did hope, if this country became involved in a war, that it would be found that the friendships we had formed during a period of peacethat the respect, confidence, and goodwill which the integrity, dignity, and honesty of our policy had created in the minds of other nations,would accompany us into that war, and that our cause being, as it must be, just, we should not only be supported by the sympathy of all mankind, but be backed by the active exertions of faithful' and powerful allies. His noble Friend who had introduced this motion, had commenced by expressing his opinion that the subject to which he was about to draw the attention of the House was one 646 of the greatest national importance. In that opinion he would be the foremost man in that House to agree; because if there were in existence any man who thought the foreign relations of the country a matter of insignificance, and which could, without danger to the country, be treated with indifference, he held that man to have looked to the affairs of mankind, and to the lessons of history with little benefit to himself or to the country. But he did not agree with his noble Friend in thinking that the thin state of the House on the present occasion, or the circumstance of but few Members being present of late years when questions of foreign policy had been discussed, was any indication that there prevailed, either in that House, or in the country, a feeling of indifference with respect to those matters. It had never been the character of the English nation, or of the British Parliament, to feel an indifference with respect to the affairs of Europe. On the contrary, he should say, that if there was any thing which more peculiarly characterised the people of this country, and the deliberations of Parliament, it was an anxious and lively attention to the events which were arising around them. Perhaps, on some occasions, the House had rather gone before the Government in an
51

eager and keen perception of coming events, than tagged behind, and looked with indifference on matters which deserved attention. If he might be permitted to give an explanation of that apparent indifference on the part of the House to which his noble Friend had alluded, he should say that it arose, not from any insensibility to the importance of the subjects which had been commented upon by his noble Friend, but from a confidence in the Government of the countryfrom a knowledge that foreign affairs have been managed in a way to preserve peaceand from a belief that the attention of Government was studiously directed, and needed not to be urged by repeated goadings from that House, to maintain peace abroad, and at the same time to watch carefully all the important interests as well as the honour of the country. If an opinion prevailed that the foreign affairs of the country were ill-ad ministered, the noble Lord would not have seen the House so empty as it had been on that night and on former occasions. At periods when the country had been dissatisfied with the 647 management of its affairs, that House had frequently a much fuller attendance at discussions of questions relating to foreign policy than on those even of the greatest domestic interest. He therefore thought that he was entitled to say, that that which his noble Friend regarded as an indication of indifference on the part of the public to foreign affairs, was, in fact, a proof that the country was satisfied, and confident that foreign affairs would be properly attended to by the Government. His noble Friend, in a speech of great ability and research, had traced the progress of the augmentations of territory acquired by the Russian empire. Now, if there were any one circumstance more peculiar than another connected with those acquisitions, it was, that they had almost invariably been made at periods when the other nations of Europe were engaged in quarrels amongst themselves, and had their attention occupied by their own respective wars. If that were the case, his noble Friend could not but approve of the policy, the object of which was to preserve the peace of Europe; because the best way to prevent Russia from making further aggrandizements was, not to follow the course recommended by the hon. Member for Birmingham of going to war, whether to be paid for in gold or in paper, but to maintain a state of peace, and to prevent the recurrence of those events which had led in former times to those evils which his noble Friend had pointed out. He entirely agreed with his noble Friend as to the importance to this country, commercially and politically, that Turkey should be maintained in integrity and independence. He had on former occasions endeavoured to satisfy the House that that opinion was entertained by his Majesty's Government; and it had been expressed on all those occasions when it was consistent with the usual practice of the Crown for the Government in its communications with Parliament to refer to the subject. He could assure his noble Friend that it was impossible for him to feel more strongly on that subject than did his Majesty's Ministers, and he believed that the same sentiment was shared by all the other nations of Europe, whose interests, as well as those of Great Britain, required that Turkey should continue an independent, powerful, and prosperous Empire. Considering the great importance of the matter before the House, considering also the delicacy 648 and difficulty which a Minister of the Crown must always feel in going into any discussion with respect to the relations of this country with other powers, when no precise necessity for so doing had arisen, he was persuaded that the House would think that he should best discharge his duty by not following his noble Friend at length through the various topics to which he had called the attention of the House; but with respect to one of themnamely, the Prussian commercial leaguehe did wish to set his noble Friend right. His noble Friend seemed to think that that commercial league, of which Prussia, was the head, was the result of Russian policy, and destined for Russian objects. He was convinced that his noble Friend was in this respect, at least, mistaken. That league had undoubtedly for its object the advancement of Prussian views and Prussian interests. No doubt Prussia first conceived the plan of uniting the different countries of Germany by one common league; but, at the same time, it must be remarked, that if that league were not for the advantage and the interest of the other states in
52

Germany, it was impossible to suppose that Prussia could have prevailed upon them to cooperate in carrying that plan into effect. It had been a favourite notion in Germany, that it would be advantageous for all the states to get rid of the various impediments which the numerous Custom-houses opposed to their traffic, and to give to the trade and industry of the interior greater freedom. The commercial league was a German conception; whether it might operate to the advantage or detriment of England(he believed it would have little effect in either way)it was, at any rate, not a Russian, but a purely German transaction. His noble Friend had expressed his feelings strongly in reference to Poland, but he had not pressed his Majesty's Government to take any practical measures, on account of the situation of that country. Doubtless his noble Friend felt that whatever sympathy might be felt, in or out of that House, with regard to Poland, it was not a subject respecting which it was possible for him to suggest, or for the Government to take, any measures at the present time. As to the papers for which the noble Lord moved, there was one which he felt no difficulty in granting, but there were three other parts of the motion which he considered it his duty to oppose. The treaty 649 of Constantinople, called the treaty of Hoonkiar 'Skelessi, was officially possessed by his Majesty's Government, and to the production of that treaty there existed no valid objection. The other treaty mentioned in the motion, namely, the treaty of St. Petersburgh, was not officially possessed by the Government, and of course could not be produced to the House. With respect to the correspondence which the noble Lord called for, namely, that between this country, Russia, and Turkey, relative to those treaties, he certainly must entreat the House not to insist on its production. He was prepared to say, that that correspondence could not be produced without inconvenience to the public service; and he trusted that the House would rest satisfied with that statement, and not press the Government to lay on the Table copies of correspondence, the production of which would, in point of fact, answer no object which the noble Lord could have in view. With regard to the correspondence on the subject of Poland three years ago, which formed the subject of the last part of the noble Lord's motion, the reason why it ought not to be published had been stated to the House on a former occasion, A motion was made for the purpose of urging the Government to protest against the change which, at the period he had alluded to, was made in the Constitution of the kingdom of Poland. The Constitution of Alexander was abolished, and an organic statute substituted by the present Emperor of Russia. On that occasion it was stated, that the British Government had remonstrated against the change, and had expressed an opinion that it was not consistent with the spirit of the treaty of Vienna. He now repeated that declaration. So far, therefore, as the opinion of the British Government, expressed to the Russian Government on the subject, went, his noble Friend had all the advantage of it, but he thought the House would be of opinion that no good could arise from publishing to the world, after an interval of three years, all the correspondence which might have passed between two Governments on a subject respecting which their opinion differed, especially as nothing had recently occurred to make the publication of this correspondence necessary. If a country was going to war, it would then be right to produce every thing to show that the cause 650 was good and the quarrel just; but if the preservation of peace was desirable, it could not be politic to publish to the whole world communications which might expose the existence of conflicting opinions, and would tend to create irritation on both sides, without accomplishing any useful purpose. It was on these grounds that he recommended the House not to concur in that part of the motion which called for the production of those portions of correspondence. Before sitting down, he must inform his noble Friend that he was mistaken in supposing that the treaty of Hoonkiar 'Skelessi had led to any indignity being offered to this country in the person of its Ambassador, or had induced the Government to adopt, with regard to the Ambassador alluded to, any measures inconsistent with the dignity and the honour of the British nation. In the first place, he ought to tell his noble Friend that that treaty, as far as it applied to the passage of the Dardanelles,
53

was at present a dead letter, because by its very terms it was to have no force except in time of war. [Lord Dudley Stuart; Russia is at war with Circassia]. That was not the sort of war contemplated by the treaty, which was therefore a complete dead letter; and the passage of the Dardanelles stood exactly as it would have stood had no such treaty been made. What, then, were the circumstances affecting the passage of the Dardanelles with regard to this country? By very ancient treaties, British ships of commerce had a right to enter all Turkish ports and to navigate all the Turkish seas; but the eleventh article of the treaty of 1809 declared that it was the ancient practice of the Porte not to allow ships of war to pass through the strait of Constantinople and the Dardanelles; and England on her part declared that she respected and acquiesced in that ancient privilege of the Porte. We bad, therefore, no right to send our ships of war through the strait of Constantinople, except with the permission of the Turkish Government; but that permission had been asked and obtained whenever there existed sufficient reason. Now what was the case with respect to Lord Durham? He went in a frigate through the Dardanelles up to Constantinople. But the noble Lord seemed to think that it was a want of dignity on the part of the British Government in not directing Lord Durham to proceed further 651 in the frigate. If any thing could depend upon, the mere fact of a British frigate having gone into the Black Sea, that fact had already happened; the Blonde had entered that Sea and sailed round it. But the fact was, that about the time when Lord Durham sailed from this country, Mr. Ellis also departed on a special embassy to Persia. That Gentleman embarked on board a steam vessel which carried him through the Dardanelles to Trebisond. The vessel then returned to Constantinople, whence it carried Lord Durham to Odessa, being all the time in exactly the same state as when it left the shores of England. It was not heavily armed, because, as it had to carry the baggage of the Ambassador, its large guns would only have been in the way, but it bore his Majesty's pennant; none of the arrangements were of a nature to throw discredit on the flag of England. "When the vessel reached Odessa, it was certainly true, that in consequence of a mistake on the part of the Captain of a Russian man of war, some delay occurred before salutes were exchanged. This arose, however, from mere mistake, for Lord Durham was received by the authorities at Odessa with every mark of distinction, and in the most flattering manner, as the representative of the King of England. His noble Friend was, therefore, mistaken in supposing that the treaty of Hoonkiar 'Skelessi had any influence on the manner in which Lord Durham proceeded to Odessa, or that anything passed inconsistent with the respect due to the flag of England, and to the Ambassador of the British nation. Without entering into the various other topics discussed by his noble Friendwithout investigating, like the hon. Members opposite, the question of colonization in Indiawithout being drawn on the present occasion into a defence of the policy adopted by this country with regard to Greecea policy which he must, however, be permitted to characterise as honourable and advantageous to Englandwithout vindicating the Greeks from the sweeping charge that they were robbers by land and pirates by seathough he could not help wishing that the hon. Member from whom it proceeded, and who had made the tour of the East, had devoted a little time to study the character and pursuits of the Greek people, he nevertheless could assure the House that the importance of all these 652 subjects was duly appreciated by the Government. He also assured the noble Lord that if they should even find it necessary, for the due maintenance of the interests of the country, to call upon the House to furnish the means of vindicating the national interests and asserting the national honour by a war, Ministers would certainly do so, but they would never make such a call without such good and sufficient ground as would ensure them the confidence and concurrence of Parliament. It was not, however, the wish of the Government to disturb the transactions of peace by spreading abroad menaces of war; and as they did not at present see any reasonable ground why the peace of this country and of Europe should be disturbed, they felt it to be their duty, while they agreed to a part of the present motion, strenuously to oppose
54

the remainder. He entreated the House to leave the Government to manage the affairs which had been intrusted to their hands, resting satisfied that they would not plunge the country unnecessarily into war, that they were determined to preserve peace as long as they could, and that they did not at present see any reason to doubt its continuance.
Dr. Bowring

thought that no one could mistake the high and generous sentiments which had given rise to the Motion of the noble Lord, but at the same time be thought the noble Lord himself was mistaken in his views of the extent of the powers of Russia. It was to be regretted that such statements should go forth to the world uncontradicted. It was his (Dr. Bowring's) conviction that the power of Russia had been very much overrated. On paper her armies were doubtless immense, but she had never, even at the time when she struggled for existence, been able to bring more than 300,000 men into the field. The Nobles, too, were beginning to evince a desire for improvement. He felt for the situation of Poland, but would be sorry if the question of Polish independence were to be decided by whether the stipulations of a treaty, in which certain Monarchs bound themselves to maintain a particular constitution in Poland, had been complied with. He thought those rights rested on a much broader basis, and that she must look to the future for her restoration to liberty, when those more extended rights were generally admitted
Mr. Robinson

was very much inclined 653 to agree with the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs that very little good was to be gained from re-opening this question between Russia and Poland, as he thought that it would have a tendency very different from that which the noble mover wished. He thought that a protest having been entered by the British Government against the proceedings of Russia with respect to Poland, the former had placed itself in such a situation as would enable it, whenever the occasion should arise, to avail itself of that protest in following it up. He would not enter into the general question, whether the league called the Prussian league was the result of Prussian influence exerted to favour Prussian interests, or whether it was the result of German interference. For his own part he was inclined to think that the noble Lord the Secretary of State was right in assuming that it was a German league; but he thought that the noble Lord was disposed to treat the objects of the league with too much levity. He regarded it as a German transaction: but it ought not to be forgotten that Prussia was enabled by the means of that system to increase the duty on British manufactures, not merely in her own territories, but also in all the other States of Germany, with the exception of Austria. He cordially joined in the hope that peace might not be broken. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Birmingham to talk about the anxiety of the people for war. Such might be the wish of the people of Birmingham, but they, probably, would not like the consequences of war, and would be the first to complain of the increased taxation rendered necessary by the cessation of a state of peace.
Mr. Poulett Thomson

merely rose to say a few words relative to the sentiments which his hon. Friend who had just sat down entertained on the subject of the Prussian commercial league. How it had found its way into this debate was a mystery to him. His noble Friend who introduced it had, some how or other, discovered that Russia was at the bottom of it. He had seen that opinion expressed in a remarkably absurd article appended to one of the numbers of the Portfolio, but he did not
55

think that any one who really knew the bearings of the question could possibly conceive that it would be for the interest of Russia, even if she had the power to promote that confe- 654 deracy, which, if it tended to any political results, as he believed it did, went to erect in Germany a power greater than any single state which now existed. The particular statement of the hon. Gentleman to which he wished to allude was, that Prussia had it in her power to raise the duties on our productions not only with in her own dominions, but within those of all the confederate states. Now, with regard to the Prussian dominions, the direct contrary was really the case; and with respect to the other states, she possessed at present no greater power to do so than she had previously had. Formerly Prussia, unfettered by any engagements with her neighbours, had the power of regulating her own tariff as she pleased, and of raising or lowering the duties on foreign produce at will. By uniting in a league with other countries she had abandoned that power, because she could impose no additional tax, except by the common consent of all the parties to the treaty, and therefore, as regarded her, the power she possessed before was taken away, by the necessity of obtaining their concurrence. He believed, indeed, that this necessity of which he spoke was a serious disadvantage attached to the league, because the day might come when many of those countries would find it their interest to diminish, instead of to increase, the duties they now maintained; and it would not be in the power of any particular state hereafter to adopt that course, unless they could first obtain the sanction of the others to it. As the hon. Gentleman had referred to this subject, he would shortly say, that he considered this to be the chief disadvantage which could arise from the league, for he knew that the most unfounded reports had gone abroad, and been industriously circulated, with regard to the effects likely to be produced on our trade by the extension of that league. What was the real state of the case? Why, the Prussian tariff had been generally adopted by ail the states of the Union, and if the different circumstances of the two countries were considered, the Prussian tariff would not be placed in a very unfavourable light when compared with our own. Although it was quite true that, in the arrangements consequent upon its adoption, some states had been under the necessity of raising their scale of duties, there were others which had been obliged to reduce their scale. He 655 believed it would be found that, on a balance, when the average was struck, the duties throughout the whole of Germany had not been materially increased. Then, on the other hand, we had this very great advantage, that, whereas formerly we had to pass through five, ten, or fifteen Custom-houses to penetrate into the heart of Germany, now, when the border was crossed, our commodities circulated freely through all parts of it, and not only the heavy transit duties levied at the various Custom-houses, but the expenses arising from that tedious process, had ceased entirely. He did not say this by way of praising the Prussian system. We had considered that it was likely to be disadvantageous to us, and we had done what we could to oppose it. It had, however, in spite of us, been carried into effect, and he confessed he was not surprised at it, as the Germans were strongly in favour of it. There was nothing so inconvenient to them as that system which had formerly prevailed, when a constant succession of barrier and frontier Custom-houses presented impediments to internal traffic at every step. This he believed to have been one of the great considerations which swayed them in adopting the present system, so conducive to the accomplishment of that object which was dear to themthe generalization of the German people in all their social and moral relations. He must add that, although he had once inclined to a different opinion, and been adverse to the extension of the system, all that he saw of its practical effects had convinced him that his alarms were unfounded. He could refer to the experience of the last year, or of the last two years, to show that in the trade we carried on with the countries that had adopted it, there was an increase instead of a diminution, and that no greater disadvantage need be expected to arise than had formerly existed. His noble Friend had done him the honour to call his attention to what he was pleased to call the little value of our commercial position with respect to Russia.
56

His noble Friend would believe that he should be most ready to attend to it, and that he was most ready to admit with him that the tariff of Russia was founded upon erroneous principles; and, though not intended to be injurious to us, based upon the absurd fiction of converting a great 656 agricultural into a partially manufacturing people. He was well aware that that tariff was not favourable to us, but, at the same time, he must say that even upon that point there was some excuse for Russia. It was not until they had ceased to hope for the admission of their staple products into the United Kingdom, and until we had excluded their corn and timber, that a change prejudicial to our interests had taken place. But, notwithstanding this change, he believed that his noble Friend would find that most of those persons occupied in the commerce and manufactures of this country agreed with him (Mr. Thomson) in the view he took of this questionnamely, that the trade with that empire was one which those parties would see disturbed with considerable regret. We drew from it articles essential for carrying on our manufactures, and it took from us in return British produce to a great extent. There was one consideration likewise which he thought would not be lost on his hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Tynemouththat all the trade of Russia, with scarcely an exception, without any obligation, without any law or treaty binding her to that effect, was carried on in British shipping, to the exclusion of Russian or foreign vessels. When Gentlemen, therefore, spoke so glibly of war, and of the interruption of our commercial relations with Russia, he thought these things ought not to be overlooked. Now, did he urge this consideration as a reason why weightier considerations, involving the interests or the honour of this country, were to be neglected? No such thing. But he did not believe that the course pursued by some hon. Gentlemen, who had spoken in the debate, was likely to lead to the attainment of their end, though it might tend to produce another consequence, which they did not seem to deprecate, but which he should very much regret. He did not think it was by calling the Russians a great many hard names, by abusing their manners or their institutions, that we should be most secure of respect and deference. He did not think such a course suited to the dignity of the British nation. We ought to take our stand on our own honour and our own interests. If we were attacked in the one, or suffered in the other, let us be prepared to defend them; but let us not rush into useless discussion, which would serve only to create angry feeling and engender 657 bitter enmity towards us in the breasts of those with whom we ought to be on friendly terms. By following this rule we should neither betray our honour nor our interests, and when the moment came in which we were called on to act, we should be better prepared to act. He was satisfied that the less minor and petty causes of grievance, were discussed, the less statements injurious to the honour of other countries were indulged in, the better we should be enabled to maintain our high position, and when a struggle arrived, the better able to meet it, and to meet it with dignity and effect.
Sir Robert Inglis

was understood to say, that in the principles laid down by the right bon. President of the Board of Trade, he entirely concurred, but he had not expected to hear from that quarter such observations as the last words which fell from him. His right hon. Friend, near whom he sat, had, on the first night of the Session, stated that more than a common sense of interest ought to impel all the countries of Europe to the maintenance of peacethat they ought to be actuated by a common sense of moral obligation to do all in their power to effect a continuance of tranquillity, and he (Sir R. Inglis) felt that there was no man capable of estimating the value of that consideration who would hazard the provocation of war, by the indulgence of language, which, without effecting what we desired with respect to Poland, might tend to irritate Russia. He felt as deeply for the interests of Poland as any man, and while he concurred with the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the
57

reasons which induced him to with hold his consent to the production of the remonstrances addressed on the part of Poland to the Emperor of Russia, he trusted he should not be asking too much in imploring the noble Lord to lose no opportunity of reiterating those remonstrances whenever he could, not only to Russia, but also to Austria. He implored the noble Lord never to lose sight of the importance of testifying, not by idle demonstrations of war without the intention of carrying them into effectnot by a still idler recourse to bitter language in that House but by proper and legitimate meansthat we, as a nation, felt ourselves bound as far as we could to guarantee Poland that condition to which she was entitled.
Sir Edward Codrington

said, he was 658 fully persuaded that if the treaty of London had been carried into execution as it was contemplated, we should have had no war between Turkey and Russia, but Russia would now be in a very different situation. He could refer to a very voluminous book, called "the Greek Papers," from which it appeared that the Emperor of Russia made a proposition to the allies, that measures should be taken to force Turkey, if necessary, to an accession to the treaty, in order to put an end to the differences which prevailed. Had that proposal been carried into effect, he had no doubt that Turkey would have acceded to the treaty, but even if we had gone to the extent of declaring war, in order to force her, she would from that moment have derived much benefit from the settling of the question, and she would now be in a ten times better situation than she was. That proposal was made by Russia, as it appeared to him, in pure sincerity; for he did not see any advantage that could arise to Russia from deception. But even if she had ulterior views and expectations, still if the treaty had been carried into execution, as proposed by the Emperor of Russia, that nation would never have had a justification for making war upon Turkey, and we should never have witnessed the disasters which preceded the treaty of Adrianople and the subsequent treaties. In the first place he should have had to carry the greater part of that treaty into effect, acting as an English officer under the orders of the Secretary of State and the Admiralty. As he should have been in command of the three squadrons, by the proposal of the Emperor of Russia, it was impossible that Russia could have done anything contrary to the interests of England. Whatever might be the ulterior views of Russia, if England would only give her hand at this moment fairly and boldly to Turkey, every advantage would be gained for her and for England, and Russia would be prevented from making any further encroachments. If we should have occasion to meet Russia with respect to any encroachment upon our rights or dignities, -we had only to give the hand to Turkey, and send forth the navy of this country, and we should place Russia in the situation she ought to be in. He wished as much for peace as any man. He sincerely trusted we should be able to avoid war, provided, at the same time, we could avoid it with 659 honour; but let us not be so careless as to injure that arm by which our honour must be preserved. That arm required a little more attention than had latterly been paid to it. Our navy had, from motives of economy, been lowered beyond what was prudent or proper, and he hailed with pleasure the increase which was to take place in it; and he was sure that the cheapest and most honourable way in which the interests of the country could be protected was to have a considerable force ready for any emergency. With respect to the Prussian league, he hoped it was as innocent towards this country as Russia; but he was of opinion that it was a little more injurious to the interests of this country than the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade thought. He saw in it more of policy than of mere commercial regulation. When Prussia had the power to levy taxes on all the other States, he did not see how they could refuse to assist her, if her policy required it. He thought there was more than the joint interests of Russia and Prussia concerned in it. He saw in it the means of augmenting
58

the political interests of Austria. He hoped Austria would form an alliance with us, and enable us to resist the power of Russia, and to promote the mutual advantages of both countries, and he was sure the true way to effect that was by giving the hand to Turkey, for we had more opportunity of carrying into practical effect the reciprocity system with Turkey than with any other nation in Europe or Asia. Let it be recollected that Turkey had no custom-housesthat she levied no taxes upon our goods. Why then should we not adopt the same principle with respect to her, and thus promote our mutual advantage?
Viscount Sandon

regretted that the noble Lord had not consented to produce the correspondence relative to the treaty of Hoonkiar Skelessi, because, without that correspondence, the treaty itself could not be understood in all its bearings. To the treaty itself he did not attach much importance, except in so far as it afforded evidence of the growing influence of Russia. If, in the year 1833, the noble Lord had not driven Turkey to rely on the assistance of so near a neighbour and perilous a friend as Russia, that empire would not now have occupied its present commanding position. Russia must always, from the mere circumstance of its proximity, 660 have great influence over Turkey, and this was increased by the experience the latter now had that Russia was the only nation on whose assistance she could rely in time of need. His Majesty's Government did not seem sufficiently to appreciate the dangerous character of Russian influence. They seemed to place a high value on Russian alliance and Russian commerce. Perhaps they had not kept their eyes open to the increasing jealousy of Britain entertained by Russian statesmen. Perhaps they had not observed the tendency of commerce to flow back into some of its old channels, and to leave those which had brought such opulence and power to Britain. Were they aware that great part of the commerce of China and Central Asia was now carried on by means of caravans, which traversed the deserts that separated those vast and wealthy regions from Russia? Were they aware that from this cause the ports of the Black Sea were daily rising into importance, and that Trebisond alone already possessed a trade that amounted to the annual value of 1,500,000l. sterling? Russia had now possessed herself of the very key to that most valuable channel of communication between Asia and Europe supplied by the Euxine; she had, in defiance of treaties, occupied the outlet of the Danube, and actually exacted a toll on all vessels that now passed down that mighty river. Since Austria was at this moment actively engaged in spreading the advantages of steam-navigation on the Danube, and giving life and energy to the immense resources of Hungary, Transylvania, and the wide regions on either side of the Danube, he thought they would not appeal in vain to her native and natural dread of Russian aggrandizement. He entreated Ministers not to shut their eyes to the great importance of the outlet of the Black Sea. He had collected some information relative to the extent of our commerce in that quarter, with which, however, he would not at present trouble the House; but he would call their attention to this fact, that while Russia supplied us with raw produce and refused to take our manufactures in return, and while the shipping employed in our trade with that country had been diminishing for a term of years, the consumption of our manufactured goods by Turkey had been regularly and steadily increasing. He hoped that His Majesty's Government 661 would exercise a more vigilant control over our relations with Russia and Turkey than they hitherto had done. He thought that when the fate of Poland was trembling in the balance, they had not exercised that severe vigilance over the Interests and honour of England which the country had a right to expect at their hands. He was convinced, that Russia would not have proceeded to those measures of extermination which she had adopted with respect to Poland, had his Majesty's Ministers awakened the sleeping jealousy which Austria always entertained of the designs of Russia, and had they, summoned France to aid us in vindicating those
59

treaties to which she was as much a party as ourselves for the maintenance of the independence and integrity of Poland.
Mr. Roebuck

did not concur m the opinion which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, with respect to the feeling entertained by the people of England as to going to war. He did not agree in the opinions that had been expressed as to the interest which this country had in interfering with the foreign policy of other European nations. He knew the notion that prevailed as to the necessity of preserving the balance of power in Europe, and the duty of this country to interfere for that purpose, but in that political notion he did not by any means concur. He was well aware that this doctrine was not a popular one in that House; but, though it might be new there, it was not new outside of the House, and it was one which he was glad to perceive was very rapidly and extensively gaining ground. In considering the motion before the House, they might be led into a discussion which might, it was said, lead to a war. With respect to what had been said by the noble Lord who had introduced the motion, and by the hon. Member for Birmingham, as to the propriety of denouncing war against Russia, he certainly did not concur; but he equally differed from the moderate and cautious tone which the noble Lord who spoke on the part of his Majesty's Government had adopted, and who seemed to tell them that they should cower before the power of Russia; who would make them believe that they were afraid to talk outright, or to take a bold and fearless part whenever it should be necessary to vindicate the honour, the pride, or the national 662 greatness of England. He did not certainly think that they should threaten Russia with denunciations of war; but he equally repudiated the notion that when they had anything to demand from Russia they should cower down before her. The true policy of England was always openly to avow that she would always be ready and determined to vindicate her interests in any part of the globe, whenever or wherever they were aggressed or encroached on. He trusted that they would never place reliance on any quarter, but that they would always firmly and proudly rely upon their own strength and their own national sense of justice. To act thus, and not to interfere in the policy of other nations, was the course which it was the interest of England to pursue. The doctrine, as he had already said, might be new in that House, but it was not new to the public; and they had a proud confirmation of its truth in the policy pursued by one nation, the most prosperous in the world, and which feared no competitor. Whilst it was the policy of England not to wish for war, it was her pride and her character to dread no enemy. But, suppose they were at war to-morrow with Russia, what would be the result? Why, in one single month, one Russian flag would not be seen to float in any sea in Europe, and in another month they would close up the commercial resources of Russia. Had they not before them the example of what had happened with the Emperor Napoleon? What was it that induced the Emperor of Russia to declare war with the Emperor of the French, and to commit himself against that great genius and all his gigantic powers, but that it was impossible for Russia to do without the trade and the commercial intercourse with England? Napoleon, carrying out the principles of his continental policy, attempted to exclude the trade of England; and the Russian monarch, at the head of the Russian aristocracy, felt that the possession of that trade was vital to the interests of Russia, and this it was that compelled Alexander, and that would and must compel any Czar, to go to war for the protection of this indispensable commercial intercourse. This, then, must be the result of a war between this country and Russia. One month would sweep the seas of every Russian flag, and another month would be sufficient to empty the treasures of the 663 Czar, His Majesty's Government seemed to speak as if they thought that in that British Parliament men should be afraid to speak their opinions touching Russia, lest they might excite the indignation of the Czar. What, were they in that House to
60

fear to say what they thought of the conduct of the Czar towards Polandto speak what they thought of the monstrous atrocities which, in the name of that Monarch, had been perpetrated upon an unfortunate and gallant people. Was that their sense of national justice and morality which the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had so properly described as an European feeling to shrink from reprobating the atrocities perpetrated towards Poland? Was he, as an individual, to fear to characterise conduct which justified them in designating the Russian Czar and his horde as a band of barbarians, inflicting vengeance on a gallant and devoted people; but, when he spoke this, was that any evidence of his disposition to go to war? They had a right to express their abhorrence of such conduct; but whilst they did so, it was their duty, as one of the great confederacy of European nations, to take care of their own interests, and let other nations take care of theirs. They had a right to exercise the moral influence of opinion; but it did not follow, as a necessary consequence, that for doing so they were bound to go to war. With regard to a war with Russia, he was not prepared to say what good or what mischief it might produce. With respect to any advantage that might arise to the state of Poland, he would not be led so much away by his feelings as to hesitate to express his opinions that a simple despotism "would be preferable to that military aristocracy which in Poland ground down the people to the most abject state of dependence. With respect to the good that might arise, it was, at best, problematical; with regard to the mischief he was equally doubtful; but one thing was as clear as the sun at noonday, that the necessary consequence of a war with Russia would be to involve Europe in a general war. One of the evil results of a general European war would be to put a stop to that general improvement which was rapidly taking place throughout the different countries of Europe in the habits and manners of the people, and which improvement would be checked and im- 664 peded if anything arose to break up the general intercourse prevailing amongst the several European countries. If that intercourse were put an end to, that improvement, which was its result, would instantly be checked, and each nation would be thrown upon its own resources for improvement in the habits and manners of its people. He considered that a general war would be nothing else than a general calamity. He did not agree in what had been said on this part of the subject by the hon. Member for Birmingham. The true policy for a Government of this country to pursue with respect to foreign countries was to avow its determination, with honest frankness and courage to protect and maintain its own interests; to have no shuffling nor truckling; no protocolising or temporising; but as an English Ministry to avow their determination to consider as paramount to all other considerations the interests of this great country. Russia knew well her own interest. She knew well that it was not her interest to go to war with this country. It. was her interest to throw round this country the net of diplomacy, and he cautioned his Majesty's Ministers not to allow themselves to be so surrounded with the meshes of diplomacy, so that they might too late find themselves unable to retreat with honour. The policy of England was not to trouble herself about the balance of power in Europeshe was as effectually separated from the continent of Europe by the channel that intervened as was the continent of America. During the power and greatness of Napoleon he had never been able to land a single French soldier on the shores of England, whilst this country, on the contrary, had in America, at the distance of 2,000 miles across the Atlantic, not only landed an army there, but absolutely burned down its capital. The naval supremacy of England was indisputable. There was no nation that could compete with her in her empire of the seas but one, and he trusted that the similarity of language, and the sympathies of a common union, would always keep those countries in friendly relation with each other, and enable them to laugh to scorn the combined power of any nations who might be opposed to them. If England preserved, as he trusted she ever would, her naval supremacy, there would be no occasion for vacillating policy on the part of those who told them to be moderate, 665 nor for the enthusiastic policy of those who introduced the present motion, and who, under the
61

pretence of maintaining the commercial intercourse of Great Britain, aimed a wound at Russia on account of the conduct that country had pursued to Poland. He would repeat, in conclusion, what he had insisted on throughout, that the true policy of this country was to see that her own interests were safe, and to endeavour, as far as was consistent with her power and interest, to preserve peace, as the consequence of a war between this country and Russia must be to produce a general conflagration amongst the different States of Europe.
Sir Stratford Canning

differed from some of the doctrines which had been propounded, particularly that it was not the interest of this country to interfere to preserve the balance of power in Europe, He thought it would not be safe, at this time of day, to set out upon a new principle, and set aside that policy which had been the policy of this country for the last two centuries. It would have been hardly safe, after the peace of Europe had been broken up by the French Revolution, that we should have abstained from interference in the relations of Europe, and leave those great interests to be settled and determined by nations not always in harmony with each other. It was our duty to interfere. It was our interest to see that the balance of power was preserved. It was necessary that this country should interfere and see that the security of her own interests was preserved, as well, also, as to maintain the interests of those countries who had sided with her in the great struggle which bad taken place. This was his opinion, and he felt quite certain that the opinions of the House would go with him upon that point. At that advanced hour he did not intend to trespass on the attention of the House at any length. What had induced him to rise at all was the reference that had been made to a country with which, in the course of the negotiations that had taken place, he had been connected. He felt the delicacy, in the situation in which he stood, of going into that part of the subject before the House. With respect to what had been said at the other side of the House, he certainly fell much pleasure at hearing that the policy of the Government would be to protect our interests, but, at the same time, as far as possible, to contribute to- 666 wards the maintenance of peace. Peace was at all times desirable, but more particularly so at present, when a great expansion of our commercial intercourse was taking place, and which must of necessity be interrupted by the occurrence of war. The intercourse of the continental nations with this country was rapidly on the increase, and at such a time it was the least desirable that any interruption to the progress of that intercourse should take place, and it was for this reason that he felt gratified at the assurance given by the Government that their policy would still continue to be directed to the maintenance and preservation of peace. One object, to which he contended that they ought to pay particular attention, was the continued maintenance of a friendly connexion with Turkey. The sacrifices which Turkey had been called upon to make within the last few years, out of consideration to out wishes, gave her additional claims upon our consideration and friendship. It seemed to be the impression in the House, that the events of last year, coupled with the recent emancipation of the Greeks, had made a great change in the political position of Turkey. That those events had given great advantages to Russia, no man would be hardy enough to deny; but there were other events which had combined with them to destroy the ancient greatness of Turkey. Its former power and glory depended upon the religious enthusiasm which prevailed among the Turkish soldiery at a period when the military discipline of the warriors of Europe was not great. That religious enthusiasm had evaporated, and history presented no example of any nation which had once lost its military enthusiasm recovering it again. If, then, Turkey had any chance of becoming an element of opposition against the preponderating powers of the autocrat of the North, it must find that chance in the spread of civilisation amongst its population. In this respect he thought that the loss of the Greek provinces might be advantageous to Turkey, and might induce it to redeem the only
62

chance of renewed vigour now left to it. As he had been engaged for many years in negotiations with the Porte, he could not refrain from expressing his gratitude to the noble Lord for the expressions which he had that evening used with regard to Turkey.
Mr. Patrick M. Stewart

thought that 667 the great object of England ought to be to take care that Turkey was not left under the domination of Russia. The case of Poland formed a practical lesson with regard to the character of Russian policy; and he thought the noble Lord (Palmerston) was somewhat too confiding in that Power. In 1832, the noble Lord entertained the same opinion with regard to Poland which he had now expressed with regard to Turkey. The noble Lord said, on that occasion, that as to the idea of exterminating a large kingdom, either morally or politically, he had no apprehension that it could be effected. He (Mr. Stewart) would ask the House whether an attempt had not been made to exterminate Poland? He would also refer to what had happened at Warsaw, where a speech had been delivered which made all Europe weep; and he would again ask whether that attempt had not been made? As that speech had not been particularly alluded to, he would not dwell upon it further than to say, that while on the one side it was contended that it was one of calmness and sound policy, on the other it was stated to be the production of madness itselfthat the pressure of two crowns on the same head occasioned a pressure on the brain, and that the speech in question originated from madness. The fate of Poland proved that England ought not to disregard the deep-laid duplicity of Russia. He said this in consequence of his being connected with the commercial interest, and saw the danger that would ensue if the Government did not adopt that course, by taking care that Russia did not steal a march upon this country. His opinion with regard to the trade of Turkey was, that it should be unfetteredthat it should be thrown open to all nations, and that no duties should be imposed on the commerce between this country and Turkey. What had been the result of a more enlightened policy? Why, in the year 1827 the exports from this country to Turkey amounted to about half a million, whereas last year the amount was about one million three hundred thousand pounds. Be it remembered that even Napoleon, in spite of his celebrated Milan and Berlin decrees, the objects of which were to destroy the commerce of this nation, could do nothing with our ships nor with our colonies (for they had the spirit of the mother country and would not submit); but surely much 668 of our success was owing to the steady alliance of Turkey. He agreed with an hon. Member who had preceded him as to the value of the Russian trade, but he would say with the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool that the balance was not on our side. In Turkey, on the contrary, it appeared that our finest manufactures were received, and every pound of cotton that went there was carried in British bottoms. The Black Sea, indeed, was the part to which we ought to look vigilantly, for if once sealed against us no power could open it to us again. With regard to that sea, Captain Middleton in his celebrated work declared it to be a sea without a hidden danger, but politically it was not so, and that was all he begged to urge upon the noble Lord and upon his Majesty's Government. It mattered not one farthing whether these papers were granted or not; but the House was much indebted to his noble Friend for bringing his motion forward. He would again urge the necessity of increased vigilance.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

said, he rose to endeavour to persuade his noble Friend not to press his motion. In doing this, however, he would observe that no man could doubt for a moment his sincerity, when he declared that under other circumstances, at any sacrifice, he would grant the publication of the correspondence if it would lead to any beneficial result, but the time had gone by when it
63

could be productive of good. With regard to his own opinions, whatever he had uttered in respect to this question, he would not recant one word; his feelings remained unaltered as to the treatment of Poland. With respect to Turkey, he would not admit that this country ought not to interfere except in questions purely British. Would it be said that it was right to stand by and allow one country to take possession of another? But he had sufficient confidence in the prudence, the liberality, and the firmness of his noble Friend to know that, if it became necessary (he hoped it would not), this country would be able to preserve the independence of that country, on which the independence of Europe mainly rested
Mr. Ewart

rejoiced that he had that evening heard those principles advocated in a British House of Commons which had been maintained in the United States of America. He regretted, nevertheless, the course which this debate had taken, and the speech of the hon. Member for Birming- 669 ham; but more particularly that of the hon. Member for Southampton, who had said that, instead of attending to questions of foreign policy, that House had devoted itself to paltry amendments in our institutions at home. The solid interest of this country was, he maintained, to preserve peace. He trusted that his Majesty's Government would so far consult the welfare of the country as to bear in mind that the interests of Turkey were identified with our own. The question for this country to weigh was, as the hon. Member for Bath had argued, not one of the balance of power merely. As long as we could maintain peace, he hailed it as the safeguard of improvementsthe advancement of the liberal cause throughout the whole worldand the pledge of the advancement of civilisation.
Lord Dudley Stuart

replied. It was not his fault if he had been compelled to dilate on the subject which he felt it his duty to bring before the House, for, of course, it extended as Russia herself extended her frontiers. He was not the advocate of war; but it did not therefore follow that he should not be the advocate of precaution. The best way to avert war was to be prepared to meet it. The hon. Member for Bath said, he had no fear of Russia. Neither had he, but still he thought it the best policy not to despise an enemy. He did not think the power of Russia so formidable as that this country should quail before it. If now it assumed a haughty tone he did not fear but we could crush it; but if we permitted it to seize upon the Dardanelles, and to destroy the independence of Turkey, it would then become formidable. Ministers could, if they pleased, in the strength of their power, withhold the documents which he sought for, but he did not think that they could consistently refuse them. When a motion was formerly made for the production of the treaty it was said by the noble Lord that it would not be fair to produce the treaty without the correspondence; but now the treaty was offered, yet the correspondence was refused. This proceeding was very unintelligible, and he hoped the noble Lord would accede to his motion. The question was then put, when it was agreed to furnish the Treaty of Constantinople of July, 1833, but that of St. Petersburgh, of Jan. 1834, as well as the correspondence, were withheld.

64

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1837/dec/14/russia

RUSSIA. HC Deb 14 December 1837

vol 39 cc1093-1131093 Mr. Thomas Attwood

rose and said, that recollecting how he had been admonished in the course of last Session, he would on the present occasion confine himself to the object of his motion. It was said that we ought not to be surprised at anything in human affairs. Now, he was not so far advanced in life as to be incapable of feeling surprise. He had felt surprised on many occasions, and he certainly felt much surprised that her Majesty's Ministers should have met Parliament, and that neither in the speech from the Throne, nor from any of her Majesty's Ministers since, had they heard a single word respecting the distress that existed amongst the industrious classes. He was also surprised at the indifference of her Majesty's Ministers as to the position which Russia was assuming in the affairs 1094 of Europe. They had been engaged in petty discussions about nasty matters that were unworthy the attention of the politicians of a village pot-house; and this, too, while Russia was gathering up her strength to make a horrible war on England at her proper time. He would take the liberty of reading one or two paragraphs from a pamphlet which had been written by an excellent officer, Captain Crawford, respecting the present strength and condition of the Russian navy, In that pamphlet it was stated that Russia had at present, in the Baltic Sea, no less than twenty-six ships of the line, with a proper proportion of frigates and sloops of war, all well manned and instructed in the mode adopted in the English service. The object in bringing forward this motion was to vindicate the honour of England and to see that our interests were not seriously compromised through the supineness of the present Government. The hon. Member read a long extract from the pamphlet referred to, the object of which was to show that Russia had at this mo-moment, besides twenty-six sail of the line in the Baltic, eighteen sail of the line in the Black Sea, whilst England had but seven sail of the line on our own coasts in a state of preparation, and even these were not fully manned. Captain Crawford said, that on seeing this he trembled for the preservation of our ancient sovereignty of the seas. He (Mr. Attwood) did not care whether Russia was our friend or our foe, this he did not take into consideration for a moment, for the moment that any country depended upon the friendship of a tyrant, that moment the people became slaves. The moment that Russia acquired power to injure us, that moment she acquired dominion over us, and yet while this was going on, her Majesty's Ministers Session after Session sat apparently sleeping on the Treasury benches. He had warned them three or four years ago to take care what they were doing about the Russiansthat the Russians might be awkward fellows to deal with, and that, if they continued to pursue their, career of degradation, they would not dare to look an enemy in the face. [Laughter.] What did they laugh at, he would like to know? [Great laughter.] They might reserve their laughter for a better occasion. They would not laugh when they heard of eighty Russian men 1095 of war appearing off the coast of Norfolk, [A laugh.] They might laugh, but the Russian navy might appear at the mouth of the Thames, and they had not a fleet to prevent it. "You, Sir, (said the hon. Member, addressing the Speaker)you, Sir, who are at the head of the people of this country, have not the power of preventing the Russian navy passing through the British channel with a broom at their mast head." He would assert that the people of England last autumn had not the power of preventing the Russian navy from coming with a broom at their mast head and entering the mouth of the Thames, and burning Sheerness. It was very disagreeable to him to have to bring these painful truths before an assembly of Englishmen. He might be told that we had six ships of the line at Lisbon. The ostensible excuse for
65

maintaining so many ships there was to protect the life of the Queen of Portugal; but they did not care so much about the life of the Queen; the real object was to put down liberty, to support despotism and fraud, and to destroy the constitution which the Queen of Portugal had sworn to defend and maintain. But even if they brought home those six ships, they would then have but thirteen, and what could thirteen ships do against twenty-six? A distinguished sailor had told him that as a last resource they might cut away the buoys at the mouth of the Thames, and that then the Russian navy could not enter the Thames, or, at all events, they would not be able to pass Tilbury Fort. They ought to be prepared to meet the Russians every hour. They ought to be prepared to meet France, Holland, and America, combined with Russia. Why not? Ancient quarrels and bitter hatreds and burning jealousies would arise; and France, Holland, and America would be certain to declare war upon us as soon as we were entangled in a war with Russia. England ought, therefore, to be in a condition to crush the fleet of Russia in an instant. The dominion of the seas was their sole hope; it was the patrimony of their fathers, the glorious patrimony which had made England what she was; and they could not preserve England if they lost this patrimony. What had their Saxon ancestors done? They lost the dominion of the seas, and with it their freedom. When the Danes invaded this 1096 country our Saxon ancestors lay down on their faces and sung psalms and allowed themselves to be butchered. He hoped he had stated enough to show that the Russian fleet ought to be looked to. He would ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs one question before he brought forward his resolutions, and that was, whether any steps had been taken by her Majesty's Ministers to prevent the formation of the Russian fleet, or to compel its breaking up? He was not much acquainted with the law of nations, but every tyro in politics knew that if a neighbouring country got up a great army or fleet, it was the duty and right of another nation to go and ask what was the object of this army or fleet, for what it was intended, against whom it was directed, was it against us or our allies? If the answers were not satisfactory, they had a right to break up the fleet or army. He should like to know what representations had been made to the Russian Government about its fleet? This country ought to have prevented the formation of that fleet. He would not trouble the House further on this point, though he might speak for an hour or two upon it. They were told in her Majesty's speech that we had received assurances of continued good feeling and amity on the part of Russia. Why, the robber while he was striving to break into their houses told them he was their friend, that he would not hurt them, hut the moment the robber got in he plundered them and cut their throats. He did not put any faith in the assurances of Russian amity. Russia was holding a pistol at the breast of England at Cronstadt. The noble Lord knew well that it was not for any good purpose that Russia had acted as she had. Why had not the noble Lord moved a fleet through the Dardanelles and destroyed the Russian fleet in the Black Sea? The noble Lord, as a Gentleman and as a Statesman, must, he was sure, feel our degradation; and he wondered only that the noble Lord had endured it so long. He felt as deeply as any man could how much the country was indebted to Lord Grey for the Reform Bill, but at the same time he must say that Lord Grey had disgraced England by suffering Poland to be lost, when a British fleet might have saved that country without firing a shot, but by the mere dread of its attack. The Duke of Wellington had begun the system of English degradation. In 1829 he had 1097 consented to the peace of Adrianople; in 1828 he had consented to the Russians passing the Pruth, although a word from him would have made them retire to a dead certainty. Although he knew that they had deluded Mr. Canning's Government into the destruction of Navarino, he suffered himself to be soothed by a promise that they would not carry the war beyond the Black Sea. Nevertheless, they did carry the war into the Mediterranean, and blockaded the Dardanelles; and this insult, too, the Duke of Wellington pocketed, when Count Nesselrode had the audacity to assure him that no affront was intended to Great Britain, and that no British vessel which had cleared out before the 24th of October previous should be
66

prevented entering the Dardanelles. Thus the Duke of Wellington suffered the honour and the interests of England to be compromised for a paltry commercial consideration, the whole value of the few ships which had the benefit of this stipulation not exceeding 10,000l. Lord Grey followed up the system of degradation, and it appeared to him that Lord Melbourne was destined to complete it, and to make us drain the bitter cup of national disgrace to the last dregs. It was impossible that such a man as the Duke of Wellington should have acted in this way from his own mind, his powers must have been strangled by some deadly influences at home, and similar unholy influences were now strangling Lord Melbourne. He now came to his second subjectthe Russian war against Circassia. Some Gentlemen thought that if the Russians established their dominion in Circassia, and, through it, in Persia and Turkey, our Indian empire would be in danger. Now he was at present of opinion that English India could threaten Petersburg much more effectually than Russia could Calcutta. But that might not be his opinion twenty years hence. We could produce 100 millions of subjects in India as faithful and attached to us as any of our countrymen; and if Russia fixed her dominion in Poland, in Persia, Turkey, and Circassia, why might she not create a similar feeling in her own favour there? The noble Lord had declared last year that Russia had no right to blockade the ports of Circassia against English ships. Why, then, had not the noble Lord taken means to break up that blockade? But the true question was not whether Russia 1098 had a right, but whether it was our interest that she should occupy that coast? Last year, or any year for the fast ten years, we could have crushed Russia; but she was now more formidable, and would every year become more and more so. He came now to the case of the Vixen, which was seized, her captain and crew imprisoned, and no reparation made until they were set at liberty as an act of condescension on the part of the Emperor of Russia. The proprietors of this vessel had asked the noble Lord three several times, whether a blockade existed on the coast of Circassia? The noble Lord made no other answer but to refer Mr. Bell to The London Gazette, which, was indeed the only quarter to which a British merchant should refer for such information, and not to the ukases of the Emperor of Russia. Well, Mr. Bell did refer to The London Gazette, and there no mention was made of a blockade on the coast of Circassia, and thither accordingly he sent his ship, which, although unarmed, was seized by the Russians, and its crew made prisoners, though the latter were subsequently, as an act of grace on the part of the captors, released. Now he maintained that this seizure, even under the supposition that a blockade did exist at the time, was not justified by the circumstances of the case. He had the authority of Sir T. Hardy for saying that when he commanded the fleet on the South American station, the patriotic fleet being commanded by Lord Cochrane, whenever an English ship approached too near the shore it was warned off before it was attacked; and in cases where a ship was seized without such notice he (Sir T. Hardy) insisted upon its being restored. Now, was England to be bully to the weak, and coward to the strong? He hoped that this was not to be the character of England. He knew that the sentiments of the people of England were with him on this question; but unfortunately, they had no means of making their feelings known throughout the country, and in the face of Europe. The press was notoriously the tool of parties. Some of the papers were the tool of the Tories, others of the Whigs, others of the Radicals; but not one of them was the tool of the people of Englandin none of them ever could one word of the real sentiments of their writers be found. Under these circumstances he felt himself bound to stand forward as he did, to awaken the people of England to 1099 the dangers and the disgrace which surrounded them; and the culpable neglect of their interests by those to whom the management of their affairs had lately been intrusted. What! were the glories and the laurels which had been handed down to us for seven or eight centuries, won for us by better men than ourselves, to be torn piecemeal from us? Were we who had hurled Napoleon from his throne to stand still and be devoured by the Russian bear? No; he announced it, he predicted it confidently, the people of England would not bear it; and, if they were not righted by others,
67

they would find a way to right themselves. What had David Hume said seventy years agoa man, by the way, who, though an economist, and a political economist too, and of the same name, was very different from his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, who was sure to be out of the way whenever anything of importance was going forward. [Mr. Hume entered at this instant.] He was glad his hon. Friend had come in; he had been complimenting him. David Hume had said, seventy years ago, that the national debt would be the destruction of Englandthat the time would come when it would press so heavy as to strangle herthat foreign nations would respect her former glory, and would exercise their encroachments with measured insolence. And yet such was the announcement that the Whigs, aided by the Radicals, made for poor England. He had entertained a great respect for Lord Durham, and, when he went to Russia, thought he was going for something worth having; but he must say, as the mountain in labour brought forth a mouse, Lord Durham had brought forth something less than a mouse. He had brought back shame and degradation to this country. He said, he had settled the question of the Vixen! "Bully to the weak and coward to the strong;"was this to be the character of England? The base and infernal press, which was talked of as our best possible public instructor, but which he looked upon as the greatest curse we had, and the most infernal deluder upon the face of the earth, concealed all these truths. All branches of ithe did not care who were connected with themwere attached to some party or other, and it was impossible to get the sincere and honest sentiments of any one editor in the kingdom. If they were the tools, not of the Tories or the Whigs, or 1100 the Radicals, but of the people, it would not be necessary for him to make these remonstrances; but, as it was, he was compelled to point out the degradationhe meant the danger, for a country like this could not incur degradation without danger. He asked, what efforts had been made to recover the unbought glories of 700 years?not, indeed, unbought, for they had been purchased with the blood of better men than ourselves. Were we, who had struck Napoleon from the throne, to stand still and be devoured by the Russian bear? There was one other subject which he had to touch upon. It was not seven years since an hon. Member said in that House, that England was bound in recognizances of 800 millions never to go to war again; and another hon. Member said he knew it, and he thanked God for it. He (Mr. Attwood) was inclined to thank God that he had not been behind that hon. Member with a Birmingham sledge-hammer in his hand, or he might almost have been tempted to prevent him from ever thanking God again. [Laughter.] What! thank God that we should never be able to defend ourselves! What would be thought of a fat fool, who should go along the Strand with a paper before him proclaiming that his pocket was full of money, and his heart of cowardice, and inviting every one who chose to rob and ill-treat him, as he was determined never to fight or go to law again? What could the fat fool expect but that every thief should rob him, and every scoundrel beat him? He believed upon his honour, as a gentleman, that the bitterest and most remorseless enemies that the industry and honour of England had were the Radicals in that House, although he was one of them; but he hoped he was not quite so bad. He wished for real libertynot the mere degradation of the aristocracy. He would not give a curse for such liberty as that. The liberty he meant was, neither the degradation of the aristocracy nor the subversion of the monarchyit was not the pulling down of any class; but the liberty he meant was, the raising up of the lower classes, so that every man might live by his labour, prosperous, happy, and comfortable. The Radicals had some fine notions in their heads, but as to bread and cheese, and life and death, they were trifles to them. He would come now to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi. This treaty 1101 was said to be one of reciprocitythe noble Lord had so designated it on a former occasion; that reciprocity being, that if the Dardanelles should be closed against England in the event of a war, they should be closed against Russia also. This certainly was Irish reciprocity, for it was all on one side. Why, he begged to ask, did not the noble Lord, when he found the Sultan too weak to contend with Russia, and before the signing of the treaty of Unkiar Skelessiwhy, he
68

asked, did not the noble Lord take possession of the Dardanelles? Why did he not take up that position now? The French had taken possession of Algiers, upon the ground, as they said, of some quarrel with the Dey; they had also taken possession of Ancona, one of the cities belonging to the Pope of Rome. But what was the real reason why they had possessed themselves of these places?it was, because they considered them necessary to the interests of France. If, with such an object, the French government had taken possession of Ancona and Algiers, he asked why the noble Lord had not, on the same ground, taken possession of the Dardanelles? The noble Lord might have done so three years ago with six line-of-battle ships, two years ago with twelve, and with twenty he might have possession of that position by the month of April next. With the twenty line-of-battle ships, which would require 20,000 sailors, and with twenty battalions of soldiers, the Dardanelles might be taken possession of by the time he had stated; and if such a course were pursued, it would effectually prevent future aggression against this country, either by Russia, Austria, or France. He came now to the point of the absolute necessity which existed of an increase in the naval force. Well, then, he felt persuaded that, at this moment, there ought to be an addition to our naval force of twenty line-of-battle ships, which would create the necessity for procuring 20,000 sailors. He might, he knew, be told by his gallant Friend near him (Admiral Codrington) that they could not get a sufficient number of men to man a frigate. Why? Because they did not hold out a sufficient inducement in the shape of pay. Let it be announced that the Government was preparing to wage war with Russia, and a more popular war was never yet undertaken; let there be a bounty of 51. given to every common 1102 sailor, and 101. to every petty officer, and he was satisfied that a force of 20,000 men could be raised in three months. But if they were not successful in obtaining so large a number, let them take half of the present marine force, which consisted, he believed, of 9,000 men, and he thought he should have the authority of his gallant Friend for saying that in a short time they would make excellent sailors. This might cost an additional million to the country; but if it were to cost ten, such a consideration ought to be a secondary one. Of what consequence was the emancipation of the negroes compared to the maintenance of our national character? The motion which he had to move, comprised several questions which he should then submit to the noble Lord (Palmerston). What measure had been adopted by her Majesty's Government to prevent the building and equipment of the Russian fleet at Cronstadt? Was it the intention of her Majesty's Government to give any assistance to Circassia, or to allow Russia to take possession of that important country, which formed the gate to Asia? Was it the intention of the Government to seek no redress for the atrocious insult offered to this country by the capture of the Vixen? Was it the intention of the Government to compel Russia to abandon the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi? The resolutions which he should move in conformity with these questions were, that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty might be graciously pleased to make such addition to the royal navy as the vindication of the national honour and the preservation of the national interest shall require under the present circumstances of the country, assuring her Majesty that this House will cheerfully make good the necessary expenses incurred for such a purpose. Next, that an humble address be presented to her Majesty. praying that she be graciously pleased to lay before the House copies of all communications between the Government of this country and Russia with regard to the naval armament of Cronstadt, the war between Russia and Circassia, and the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi.
Sir E. Codrington

seconded the motion, which he considered one of great importance, and deserving the serious attention of the House and of the country. 1103 He fully concurred in the praise bestowed on the manner in which Captain Crawford had made his observation on the Russian fleet. He had
69

performed the duty imposed on him in a manner which reflected great honour upon him. To the efficiency of the Russian fleet he (Sir E. Codrington) could bear witness. It bore a strong contrast to the condition of the navy of this country, which was in a state much too lowered, and which exposed us to reproach to which we had never been subjected during our history, namely, that we were unable to send forth instantly on the commission of an offence a squadron to repel an insult offered, come from what quarter it might. He held that the navy was treated in a way unbecoming the character of this country, when compared to the favour shown to every other branch of her Majesty's service. In a pecuniary point of view the officers of the British navy were very hardly dealt with; and he was satisfied that, in order to ensure the safety of the country and our dominion over the sea, justice must be done to that class of her Majesty's servants. There was another point connected with this subject to which he wished to refer. So far from blaming Russia for the war with Turkey, he thought she was drawn into that war by the conduct of her allies. Shortly after the battle of Navarino it would be seen by a reference to certain Greek papers, which must be in the recollection of old Members, and which he recommended young Members to consult, that the Emperor of Russia made a proposal that in consequence of the insult to the united flags of England, France, and Russia, if Turkey did not agree to the treaty of London, those three nations would declare war against her. By that proposal Wallachia and Moldavia were to continue in the hands of Russia; and he (Sir E. Codrington) was to have the command of the fleet, and take possession of the Dardanelles. If this agreement had been entered into, the consequence would have been, if they were driven to the necessity of dictating terms at the steps of the Seraglio, Turkey must have ultimately submitted; and by a provision of the treaty, after that event occurred, each nation was to resume its original position. If Russia had not retired from Wallachia and Moldavia, she would have been compelled to do so by the united force of England, France, and Tuikey united. 1104 This proposal was not however, carried into effect, in consequence of the spirit which dictated what he should ever consider a most expensive expression to this countrynamely, designating the battle of Navarino as an "untoward event." What was the consequence? Why Turkey was allowed to say to Russia, "It is very true that we entered into a treaty with you, but we were always determined to break it when it offered us no separate advantages." He had no doubt that the Emperor of Russia was sincere in his proposal, and his intention was proved by his subsequent acts. The hon. Member who made the present motion had dwelt much on the power of the Russian navy. Why had that fleet been shown to him and to Captain Crawford? Why, to prove the power the Emperor of Russia had in enforcing any measure which he might think proper to pursue over us, who were encumbered with a debt. But ought this country to remain in a supine situation? He contended that we ought to have a fleet which would be fully adequate to defend us against insult. With respect to the difficulty of manning a fleet, he thought it would be easier to procure men than officers. He should conclude by impressing on the House the serious importance of this motion.
Viscount Palmerston

I will, Sir, in the first place, answer the questions put to me by the hon. Member for Birmingham before I make the remarks which I consider called for by his motion. His question is, whether any measures have been adopted by the Government to prevent Russia from proceeding with the naval armament at Cronstadt? With regard to the building and equipping of a fleet, no Government can say to another what ships are you about to fit out; but unquestionably one government is entitled to speak to another when raising a considerable force which appears to indicate an intention to give cause of uneasiness to her allies; and, beyond doubt, the presence and equipage of the seamen of the whole of the Russian fleet, as it was collected in the Baltic two or three years ago, called for explanation between the
70

Governments of England and Russia. That explanation was satisfactory as it regarded this Government; and although since that time a large number of vessels have been fitted out for the purposes of review, there has not been any-such display of naval force in the Baltic as 1105 might be reasonably looked upon as indicating a hostile intention on the part of Russia towards any other power. With regard to the second question, whether it be the intention of her Majesty's Government to give assistance to Circassia, my answer is, that, undoubtedly, we do not mean to interfere in a war carrying on between Russia and Circassia. The next question is, whether Government intends to take any measures for the redress of the alleged insult offered to England by the seizure of the Vixen? It must be fresh in the recollection of the House that I laid the papers connected with this question before the House last Session, showing what had taken place, and proving that Russia had given such explanations of her conduct as ought to satisfy the Government of this country that no further proceedings were called for either by a just regard to the honour of England, or by any claims on the part of the individuals concerned. That ship was not taken during a blockade in the sense used by the hon. Member for Birmingham: it was captured because those who had the management of it contravened the municipal and custom-house regulations of Russia. At a particular period it was impossible to deny that Russia was placed in a position in which she felt called upon to prohibit any vessel from landing her cargo except in a naval depot where there was a customhouse, This regulation was violated by the ship in question. The fourth question is, whether we mean to press Russia to abandon the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi? The papers connected with that treaty were laid before the House three years ago; and I can say with reference to it, that it is not the intention of the Government to have recourse to hostile measures to compel Russia and Turkeytwo independent powersto cancel the treaty made between them. With respect to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman, I shall not follow him in his dissertation on the wars of the Saxons and Danes; nor do I feel it necessary to vindicate the conduct of the Duke of Wellington's Government in the years 1828 and 1829. It is sufficient for me to contend that the Governments of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne, to which I have had the honour to belong, have not rendered themselves deserving of the censure which has been cast upon them, of sacrificing the honour of England, or of being at all insensible to her interests and independence. Indeed, I think that the statement made by 1106 the hon. Gentleman ought to have satisfied him, when he came to reflect on what he said, that the extreme alarm which he expressed could not be founded on good and reasonable grounds; for what was the complaint made in various parts of his speech? He said, I have alone stated what I know will not excite the sympathy of my Radical friends. I am alone in favour of something which the House of Commons, by their attendance on the present occasion, do not seem to approve, and to which those who are present do not appear, by their postures and countenances, to attend to with a very lively interest, or to partake in the alarm which I have expressed. Out of doors no notice is taken of my project by a base, unfeeling, and heedless press, which seems to be unconscious of the insult which is offered to our country. I have no support from the Government of the country, and the people of England do not concur in my remarks. Why, if what the hon. Member has stated be trueif neither his own Friends, nor her Majesty's Government, nor the press, nor the people entertain the alarm which the hon. Member has endeavoured to inspire into their minds, must not the hon. Member be led on reflection to believe that he himself must have misunderstood the grounds on which his propositions are founded? I will tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that her Majesty's Government, the House, and the country fully participate in the anxiety for the safety and jealousy of the honour of this kingdom which he has expressed in the course of his speech. It is not on principles that we differ; it is on the application of those principles to the circumstances in which we are placed. The hon. Member seems to me to be rather desirous to find out an occasion for war than to entertain any serious apprehension that a war would be forced upon us. Indeed, the hon.
71

Member, feeling, perhaps, the necessity of explaining the reason for going into war with our eyes open, has furnished us with an imitation of the bland and conciliatory temper of a noble Lord who once led this House, and is now a Member of the other House of Parliament, who, it seems, used to accomplish things by his good humour which could not be effected by more vigorous or pugnacious proceedings, and has told us in the best-tempered and civil manner possible, that without any war, but as an act of precaution, we should go and destroy the Russian fleet in the Baltic, then sink the Russian ships that 1107 were in the Black Sea and show our friendship to a friendly and allied power, by taking forcible possession of the Dardanelles, and assuring those from whom we seized this position, that we should keep it until they were themselves able to defend it from attack. This, no doubt, is a very tempting way of sliding into war; but still I can't think that there is any necessity for pressing such measures, or that, if adopted, they would lead to the result which the hon. Gentleman so anxiously desires. The hon. Gentleman has expressed, in rather comical terms, his eagerness for the interests of this country. Such is his zeal and devoted attachment to the institutions and honour of the country, that he would sacrifice the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and I understood him to say, even the throne itself; aye, and that he would throw the drop of the national debt into the ocean of oblivion, rather than impair in any way the establishments and independence of the country. When he has made a national bankruptcy, destroyed the Houses of Commons and Lords, and overturned the throne, I should be glad to learn what that remainder of "the honour and institutions" of the country is which the hon. Gentleman would persuade us to go to war to save. Now, as to the Russian fleet in the Baltic, I am quite ready to concede to the hon. Member, as, indeed, the Government acted in some degree on the principles which he has laid down, that England has a right to look with jealousy on a great and ostentatious force displayed on the part of Russia, or any other naval power. That is no proof of hostility on our part; it proceeds from the just regard which a country is bound to pay to its own security; and no country of which the question was asked, "Why make this displaywhom are you going to attack; nobody is attacking you, and whom do you threaten?" would construe it as of an unfriendly or unreasonable character. But the hon. Gentleman tells us, that such a naval establishment is required as it would be necessary to maintain, if we were carrying on a war against this or that foreign power. Now that is a doctrine which I do not think wise in itself or prudent to pursue. It is a matter of very nice discretion, and one which should be left to the consideration of the executive Government, which knows the nature of the relations from day to day with foreign powers, to determine in a time of peace, and when there is no immediate prospect (and I trust no prospect at 1108 all, as far as I can see,) of a war before us, what ought to be maintained as a peace establishment, so that whilst, on the one hand, we should not be left utterly defenceless and without protection, we should not on the other unnecessarily add to the burdens of the country. Now, the hon. Gentleman must recollect that two years ago his Majesty's then Government proposed, and this House adopted, an augmentation of the naval force; and though we did not state that the display made by this or that power was the cause of that step which we took, yet the Secretary for the Admiralty did very strongly dwell on the armament of Russia, and the periodical fitting out of her fleet, as one of the grounds on which we considered it right to make a change in our naval force. Now, I do not admit that we are in the defenceless position which the hon. Gentleman has represented. I do not admit, if we conceive that Russia or any other naval power had the intention of insulting or attacking us, that we have not in ships now at sea, as well as those which might be sent to sea within a very short period, the means of defending the nation, not merely from aggression, but even from insult. But I think the House will be of opinion that they ought to place at least such a degree of confidence in the executive Government as to leave them on their own responsibility to consider what, under the circumstances, is fair and expedient to propose to Parliament. I say, therefore, with regard
72

to the first pointnot at all dissembling, that I think Russia does keep a larger force than is required for the defence of her own possessions, and than is consistent with the general wellbeing of other nations at peace with hernot at all dissembling, that it is a matter upon which not only the Government but the people of this country should keep a jealous and watchful eyethat having no reason to believe that the intention of Russia is otherwise than friendly towards this country, having reason, on the contrary, to believe (whatever her policy or ultimate intentions may prompt) that she has no wish or design to embark in a war with England, I feel that it is not necessary to make a further increase to our naval force on the ground which the hon. Member has stated. As to the allusion of the hon. Gentleman to the aggression of Russia on the coast of Circassia, the hon. Gentleman must see, in quoting an expression of mine, that if he tax his memory it did not convey the meaning which he asserts it was 1109 intended to express. I stated, undoubtedly, on a former occasion what I mean to repeat on the present, that I did not think the claim which Russia had put forth to the Sovereignty of Circassia was warranted on the grounds on which she asserted it; but when I made that declaration it did not refer to the case of the Vixen. I assure the hon. Member that he is mistaken if he supposes that I gave an opinion on a matter which was in the course of explanation between the two countries. All I said was, that if the explanation was not satisfactory, I should feel it my duty to state the fact to the House. The explanation, as I think was shown by the papers laid before Parliament, was such that this country had not a just ground for pressing the matter further. The hon. Gentleman, however, not content with the observations which he made in a good-humoured spirit, and with strangling one Minister after another, has indulged in remarks entirely unfounded as to the manner in which Lord Durham discharged the duties imposed on him as ambassador to St. Petersburg. Nobody can better than myself speak to the fact, because with me my noble Friend corresponded, and it was in connection with me that he acted; and I can undertake to say in behalf of Lord Durham, that so far from exhibiting an indifference to the honour and interests of this country, it was impossible for any public servant at a foreign court to have served his country with more zeal and firmness. He has rendered this country very important services which obtained the sanction of his late Majesty, and for which he has received a very just and merited token of approbation. The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken if he thinks that the interests of the country were not guarded as zealously and as firmly in that noble Lord's hands as they could have, been if intrusted to the care of the hon. Gentleman himself. With regard to the affair of the Vixen, the whole matter is at an end for the reasons I have already stated. But the hon. Gentleman errs much if he thinks that, while we are disposed to put forth the thunders of our naval force to terrify so insignificant a place as Venezuela, we shrink from demanding satisfaction when required in such a case as that of the Vixen, or in another similar one, though not of the same description: I allude to that of the Lord Charles Spencer, which, though not captured, was stopped by a Russian cruiser, and, after being taken out of its course and detained some time, was 1110 after wards released. We remonstrated with the Government of Russia on the last subject of complaint, and the result was, that an apology was made to the Government, and compensation was given to the owners of the vessel for the injury which she had sustained. Now, Sir, with regard to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, that, also, is a matter which has gone by: it is a treaty which, at present, is not one of the acknowledged treaties of Europe, and, consequently, can form no ground whatever for England to declare war with Russia. It was a treaty entered into for a limited period, and to meet peculiar circumstances; and that period having expired, and those circumstances having disappeared, and the probability also being that the two powers parties to it will not find it necessary that its engagements should be renewed, I think I am justified in saying that its introduction by the hon. Member upon the present occasion is wholly unecessary and uncalled for. Having said thus much separately on each of the parts into which the hon. Member's
73

speech divided itself, I would observe generally, with respect to his statement, that, doing him full justice for his motives in bringing the subject under consideration, concurring with him in the principles on which his arguments are founded, I differ with him as to their proper application to the circumstances in which we stand. I deny most confidently that there has been anything in the conduct of the Ministers of England tending to prove them indifferent to the interests, or insensible to the honour, of their country. I deny utterly that through our policy the safety of the country has been diminished, or that its honour has been tarnished. I say that there never was a period when England was more secure from any aggression of a foreign enemy than at present, or when her honour stood higher than it does now. The hon. Member has told us that England had given security to the world at large, to the amount of eight hundred millions of pounds, to keep the peace; but let me ask, Sir, does the hon. Member suppose that England is the only country in which financial difficulties constitute an obstacle to aggressive warfare? Does he suppose that Russiaay, even that same Russia which he seems so desirous to convert into a general alarm-giveris in a more warlike position, as regards financial matters, than Great Britain? I beg to tell him he is quite as much mistaken in thinking that 1111 Russia at this moment would find means to commence an offensive war as he is in asserting that England is in such a state as to render her unable to provide for a defensive one. Was it exclusively from her own resources that Russia defrayed her own portion of the expenses of the war which terminated in 1816? Certainly not. Between the beginning of 1814 and the end of 1815 Russia received seven millions by way of subsidies from England, and four millions as part of a war contribution from France; and it was these same eleven millions which enabled her to bring under arms those 160,000 men whom I myself saw in the plains of Champagne. Since the peace, Russia has been exhausting her means daily. In pomps and shows, in reviews in the north and reviews in the south, she has expended any surplus revenue her vast territory may give her; and although she has a large number of men under arms, yet when we consider the little means she possesses to muster them from various distant places, and then to train and bring them into the shape of an offensive army, the hon. Member may depend upon it she is not in a situation to give reasonable cause of alarm to any power ranked among the first powers of Europe. I say that Russia gives the world quite as much security for the preservation of peace as England. I assert that Russia would find it more difficult to undertake a war which had not for its object self-defence than England; and such being my firm and decided opinion, I do not think I shall be going too far in assuring the alarmed and hon. Member for Birmingham that Sheer-ness is not likely to be invaded, that there will be no necessity to cut the navigation buoys of the coast, and that, if he likes it, he may with confidence proceed to his nightly slumbers between this and the 1st of April nextay, or this day twelve monthswithout the least fear of being awoke by the news either that the Russian fleet is anchored in the pool, or that the crews of their ships were parading the streets of London.
Mr. Maclean

contended, that the declarations made by the noble Lord in the course of his speech were at variance with those which he had made on a former occasion. In a former debate, the noble Lord had censured the conduct of Russia with respect to Circassia. On that occasion the noble Lord had stated that though Russia was not bound to that particular step by the treaty of London, yet she had 1112 entered voluntarily into its engagements, and was bound so far as a voluntary declaration. It had been distinctly understood on the part of Russia that she would not look for the acquisition of territory, yet, notwithstanding, she had obtained an acquisition of territory of 200 miles extent from the south of Cuban to Fort Nicole. The hon. Member referred to the letter of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, addressed to Lord
74

Durham in May, 1837, and urged that our Government sanctioned the occupation by Russia of the Coast of Circassia. In the treaty of 1783, a treaty fully acknowledged by Russia, Circassia was guaranteed as Turkish territory. There could be now no question that Russia was bond fide in possession of the whole of the coast of Circassia. The noble Lord must recollect that the Russian Government claimed a right to establish sanatory regulations along the coast; but they went farther, for they claimed a right to search vessels approaching that coast. Whilst Circassia was in the possession of Turkey this country had the same right to trade there, by paying the same dues paid as to trade to any other Turkish port, but upon that coast she was now forbidden to land goods of any description which were not included in the Russian tariff, and the commerce of England was in this respect greatly impeded. With respect to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, the fact of a large armament in the Black Sea would seem to argue some ulterior designs on the part of Russia, and if Russia was secure in her confidence in that treaty, for what purpose was she keeping up a large armament in that mare clausum, unless to guard the coast of Circassia? It was a subject of great importance to our commercial interests. The trade of Trebizond alone was worth a million a-year to this country. It was a question of too much importance to be lost sight of, and should be brought forward again. Under these circumstances he trusted the hon. Member would not press his motion to a division, as he must see from the then state of the benches on the Opposition side of the House, as well as from the manner in which the question had been received at the other side, that it could not be said to have received the attention of the House.
Mr. Attwood

, seeing that the sense of the House was against his pressing the 1113 question to a division, felt it his duty to yield to it. But he would tell the Government that, if they did not change their policy, the day would come when this question would be forced upon them in a manner they could neither avert nor avoid. He begged to withdraw the resolutions. Resolutions put seriatim, were then withdrawn.

75

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1838/feb/23/russia

RUSSIA. HC Deb 23 February 1838

vol 41 cc58-958 Mr. Maclean wished to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether, subsequently to the correspondence laid on the table of the House with regard to the affair of the Vixen, other correspondence had not taken place between himself and Mr. Bell, as well as the authorities of St. Peters-burgh and Constantinople? If so, whether he would have any objection to place that correspondence likewise on the table of the House? He had also another question to put to the noble Lord. He had received information of an outrage having been committed in the passage of the Dardanelles upon a certain merchant vessel, and he wished to know whether any such communication had been received by the noble Lord and which he (Mr. Maclean) understood had been made to the authorities at Constantinople? The hon. and learned Gentleman then read an extract of a communication which he had received from the agent employed by the merchants, to the effect, that a merchant vessel recently arrived at Liverpool was twice fired at by a Russian brig of war, under the supposition that it was a corsair. But the merchant vessel having passed above the castle, in the channel where she must have shown her papers, there could be no shadow of excuse for firing on her in pretence that she was a corsair. It was also stated, that a protest had subsequently been made against this proceeding, and he wished to know from the noble Lord whether these statements were true or not? Viscount Palmerston said, it was quite true that since the date of the papers which had been laid on the table with regard to the affair of the Vixen there had been some correspondence between himself and Mr. Bell, and he had no sort of objection to lay it also before the House. With regard to the transaction to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded, be begged to say, that he received two days ago an account which, however, differed in some material respects from the statement which had been made to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It had been stated to him, that two English merchant ships were lying at anchor within the 59 passage of the Dardanelles, and that a Russian brig of war, which was passing either up or down, fired a blank gun at one of the merchant ships to make her show her colours, which she did; and then fired another blank gun at the other merchant ship to make her show her colours, which that ship also did. He understood, that it was the invariable practice at sea when ships of war of any country met merchant vessels without colours to invite them to show their colours by showing their own; and if this was not complied with, then to make them show their colours by firing blank guns at them. A question might arise, whether the Russian brig of war was, according to the law of nations, entitled or not to require a ship under the circumstances stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman to hoist its colours. Upon that question he was not at present prepared to express an opinion one way or the other. Mr. Maclean Then the noble Lord has not received any communication that these ships were fired on with shot? Viscount Palmerston
76

said, he had got the protest of the two masters of the vessels, which distinctly stated, that the two guns fired were blank.

77

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1839/feb/05/address-answer-to-the-speech

ADDRESSANSWER TO THE SPEECH. HC Deb 05 February 1839

vol 45 cc49-12549

The Royal Speech having been read,

Mr. E. Buller

rose and said, that after the most gracious Speech which they had heard, he had to bespeak the indulgence of the House, in venturing to move an humble, dutiful, and loyal address in answer to the Speech. He felt deeply impressed with the difficulty of his situation, as under any circumstances, he should have felt his utter inability to undertake this duty, but particularly on the present occasion. Considering the numerous and important subjects that were embraced in the Speech from the Throne, subjects which were in a very great degree foreign to his habits, upon which he had no great knowledge, and which he was not competent to discuss, in throwing himself upon the indulgence of the House, he would endeavour, to the utmost of his power, not to weary their patience. He would endeavour, moreover, as far as he possibly could, to avoid the inconveniences that arose from protracted discussions upon the Address; and, above all, he would endeavour to avoid saying anything that could occasion asperity, or give rise to an acrimonious debate. He would then proceed to make a few short observations upon the different topics referred to in the gracious Speech which they had heard that day delivered. It could not but be a matter of sincere congratulation to the House and the country that her Majesty still continued to receive assurances from foreign powers, of their anxiety to maintain our alliance, and the most friendly relations; and that the peace which had been purchased at the expense of so much treasure and blood continued to our advantage, and the advan- 50 tage of our commercial interests. It was also a subject of sincere congratulation to him, looking at the state of the manufactures of this country, to see so wide a field opened to British enterprise and capital. It was, indeed, in his opinion no matter of slight importance that we should have succeeded in entering into treaties with Austria and Turkey, which were calculated to open those vast countries to British enterprise and capital. The treaty with Austria had placed our merchants on the same footing as the most favoured people of that empire. The Turkish treaty also destroyed those vexatious regulations and restrictions that tended to cripple the trade, and to prevent the free circulation of the manufactures of this country with that portion of the world. Looking at the particular attitude in which Turkey stoodlooking at the social state of that countrylooking at the vast resources which she afforded for internal navigation, looking, also, at her vast undeveloped agricultural resources, her large and indeed inexhaustible commercial resources, he felt that it was scarcely possible to exaggerate the advantages that must be derived to the commerce of this country, from the treaty which had been entered into; it was of the highest importance to connect with a nation so peculiarly calculated to benefit us, a country possessing such undeveloped agricultural resources, possessing as we did such means of capital to manufacture, and deliver our produce in every quarter of the world. Independently of this, not only were our means and resources enlarged, but if we looked at the state of the public mind, and public opinion in that country, we should find a large population strongly prejudiced in favour of British connection, prejudiced in favour of our arts and manners, and receiving gladly such articles of luxury as we were able to furnish to them. The next subject that attracted attention was, the statement that a treaty had been concluded between the five powers for settling the differences between Holland and Belgium. It was a matter of congratulation that an answer had been received
78

announcing the accession of the King of the Netherlands to the terms of the treaty. Considering that that treaty was based upon stipulations which had previously received the consent of the King of Belgiumlooking at the great importance of finally establishing the independence of the country, and with a view to the true interests of Belgium itself, 51 he was sure that some concession would be made by the people of that country even of their own interests and feelings, in order to meet the wishes of the great powers of Europe, and to place themselves on a footing of national independence. The next subject referred to in her Majesty's Speech was one to which there was much less pleasure in directing attention. It could not but be a matter of deep regret and disappointment to look forward to the seemingly distant prospect of effecting a settlement of the unhappy differences that existed in Spain. The state of Spain was to this country a matter of the most serious consideration, and one to which they must all look with great anxiety. He trusted that at no distant period tranquillity would be established in that great country, and the peaceful enjoyment of liberal principles under a liberal and enlightened government. He regretted to learn that some differences had existed between her Majesty's Ministers and the court of Teheran, and that the Emperor of Persia had not as yet fully complied with the proposals of the British Minister, and which the security of British interests required. He hoped, however, that the Emperor of Persia on reflection would see the necessity of acceding to the reasonable proposition which had been made to him, and would also see how deeply he would endanger his friendly relations with this Government by persisting in a refusal of it. The Governor-general of India, it appeared, had found it necessary to make extensive military preparations for protecting British subjects in that quarter of the world, and was now prepared to meet any exigencies, and to repel any aggressions which might be contemplated, and to maintain in every respect the integrity of that portion of her Majesty's dominions. He had now passed in review the chief points of foreign policy alluded to in her Majesty's Speech. The subject was one which he confessed his utter inability to do justice to, and he felt no better adequate to the task on the present than on any former occasion. He would now turn to matters connected with our domestic policy. The first subject alluded to by her Majesty was, the necessity for a reconstruction and reform of the Municipal Corporation of Ireland. Considering the loyal character and feelings of the people of that portion of the empire, he trusted that the House would see the necessity of conferring upon that people to the fullest extent, the rights, privileges, and immunities which 52 are enjoyed in this country. He trusted, that after the pledge contained in the Address of 1834, the House would redress all just grievances, and adopt all well-considered measures of reform, and particularly bearing in mind what had been thrown out by several influential Members both of this and of the other House, that when the difficulties of the poor-law and the tithe questions had been satisfactorily adjusted, the time would come for conceding to Ireland the reform of her corporations. Considering all these circumstances, he did now most earnestly hope, that the present Session would not pass over without conferring upon Ireland a just measure of corporation reform. It also appeared, that her Majesty contemplated the prosecution and completion of measures for the purpose of carrying into effect the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. These measures had already been on the table of the House, and be felt convinced, that whilst their general provisions were such as the population of the country much required, there was nothing contained in them at all calculated to weaken the position of the Church. On the contrary, that they would tend considerably to augment its strength, and maintain its influence and stability. If the funds of the Church were honestly and. faithfully applied, be saw no danger that its important labours would be interrupted on that ground. From the large sums of money which he had seen subscribed in the metropolis and elsewhere, for the building of churches, it appeared that the appeals which had been made to the people on this score, had not been made in vain; and that funds were forthcoming which must considerably extend the useful labours of the Church. The next subject to which her
79

Majesty's Speech referred, was the present state of the West India Islands. It was with sincere and heartfelt congratulation that he learned that the period fixed by Parliament for the emancipation of the negroes, had been anticipated by the local legislatures, and. that at the present moment slavery, even in a modified form, did not exist in any of her Majesty's dominions. However humble a share he might have had in the passing of the Slavery Abolition measure, it would ever be a subject for lasting gratitude with him that it had fallen to his lot to bear a small share in it. He had great gratification in reflecting, that the negro was now released from the cruel bondage which he had so long endured, and that, considering the smallness 53 of his wants, and the largeness of his wages, he ranked now amongst the most prosperous labourers in the world. He had much satisfaction in looking forward to the ultimate prosperity of these colonies, and results he thought would show, that this great measure was as conducive to the interests and wealth, as it was to the honour and character of Great Britain. There was another topic upon which he felt a deep and more painful interest he alluded to the province of Lower Canada. It was too true, that in that province there had manifested itself an extensive spirit of insurrection; but the rebellion had been promptly suppressed by the valour of the British forces and her Majesty's loyal Canadian subjects; and it must be a subject for congratulation, that the revolt had not been more extensively joined, nor generally connived at. It was true, however, that predatory incursions had been made into Upper Canada by certain lawless inhabitants of the United States, but these proceedings, he was happy to say, had met with neither sympathy nor support from the inhabitants of that province. Still, however, he must admit, that it would be impossible to look to the state of these provinces with entire satisfaction. As they were now in a state of submission to the powers of Great Britain, and of expectation and reliance upon her justness and the fidelity of her promises, he would venture to express a hope, that whenever measures might be brought forward for the settlement of their affairs, the Legislature of this country would bear in mind the peculiar situation of the French Canadians; that it would bear in mind that Great Britain depended more upon opinion than any other nation in the world, and that it was not so much on her power as on the confidence of her colonies that she had to depend. It was with regret that he came now to refer to the efforts which had been making of late in some parts of the country to excite her Majesty's subjects to disobedience of the law, and to recommend dangerous and illegal practices. He much regretted the excitement which had been so industriously kept alive in various parts of the country upon different projects, upon which he could not refrain from expressing his firm conviction, that if the professed objects of the parties were fully obtained, they would not in the least conduce to the benefit of the country. He was perfectly satisfied, that neither universal suffrage nor vote by ballot would have any such results as their 54 advocates seemed to expect. He trusted, however, that whatever petitions might be sent in on these subjects, the House would receive them in a spirit which would show that it was prepared to listen with willingness to arguments and fair representation, but that it would yield nothing to clamour or intimidation. There was one subject upon which, though not mentioned in her Majesty's speeeh, he felt called upon to say a few words. The Corn-laws was a subject which had caused a violent agitation throughout the country; indeed, it was scarcely possible to overvalue the deep feeling and anxiety which existed throughout the country, not for extreme or violent measures, but a feeling of the necessity which existed for the modification of this enactment. He trusted that whenever this question came before the House, it would be met in a spirit of fairness, and with a determination to do justice to all parties; that it would be discussed with candour and earnestness of deliberation, not as a question between two hostile parties, but as one in which the interests of all parties were equally concerned. He trusted, that there would be a strong feeling amongst both the agriculturists and the manufacturing interests that they were mutually dependent upon one another, and that they were mutually each others best
80

customers; and that, consequently it would be inconsistent with their own respective interests either to reduce the wealth of the one, or diminish the numbers of the other. For his own part, the facts which he had observed during the last four years made him very much doubt whether it would be expedient for the agriculturists themselves to maintain these laws in their present state. He thought it would be impossible by any such means to force up prices for any long series of years, but that an unnatural elevation in one year might be followed by depression in the next. It was also a question with him, whether any attempt to force prices, might not defeat its own object by stimulating production whilst it limited consumption. He had merely thrown out these few observations without intending to express in them any decided opinion on the subject. He should always be most willing to listen to any observations or arguments which others might make on the subject, with an earnest desire to consult, as far as possible, the interests both of the agriculturist and the manufacturer. Amidst the numerous grounds which existed fox congratulation 55 in the present aspect of public affairs, there was undoubtedly, much cause for serious consideration, and perhaps, somewhat painful apprehensions. He could not, however, but look forward with confidence to the result, and he sincerely trusted that the dangers and difficulties which now beset the Throne, would be met and overcome by the wisdom of Parliament supported by the efforts of a loyal and attached people. He thanked the House for the indulgence with which they had allowed him most inadequately to discharge the duty imposed on him, and begged to move an humble Address in answer to her Majesty's gracious Speech.
Mr. G. W. Wood

rose with great pleasure to second the Address which had been moved by his hon. Friend near him, in reply to her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne; and he felt quite as much, or more occasion for the indulgence of the House as his hon. Friend, being aware that on this occasion he should have to go over those topics to which his hon. Friend had previously called the attention of the House. It must be to all a matter of the utmost satisfaction, that her Majesty was able to assure the House, that she had perfect confidence in the preservation of peace on the footing on which the great powers stood in relation to each other. That after we had enjoyed the blessings of peace for so long a period, we should again have the assurance that there was no danger of the infraction of that peace, must be a subject of pleasure to this House, and all her Majesty's subjects; and in the two treaties that had been concluded with the Emperor of Austria and the Sultan of Turkey, to which their attention had been specially called by her Majesty, they had an additional basis for the preservation of peace. These treaties were of a character becoming the parties, and such as a commercial nation might justly be proud of having entered into. They contained provisions which were in the highest degree honourable to the Monarchs in whose names they had been concluded, and the statesmen through whose instrumentality they had been accomplished. They were treaties not entered into with a view to conquest, but with a view to call forth the latent wealth of the countries to which they related, and particularly the industry of their inhabitants. They were treaties which though they conferred advantages on the people to whom they had relation, did this without interfering in any degree with the 56 rights of other states; they were treaties which, so far from having any selfish object, the more universally they were acted upon, the more beneficial they would become. Standing there as he did, the representative of a manufacturing borough, he felt particularly called upon to congratulate the House and the country upon these topics. With respect to the treaty with Austria, it was founded upon the justest basis. It did not, perhaps, offer any great accession to our commerce at once, but it laid the foundations broad and deep of the future prosperity of the two states. Coupling, also, the terms of this treaty with the alterations in the plans of that country, he did hope, that it would
81

be found that she was entering with earnestness into a new system of commerce. With regard to the treaty with Turkey, whilst founded upon principles equally just, its immediate advantages would prove still more considerable. There existed a large commerce between this country and Turkey, which had long been impeded by the want of that freedom in Turkey itself, which was necessary to success in all trading proceedings. In this treaty we had a guarantee that all these impediments should be removed, and that an equality of rights and privileges should be established, from which advantages of a large and extensive character, could not fail to result. Such were the individual advantages which were held out by these treaties, but if they were taken together, he thought they gave assurance of still further advantages. They held out a promise that the latent energies and wealth of the southern portion of Europe, which had hitherto been too much bound up, were likely to be set free in throwing open the navigation of the Danube. When it was considered that this mighty river passed through a great extent of country, and rich as that land was in its native wealth, there was a prospect that it would become one of the great highways for the commerce of the world, Nor was this treaty important in its commercial relations only. It likewise conferred political advantages of no ordinary description. If it ever entered into the contemplation of Russian statesmen in times present or past, to recover the sovereignty of Constantinople, he thought that the independence of Turkey, secured as it was by the treaty which her Majesty had concluded, placed that object completely beyond their power. It was gratifying to see that those nations, through whose com- 57 bined counsels in the year 1831, the blessings of peace were preserved in Europe, by preventing any hostile outbreak, were also instrumental in guarding against the disturbance of peace as a consequence of the separation of Holland from Belgium. With respect to Spain it was to be lamented that such a state of things as existed in that country should still prevail; but he trusted that the powers which had exerted themselves so successfully in securing the peace of Holland and Belgium, would use their best efforts to put an end to a war which was a disgrace to Christendom. With respect to the interruption of our amicable arrangements with Persia, whatever were the views in which they originated, or the objects of those who caused them, it was satisfactory to see the promptitude and vigour which marked the counsels of our Indian government; and let what would happen in that country, we were able and prepared to protect the peace of India, and to afford security to our subjects in that part of the empire. With regard to the Irish corporations, to which the attention of Parliament had been called, he would add his earnest hope to that already expressed by his hon. Friend, that this Session would not be brought to a close without putting an end, on satisfactory terms, to this vexatious question. He trusted that both sides of the House would lend their best endeavours to arrange the almost only remaining ground of anxiety with regard to the condition of Ireland. He repeated, that this was the only remaining practical measure of those which had been already undertaken, with a view of rendering justice to Ireland; and he hoped, that when they came to deal with its details, they would not be unwilling that our fellow subjects in Ireland should have the same measure of justice, and the same share in political rights, which, a few years ago, they had conferred on our fellow countrymen in England. It was extremely satisfactory that, throughout the West Indies, the great measure of negro emancipation had taken effect in a quiet and satisfactory manner, with the concurrence of the local legislatures. It was to be hoped, that the legislature of Jamaica would be willing to lend its assistance to whatever enactments might be necessary for securing the peace and rights of our negro fellow subjects; but if it should persevere in that conduct which had brought on it the condemnation of so many, it would be found that there was energy enough in this country to en- 58 force that protection which the slaves of the island might require. As to the occurrences in Canada, it was not his intention to enter into any discussion with respect to them; but he could not do otherwise than express his satisfaction at the loyalty which was evinced by the inhabitants of Upper Canada in defending themselves from the hostile
82

aggressions of their neighbours of the United States. He felt that they had discharged their duty to themselves and to the mother country, and he trusted that we should be prepared at all times to afford them that support and assistance which they might require at our hands, for securing to them their liberty, and perpetuating the connexion between Canada and this country. It was to be regretted that any of the inhabitants of the United States should have been tempted, by views of plunder, or by whatever motive they were actuated, to invade Canada, and to interfere with the internal government of that province. On the pacific intentions of the government of the United States he placed the fullest reliance. In the honourable feelings of the people of that country, and in their friendly disposition to England, he had equal confidence, but occurrences had taken place, undoubtedly, which brought disgrace on that country. It behoved the government and people of those states to show that they possessed the means, not only of protecting their own liberties, but of securing the neighbouring countries, living in amity with them, from any hostile inroads. The concluding paragraph of her Majesty's gracious Speech referred to circumstances which had occurred in this country, and by which the people were considered to have been excited to acts of disobedience and resistance. Speaking with reference to that part of the country to which he had the honour of belonging, he felt happy in being enabled to assure the House, that the feeling here referred to was not carried to a very great extent, or affected any large number of persons. Undoubtedly great efforts had been made to mislead the people, and to produce excitement, by tempting them to do things which no one could approve of, as they were injurious to themselves and to the tranquillity of the country; but he felt quite assured that a vigilant administration of the existing law would be quite effectual for the suppression of any disturbances which might have occurred. He was happy to have it to say, that the agitation which prevailed some time ago had subsided. He 59 trusted we should not see it renewed. But if it should unhappily be revived, he could fearlessly assure them, that on the loyalty and pacific intentions of the great mass of the people in that part of the country to which he referred, the House might place the most implicit reliance. In all stations there existed an anxious desire for the preservation of the public peace, and for the maintenance of the law. The House would perhaps, indulge him for a short time, whilst he referred to the present state of the manufactures and commerce of the country. Two years ago great commercial distress and the utmost uneasiness prevailed in all branches of trade. The House would be glad to hear that this state of things had passed away, and that the commerce of England at the present moment was in a most satisfactory condition. He did not recollect any former period of commercial embarrassment at which the return to a state of healthy commerce, and of comparative prosperity, followed so rapidly on the depression. A question arose in connexion with this peculiarity which it would be unbecoming in him to enter upon, but which was well worthy the consideration of those who were conversant with such subjects. He thought an investigation of the question would prove that there was no great over-trading in our manufacturing community, or they could not so soon have recovered their healthy condition. The cause of that derangement he believed to have been a vicious system of banking. The legislature no doubt would feel it incumbent upon them to examine the causes of those calamities which brought ruin and
Declared value of the principal articles of British Produce and manufactures exported from the United Kingdom. ARTICLES. Average of Four 83 Amount in 1838, Increase in Decrease

Years 1834, 1835 1896, 1837 Cotton Manufactures Cotton Yarn Woollen Manufactures Linen Manufactures Silk Manufactures Hardware and Cutlery Earthenware Glass Sugar, Refined Metals, Iron and Steel Metals, Copper and Brass Metals, Lead Metals, Tin in bars Metals, Plates Wool, Sheep's Salt Coal and Culm 16,058,000 6,001,000 6,542,000 3,006,000 759,000 1,739,000 608,000 542,000 730,000 1,845,000 1,067,000 180,000 51,000 352,000 274,000 166,000 304,000 40,224,000 Deduct decrease Net increase 60

in round numbers. 1838.

1838.

16,7000,000 7,431,000 6,157,000 3,575,000 778,000 1,507,000 671,000 377,000 550,000 2,531,000 1,226,000 156,000 103,000 435,000 432,000 223,000 484,000 43,336,000

642,000 1,432,000 385,000 569,000 19,000 232,000 63,000 165,000 180,000 686,000 159,000 24,000 52,000 83,000 158,000 57,000 180,000 4,098,000 986,000 ,000 3,112,000

distress on multitudes of their fellow-subjects, and to provide a remedy against their recurrence. The commerce of the United States had been deranged to the same, or to a greater extent than our own; but that country like this, had in a great measure recovered from its embarrassment, and had now to a considerable extent resumed its beneficial commerce with
84

this country. He considered it to be in the highest degree creditable to the people of the United States, that they made such prompt, vigorous, and successful efforts to discharge the heavy amount of debt due to this country. It spoke, in his opinion, volumes for the power, internal resources, and aggregate wealth of the United State, that if they suspended cash payments for a short time, they quickly secured to themselves the inestimable advantage of a correct standard of value. The opinions which he had stated to the House on the present position of our commerce he was happy to find borne out by documents which exhibited the amount of the exports of this country during the last year, and the comparison which they bore to those exports of the four preceding years. He feared to trouble the House with statements of this kind, involving as they did many details, and yet they appeared to him so important with reference to the exact position in which our commerce now stood, that he trusted the House would indulge him for a few moments whilst he endeavoured to convey an impression of them. The hon. Gentleman referred to the principal articles in the following list:
61

By this table it appeared that the aggregate increase in the export of the principal objects of British manufacture of the year 1838, over the average of the four preceding years, was 3,112,000l., or seven and three fourths per cent. In the cotton manufactures the increase was four per cent over the average of the four preceding years. In the export of cotton yarn the increase was no less than 20 per cent. With regard to our woollen manufactures there was a decline of six per cent.; a circumstance which was entirely attributable to the very large portion of our woollen manufactures which were sent to the United States, and that country not being able to take in so large a quantity as it did in previous years, there was a depression which he had no doubt would be removed during the present year. In linen the increase was nineteen per cent. In silk two and a half per cent. In hardware and cutlery there was a diminution of thirteen per cent. In earthenware the increase was ten per cent. In glass the diminution was thirty per cent. In refined sugar twenty-five per cent. In metals, iron, and steel, the increase was thirty-seven per cent.; in copper and brass fifteen per cent. In lead there was a diminution of thirteen per cent. In tin in bars the increase was ten and a half per cent., and tin in plates twenty-three per cent. In sheep's wool the increase was fifty-seven per cent. In salt thirty-four per cent., and in coal and culm fifty-nine per cent. In the four great staple manufactures of clothing the increase was seven per cent. On the five metals enumerated the increase was twenty four per cent. He did not think' that 1838 was an improper year to contrast with the four preceding, in order to show that the depressed state of our manufactures no longer existed. The years 1834 and 1835 were years of steady prosperity; 1836 was a year of over-trading, and 1837 a year of great depression. He had also had his attention called to the shipping interest, and he was happy in having it in his power to lay before the House particulars exhibiting the state of the shipping trade of England, which, though it was represented a few years ago to be in a state of great embarassment and adversity had now assumed a vigorous condition, and was rapidly extending. The hon. Gentleman read the following statement:
62 FOREIGN AND COLONIAL TRADE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.SHIPPING TONNAGE. INWARDS. Average of years, 1834, 5, 6, 7, and Year 1838. Increase.

85

Tons. British

Tons.

Tons. 10 per cent. 28 per cent. 15 per cent.

2,226,998 2,464,020 237,022

Foreign

808,609

3,036,932 228,323

Total

3,035,607 3,500,952 465,345

To come from foreign commerce to home consumption, the increase in cochineal was 30 per cent., and that in indigo, 20 per cent.; in timber 24 per cent.; in coffee and cocoa, there was an increase, whilst in rum and brandy there was a considerable decline. His hon. Friend, the mover, had adverted, at the close of his speech, to another subject of great interest. That was a topic not embraced in her Majesty's Speech, but from the degree of public attention which it attracted, it was not unbecoming that he should advert to it. The subject would undoubtedly call for a large share of their consideration at an early period of the Session. He alluded to those laws which regulated the importation of human food. The tranquillity of the country for some years back, with reference to this question, did not arise from any indifference to its great importance, but from a fortunate cheapness in the price of food. It was not to be expected, that when the price of food was double what it had been in some years past, the same quiet would continue. It would ill become him to enter into a discussion with the view of producing a collision of open war on this topic. Opportunities would, no doubt, soon occur when hon. Gentlemen ranging themselves on the one side, and the other, would support their respective views which they entertained on this question with facts and arguments. He should only add the expression of his anxious hope to that delivered by his hon. Friend, that whenever 63 this discussion began, they should enter upon it with calmness and temper, and with a feeling of what was due to the magnitude of the subject. There was one peculiarity in the proceedings which had taken place throughout the country, with reference to this subject, which it behoved the House to consider. They should recollect that the excitement which had now sprung up was not an excitement of a temporary nature arising from a casual advance in the price of breadit was not a cry proceeding from those who suffered from famineit was the demand of the intelligent middle classes, of the merchants, manufacturers, and traders of Great Britain. It was the voice of those who had great intelligence, integrity, and patriotic feelings, of those who had a stake in the country, and who were as anxious for the prosperity of agriculture as for that of the manufactures by which they lived. It was not likely, then, that even if favourable seasons should again reduce the price of bread, the question which was now started could be laid aside. Twenty years of peace had given a spring to the industry and encouragement to the commerce of all nations. It had been seen how great this country had become through its commerce. It no doubt filled the minds of the people of other countries with wonder and astonishment to see how we had borne up against the long suspension of our commercial intercourse which the war had occasioned. Their statesmen must naturally have been anxious to procure for their people an opportunity of imitating our successful career. And this should not be a matter of annoyance to us, for it was natural that other countries should employ their resources in the occupation of industry and in the acmulation of wealth. So far from looking on this as an evil, he thought it was a great good, and the surest means to preserve peace, the blessings of which they had so long enjoyed. But the encouragement which these countries had given to those of their inhabitants
86

who were engaged in manufactures, was now beginning to produce its effects by a successful competition with this country, not only in the nations of the old world, but in the remoter markets, where our exports were seriously interfered with. A deep alarm was entertained by our manufacturers, that our prosperity as a manufacturing country would thus be seriously endangered. If such apprehensions were well founded, the manufacturers felt, that there was no means 64 of amending their condition, but by an attempt which, even if it were practicable at all, all must deplore, to depress the wages of labour. Whether that became necessary or not it was the duty of the Legislature, in his opinion, to place the manufacturers of this country on a footing as nearly equal as it was possible to that on which the manufacturers of other countries stood. With these remarks he should close, expressing his concurrence in all that had fallen from his hon. Friend, particularly in the hope that this Address would be adopted with cordiality and unanimity by the House. He trusted, too, that in all their future deliberations they should regard more the public good, and the prosperity of the people, than the topics of party strife, which in his opinion were too frequently indulged in during the debates of last Session.
Mr. T. Duncombe

If those two hon. Gentlemen who had just addressed the House, and who had performed their task with so much ability, felt it necessary to pray the indulgence of the House whilst they discharged what might be to them a sort of labour of love, how much more incumbent was it on him, an humble individual, to make an apology, when he presented himself to their notice for the purpose of communicating, not only to her Majesty's Ministers, but to the House, what must be unpalateable and unpleasant truths. But this was no time for empty apologies; and the best apology he could make, was not to occupy too much of their time. If it should, unfortunately, be his fate to cause pain to any party, he could only promise them, that their suffering under the operation should not he very long. He rose, then, for the purpose of moving an amendment to the address which had been moved and seconded by the two hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him. It was an addition, rather than amendment, and it was to this effect: "That the amendment of the representative system enacted in 1832 had disappointed the people; that it was not, and could not be a final measure, and that it was the duty of this House to take immediate steps towards its further improvement." He should feel it his imperative duty to take the sense of the House on this amendment. To the Gentlemen opposite, he had no right to look for any support. They were not responsible for the Reform Bill. They were only respon- 65 sible for having failed in their endeavours to strangle it in its birth, and for aiding her Majesty's Ministers to cramp and impede it in its growth; but he did look with confidence to those of his side of the House for support; he did look to those who were returned on Reform principles with a confident expectation, that they would do their duty, and who would reap this consolation from such a courselet the consequences be what they mightthat, however lightly their exertions were treated in that House, the public, at all events, would pass a different sentence upon their conductand that to the judgment of that public, the decision would ultimately belong. He was aware, that he was fulfilling a prediction which was made last year, he believed, by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, that some of those who were the loudest advocates of the Reform Bill would be found the foremost to assail it. He admitted it; and he would go further and say, that he should not be doing his duty, if he did not so assail it, because he maintained, that it had disappointed the people both of England, Ireland, and Scotland. At the same time, far be it from him to detract from the merit of the Ministry who carried the Reform Bill in 1832. But, whilst he admitted the merit of the measure, and the
87

merit of those who carried it, he did not believe, that any man, at the time it passed, was vain or sanguine enough to imagine, that a bill so comprehensive in its general character, and so complicated in its details, could all at once arrive at positive perfection. In the first year after it passed loud complaints were made, not only of the imperfect working of the bill, in many of its details, but particularly of its exclusiveness. The country was then told by the Ministers of the Crown, and also by many well-meaning Reformers, that it was precipitate in complaining. "You are impatient," said they, "wait at least a short timegive the bill a fair trial." That argument could no longer be resorted to; the bill had had a fair triala trial of seven years, during which period three general elections had taken place, and he maintained, that the bill so tried, so tested, had neither fulfilled the intentions of the Parliament which passed, nor satisfied the hopes and wishes of the great body of the people who supported it. Why, he would ask, had it disappointed the people? Because it had not conferred 66 upon them a full, fair, and free representation; because, at this moment, nomination, intimidation, and corruption, were as rife as ever. In the first place, he would ask the House, "Whom do you represent?" Did the majority of that House represent the feelings and wishes of the majority of the nation? He answered, no. Did the majority of that House represent the feelings and wishes of the majority of the working and industrious classes? He answered, no. Did the majority of that House represent the feelings and wishes of the majority of the middling classes? Again, he answered, no. In fine, did the majority of that House represent that which ought to be represented by a House of Commons, if there were any meaning in that termdid it represent the democracy of the nation? He said, no. If, on the other hand, he asked, "Do you, the majority of the House of Commons, represent the excluclusive feelings of the aristocracy?" He was compelled, most painfully, to answer, yes. What was promised to the people at the time of the passing of the Reform Bill? It was promised that, by the operation of that bill, nomination, intimidation, and corruption, should for ever cease. Had the bill succeeded in achieving that desirable end? Far from, itit had in that respect, most lamentably failed. Whilst the measure was under discussion they were told, over and over again, "Only pass the bill, and the House of Commons will, in future, become a sort of mirror, affording, at all times, an accurate reflex of the public mind. Only pass the the bill, and agitation shall for ever ceasethe voice of complaint shall be for ever hushedall men shall follow their occupations contented and at rest, leaving to you, their representatives, the safe custody of their wants and wishes." He asked, if that prediction had been fulfilledif the sanguine picture drawn by the supPorters of the Reform Bill afforded any thing like an accurate illustration of the state of men's minds at the present moment? He would ask the Government and the House whether they did not know that there were at that moment two additional Parliaments sitting in this very town? Was there not, in the first instance, a sort of Corn-law Parliament, composed of delegates sent up from the great manufacturing districts of the country to stimulate the languid regards of that House to the 67 people? Was there not also a Chartist Parliament assembled within a stone's throw of that House, representing upwards of three millions of the working classes, and sent up for the sole and express purpose of telling the House of Commons that the great body of the industrious classes of the people had no confidence in its councils? There was scarcely a topic which disturbed or excited the public mind, whether it were the Corn-laws, Church-rates, or any other general grievance, upon which delegates had not been elected and sent up to represent the actual feelings of the people. Was this a state of things which betokened content and satisfaction in the public mind? Besides, did they not see large masses of the people convening together on particular occasions with the view of petitioning the House of Commons upon particular questions? They met; and what was the result? Why, they passed resolutions; and one of those resolutions was, that the House of Commons was not worth petitioning. Would that be the case if the House of Commons afforded a full, fair, and free representation of the people? He
88

knew the great difficulty against which he had to contend, but it was one with which he was ready to grapple. He knew that there existed in the minds of some of the Ministers of the Crown a sort of delusion, or crotchet, with respect to the finality of the Reform Bill. That was the great difficulty against which he should have to contend, supposing the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to adhere to the declaration he made last year upon the subject of further reform. But he maintained, that before there could be any improvement in the country before the people could be at all satisfied, the barrier raised by the noble Lord against the extension of the principle of reform must be swept away. It was, indeed, a barrier rotten in itselfa barrier founded neither in truth nor justice, nor even in common sense; for was there a rational man in the empire who would come to the conclusion that any human legislation ought ever to be regarded as final? The noble Lord spoke of a compact entered into at the time of passing the Reform Bill, and endeavoured to persuade the House that it would be guilty of a breach of faith with some party if it lent its countenance to any proposition for an extension of the suffrage. Moreover, the noble Lord stated, that there was an un- 68 derstanding when the Reform Bill became the law of the land that it was to be a final measure. Having been present, and given his humble assistance in the debates which took place while the bill was under discussion, he could only say that he had no recollection of its ever having been considered or treated at that time as a final measure. He remembered that some hon. Friends of his, whom he had now the pleasure of seeing behind him, were over and over again taunted by the hon. Gentlemen opposite with the question, "Will this satisfy you?" They gave no indirect or evasive answer, but said distinctly and at once, "No, we consider this measure only as a means to an end." The hon. and learned Member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) made that assertion not once, but frequently; and was the assertion ever contradicted by Lord Althorp, who at that time held the post of Ministerial leader in that House? On the contrary, it was notorious that Lord Althorp's opinion of the Reform Bill, when it was first introduced, was that it was a very moderate measure. Then he wished to know where the noble Lord entered into his compactin what hole or corner he concluded this arrangement with the hon. Gentlemen opposite? Where was the record of it? He had seen nonehe had heard of none; but even supposing that there were a record of it, he did not despair of bringing the noble Lord round to the conclusion that his previous opinion was one which, if the occasion required, might be safely departed from. If the noble Lord wanted a precedent for such a course, only let him look to the appropriation clause of last year. Year after year, did not the noble Lord and his Colleagues pledge their allegiance in the face of the nation to the appropriation clause, as involving that which they called a great principle? He had always his own private opinion with respect to the appropriation clause; but that was not now the question. It was enough to remind the House that Ministers always told them that the appropriation clause involved a great principle, and one to which they were determined to adhere; and it was certainly a proud sight to see those great men coping for a time with the great principle they had raised, and from which they were never to depart. He need not tell the House the sequel, it was too painful, too disgraceful to be repeated. He would 69 leave posterity to judge of it; and, if faithfully recorded, he had no doubt that posterity would scarcely credit it. With respect, then, to the finality of the Reform Bill, he said to Ministers, "as you got rid so easily of the appropriation clause, to which you were pledged, in like manner lend us now your support in getting rid of the argument, which has been erroneously advanced with respect to the finality of the measure for reforming the representation of the people." When that measure was under discussion, they were told (surely Ministers will not deny this) that representation and not nomination was the object of it. He should like to hear any Gentleman say, that nomination did not exist now; he should like to hear any Gentleman say, that as many Members were not now returned to that House by and through the influence of certain particular individuals, aye, and by the influence of Members of the other House, as there were in the old borough
89

mongering Parliaments which preceded the passing of the Reform Bill. If that position could not be denied, he had the noble Lord's (Lord John Russell's) authority for saying, that the Reform Act could not be regarded as a final measure. The noble Lord, in a speech which he made in 1832it was, to be sure, upon an occasion when there was a sort of doubt as to whether Lord Grey had not resigned, and whether the Tories would not accept the reins of Government, and carry the Reform Bill (for that measure was not so formidable in its character but that the Gentlemen opposite were ready to undertake it, provided they were admitted to the sweets of officeupon that occasion the Tories being twitted and reproached for their apparent inconsistency, immediately recriminated by reminding the noble Lord, that he had not previously been so great a Reformer, and that in his work upon the constitution he had recommended, that a part only of the corrupt boroughs should be disfranchised; "Oh," said the noble Lord, "if the Reform Bill were to be granted, and if you should have seats in this House, which would avowedly and openly be at the disposal of individuals, there would remain the seeds and beginning of another necessary and reasonable reform." If that doctrine were true, who would say that there did not now exist the seeds of other necessary reforms? If it were denied, that nomination or intimidation did 70 now exist, he would undertake to prove, at the bar of the House, that there were many persons in the country who would rather be without the privilege of voting than be degraded by having their franchise invaded and abused as it was by Members of the other House of Parliament. But that was not all. The country required not only an extension of the suffragenot only another Schedule Abut an extension and equalization of the constituency throughout the kingdom. This was not a time to enter into details of figures upon the subject, but here was a case so glaring, that he could not help mentioning it. He had taken six large boroughs and ten small ones; the ten small boroughs returned twenty Members, the six large ones returned twelve. The six large boroughs were Westminster, Liverpool, Finsbury, Tower Hamlets, Marylebone, and Manchester, having a population of 1,417,479, registered electors 71,560, and contributing to the assessed taxes 1,017,897l. The ten smaller boroughs were Harwich, Thetford, Chippenham, Andover, Totness, Tavistock, Marlborough, Knaresborough, Richmond, and Huntingdon, having a gross population only of 45,116; registered electors only 2,317; and contributing to the assessed taxes no more than 13,020l. When the people saw statements of this kindstatements which could not be contradicted, was it likely that they would remain satisfied? If the occasion were a fitting one, he could mention other boroughs which were in fact nothing more nor less than nomination boroughs. When he alluded at all to the subject, it was only just that he should state, that he believed this class of boroughs preponderated most upon that (the Ministerial) side of the House. As the matter, however, could not then be discussed, it would be invidious if he were to point them out, and he should, therefore, abstain from doing so. What arguments could be urged against his motion he was totally at a loss to conceive. When his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Wakley), at the commencement of the last Session, proposed an amendment to the Address, a strong appeal was made to the gallantry and forbearance of the House, perhaps not without reason, for perfect unanimity upon the first Address voted in the first Parliament of a new Queen. But that appeal would not serve either the Minis- 71 ters or the Reformers now, unless they were to be told, that during the present reign the House of Commons was never to approach the Throne except in the unmeaning and measured terms of Ministerial adulation. Whether the old, stale story of the unseasonableness of the moment for the discussion of reform were to be resorted to upon the present occasion he did not know; but this he would observe, that it never could be out of season to do justice to the people. Her Majesty, in the Speech that day delivered from the Throne, had asked the House for advice. The House, therefore, was now in communication with the Crown. What reason was there why, in that communication, the House should not claim justice for the people? The vote of that evening would afford an index to the people of
90

who were their friends, who were real and who the sham reformerswho were finality, and who anti finality men. He did not ask the House to pledge itself to any remedial detailshe only asked it to assert, that there was in the representative system a great and universal grievance, which it was its duty to remedy. He took the liberty of warning Ministers, that this might be the last hour of their existence as a Ministry, for by their vote that night the country would know whether they really intended to advance or to resist reformwhether they meant to govern the country by force or by affection, by arrogance or by conciliation. They might, if they liked, increase their armythey might overrun the country with their policebut he told them, that by such means, although they might obtain a temporary triumph, or knock out the brains of some of their fellow-subjects who differed from them, they would not be able to restore to that House either the affection or the confidence of the people. He begged leave, also, to remind the Government of what was once saidthat although nothing was more certain than death, nothing was more uncertain than the hour of our dying. Even so in the present unsettled state of parties and of politics might the Ministry, sooner than they expected, he called upon to account for their stewardship upon the hustings. He entreated them, therefore, not only on their own account, but as they valued the rights of property and the institutions of the country, to be wise in time, and by their firmness and independence that evening to 72 prove to the country, that it was wrong when it charged them with supineness and indifference to the real interests of the people. He entreated them to consent to his amendment, and so prove to the people that they were not deaf to their cries, nor insensible to their just and reasonable demands. He thanked the House for the patience with which it had listened to him whilst he performed his painful duty. He would conclude by moving his amendment, which was merely to add these words at the end of the Address:"And to assure her Majesty, that as the amendment of the representative system, enacted in 1832, has disappointed her Majesty's people, and as that measure is not, and cannot be final, her Majesty's faithful Commons will take into early consideration the further reform of the Commons' House of Parliament."
Mr. Ward

rose to second the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and in doing so he felt called upon to express the obligation which he felt the hon. Member for Finsbury had conferred upon the House, by affording them an opportunity of expressing their opinions at so early a period of the Session on the important subject of Parliamentary reform. He felt, that there was an absolute necessity for such a motion at the commencement of the pressent Session of Parliament, and he thought the time which had been selected by his hon. Friend the most appropriate and the most constitutional. He had heard on the Treasury bench a cheer when his hon. Friend had stated, that the present was not the moment for entering upon details; but the object of his hon. Friend was not to pledge the House to any specific measure of reform, and his views would be fully answered by the acknowledgement by that House that reform was necessary, and that the House would adopt measures to secure a fairer representation of the wishes of the people. Now it was upon that point, of the time chosen for the present motion, that he anticipated the greatest objection. Many hon. Members said, that the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury was an excellent one, but, that it was wrong in point of time, and that it ought to have been brought forward as a substantive proposition in the regular course of business. He had heard a comparison drawn between the present motion and the motion which had last year been made by another hon. Friend of his (Mr. Wakley), but he would beg leave to remind 73 the House, that there was no sort of analogy between the two propositions. Last year there was a general disposition to avoid a division on the Address, and to secure unanimity in replying to the first Speech of her Majesty to her first Parliament.
91

There was also a feeling that the present Ministers appeared for the first time as free agents before the representatives of the people, and that time ought therefore to be given them in order to allow them full opportunity for laying before the House a full statement of the line of policy which, under such circumstances, it was their intention to pursue. But that time was now gone by. The policy of the Government had been fully developed, and the House of Commons were now called upon to assent to that policy, or to state wherein they differed from it, and what the measures were which they considered it necessary to adopt. On the meeting of the second Session of the first Parliament of the Queen, it was incumbent on the representatives of the nation to say whether they adhered to the scheme of policy which had been sketched out by the noble Lord (J. Russell), and in the olden times, and in the unreformed House of Commons, hon. Gentlemen were never found wanting to oppose such measures as might be considered at variance with the wishes or the interests of the people. Both in that House, and in the other House of Parliament men had always been found to support the wishes of the people, no matter what party might have been in power; but the people now complained, that their representatives in the reformed House of Parliament dared not to say in that House what they had stated upon the hustings, and when they were soliciting the suffrages of their constituents. In the old Parliament there had been nothing of this kind, but for his own part he considered, that they were bound to support their individual opinions, and they ought to thank the hon. Member for Finsbury for having afforded them at so early a period of the Session an opportunity of expressing their opinions on a subject which their constituents had so much at heart, and in which they felt so deep an interest. The hon. Gentleman had directed the attention of the House to the whole policy of the Government, and to that policy their attention was called by that paragraph in the Address which alluded to the present state of some parts of the country, and called upon them to enforce with rigour the laws 74 against the proceedings therein spoken of, and to support the Crown. He admitted the propriety and justice of that appeal, founded as it was on the present state of things in those parts of the country to which the paragraph more particularly referred. But he would ask, were hon. Members prepared to deal with the manifestations of opinion recently made throughout most of the popolous districts of the country, without inquiry into the causes of those movements? What were those causes? He could ascribe the existing agitation to nothing less than the deep disappointment of the expectations raised by the Reform Bill. For, since the passing of that Bill, what had been done? Look at the whole course of legislation during that period. What, he repeated, had they done for the poorer classes of this country since they first met after carrying the Reform Bill in 1832? What remedial measure, as applicable to the wants and condition of the working classes, had they brought forward? Had they given the people cheap justice? Had they given them cheap education? Had they attempted to interfere with the laws that now controlled and prevented the exchange of the produce of labour with other countries? They had done nothing of the kind. They had given the people the Poor-law Amendment Act, and that was the only act which they had passed immediately affecting the interests of the working classes of this country. It was true, that he had always supported the principle of the Poor-law, believing it to be a sound and rational. principle, aad a law conducive to the welfare of the working classes; but he must declare it to be also his belief, that the Poor-law and the present Corn-laws were utterly irreconcileable. The hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House could not reconcile them. The landlords could not do so. If they expected to do so, they would find themselves grossly mistaken. He believed, looking at the whole course of their legislation, that it was to the narrow and exclusive spirit of that legislationto the sympathy with the few and the want of sympathy with the manytheir regard to some particular class in all they did, and the want of broad and intelligent principles in their legislation, that a great portion of the lamentable excitement and agitation now pervading the country must be ascribed. What had been the result of the system in which they
92

had persevered for upwards of five years? Look at the present 75 state of the country for the reply. Let any man who had really considered it say, whether any civilized country had ever presented itself in so singular, and he would add dangerous, a situation. There existed throughout the whole of England and Scotland a combination of a striking character. Throughout all the larger towns there existed an agitation most formidable in its nature and objects, comprehending all those, almost without exception, who were not included in the present franchise, arrayed together against those who were included by the authors of the Reform Bill within the pale of constitutional rights. It was a combination of a peculiar character,one from which emanated the wildest theories, which contemplated a severance between the working and middle classes, and by which the rights of property were openly and positively attacked. Such was the organization which was spreading throughout all the large towns of England and Scotland. There was a national convention, a national press, and a national rent. Why, then, were they told that these were matters that were hardly worthy of any very serious consideration, or that, at least, they would require no particularly strong measures to rectify them; or, in point of fact, that it would be quite sufficient, in answer to the Speech from the Throne, to say that they were ready to assist her Majesty in supporting the dignity of the Crown, by enforcing the laws wherever it might be necessary to do so? But the evil was not one to be disposed of in an answer to a speech from the Throne. It was an evil which they should sift to the bottom for the purposes of seeking out and applying a remedy. He would ask, whether any such thing could occur in a country celebrated hitherto for practical, good, sound sense, unless there had been some substratum of political suffering, enhanced by the defects of the Reform Bill, and of the legislation which had succeeded it? He traced the present state of things to bad laws in the first instance, and then to political causes, and in some measure to that speech of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, made by him at the beginning of the last session of Parliament. It was to that declaration of the Government as to the finality of the Reform Bill, that the whole of the agitation which had since ensued was to be attributed; and it was only by widening the representation and reforming the Reform Bill, they could 76 hope to apply an efficient remedy for it. It was that declaration that first gave force and influence to those who now acted as the leaders of the working classes in this country by putting under the ban of perpetual exclusion of the political franchise those very persons by whom, in a great measure, the present Government had been called into power. If the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, had any doubt as to the effect of that declaration, he would ask, where was that tranquillity of which he boasted in the year 1837that general, nay universal, tranquillity to which the noble Lord so proudly appealed when contrasting the existing Government with their predecessors, in his speech to his constituents at Stroud? What had been the reply which the whole country had given? They saw it in the organisation now existing; and if the House was not prepared to adopt a very different course to that which it had pursued, it would be impossible for any man to calculate upon the effects. But it was not to England and Scotland only that this agitation was confined. Look at Ireland. They were told last year when they paid the price, as they thought, for tranquillity in Ireland by that discreditable concessionthat most dishonourable and unhappy concession to which his hon. Friend had alluded, upon the principle of keeping the present Government where it now wasthey were told of the tranquillity of that country. Where was it now? Why, the very first act of his hon. Friend, the learned Member for Dublin, was to authorise a new system of agitation, and the tithe question, respecting which he understood his hon. and learned Friend to have said last Session that they should hear no more of it for three years, had been used by him as the lever of agitation in the formation and progress of the Precursor Society. [No, no!] He had understood his hon. and learned Friend to have said so; at all events that question had lately been converted into an instrument for rousing the whole population of Ireland into agitation. The
93

concession which had been made to Ireland was a most unhappy one, for it had only produced that effect which was the natural result of eternal concession to what was called Conservative policy. That was the policy upon which the House was called to pronounce its judgment. Did they mean to sanction and support it? Or did they mean to say that the time was come when 77 that policy must be abandoned, and that they must have recourse to a new system of dealing with questions which were the natural offspring of the Bill of 1832? This country he believed to be in a state of transition, and be wished to see the changes which he knew must come properly worked out. He detested mob law and mob violence. He was not a supPorter of what was called the "Chartist Agitation;" and he always separated what was wild and impracticable from what was practicable and just, and that which ought to be conceded. While he was opposed to every thing of the former kind, he was ready to give his aid in carrying out those measures, which ought to be conceded, because they were just. He did not see how any man who supported a popular representation, and who wished to extend protection to voters and to widen the basis of the franchise by shortening the duration of parliaments, could vote against the amendment of his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury. Feeling, as he did, the most entire conviction that they were in a state of transition towards further reforms, and believing, that those reforms were not only desirable but just, and that the only thing they had to mind was, that they were legally, peaceably, nod constitutionally worked out, he declared his belief, that, without further Parliamentary reform, those changes were unattainable; but he, for one, was prepared to concede them.
The Earl of Euston

expressed his cordial agreement with the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, that the Reform Bill of 1832 could not possibly be considered as a final measure. He, in his humble situation, had opposed the Reform Bill; he could not, therefore, be supposed to be a very great Reformer. His objection to the Reform Bill was this: that the disfranchisement of the boroughs was either too small or too large, and he thought that the facts which had since occurred bore him out in this objection. What was it that brought about the Reform Bill itself? It was the opposition given to small beginnings, Was not the population of towns and boroughs continually fluctuatingsome increasing, others diminishing? And was it wise, or consistent with the principles of the constitution, to refuse members to those towns whose populations increased. He intended to support the Amendment. He thought there was one great omission in the Speech form the Throne, inasmuch as no reference 78 whatever was made to those blessings which this country had received from a gracious Providence, especially on a late occasion; he alluded to what he conceived to be a most extraordinary intervention of Providence, in giving this country a harvest, which, though not a particularly good one, was such, that if we had been without, the people would at this moment have been in a starving condition.
Mr. Handley

observed, that the reason expressed by the noble Lord for supporting the Amendment was, that it pledged him to nothing. Now, that was the precise reason why he should oppose it; but in doing so, be protested against being held pledged as to any opinion he might entertain respecting the finality of the Reform Bill. When he recollected the first motion brought forward by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) on the first night of the last Session, and now considered that it was the other Member for the same borough who brought the Amendment forward, on the first night of this Session, he could not help thinking that it was a sort of anodyne, compounded, perhaps, by one of those hon. Members, to be administered by
94

the other to allay some turbulent spirits that agitated the borough of Finsbury. He could only view it as a Finsbury farce, to be enacted by those hon. Members on the first day of every Session. He should, therefore, vote against it, because it pledged the House to nothing, and also because he considered it at once useless and unmeaning. His hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Address had alluded to there being no mention made in her Majesty's Speech respecting the Corn-laws, and each of them expressed his hope that the House would lend its support to some alteration or modification of the present law. He would not enter into the question now, but would merely state that he really should have been much surprised if any mention had been made of those laws, after the opinion expressed in the other House of Parliament by the noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government, towards the close of last Session, and after the opinion expressed in a letter attributed to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in answer to his constituents the other day, namely, that it would be unwise to interfere with laws of this nature unless under circumstances of the most pressing emergency. The hon. Member who seconded the Address, gave them an elucidation of how much the prosperity of 79 the State depended upon the landed interest of the country being protected, in a speech which must have been heard with unmixed satisfaction by Gentlemen on both sides of the House. He could have wished that that Speech had been delivered before those who were known by the style and title of the Chamber of Commerce, at Manchester. Had that been the case, the hon. Member would have furnished sound and cogent arguments why this agitation, which, by the way, was said to be confined to the intelligence of the country, should never have been raised. He begged however to remark, that this intelligent body chiefly consisted of mill-owners and manufacturers. It was not like the agitation of 1815, in which the labourers took part. Those men did not now join in the cry against the Corn-laws; for they had found by experience that cheap bread meant low wages. He therefore thanked her Majesty's Government for not having alluded to that subject in the Speech from the Throne. He had met a large mass of his constituents, who entertained but one opinion on the question, and in which he cordially concurrednamely, that the Corn-laws were defensible upon the only ground on which any monopolies were defensible, that was to say, in their contributing not merely to the interest of one exclusive class of the community, but to the interest of the entire body of the people; and they believed that the present Corn-laws were in principle and in practice the best that had ever yet emanated from any government.
Mr. Hume

was glad that the hon. Gentleman had fairly and openly avowed, that the Corn-law system was a monopoly, because he wished to ask to whom was that system a monopoly? It was a monopoly in favour of the landlords against the whole nation. The hon. Gentleman, had therefore, in fact, contended that one small class of the people had a right to rob the rest of the community. If there was any meaning at all in the last sentence of the hon. Gentleman's speech, that must have been what he wished the House to understand. Now, it was because the Corn-laws were a monopoly that he, for one, would most strenuously oppose them. If there were any doubt as to the meaning of the statement made by the Seconder of the Address, he thought it admitted of this very easy explanationthat whilst the exports of this country were increasing in quantity, the profits on capital and the wages of the 80 working man were decreasing, and that the country at large was becoming impoverished by the operation of the Corn-law monopoly. Proof of these facts could be adduced at the bar of the House of Commons, on the evidence of every intelligent manufacturer in the country. If so, was it not a strong argument why such a state of things should no longer be suffered to continue? He did not mean to say, that the manufacturers themselves were not able to carry on trade with a fair
95

profit upon the capital they employed; but he wished to ask what was the condition of the labouring men? Were there not abundant proofs to show, that the high price of corn and other articles of food had been productive of the most lamentable consequences? Those high prices pressed down the industrious manthey diminished the amount of reward which he was fairly entitled to receive for his labour, and compelled him to eat bread twice as dear as that which his foreign competitor in manufacture was able to obtain. If there were any doubt of the truth of this proposition, he would undertake to demonstrate it by the most unquestionable testimony. And this was the state of things after twenty years of peacethat peace which they were told would bring with it the blessings of contentment and plenty to the country. Where were those blessings? Did the disturbances that every where existed bespeak contentment? Did the state of the peoplewho were now famishing in thousands by the worst of all deathsgradual starvation [No, No!]yes, that was the truthit was within his own observation; they might conceal it if they pleasedthey might call things by different names from what they deservedhut he would venture to assert, that the late high prices, without any adequate increase of wages, had been productive of the most serious and lamentable consequences. Men were only able to get half a loaf instead of a whole one, while the women could only give half a meal to their children. And this was the state of things which the hon. Gentleman who preceded him in the present debate wished to continue; and for not mentioning these things in the royal Speech, he complimented and praised her Majesty's Ministers. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the Amendment pledged the House to nothing. Why, if ever anything in the shape of a pledge had been at any time proposed to the House, he thought it was the Amendment of his hon. Friend. Nothing could have been more satisfactory than the 81 statement of his hon. Friend; he must, therefore, suppose that the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when his hon. Friend made his plain and distinct statement. His hon. Friend stated, that at the commencement of the last Session, the noble Lord at the head of the Government in the House of Commons declared, not once, but twice, that he considered all organic changes at an endall changes in the Reform Bill impossible; and that, as far as he was concerned, it was a final measure. Then came the question of his hon. Friendand which he (Mr. Hume) also joined in askingwhether that House was to stand still, and no further amendment to be made in the Reform Bill, which every Reformer believed did not answer the purpose for which it was intended? He was not one of those who could be called a finality man. Neither could the noble Lord be so called formerly for he said in introducing the Reform Bill, that he would not at that time speak of the ballot and of the shortening of Parliaments, but would leave them to be considered at some future time. With what consistency, then, could a man, who was the leader of a great body in this country, after making such a declaration, come forward and say, that the Reform Bill was a final measure? In the very second sentence of the speech of the noble Lord, to which he was alluding, the noble Lord observed, "that he was aware that many both in and out of that House, expected that he should say something about the ballot and the shortening of Parliaments, but he felt that those were very distinct questions from what were then under discussion, and he should, therefore, leave them in reserve." Now, did the noble Lord mean honourably to tell the House, that those questions were to be in future considered or not? If not, then those who believed him to be honest and sincere had been deceived, and the declaration of the noble Lord had proved the reverse. Could anything be more important, in the present state of the country, than that they should ascertain whether they had a Minister who would go on to correct abuses, or who, on the contrary, was determined to set himself against all further changes? He put it to any man whether it was not absolutely necessary that this should be ascertained. He would put it to the hon. Gentleman opposite, of whom (they having always opposed reform) he and his Friends had no right to complain. It was to them a great triumph. 82 They now saw that the men who brought in the Reform Bill, had not courage to carry it through. Ministers talked indeed of
96

being stopped; but they stopped themselves. There was no reason for their stopping, if they had not been stopped by their own fears; and were they, he would ask, who had hitherto supported the Ministry, as a reforming and progressive Ministry, to be fastened to the chariot wheels of those who would not go on? The Reform Bill stood still, and they were to stand with it in order to keep the Ministers in office, and in the enjoyment of all the advantages that appertained to office. He was fearful that they had lost the opportunity of benefitting the community by those changes that ought to have taken place. The amendment proposed by his hon. Friend, would test every man upon these points, and he trusted that it would not prove to be so wanton and useless as the hon. Member who last spoke conceived it to be. There were two paragraphs in the speech from the Throne, which he considered, made it still more important that the House should sanction the Amendment of his hon. Friend. One of these paragraphs called the attention of the House to the discontent that prevailed in the country, and pointed out the necessity on the part of the Crown to maintain the law. The other paragraph called upon the House to increase the establishments of the country, and make them more efficient. These two paragraphs were reasons why the House should adopt means to ascertain whether, when the Ministers were calling for an increased expenditure to keep the country quiet, the real cause of the existing disquiet was not that for which the Ministers themselves were answerable? His hon. Friend who seconded the motion, bad told them, that there was great discontent prevailing throughout the country: was it possible, he would ask, that there should not be discontent, when between three and four millions of the people were unrepresented? What was the distinction between a freeman and a slave? Every Member ought to consider this question before he voted against progressive reform. A slave was one who had laws made for him, and whose income was regulated by others, over whom he had no controul. A freeman was a man who shared in the legislation of his country, by having a vote for those who made the laws under which he lived. Now, were the four or five millions of working men in this country, who had no vote, any 83 better than slaves in this respect? They had no voice in making the laws, nor any power to correct the abuses in the large establishments of the country, which, nevertheless, took the money from their pockets: so that in fact, they were no better circumstanced than the slaves of the West Indies before the Act of Emancipation was passed. Was that no ground of discontent with the people Was that House to stand aloof, beholding the sufferings of the people and the refusal of all redress of their grievances by the Government? His hon. Friend had taken the proper time for ascertaining whether the Parliament would consider those grievances. The people had already discussed them, and now demanded that they should be listened to by that House. As Englishmen, they had a right to state their demands upon the Legislature, and they would unquestionably exercise that right. Here was one paragraph telling them that discontent existed, and another asking for money to enable the government to maintain the laws. Would it not be the act of wise men and of christians to ascertain whether there were any grounds for this discontent; and if so, whether those grounds could not be removed, and the parties relieved and placed in a situation which would put an end to their discontent? The people complained of the inequality of legislation in its application to them and to the rich. He was one who considered this complaint to be well founded, and who thought that the laws were made to favour the few, and not the many, and that threw on the shoulders of the many the chief burdens of the State. He thought that his hon. Friend had shown great judgment in not pressing on the Government many of those matters which he might very fairly have done, He considered the Amendment well-timed, and should give it his cordial support. He wished to say a few words upon the Address itself. He had not objected to the Address, because he took it for granted, according to the usual parlance, that in suffering it to pass, he should not be hound by any of the allegations it contained. If he were held to be bound by them, he should most undoubtedly have objected to some of the paragraphs. He did not hear whether there was any clause
97

introduced into the Address, assuring her Majesty, that the House would take into its early consideration, the present Corn-laws. Both the Mover and Seconder of the Address had stated their opinions upon the subject; but he believed, no allusion was 84 made to it in the Address itself. It had been for some days his full intention to have taken the present moment for submitting to the House an Amendment, in which he should have stated the reasons why he considered this a fit and proper time to introduce the subject of the Corn-laws before Parliament; but, believing that he might have been in error, and that his friends about him might think it better that so important a question should be kept separate and distinct from the proceedings of this night, he waived his right of bringing it forward, though he was not certain that he had acted wisely in refraining from pressing that question in the Address to her Majesty. There was no question more importantly connected with the happiness and prosperity of this country. On that question depended not only the interests and welfare of the labouring classes of the community, but the wealth, power, and greatness of the empire itself. It was in vain for Gentlemen to talk about the landed interest being the most important interest in the State. Let them look to other countries where the land was the principal source of wealth, and observe how unfavourably those countries contrasted with this in all that constituted the greatness of nations. This was essentially a manufacturing country, and where one-third of the manufacturing population were employed in producing articles of external commerce. This being the state of things, it was impossible to over-estimate the evils that might ensue should that commerce be destroyed by the mischievous operation of the Cornlaws. He agreed in the eulogies that had been passed upon the commercial treaties which had recently been effected with Austria and Turkey. They would, as it had been justly said, increase the channels of commerce. But why not take the decisive step at once? Abolish the Corn-laws, and they would have channels enough for their commerce; the whole world would be open to him. If those treaties were of any valueand he admitted that they wereit was because they were a step towards promoting the general happiness of mankind by extending the commercial relations of the countries that were parties to them. For that he valued them. This, however, was but a distant prospect of good. If the Corn-laws were repealed, and free ingress were given not only to corn, but to every description of foodif, in short, the people were allowed to obtain cheap food wherever they could get 85 itthen would the advantages of an extended commerce be immediately felt, not by the manufacturing population alone, but by every interest in the country: and were he A landowner he did not think he should be one farthing poorer than he was now. On the contrary, he believed, that such a course of policy would give security, certainty, and regularity to the market prices of every article. It would place Englishmen on an equal footing with men in other countries. Was it not monstrous that men should be supporting the Corn-laws, with the full knowledge that the effect of those laws was to make Englishmen labour for fourteen, fifteen, and even sixteen hours, to obtain those means of subsistence which, in other countries, could be obtained at two-thirds that amount of labour? Some temporary injury might possibly be sustained from the repeal of those laws, by men who had a precarious interest in land, but to the landlords generallyto those who had a permanent interest in the soil, he was satisfied the repeal would be most beneficial. Were those laws abolished, the field of commerce would be extended in all directions. America would import corn in exchange for British manufactures; but other countries, which could not grow corn, would, were trade wholly free, gladly obtain corn itself from England in barter for their own productions. Let any man read the accounts of what was now going on in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. It was proved beyond the possibility of doubt, that they would import corn from this country, if England would consent to take their timber in exchange. At present the people of those countries had no market for their own productions; they were, therefore, left in a state of poverty, and were unable to purchase either manufactures or corn from us. Here, then, was another opening for British commerce. With respect to the Belgian question,
98

he felt greatly disappointed at the course which the Government had thought it fit to pursue. He did not expect, that in this age they should have found any liberal Whig Minister, joining with any military despots, in handing over no less than 450,000 souls to a country which they hated and abhorred. Such a policy showed great indifference and want of attention to the wishes and interests of mankind. It was a sad thing to reflect, that now-a-days men were to be transferred like sheep from one potentate to another; and, that this was expected to be submitted to without 86 discontent expressed, or discord created. Her Majesty had been made to sayand he was sorry to see itthat under the guarantee of the five Powers peace was warranted, and that the integrity of Holland would be maintained. Did not these five Powers give Belgium to Holland in 1815? But did they, by that act, give peace to Holland? No; then, what could they expect would follow the attempt at giving upwards of 400,000 people who occupied Luxemburg and Limburg to a country which they hated? Was it possible, that the peace of that country could be permanent? Was it possible that disdiscord and future war could be prevented? Would it not have become a British ministry and a liberal Government to have considered, whether, as they had abrogated that part of the treaty of Vienna which gave Belgium to Holland, it might not have been as well to have abolished also that part of the treaty which gave Luxemburg, and Limburg to Holland? It had taken Holland six years to consider whether it would adopt the arrangements proposed by the five Powers. If then, Holland at length had given a tardy consent to those arrangements, was it necessary, that the Parliament of Great Britain should hastily pledge itself to this unnatural unionthis transference of so many human beings from one state to another? This, however, was the course which they were now called upon to approve of and adopt. He sincerely hoped, that her Majesty would reflect on the advicethe ill advice which had been given to herthe bad policy which she had been counselled to pursuea policy in breach of all laws, human and divine. Yes, it was a breach of the law of God. God's law never made any man the slave of another, and human laws were made for the benefit of mankind. It was never intended to sanction that policy which handed over between three and four hundred thousand men to a government which they despised and abhorred, and this without any benefit whatever to be derived by them from it. Therefore, against this paragraph in the Address, so far as it sanctioned that proceeding, he entered his strongest protest. He hoped, at all events, since Holland had taken six years to consider the propositions, that the British Government would never concur in any attempt immediately to force the arrangement on the Belgian people, with, out giving them time to consider and consent to that which they had not courage 87 to oppose in the first instance. It was said that the five Powers had guaranteed this arrangement. But those powers had heretofore differed and quarrelled among themselves. With regard to the Peninsula, did they not see three of those Powers standing aloof, and the two others interfering? If there was disgrace attaching to this country for the policy which handed over the people of Poland to other nations, what must be the disgrace that would be incurred by the measure which transferred the people of Limburg and Luxemburg to Holland? The voice of the whole world would be raised against them; and the connection itself could not possibly last. He hoped he should never live to see that reproach upon England. It was a disgrace from which they ought carefully to protect themselves. Papers were to be laid before the House relating to this important question. He hoped, when that was done, that some hon. Member would bring the matter forward, and take the deliberate sense of the Commons of England, whether they would sanction the principle of a proceeding so atrocious. There was another question arising out of the Addresshe meant the state of Canada, on which it would be premature to say much. The Speech from the Throne directed the attention of the House to the present state of that country; but did the House know that military law had been proclaimed there, and that courts-martial were sitting to try every criminal case, and that the judges had been suspended for offering a protection through the screen of the law against such
99

enormities? He hoped, that the House would have early information upon all points relating to that country, that they might see the grounds for the present proceedings; for he believed, that there was not a man in that House who would sanction such proceedings, unless they were taken from overwhelming necessity. In conclusion he must express his regret, that after England had been at peace for twenty years, they should hear of more taxes. The revenue had been insufficient last year to meet the expenditure, and he believed that it would be found to be also deficient this year. He regretted, therefore, that they had not enforced economy, and that they should now be called upon to vote sums for increased establishments, which must, in the present state of financial affairs, necessarily lead to increased taxation. On the whole, he was of opinion that the House would act 88 wisely in supporting the motion of his hon. Friend, as a test and as an assurance to the country, that the House would take into its consideration the necessity for further reformby which he meant organic reformand as a means for allaying discontent, and for enabling the nation at large to obtain wise laws. On these grounds alone he would vote for his hon. Friend's Amendment.
Mr. Brotherton

would not have risen had it not been for some observations which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had seconded the Address, and which might lead to misapprehension. With regard to the Amendment then before the House, he might state, that there were five million men in this kingdom above twenty-one years of age, and that only one million of these had the elective franchise; that the people of this country conceived that the laws were partial, and that they were made for the benefit of the few, and not for the benefit of the many. The hon. Member for Lincolnshire had defended monopoly, and he conceived that monopoly always meant robbing somebody else. He had risen, however, to prevent the House from being led away by the flattering statements of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address. Coming from the same neighbourhood, he (Mr. Brotherton) knew something of the feelings of the people there, and he would put it to the common sense of the House to say whether they were prospering. Since the price of corn had doubled, would they tell him that wages had doubled? The manufacturers received small profits, and if they had received any, it was out of the wages of the labourers, who were forced to work long hours at trifling wages; and he would then ask, whether reform would not benefit the country? The exports might have increased in quantity. The exports of coal might have increased fifteen per cent.; but the exports of machinery had also increased; they were put down at 5,000l. a year; but he had no hesitation in saying, that they were ten times that amount. Tools, also, had been exported in large quantities, and other exports might be larger now, but the exports were now greatest where least labour was required, and they were least where much labour was necessary. We had lost the export of such goods as required much expenditure of labour, and we had an increase in such articles as long yarns. The exports might be far greater than they were in quantity, 89 but the price was not the same as before. He had no hesitation in saying, therefore, that the manufactures of this country were by no means in a favourable state. But, even if our manufactures were improving, this would not take away the great evil under which the country labouredthat they were legislating for one class only. He had no hostility to the landed interest; but he firmly believed, that an alteration of the Corn-laws would be beneficial to all classes. He believed, that it would not lower the value of land, that it would increase the profits of the manufacturers, and that it would increase the profits of the poor, and if they proceeded with just and impartial legislation, he had no fear for 'the prospects of the country.
Mr. Heathcole

100

said, that although the Mover and Seconder of the Address had deprecated an immediate discussion of the Corn-laws, yet they had entered fully into the matter, as had also the hon. Members for Kilkenny and Salford. The latter had referred to the old and often-refuted argument, that the abolition of the Corn-laws would not benefit the manufacturers alone, but the landowners equally. Those who were connected with that part of England with which he was more immediately concerned, were so far from thinking that they would be benefitted by the abolition, that he had received instructions to give to the proposition a positive and conclusive denial. He would not then enter fully into the question, but he knew the feeling of the county with which he had been connected for the last nineteen years, and he never knew any feeling so strong and so unanimous as it was upon this subject; a feeling pervading persons of all classes, contrasting greatly with what had taken place at meetings elsewhere, particularly in the manufacturing towns, where there was much violence and contrariety of opinion. The feeling did not less pervade persons of all political opinions than all classes of the community; not only was it entertained by the landowners, but he assured the House, that it was participated in by the tradesmen in the small towns, and by the labourers themselves. He believed, that he would have to present many petitions to that effect, numerously signed by the labourers, and he believed also, that from every parish in Lincolnshire would come a petition so signed. Hon. Members could not, therefore, say, that the landowners stood alone; for all classes were willing to 90 enter into the contest against an oligarchy of millowners. Hon. Gentlemen always argued as if this were a question having reference only to a certain number of landowners, but let him assure the House, that the most numerous class affected by it was the small proprietors of land. There were tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of these small proprietors, and he hoped that hon. Members would look at this question with reference to them; let them consider that there was no class of people in the Queen's dominions who suffered so much when times were bad, and now, when times were better, they ought to be allowed to benefit by the change. And if he possessed, as he did, the confidence of the large landowners, and he was proud of it, he was still prouder that he possessed also the confidence of these small proprietors; and he declared, that all they wished was to be let alone. Not only were they for no surrender, but they would consent to no compromise; they were decidedly against a fixed dutythey would not hear of a fixed duty; and by a fixed duty he understood, that when corn was low it should come in at a low duty, and that when it was high it should come in at no duty. He mentioned this for the information of the noble Lord, because it was supposed that all parties might consent to a fixed duty. The hon. Member for Salford had opposed a monopoly; but was the woollen trade no monopoly? Was the silk trade no monopoly? Was there no monopoly in the glove trade? Why, a considerable manufacturing town connected with the silk trade bad, in the same Session, and he believed by the same post, sent two petitions, one praying for more protection for the silk trade, and the other for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. This was the kind of one-sided justice which some hon. Gentlemen wanted. And if the question were to be submitted to the consideration of the country, if the country were to decide upon it, it ought not to be submitted as a question of free trade in corn, but as a question of free trade in every thing. [Hear, hear.] Hon. Members might cheer; but he should like to see, if they went to an election on the question of free trade what would be the result. The fact was, every one was for a monopoly himself, but for a free trade in what every other person dealt in and many Members who now sat for boroughs and cinque ports would not again be returned if they 91 voted for a free trade; many hon. Gentlemen opposite would be thrown out; and he wished hon. Gentlemen opposite to cheer after the next general election, and not now. He had great pleasure in finding that the word Corn-laws was not to be found in the Address; but he supposed from the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who had moved and seconded the Address, that it was the intention of the Government to remain neutral upon this question. If there were a neutrality,
101

he hoped that it would he real, and not apparent; that, under a semblance of neutrality, no intimations would be given to Members connected with the Government; if the Government maintained an apparent instead of a real neutrality, there might be bodies of men in the country who would resent it. On the question before the House, moved by the hon. Member for Finsbury, he thought that what that hon. Member said was wrong at all times, and that he was still more wrong upon the present occasion.
Mr. James

said, that he was the advocate for progressive reform, and he regretted as much as any man any declaration of the finality of the Reform Bill. Whenever any hon. Member should make a distinct motion for the extension of the suffrage, for shortening the duration of Parliaments, or for the ballot, he should have his vote; but he did not think it an appropriate manner of bringing it forward by inserting it in the Address, and he thought that the hon. Member for Finsbury would show more respect to her Majesty by abstaining from pressing his motion upon the present occasion. If the Amendment were carried, it would be a sort of censure upon the present Administration, and he, for one, would be sorry to see it passed. It might have the effect of turning Ministers out of office, and of bringing in the Gentlemen over the way. He would, therefore, vote for the Address.
Mr. O'Connell

said, that the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury involved no amendment, and raised no question on the Address; it was simply an addition. So far they were all agreed. And it was an addition involving matter so true, that no vote of that House could lessen its truth. It stated, that the reform of the British House of Commons had not satisfied the people, and it ought not to have satisfied them. How, then, could it be called final? That the people were dissatisfied with it 92 was manifest, from one end of the country to the other. When they talked of petitioning against the Corn-law, the people declared, in more than one place, that they must first seek to enlarge the suffrage, and that they would not petition for a repeal of the Cornlaws, having no confidence in that House. They were most affected by the Corn-law, they wished for its amendment, but they would not petition that House. Having expressed an opinion against a somewhat similar motion last year, he now stated his determination to vote for the present motion. It was precisely so. Last year he apprehended that such a resolution would have disturbed existing relations; but, in the present year, he had no such apprehensions; and, in the interval, what had occurred in the country? Last Session there was no expression of popular feeling; there had since been a popular expression: he bowed to it, and he would vote in conformity with the popular feeling. He was sorry to find that the cause of Belgium had been so much neglected. We had enforced a treaty, by which the Dutch had at first refused to abide; and we had enforced it against persons who were no parties to it. He could see no worse principle on which to act, than compel a people to quit a government of which they approved, and to join a nation and a government of which they entirely disapproved. Why should we compel any people to do that? What right had we to do it? It was said, that we must respect the treaty of Vienna; but if they went back to the treaty of Vienna, what became of the question? What had we done under that treaty? We had not enforced it in all instances. Had not the Emperor Nicholas violated the treaty with regard to Poland? Did not that treaty guarantee a constitution to Poland? And had we not refused to interfere to maintain it? He believed, that there was nothing more dangerous to the monarchical principle than these attempted transfers. He believed, that it would give rise to considerable irritation. We hoped to obtain assistance from the king of Prussia, but the king of Prussia had differed with a
102

large class of his subjects, and whilst our Government thought they were avoiding a war, he feared their acts might eventuate in many a war of the worst description. With respect to Canada, be could not allow the Address to pass without one 93 observation. We were originally wrong with respect to Canada. Out of a notion of economy, we took the money of the Canadians without the consent of the Canadian Parliament, but he would like to know what economy we had found in that? He was not there to advocate the cause of those who had urged Canada to revolt, but he could not read of the quantity of blood which had been shed, and of the courts-martial, which ordered it, without protesting against it. He had hoped, that the day had arrived, when the shedding of blood would have been prevented. In this country the punishment of death for capital offences had, in almost all instances, been abolished, and he did not see why this humanity should not be extended beyond the Atlantic. And why had punishment of death been abolished here? Because it was found that other punishments were more effectual. It had been found in practice, that the punishment of perpetual banishment was quite as effectual as death, and it had not the evil consequence of habituating the people to the sacrifice of human life. Again, with respect to the employment of courts-martial for the trial of prisoners, why did they not bring them before a jury? They were told that the juries would acquit; but in the Address they were told, that the people of Canada were loyal. If the Canadians were loyal, they were fit to be jurors; hut if they were not fit to be jurors, they were not loyal, and they stated what was not true in the Address to the Crown. When they said that juries would acquit, did they mean, that courts-martial would not acquit? But if they did, it bespoke a foregone conclusion. In his opinion, there was nothing worse, nothing more opposed to the feelings of officers, than to have them fighting one day against wretches in the field, and the next day, at a sort of a mock trial, sentencing the same parties to the gallows. It might be said, that courts martial were required to try the persons who had come over the American frontier; but why did they try by courts-martial those men who were not taken in arms? And when they added to this, that three of the judges had been superseded after decisions given in courts of law, he thought that they ought to make some efforts to relieve the officers. He trusted, that they would not rival the Cabreras of Spain, and that they would prevent every unnecessary waste of blood. He implored the Govern- 94 ment to take speedy steps to stop the horrors of these proceedings. He would vote for the Address, protesting against the part relating to Belgium; he hoped, that Belgium would not acquiesce in the arrangement; he trusted, that they had sufficient power on their borders to repel any hostile movement; and he opposed the principle of arrangement, without consulting popular opinion.
Sir Robert Peel

said, that there were three classes of topics which were under discussion in the debate of that night. First, the topics which were introduced into the Speech and the Address; secondly, those which were omitted from the Speech and Address, but which had been referred to by the Mover and Seconder; and, thirdly, those which were introduced by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury. Although it was not his intention to move any amendment to the Address, yet he would shortly advert to the several topics introduced into the Speech and Address, omitted there from, and proposed to be added by the hon. Member. Whatever omissions, however, there might be, Parliament never met under circumstances of such great importance, or which afforded so much cause for deep anxiety in several quarters of the globe. Whether they referred to the affairs of Canada, to the disputes between Holland and Belgium, to the state of France, or to our Indian possessions, they would find that there were topics in all of these suggesting grave consideration, and which they could not regard without deep anxiety. The first reference which had been made in the Speech from the Throne was to the treaties which had been concluded with Austria on the one hand, and Turkey on the
103

other; and though he concurred in the general policy of those treaties, he could not concur in the extravagant panegyric which had been passed upon them by the hon. Gentleman who had seconded the Address. He concurred in the policy of the Austrian treaty, but it was nothing more than a continuance of the treaty of the year 1829, which had been concluded by his noble Friend, the Earl of Aberdeen. The opening of the Danube and other circumstances would of course suggest the extension of the principle of that treaty, but the reciprocal principle of the present treaty was the basis of the treaty of 1829. He concurred also in the policy 95 of the treaty which had been entered into with Turkey; but he did not concur in the opinion that it would produce all the advantages which some hon. Members anticipated. These treaties were held out as an effectual guarantee against the encroachments of Russia; but the treaty with Turkey appeared to stand thusthat where as the powers of Europe had agreed to the importation of Turkish goods at a low rate of duty, which, in practice, had been found to give rise to illicit imports, an attempt was now made, by the substitution of a more reasonable and higher rate of duty, to establish a more legitimate entry into the various ports. The former duty on goods was, he believed, an ad valorem duty of three per cent., and it was now a duty of twelve per cent.
Mr. P. Thomson

remarked, that the former duty was three per cent., the rise was two per cent., making the whole duty at present five per cent.
Sir Robert Peel

feared, that in the present state of the internal government of Turkey, the superior authority would be so little attended to by the inferior persons over whom it had little control, that we should not reap all the advantages which we expected, and that we should find ourselves thwarted, not by the superior government, but by the inferior authorities. He would next advert to a subject of far deeper interestto a question which had for too long a time escaped the attention of that Houseto the subject of the British empire and the British interests in India. When they considered the immense importance of diverting the attention of the inhabitants of India from war, and of teaching them the acts of peace, and when they contemplated the evil consequences of a great financial expenditure, imposing the necessity for an additional taxation, he was bound to say that he could not consider this question without the greatest anxiety. He hoped that her Majesty's Ministers would give them the fullest informationthat the House would be informed of the causes which had led to the interruption of our amicable relations with Persia. When they saw the large accumulation of force, amounting to several thousands, on our Indian frontier, and when they saw the encouragement which this accumulation of force, causing a necessary withdrawal from other parts, would give to 96 other governmentshe trusted to receive such information as would afford satisfaction to the public mind in England. He would not then state his opinion of the course pursued by the Governor-general, or her Majesty's Ministers; he would not then utter one word in condemnation of it; but he required that the House should be furnished with every particular which could be communicated consistently with the interests of the country. If we feared incursion from Russia, we should have reason to apprehend greater evil if we took a wrong view of the intentions of Persia. If we converted Persia, which had been a friend to England and an enemy to Russia, into an enemy to England and a friend to Russia, we were raising up difficulties in that quarter of our empire. He need make no apology to the House for entering into these detailsthe whole subject was too important to require any apology from him. The attention of Parliament had not been sufficiently drawn to the state of our interests in
104

India. There had been much squabbling on matters of domestic interest, but of comparatively trifling importance, whilst these vast questions involving peace and war, and on which the fate of nations depended, had escaped observation. The Speech from the Throne made the following announcement respecting the relations between Persia and England: Differences which have arisen have occasioned the retirement of my Minister from the court of Teheran. I indulge, however, the hope of learning that a satisfactory adjustment of these differences will allow of the re-establishment of my relations with Persia upon their former footing of friendship. Events connected with the same differences have induced the Governor-general of India to take measures for protecting British interests in that quarter of the world, and to enter into engagements, the fulfilment of which may render military operations necessary. For this purpose such preparations have been made as may be sufficient to resist aggression from any quarter, and to maintain the integrity of my eastern dominions. He knew full well that whatever might be said in the British Parliament about the necessity of confining our conquests in India within our present limits, would be replied to by an assertion of the irrepressible tendency of our empire there to extend itself; he knew that it would be extended beyond its present limits, and that it would be said that it must go on extend- 97 ing itself in a geometrical ratio; but still he did not find in any public document a justification under that head of the proclamation of the Governor-general of India, nor could he discover any connexion between that proclamation and the Speech from the Throne. The proclamation of the Governor-general of India seemed to have more in view than the mere resistance of aggression. This he thought was a fair inference from this passage of the proclamation "After a serious and mature deliberation, the Governor-general was satisfied that pressing necessity, as well as every consideration of policy and justice, warranted us in espousing the cause of Schh Soojah-ool-Moolk, whose popularity throughout Afghanistan had been proved to his Lordship by the strong and unanimous testimony of the best authorities. Having arrived at this determination, the Governor-general was further of opinion that it was just and proper, no less from the position of Maharaja Runjeet Singh, than from his undeviating friendship towards the British Government, that his Highness should have the offer of becoming a party to the contemplated operations. Mr. Macnaghten was accordingly deputed in June last to the Court of his Highness, and the result of his mission has been the conclusion of a tripartite treaty by the British Government, the Maharaja, and Schah Soojah-ool-Moolk, whereby his Highness is guaranteed in his present possessions, and has bound himself to co-operate for the restoration of the Schah to the throne of his ancestors. The friends and enemies of any one of the contracting parties have been declared to be the friends and enemies of all." That was to say, that the friends and enemies of Runjeet Singh and of the Schah Soojah should be the friends and enemies of England. Now, to that sort of engagement on the part of British power in India he did not agree. It would further appear from the proclamation of the Governorgeneral, that the force assembled on our western frontier had more for its object than the mere resistance of aggression. He said, "The Governor-general confidently hopes that the Schah will be speedily replaced on his throne by his own subjects and adherents, and when once he shall be secured in power, and the independence and integrity of Afghanistan established, the British army will be withdrawn." Now he should require that the 98 fullest information should be laid before the House on this subject. Here was a sort of guarantee given by the Governorgeneral that the British army would not be withdrawn until Schah Soojah-ool-Moolk should be restored. That prince was deposed from his throne in 1809, and had been kept out of it ever since, though on one occasion he had endeavoured to recover his authority, at the head of an army of 20,000 men, and failed. Yet this was the prince whom the British Government in India was about to restore, by the aid of an immense and most expensive military force, and when restored, no doubt another British force would be required to keep him on the throne. The principle was the same in the attempted restoration of the Schah Soojah as it would be in
105

the attempt to restore Charles 10th to the throne of France, with this difference, that the Schah had been thirty years dispossessed of his throne. In the years 1831 and 1832 the government of India had sent officers of great intelligence and industry to report on the state of Afghanistan; and what were the characters given by one of those officers (Captain Burnes) of the present occupier of the throne, and of him who had been dispossessed of it, not by the hostile interference of other nations, but by the dislike of his own subjects? Captain Burnes said, that the total overthrow of the dynasty of the late king was universally attributed to his misplaced pride and arrogance, and that he might have regained his power but for his rash attempts to exceed the authority belonging to the station which he had assumed before he was firmly seated on the throne. The whole of the wealth of the country was in the hands of those who were inimical to his interests, and the bulk of the people believed that be had drawn down the mischievous effects upon them which had been produced; and from these circumstances, Captain Burnes drew the inference that the restoration of the late king was an event which it was most improbable would occur. That was the account by this gentleman, founded upon facts which he had collected in the course of a tour made in the years 1831, 1832, and 1833. That was the only account which was in existence, possessing any authority, of these territories, and that stated that it was impossible to replace the late Schah at the head of the country again on account of the feeling which ex- 99 isted against him; and yet the Governor-general informed Parliament that he had entered into a guarantee, under which, by the interference of British force, the sovereign should he restored. He must say, that in the present state of India, the entering into that guarantee, to be supported by such a course as that which was suggested, required an explanation which had not yet been givenwhich might be givenbut which, to be satisfactory, must be of a character very different from any which had yet appeared; for it must be obvious that the passage in the Speech of her Majesty to Parliament did not correspond with the proclamation of the Governor-general. With regard to the case of the siege of Herat, that stood upon very different grounds, and he would say nothing on that head; but a very different question arose, whether it was politic to enter into a guarantee by treaty to restore the Schah. The next subject to which it was necessary to refer was, the important matter of the Canadian affairs, and although he had nothing to object to the general purport of the Speech, according to the construction which he placed upon it, yet he must say, that he thought the House would do well in its Address, to express in very strong terms the sympathy which they felt in the sufferings and wrongs to which the British subjects had been exposed in that part of the possessions of this country by the unjust and severe acts of aggression to which they had been exposed. He could not express his admiration for them too stronglyhis admiration for the sacrifices which they had made, and for the valour which they had displayed in maintaining their connexion with England. They had not resisted from any cold calculations of pecuniary interest, or of their own immediate aggrandisement or security; but they had been influenced by the purest principles of loyalty, by their preference, after experience, for the monarchical form of government over the democratic; by their love for the British name, and by their determination to maintain their share in the liberties and glory of Great Britain; and for their exertions, he wished that in the last Session (now it would come, perhaps, with less effect) this House had expressed, in stronger terms, its sympathy in their sufferings, and its admiration for their loyalty and courage. When her Majesty, in her Speech from the Throne, 100 called on Parliament to support her in maintaining the authority of the Crown in Canada, he took it for granted that that meant to intimate an intention on the part of the Government to maintain the sovereignty of her Majesty in the North American possessions of this country. He took it for granted, that that was tantamount to a declaration, not only that the maintaining that sovereignty was intended, but that after all that had passed the honour of this great country was concerned in supporting that authority; and he imagined that her Majesty intended to manifest her determination, whatever might be the result, to
106

support those gallant men who, far separated from this country, but aided by its troops, had been able to resist the insurrections of the disaffected, and had proved themselves worthy of their connexion with England, and of their right to the language which they spoke in common with Britons, by their noble exertions, and by the sacrifices which they had so gallantly and so disinterestedly made. [Hear, hear! from Lord J. Russell]. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) assented to what he said, and that established the authority which he had attempted to deduce from the passage to which he had referred, and it was a declaration to the world, directed to the people of Canada more particularly, intimating that when any persons might attempt to molest them, it was for the honour of the British Throne that support should be given to British subjects. If that were so, then it meant to declare, and by that declaration to cheer the spirits of those who might be doubting, perhaps, as to the course they should take, that their sacrifices should not pass unnoticed if they were again called from their homes in order to repel any new aggressions of the same character as those which had been already made, and which were the most expensive and dreadful that had ever been inflicted on the people of any country. They might however rely on the protecting power of Great Britain being extended to them. It was important also that the declaration should be understood by those misguided inhabitants of the United States who had been the main cause of these aggressions. He was bound to say that he had never spoken but in this wayhe had never spoken of the United States in the whole course of his political career with any other feeling than 101 that of deprecation of any sentiment inimical to the Government of that country; and he thought it important, for the sake of humanity, and for the sake of the civilized world, that the friendship of the two countries should be maintained without any interruption of the best feelings; but that consideration should never prevent him, as a Member of the House of Commons, from expressing freely his opinion with respect to their conduct. Her Majesty, in her gracious Speech from the Throne, did certainlyhe knew not whether it was intended as suchgive as faint praise as possible to the efforts of the government of the United States. He was glad that her Majesty had spoken the truth. All that she said with respect to the President of the United States was this:"The President of the United States has called upon the citizens of the Union to abstain from proceedings so incompatible with the friendly relations which subsist between Great Britain and the United States." Why if that were all that the President had doneif all that bad passed were consideredall that appeared to have been done was to issue a Proclamation, calling on the inhabitants of the United States to abstain from any interference with the Canadians; and the very limited panegyric was justifiable, but he was still dissatisfied with it. He could not conceive anything more grievously unjust, than that the inhabitants of a country standing in a position of friendly relationship with another adjoining country, should keep the subjects resident in that country, without any cause of quarrel, in a state of danger of hostile interference; and be could not conceive anything more dangerous than that such an example should be allowed to continue in existence. Let hon. Gentlemen imagine the inhumanity and injustice which would arise in the event of it being admitted that the people of one kingdom were justified in making an entry into the adjoining territory with armed forces, in destroying its villages and massacring the people, and that the only reparation which could be obtained, was an answer that the government of that country, by whose inhabitants the insurrection was made, was weak or was disinclined to interfere, or that it should only call upon its subjects to desist from such proceedings and nothing more. Had anything more been done here? What had been done with re- 102 spect to those persons who had broken into the arsenal belonging to the Uniten States, and, having taken away the armd contained therein, had turned them againss the British people? But what doctrine had the United States laid down under similar circumstances? When the Indians of Florida had entered upon and had attacked the United States, did General Jackson satisfy himself by adopting that course? Did he not, on the contrary, march into the territory of the Spanish, and
107

seize the forts, and hold them for the United States? And when the Spanish government complained of it, what was the answer? It was, "If you cannot maintain order among your subjects, we will." That was the doctrine to which he appealed from his confidence in its justice, and the American government which he was sure acts on the principle of doing as it would be done by. The Spanish answered that they were weak, but the United States did not say that they were in the same condition, and could not repress the inhabitants. Mr. Adams foresaw the possibility of such a case arising, and he said, in his answer to the Spanish minister who demanded satisfaction, He took possession, therefore, of Pensacola, and of the fort of Barrancas, as he had done of St. Mark's not in a spirit of hostility to Spain, but as a necessary measure of self-defence; giving notice that they should be restored whenever Spain should place commanders and a force there able and willing to fulfil the engagements of Spain towards the United States, of restraining by force the Florida Indians from hostility against their citizens.. But the President will neither inflict punishment nor pass a censure upon General Jackson for that conduct, the motives for which were founded upon the purest patriotism; of the necessity for which he had the most immediate and effectual means of forming a judgment, and the vindication of which is written in every page of the law of nations as well as in the first law of nature, self-defence.. If, as the commanders, both of Pensacola and St. Mark's, have alleged, this has been the result of their weakness rather than of their willif they have assisted the Indians against the United States to avert their hostilities from the province which they had not sufficient force to defend against them, it may serve in some measure to exculpate individually those officers; but it must carry demonstration irresistibly to the Spanish government that the right of the United States can as little compound with impotence as with perfidy, and that Spain must immediately make her election either to place force in Florida adequate at once to the 103 protection of her territory and to the fulfilment of her engagements, or to cede to the United States a province of which she retains nothing but the nominal possession, but which is, in fact, a derelict, open to the occupancy of every enemy, civilised or savage, of the United States, and serving no other earthly purpose than as a post of annoyance to them. It was in order that the inevitable consequences of the continuance of the existence of the present system might be avoided that this matter was of importance, for there was the risk of men taking the law into their own hands, who were constantly exposed to sufferings of the description experienced by the Canadians, and it was to avert that event that he trusted that the United States would be zealous in co-operating with the British Government now. The sentiments of the nation must be known, and it was for the general interests of all countries to prevent the repetition of such conduct. Supposing 200 citizens of the United States were to collect and enter Canada, and seize upon a village, the result might be, that before assistance could arrive sufficient to expel them, a great number of others might take advantage of the stand which they had made, and of the temporary victory which had been gained, and might pour in upon the country under circumstances so advantageous as to prevent their being expelled without great difficulty. It was his duty, therefore, as a Member of the British Parliament, to call on the Government to make an appeal to the United States against the injustice of such a course. There was one other topic introduced in the Address on which he had a wish to speak. He was willing to put that construction upon it which it had received from the hon. Member for Kilkenny and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that it pledged those who voted in support of it to nothing, and to acknowledge, that it need not be criticised with any great accuracy, and therefore he did not object to it; but he would now come to a topic which had been omitted in it, and which was not adverted to. It was evident, that the hon. Member who had seconded the Address to her Majesty had prepared the speech which he had addressed to the House under the impression that the subject of the Corn-laws would be alluded to in her Majesty's Speech. He thanked the hon. Gentleman for the opinion which he had expressed, and the views which
108

he had taken upon that 104 important topic, and which he believed would carry the greater weight from the high authority which the hon. Member was known to be upon such a subject from his knowledge of the facts connected with the matter, and he was exceedingly obliged to him for the clear manner in which he had expressed himself, and certainly for the very able speech which he had delivered in favour of the existing system. His hon. Friends who sat near him, when the hon. Gentleman was addressing the House upon this subject, had called upon him to cheer for the arguments which the hon. Member had advanced; but he declined to take such an advantage of the hon. Gentleman, because he was fully persuaded, that before he concluded his speech he would proceed to the demolition of his own premises; but when the hon. Gentleman sat down, he never was so much surprised as at the termination of what he said; for he had never heard any speech delivered as this was, not only by the seconder of the Address, but by the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester, which went so far to confirm those in their adherence to the present state of things who had been favourable to its continuance, and to awaken the doubts and suspicions of those who were opposed to it. His argument was quite complete in all its points; for if he had said, that he would prove that there had been a progressive increase in the exports of England, he would have been answered, that it was true that the quantities had increased, yet that the relative value had diminished, and therefore that argument had no weight; if he had said, that he would give the official valuation, then he would have been called on to say what was the declared value; but to silence all opposition, he at once said, I will give you the declared value; I will institute the best comparison; I will not take former years when other systems were in operation; but I will select the years 1835, 1836, and 1837; and I will compare the exports of 1838 with those of those four years under the same system of Corn-laws, and I will show you a progressive increase, not only in manufactured commodities, but in the real declared value, which amounted to three millions and a half; and I will show you, that there is a reasonable way of accounting for the depression which has taken place. In 1837, it is true, you had a depression; but that is not attributable to the Corn-laws. The years from 1834 to 1836 would afford fair tests 105 upon which to decide the question, but the year 1837 would not; for it was not the Corn-laws which caused the depression in that year; but it was the operation of the banking system; and the instant that was removed, the instant that the ligature which bowed us to the ground was cut, in 1838, we rose buoyant. The hon. Gentleman proposed to produce quantities, and he (Sir R. Peel) was also prepared with quantities which presented matter of grave consideration, whether it were proper to tamper with the existing system, and to show the House, that since that system had been in operation, a progressive increase of exports had taken place which was almost unheard of. The expert of cotton yarn in 1829 was fifty-seven million pounds; in 1830, it was sixty-two millions; in 1831, it was fifty-eight millions; while in 1838, it was one hundred and thirteen millions of pounds; so that there was an increase to the extent of double the quantity in 1838, as compared to the quantity exported in 1829. A similar increase had taken place in the cotton-thread exported, which, in 1829, was 1,074,000 lbs., and in 1838, 2,362,000 lbs, or more than double the quantity exported in 1829. But this increase had not been confined to cotton alone. In hosiery, the quantities exported for three years, 1829,1830, and 1838, were1829, 363,000 lbs.; 1830, 346,000 lbs.; 1838, 447,000 lbs. In calicoes, there had been an immense increase since 1829, the amount then was 128,000,000 yards printed and 179,966,000 plain. In 1830, 159,432,000 printed and 190,262,000 plain. In 1838, 264,724,000 printed and 282,847,300 plain. In silks, also, the increase had been great.[Mr. Wood: An average of four years.] He begged the hon. Gentleman would speak with the tone in which he before spoke of the average of four years, and remove any gloomy apprehensions which it might convey to his mind. In silks, the quantity exported in 1839, was 80,710 lbs, and, in 1838, 146,293 lbs.; of silk and cotton, 27,410 lbs, in 1837, and, in 1838, 52,863 lbs. This was the state of our commerce under the
109

present. Corn-law, and he begged it to be recollected that there was an increase of 3 millions not only upon the quantity but upon the declared value.[Mr. Wood: An increase of only 7 per cent.] Yes, 7 per cent.; but he did not perceive the same loudness 106 now in the tone of the hon. Gentleman's voice which he had observed when he first made the declaration which he had repeated. It was not only this argument, however, which the hon. Gentleman had advanced which was in his favour, but he had said, also, that he had reason to know and believe that our trade was in a sound, healthy, and improving state. The hon. Member's account of the shipping interest, was equally satisfactory, and shewed that, under the existing system, that department of commerce had an equal right to boast of its stable and firm position. The question now therefore was, whether the British Parliament should be so alarmed by that which was the inevitable consequence of a bad harvest; and he hoped, that the House would pause before it acceded to any proposition which would have the effect of changing the law, and which would materially affect the agricultural interests of this country, having received from the President of the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester, the account which he had given of the stable and secure position of the commerce and manufactures of the country, exposed, however, as it was to the disadvantages of a bad bank system; and he trusted, that they would hesitate before they run the risk of needlessly undermining the foundation of that system which had been attended with such good effects. He now came to the last paragraph of the Address. Her Majesty, in her Speech, said I have observed with pain the persevering efforts which have been made in some parts of the country to excite my subjects to disobedience and resistance to the law, and to recommend dangerous and illegal practices. He had no hesitation in saying, that by whomsoever or for whatever purposes these practices were resorted to, they would at all times meet with his most decided opposition. He cordially agreed with the expression which her Majesty used, and he hoped that that high authority not introducing any new penalties of the law, but warning her subjects against being misled by the practices of designing men, and expressing her determination to enforce the existing laws, would have the proper effect upon all loyal subjects, and would tend to frustrate the designs of these men; but the noble Lord must excuse him, if he said that he wished that steps had been taken at an earlier period to prevent the continuance of attempts which were now 107 complained of. He found, certainly, that during the autumn, there had been language used most improper and exciting. He cared not by whom that language was used, or upon what subject, whether it was against the Poor-laws, or the Corn-laws; but he said that the language, considering the state of life of the individual who used it, was highly improper. It was calculated to excite the people to violence, and to endanger the safety of property, and by that means to call down upon the heads of the offending parties the severest penalties of the law. The noble Lord, however, must again excuse him for saying, that when he thought fit to advert to the subject of these meetings, he used language which was so capable of perversion, of being misunderstood, as to be dangerous in its effect. He would state the grounds on which this allegation was founded. On the 17th of September, a public meeting was held in London; and he found that a speaker there made use of the sort of language he complained of. Speaking of the men of the north, he said, They were armed. He had seen the arms over their mantel-pieces. But the national petition had come opportunely, and they would not have signed it had it not demanded universal suffrage. If they should fail in the present instance, he would not attempt to say what would be the consequence. The rifles would be loadedthat would be the next step, no doubt; and he defied the power of any government, or of any armed Bourbon police, to put them down. It was no use to disguise the matter; secrecy was the ruin of all things. Everything would be done openly by the people of Lancashire, and it would be done constitutionally and legally. Now for the people's charter. They demanded it because it contained universal suffragebecause it gave them a voice in the choice of representativesand they were justified in asking for this. Was it too much for those who
110

produced all the food, all the clothing, all the necessaries of lifewho fought all the battles of the country, to ask for a voice in the choice of their representatives? He would state what the people of Manchester were going to do. They intended, on Monday next, to hold a great meeting at Manchesteran aggregate meeting, where they expected no less than 300,000 men, two-thirds of whom were fit to bear arms. A person named Wade, a clergyman apparently, afterwards spoke. He said He would now say a word as to the convention. One advantage of it would be, that the people would have an executive power to 108 watch the government. If any unjust aggression were made on the people by the convention, they would have the power of calling a great convention, and those who did not agree with it might go about their business. Mr. Feargus O'Connor (formerly a Member of this House) said, They had had a taste of physical force in the north a short time since. Some of the metropolitan police were sent down to Dewsbury, but the boys of that noble town sent them home again. His desire was to try moral force as long as possible, even to the fullest extent; but he would have them always bear in mind that it was better to die freemen than to die slaves. Every conquest which was called honourable had been achieved by physical force; but they did not want it, because if all hands were pulling for universal suffer age, they would soon pull down the stronghold of corruption. The Whigs had not only deprived the poor of their rights, but they had robbed the middling classes of theirs also, and all for the purpose of putting the power into the hands of the three devils at Somerset-house. The rev. Mr. Stephens, on the 24th of September, used this language: If the borough reeve and constables had not made the declaration which they had made, and if these parties had not given the command of the police to be vested in the hands of the marshals of the day of that meeting, he would have come upon the ground armed, and would have brought 10,000 armed men with him to the meeting, and he would have moved an adjournment. He would have moved an adjournment of the meeting of the people of South Lancashire for one month, and he would have advised every one in the meantime to use all his influence over his friends and fellow workmen, to flock towards the standard of the national charter. Now, when the noble Lord spoke of these meetings in the language he had used, though he not did doubt that his object was good, yet he must say, that be thought the expressions which he used were capable of being misunderstood. He would read a report which had been published of the noble Lord's speech, and which had not been contradicted nor controverted. The noble Lord said, at a dinner at Liverpool, on October 3rd: He alluded to the public meetings which were now in the course of being held in various parts of the country. There were some, perhaps, who would put down such meetings; but such was not his opinion, nor that of the Government with which he acted. He thought the people had a right to free discussion. It was free discussion which elicited truth. They had a right to meet. If they had no grievances, 109 common sense would speedily come to the rescue, and put an end to these meetings.
[Lord John Russell

I added a qualification.] The noble Lord, from that very expression clearly felt the justice of the remark which he had made. But suppose a mill was burned, and suppose that, in. stead of giving him assistance, it should be said that the mill-owner had duties to perform. He was prepared to say that, although the sentiments which the noble Lord expressed might be just, they might be truisms, but even the unseasonable expression of truth in times of public excitement might be dangerous, and, therefore he exceedingly regretted, that when the noble Lord did accompany that declaration which he had made in favour of these meetings with a qualification, that qualification did not receive equal publicity with the other parts of the speech. I will now (said the right hon. Baronet) say one word with respect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury. The hon. Gentleman anticipates that it will be impossible
111

for this side of the House to assent to it, and I certainly, for one, will give a cordial vote against it. But with respect to the first portion of the Amendment, that the measure of 1832 had disappointed the expectations of her Majesty's people, as the hon. Gentleman and others on that side of the House are such good judges of the disappointment that has taken place, I will defer to that authority most readily, and as I prophesied that disappointment would be the result, I certainly do not dissent from that part of the Amendment. I did dissent from the measure; I told you the English people in the mass were not deceivedthat they did not place much confidence on the legislative power of a new Parliament to redress their grievancesI told you that you overrated the extent to which Many a gem of purest ray sereneThe dark unfathomed caves. of the reformed Parliament would turn up. I did not suppose that "a phalanx of able and eloquent men," who had been hitherto languishing in obscurity, would be brought before the public. Supposing I had prophesied in 1830, when you drove me from powerwhen you made me responsible for every fire that took placewhen you told me that public discontent would not, could not exist without evident indication of misgovernment that the people would 110 not complain without good reason, and that the existence of dissatisfaction, and the prevalence of crime, were proofs of the bad legislation of those who held the reins of power. Suppose I bad said at that time, "Yes, but you have not two conventions sitting then as there now are;" Suppose I had said, "You will have the same fires and the same outrages in 1838, making every allowance for the excitement in France;" I do not consider, as regards the prevalence of excitements, you are at the present moment in a better condition than we were in 1830. If I had said that this measure you are clamouring forthe bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the billif I had said, you that are calling for this, and you will neither permit abatement or addition to itif, whatever you may think of its finality now, you then held it to be the second charter of public libertyif I had said, in 1838 you will be clamourous for a reform of this measure as you now are, and that it disappoints the public expectation, and that you must be dragged upon the wheels of that which is ever to be stationary, it would rot have been received with the good-humoured laughter with which you now greet it, but with a scowl of indignation at throwing any doubt upon the introduction of more popular opinions into the British Constitution. I should have been denounced as a false prophet; I should have been told that there would be nothing but perfect satisfaction under the the new Parliamentunder the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill. It would have been said, these are the prejudiced views of a Tory who clings to ancient abuses, and who will not look on the bright day that is now approaching. I may now be asked, why, then, do you support this bill, which according to you is deserving of reprobation, and has been productive of disappointment? Because I take warning from experience, and because I find it has not produced satisfactionbecause I know that a demand for further reform, in the expectation of producing satisfaction or finality, would be only aggravating the disappointment, and that in five years more, after having extended the suffrage to four millions of people, you would come again and say, you have only given us household suffrage, when you should have given us universal suffrage. You will argue, it is quite clear, that whoever contributes by 111 his labour to taxation, is entitled to a vote. I am confident, according to the hon. Gentleman's own showing, that if all men are slaves who are not entitled to exercise the elective franchise, that nothing short of universal suffrage, in its most unlimited degree, will satisfy you. Why should it be limited to the age of twenty-one? Why have any limitation as to age, as in the case of the militia? Thus you will go on infusing popular principles into the Constitution until it ceases to be a Monarchy, and then, when you are suffering under the bitter experiences of the change, you will, perhaps, tell me that you were not a false prophet. Would to God that we bad continued under the old standard of our ancient institutions, and that the country may yet preserve the inestimable institutions of a mixed and mild Government.
112

Mr. Villiers

said, nothing could be conceived more likely to favour the views of the party calling themselves the "Chartists" than the speech of the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down, and, indeed, the whole tenor of the debate from beginning to end. He had been in hopes that those Gentlemen, representing the landed interest, would have had at least the decency not to proclaim their intention of maintaining the monstrous monopoly of the Corn-laws. He had expected that the right hon. Baronet would have attempted, in the course of his speech, to suggest a remedy for some of the prominent grievances which oppressed the country; but, instead of that, he had commenced by reading the House a lecture, because they had undertaken the consideration of some matters of domestic policy; then another lecture about our affairs in India on Runjeet Sing and Kam Ram; and then another lecture because they had not given sufficient support to the mild and discreet individuals representing the British party in Upper Canada. Upon the subject of the Corn-laws, he thought that there could be but one feeling of disappointment throughout the country, that the right hon. Baronet had consented to take up the miserable and fallacious arguments of the hon. Member for Kendal. Yes; such he must style them; and he could not help thinking that it was unworthy of the right hon. Baronet to take such a course, betraying at once a want of ingenuity, or ability, or unwillingness to find something better to address to the House, Sure he was that 112 the right hon. Baronet, at the very time he was using that argument, saw clearly through the fallacy of the statements which he was quoting from the hon. Member for Kendal; because they were statements which had so often been repeated, and so often been refuted, that he could not conceive the possibility of any one again seriously advancing them. The case was simply this;The hon. Member for Kendal referred to the increase of our exports, and inferred from them that trade was flourishing. The right hon. Baronet then took up this argument, and endeavoured to deduce further from it that the Corn-laws had not endangered our foreign trade; and he saw from the cheer which that argument drew down, and from the manner of the right hon. Baronet in advancing it, and in making use of those statements, that such was the effect intended to be produced by it. What the opponents of the Corn-laws alleged was, that our competition with foreign markets was endangered by the high price of provisions in this country; that in all articles requiring manual labour we could no longer compete with foreigners in other markets than our own; but that in articles manufactured by machinery we could still compete with them, and maintain our preeminence; that in consequence, our exports in the former class of articles were decreasing, but that of the latter increasing to a certain extent. But the consequence of the last circumstance was, that machinery was being exported from this country, and our artisans leaving their homes to become dangerous competitors with us abroad. Now, in his opinion, there was nothing inconsistent in their views with the trifling increase in our exports which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Kendal. But the hon. Member, moreover, had not told the House whether these increased exports had found their way to the European markets, or to our colonies; for if the matter had been fairly stated, he had no doubt it would turn out that many markets which we used to supply now supplied themselves, whilst in neutral markets we were supplanted by others. He was very glad, however, that this was the point upon which the question was to turn, because it came in support of the motion of which he had given notice, for hearing evidence at the bar of the operation and effect of the Corn-law monopoly, an in- 113 vestigation which he thought would hardly be refused by those who pretended to enter upon this view of the question. For his own part, he owned that, after all that had been said in the course of the present debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Lincolnshire, and the right hon. Baronet opposite, he should feel bound to give his vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend,

113

although at first he had entertained some doubts as to the propriety of introducing such an Amendment at the present time.
Mr. G. W. Wood

said, that some of the observations which had fallen from him having been so pointedly alluded to both by the right hon. Baronet opposite and the hon. Member who had just sat down, he felt bound to say, in explanation, that he saw nothing in the statements which he had made, inconsistent with any arguments for a change of the Corn-laws.
Lord John Russell

said, that important as were the various topics alluded to in the Speech of her Majesty, and important as were those topics which had not formed part of that Speech, but had been brought forward in the course of the present debate, he felt that he should have so many occasions for addressing himself to these several subjects when they were respectively brought forward, that he did not now think it necessary to do more than to give that explanation upon one or two points which might seem clearly called for by the speeches of the right hon. Baronet opposite, and others, who had spoken in the course of the debate. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin seemed to suppose that it was a great act of oppression and injustice on the part of the great powers of Europe that certain territories, which had been held for some years by the King of Belgium, were now about to be placed under the King of the Netherlands. But it should be borne in mind that these territories did originally form part of the dominions of the King of the Netherlands, and that when the kingdom of Belgium was formed, the King of Belgium consented to the present territorial arrangement. Neither did he think that any act of injustice was done by it to the inhabitants of this territory, who he did not think were in that state of hostility to the King of the Netherlands which the hon. Member for Kilkenny seemed to suppose. He must say, looking back at the labours and objects a the great Powers 114 of Europe who had taken part in the treaty of Vienna, and whose intention it was that Belgium should be an independent kingdom, with the means of internal security and defence, and of extensive commerce combined, he must say, that, looking at this object, which was held in view from the first, he thought that every one who was concerned in these negotiations had cause for congratulation upon the result which had been come to. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in the course of his comments upon the Speech, had referred to the affairs of Indiaa subject more particularly difficult to be treated of in the debate upon the Address, and which he thought, therefore, should form the subject of a separate debate. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that the proceedings which had been adopted by the government of India tended to extend the bounds of our empire. Now, such was not the case: the differences in which we were concerned arose purely out of an act of aggression on the part of the King of Persia against the city of Herat, when we came to the assistance of the chief Kam Ram, who was defending his city against the aggressive force. Therefore this proceeding was not to extend our territory, but to support the possession of one on whose fidelity we had always had reason to rely. With respect to the terms in that passage of the Address wherein the word "aggression" was used, this passage referred to certain engagements entered into during Lord Auckland's government, and alluded to an altogether distinct transaction from the former passage. He need only add, therefore, that this passage of the speech 'was completely in accordance with the proclamation of the Governor-General of India, and if the position which had been taken up were wrong, it had not been adopted without due deliberation. In confirmation of this statement he would add that when the first dispatches upon this subject arrived from Lord Auckland it was agreed that it would be proper
114

to send out instructions to the Indian government on the subject, and in return they received dispatches from Lord Auckland, giving the gratifying intelligence that his Lordship had consulted all the local authorities whom he could refer to, and that they had all come to exactly the same conclusions as those which the Government had adopted. 115 The right hon. Baronet had referred to the state of Canada, and he was glad that in doing so he had particularly dwelt upon the necessity of maintaining the authority of the Crown in that portion of her Majesty's dominions; and although he admitted that in regard to the past transactions of Government it was not usually advisable to call for an expression of opinion on the part of this House in a debate of this kind, yet he thought that in respect to the question whether the authority of the Crown and of the House should be maintained in a part of the British dominions it was a question upon which the House might very fairly be expected to give without hesitation a distinct opinion. It was a subject upon which they could not allege that they were taken by surprise; it was a subject upon which every man must have already made up his mindnamely, whether it would be prudent, honourable, and wise on the part of this country to stand by British subjects in Canada, who had hitherto at their own cost and risk stood by the Government of this country, or whether they should consent to give them up into the hands of any other power. On this subject he apprehended he was entitled to ask for an expression of the opinion of the House, that the honour, no less than the interests of the Crown, demanded that the British subjects of Canada should be defended against all aggressions; and, be the expense great or small, they, the Ministers of the Crown, were ready to encounter it; and rather than do that which could not but be injurious to the empire, in the scale of nations, and a disgrace to the Crown of England. The right hon. Baronet, in connection with this subject, had particularly alluded to the reference which had been made in the Speech to the proceedings adopted by the President of the United States, in reference to these outrages. Undoubtedly he should have been very glad if he could have recommended her Majesty to have stated, that the President of the United States had called upon all the people of America to unite in repressing these aggressions upon a neighbouring State, and that that proclamation had been promptly responded to by the American people. But referring to the accounts received from Canada, he thought it would be impossible to say with propriety that the efforts of the President had been at- 116 tended with that effect which, looking at the character which the United States ought to preserve in the scale of nations, should have been expected from them. In not expressing this opinion, however, it was by no means intended to be inferred that there was the least ground for suspicion of the existence of bad faith on the part of the President of the United States. On the contrary, considering the state of the frontiers of the United States, and the weakness of the executive, he thought that every thing had been done that could be expected of him. But the fact was, the people of the United States were so jealous of putting authority into the hands of the executive, that they did run the risk of the reproach of not observing those relations which every other State in the world wished to maintain towards its allies. He certainly could wish that the executive of the United States were strengthed in this particular, as nothing could be so distressing as their barbarous, vexatious, and continual aggressions. The right hon. Baronet had referred to a speech which he (Lord John Russell) was reported to have made at a public dinner at Liverpool. With respect to that speech he would observe, that there having been no persons present on the occasion who were professionally able to report speeches, the report did not give that passage in his observations which the right hon. Baronet suggested he ought to have used, and which, in fact, he had in substance repeated, as he (Lord John Russell) had himself said on the occasion in question; namely, "that whilst the Government was disposed to give every latitude to the free discussion of public questions, yet that this liberty must not be used to the infringement of the laws of the country, or the infringement of the liberties of her Majesty's subjects." Those were his sentiments; his object being that nothing should be done which
115

should deter, through intimidation, the expression of opinion on the part of those who wished to participate in the privilege. He had particularly in view at the time the subject of the Poorlaw, which being considered capable of being represented, that it was not a measure of hardship to the poor, he was anxious that the utmost latitude should be given to free and open discussion on the subject. But when attempts were made to abuse this liberty, to excite people to physical violence and 117 the use of arms against the laws and subjects of the Crownno sooner was this the case than he consulted the law officers of the Crown, and by their advice had adopted the proceedings which had been taken against a certain party, in all the subsequent stages of which he had acted entirely by the advice of those functionaries. Several topics had been alluded to in the course of the debate which had not formed part of her Majesty's Speech. Of these he would very briefly refer to one, namely, the Corn-laws. He had certainly been of opinion in 1828 that a modified fixed scale of duties would be better than a fluctuating scale; but at the same time be thought the new law a great improvement upon the former system, and therefore he gave it his support. But he now thought, however, that the time had arrived when it should be considered whether that law had acted beneficially or not. He was not prepared at the present moment to enter into a discussion of the subject; but he thought, that the respectability and importance of the interests calling for the repeal of these laws entitled them, not perhaps to be heard at the bar of the House, but to the most patient investigation on the part of the House of any facts which they might bring forward, so that it should not go forth, that the House had shown itself indifferent to any subject so deeply affecting the interests and welfare of the people at large. There was another subject which was embodied in the amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury, to which he would say a few words, although he would not now go into all the details connected with it. He had cheered him for not bringing forward details. He had done so, because he thought the word was a singular one to introduce, when it was not intended to state the course that was about to be adopted. He did not ask of the hon. Gentleman to go the length of entering into details of the measure he proposes; but then the hon. Gentleman should give the House some notion of the nature of it. He did not tell whether he would be satisfied with household suffrage, nor whether he would be satisfied with the charter and universal suffrage. Now giving to them this in formation, would, he conceived, be no more than complying with a reasonable request; but as the hon. Gentleman had not done that, then he could only say, that he and other hon. Members who had 118 proposed the Reform Act, with a view of establishing a different mode of representation from that which had previously existed; he could say, that they were prepared to enter into the whole subject of the Reform Act, to state the grounds and the principles on which it rested, and also the grounds why he should think, that they ought to rest now, not merely from a dislike of change, although a dislike of perpetual change would be, in his opinion, a rational objection; but he was prepared to show cause why they should abide by the principles of that act. At the same time were they to be surprised, that some hon. Gentlemen should have given, by their expressions, that which was eagerly seized upon as a triumph by the right hon. Gentlemannamely, that they should have expressed themselves discontented and disappointed with the Reform Act. But for him neither surprise nor disappointment were occasioned by the expression of these opinions. When the Reform Bill was proposed by Lord Grey, and by Lord Spencer, it was proposed as a permanent settlement of the question. It had been repeated both in that House and in the other House of Parliament, that it was proposed as a permanent settlement of the question, and that they wished to make it a permanent settlement. Those on the other side of the House opposed the measure as a dangerous innovation, but there was a third class, who said they accepted the measure not as a complete measure, but only as an instalment. They said, "We do not consider that it goes far enoughwe support it as far as it goes; but we shall look for further changes in the representation." Was it, then, to be to him a matter of surprise or of disappointment, that those
116

persons wished for further alterations in the representation? He admitted the consistency of these personshe did not blame them; but he should consider himself as blame able if he took that course. They did not conceal at the time their wishes for a greater measure of change. They determined eight years ago to be disappointed, and he was not surprised to find, that they were now dissatisfied. As to the noble Lord, the Member for Thetford, he had in 1830 voted for universal suffrage; he had supported the motion of the hon. Member for Dublin to that effect. Could one, then, be surprised to find, that the noble Lord still entertained opinions of the same kind, and that 119 he should now be for universal suffrage? But then the hon. Gentleman had certainly got rid of a most difficult question, when he only asked them to change, and did not tell them what the change was to be. Did the hon. Member propose to divide the country into districts, and each of them to return one Member, which he thought was the plan proposed by the chartists. If the hon. Member did so, although he might talk of nomination now, he must certainly have it then. In these districts it would be found, that where persons were proprietors of very extensive property, their influence would be used in the return of Members. Did not hon. Members know, that that would be the case where persons had very large property? This proposed change would lead persons to look for other changes, until at length they came to look for a change in the property of the country. They would look to divide the property of the country into smaller divisions, so that no power of nomination might be vested in individuals. They must look for such changes in conformity with their plan, for if they did not do that then they could not put an end to that which they called nomination. The noble Lord continued by saying: I have been blamed in this House and out of this HouseI have been blamed a great deal more for a declaration which I made last year. I must beg pardon of the House for troubling it on this subject; but really, as the speech I then made has been so much abused, and as it has been made the object of attack during the whole of the recess, I trust I may be allowed to advert to the circumstances under which I made that declaration. Upon that occasion the hon. Member for Kilkenny, along with others, called for a declaration from Government. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had made a speech in which he put it forth as a matter of grave accusation against the Government, that it had not followed the example of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and stated our minds upon reform, declaring how far we were prepared to go, and fixing the certain point at which we were prepared to stop. Why, it was said to us, will you not tell us how far you are inclined, and when it is you mean to stop? It was then, in answer to that call, that I made the declaration which has been so much referred to. Will any one say, that it was an uncalled-for declaration, when 120 such sentiments were expressed by a supPorter of the Ministry? Should I not have been justly attacked if I had given any one reason to suspect that we were about to support or countenance measures to which we were adverse, and to which we meant to give our opposition? Let me ask, if I had said, (as the hon. Member for Kilkenny proposed), that we meant to support the ballot, does any one believe that, seeing what has since happened, we should, without further supporting other measures proposed with respect to the franchise, have done that which would now be satisfactory to those who are the friends of change? Does any one think that satisfaction would be produced in the country if I had said, that the ballot should be an open question? Does any one believe this would have been a wise and a just course for the Government to have pursued? I think, then, that whatever dissatisfaction may have been caused by that declaration, it was far better to make that declaration, and let the policy we were about to pursue be understood, than leave it in any obscurity, or let it be supposed, that we should give a half support to the ballot, or encourage the hope, that by interfering with the franchise, any thing might be done to unsettle that which had been already settled; that all should be unsettled without having any new or rational plan on the subject. Therefore, it is, that whatever dissatisfaction my expressions have called forth, I consider that, under the circumstances I have stated, I was called upon to make it. There are, I know,
117

expressions to be found in that speech which have been greatly tortured, and made the subject of misrepresentation, and which were made to appear, not only offensive on my part, but, in some respects, injurious to this House. For instance, I have been made to say, "That the Reform Bill was intended to give to the landed interest a preponderating influence in this House." What I referred to was the speech, or more properly speaking, the few words that I uttered at the end of the discussion on the Reform Bill. At the end of the discussion on the Reform Bill, and after it had been attacked, and declared most injurious to the landed interest, and when strong language was applied to it by Lord Ashburton, I said, that in reality, so far was that bill from being destructive to the landed interest, that, in reality, it gave a preponderance to 121 that interest. But was that the same bill which had first gone up to the Lords? Was the bill which went up a second time to the Lords the bill which had been originally introduced? Had not a very great alteration taken place in the bill? Was there not one particularly, by which all the 50l. tenants at will were introduced into the constituency of the counties? Lord Althorp warned the House of the consequences of that introduction. Lord Althorp repeatedly told them, that however respectable a class of men were the tenants at will, and no man knew them better than Lord Althorp, yet he assured the House, that they were a class whose disposition was, upon all occasions, to rote with their landlords; and, therefore, introducing them would give immense power to the proprietors of land. In spite of this objection, the House adopted, by a large majority, that proposition, and, amongst those who supported it, were many of the Reformers. There were many Reformers who supported it, and I am not sure but that the hon. Member for Kilkenny supported it also. And yet, because I, seeing what was the fact, and in reply to another, stated what had been done, the hon. Gentleman writes a letter to his constituents, in which he declares (upon my authority!), that the original intention of the Reform Bill was to give a preponderance to the landed interest. I must be allowed to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is a very great difference in saying, that the Reform Bill, as it was on the third reading, gave a preponderance to the landed interest, from saying, that it was the original intention of the Reform Bill to give that preponderance. I know not whether even the hon. Gentleman understands me yet. With respect to the original intention of the Reform Bill, I speak before many who aided in introducing that bill, and who were present at its formation, and, I think, I shall be corroborated by them when I say, that the intention was to give the representation to all interests in the community. There was no wish to favour or uphold any particular party. An equal number of counties, and an equal number of manufacturing towns, were taken for the purpose of securing equality. I thought it would have been unnecessary to state this, from the explanation which was given a few weeks subsequently to my speech, by the under Secretary of State; but I find it, neverthe- 122 less, constitutes the stock-in-trade of those who attack my former speech. I really do think, that the declaration which I then made was not at variance with the general opinions of the country. The opinion of the majority of the people of this country, I do believe, is against progressive reforms in the representation, leaving the representation every year uncertain, and leading to contests, and to all those agitating circumstances which, it may be recollected, impeded all the operations of commerce in the years 1831 and 1832. My opinion, then, is, that the general sense of the country was with me when I made that declaration. I do not say, that it agrees with me in my conviction respecting the Reform Bill generally, or that greater benefits might not be derived from another mode of representation, but I do believe that they think, that having gone through the struggle for the Reform Bill, they do not believe it would be beneficial for their interests to adopt some other changes, to be made the foundation for other alterations, and also to end in a plan for universal suffrage. As to the hon. Member for Sheffield, I find it reported, that he said, that he was ready to go three-fourths of the way for universal suffrage. I think that was a great concession, and as it was said to him, "if you are ready to go three-fourths, why do you not go the other fourth and put an end to the matter?" I
118

am of opinion with the interrogator; for if he were to go three-fourths of the way, why not go the other fourth and take up the charter at once; and whatever be the peril, and whatever may be the danger, better is it to encounter all than demand continual changes and never ending fluctuations, which the hon. Gentleman is an advocate for. In this opinion I am convinced the country coincides with me. We, as a Government, think it right to stand by the declarations of Lord Grey, and to stand by the declarations of Lord Althorp. We are not ashamed to be the followers of such men, and by their principles we are contented to abide.
Mr. C. Buller

must beg leave, in the first place, in addressing the House, to thank the Gentlemen on each side of the House who had spoken, for the cautious abstinence they had shown that night, in respect to the affairs of Canada. He thanked them not only on the ground of the public, but on personal grounds. 123 Nothing could be more proper in fairness than the conduct of Gentlemen to wait for that information, which would vindicate those whose conduct must come before the House. He did not shrink from any inquiry; he courted inquiry, and was prepared for it. He thought the House had a right to have that information as speedily as possible. He wished to call the attention of the House to this fact, that his noble Friend the late Governor of Canada had discharged his duty, in giving what he believed to be a final statement of the affairs of Canada, which had been contained in the report presented to her Majesty's Ministers,all he wished to state was, that his duty was discharged, and he only hoped that her Majesty's Government would not delay very long the opportunity of judging of that which he believed would be the means of ample vindication. He should say nothing more on this subject, but would detain the House a few moments on some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Tamworth on the conduct of the government of the United States. The right hon. Baronet, taking for his text the information contained in her Majesty's Speech, a document which he never looked upon as containing all the information upon any subject, the right hon. Baronet had spoken that night upon an extremely delicate subject, namely, our foreign relations. A very erroneous impression would go forth to the country if he allowed what the right hon. Baronet had said to go uncontradicted. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that he would not be satisfied with all the government of the United States had done as to issuing a proclamation. The government had done, in his opinion, all that a government could do. He would tell them what they had done; they had passed a law of neutrality, and bad kept that law more strictly than we had done. They had prosecuted and convicted several gentlemen who had infringed that law; and they had doubled their army in order to keep that law. When a government had done this they ought not to say they had done nothing but utter unmeaning words. He was particularly anxious, that this should be contradicted, because he thought that the statement of the hon. Baronet might be productive of the worst effects. The government of the United States was a free government. He supposed the right hon. Baronet did not 124 mean to upset the executive. Ought they not, in dealing with them, to work by all possible means on that government, and get it to exercise its powers in the most effectual way? What was the most effectual way? Gaining the opinion of the American people. The opinion of the people, from one end of the country to the other, was decidedly with us. The Americans dared not hold a sympathiser's meeting in any town in the United States, and in the country they had held anti-sympathising meetings. Those who had invaded the Canadas had been a set of robbers and marauders, and no government could restrain such men from going on such lawless expeditions. Would the right hon. Baronet forget that marauding expeditions had been fitted out in despite of the English Government? The right hon. Baronet's Government could not be suspected of having a very good feeling towards the government of Don Miguel. What had the right hon. Baronet's Government, with all the good intentions and
119

power of monarchy done? Had they prevented two vessels loaded with arms and persons going to invade the Portuguese territories and had they caught those vessels before they had got twelve days sail across the Atlantic? He thought the United States could not, then, be blamed so very much because steamers had contrived to get over a half hour's sail without being stopped, or that persons should have contrived to cross an imaginary line. This conduct on the part of the United States government ought to be generously acknowledged, and they ought to thank it for the liberality with which it had endeavoured to fulfil its duties, and they ought to encourage the good feeling of the people of the United States, and not to provoke their national pride by not giving a due acknowledgment to what they had done. He would only add two or three words, certainly not more than two or three sentences, more. He was exceedingly averse, as a man of principle, in dividing on an Amendment to an Address to her Majesty's Government, to which he was hostileto which he was not hostile. [Laughter.] When he said, that the present motion of his learned Friend expressed his own idea so perfectly that it was impossible for him to add more to it, he only wished to have it perfectly understood that he was not anxious to take an opportunity of opposing the Government. 125 He thought the principle put in force that night was one of very great importance; it was the question whether the Reform Act had satisfied the expectations of those who supported it. His learned Friend's motion went to this simply. The noble Lord had little right to say, that those who supported it had the ulterior object of cutting up everything afterwards. He must say a more startling assertion he never heard in that House. The noble Lord might put himself perfectly at rest on that subject, and he assured him, that no man that voted for the Address that night had that view. But as this was the only principle to which he wished to give his assent, he wished to carry out the principle of the Reform Bill, and the principles that were announced by the proposers of the Reform Bill; they said the object of it was "to abolish nomination and substitute representation." His noble Friend simply said, that the Reform Bill had not produced this effect, and that it ought to be carried out to the extent to do so. The House divided on the original questionAyes 426; Noes 86: Majority 340. The House divided on the question, that Mr. Duncombe's Amendment be added to the AddressAyes 86; Noes 426: Majority 340.
List of the AYES. Aglionby, H. A. Aglionby, Major Attwood, T. Barron, H. W. Blake, M. J. Blewitt, R. J. Bodkin, J. J. Bridgeman, H. Easthope, J. Etwall, R. Euston, Earl of Evans, Sir De L. Evans, G. Fielden, J. Fenton, J. Finch, F. 120

Brocklehurst, J. Brotherton, J. Brown, R. D. Bryan, G. Buller, C. Bulwer, Sir L. Butler, Hon. Col. Chalmers, P.

Gillon, W. D. Grote, G. Hall, Sir B. Harvey, D. W. Hawes, B. Hector, C. J. Hill, Lord A. M. Hindley, C.

Chapman, Sir M. L. C. Hume, J. Hutt, W. Chichester, J. P. B Codrington, Adm. Collier, J. Collins, W. Conygham, Lord A Currie, R. Dennistoun, J. D'Eyncourt, C. T. Duckworth, S. Duke, Sir J. Dundas, C. W, D. 126 O'Brien, C. Somers, J. P. Jervis, J. Jervis, S. Johnson, Gen. Langdale, hon. C. Leader, J. T. Lister, E. C. Lushington, C. Maher, J. Martin, J. Molesworth, Sir W. Nagle Sir R,

O,Callaghan, hon. C. Somerville, Sir W. M.

121

O'Connell, D. O'Connell, J. O'Connell, M. O'Conor Don Pattison, J. Pechell, Capt. Power, J. Protheroe, E. Ramsbottom, J. Roche, E. B. Roche, W. Rundle. J. Salwey, Colonel Scholefield, J. P. List of the NOES.

Style, Sir C. Tancred, H. W. Thornley, T. Vigors, N. A. Villiers, C. P. Wakley, T. Wallace, R. Warburton, H. White, A. Williams, W. A. Wood, Sir M. TELLERS. Duncombe, T. Ward,

Abercromby, hon. G. R. Blakemore, R. Blandford, Marquess Acland, Sir T. D. Acland, T. D. A'Court, Captain Adare, Visct. Ainsworth, P. Alford, Visct. Alsager, Capt. Blennerhassett, A. Boldero, H. G. Bolling, W. Bradshaw, J. Bramston, T. Briscoe, J. I. Broadley, H.

122

Alston, R. Andover, Visct. Anson, hon. Col. Anson, Sir G. Arbuthnot, H. Archbold, R Archdall, M. Ashley, Lord Attwood, W. Bagge, W. Begot, hon. W. Bailey, J. Bailey, J., jun. Baillie, Col. Bainbridge, E. T. Baines, E. Baker, E. Bannerman, A. Baring, hon. F. Baring, H. B. Baring, hon. W. B. Barnard, E. G. Barnehy, J. Barrington, Lord

Broadwood, H. Brodie, W. B. Bruce, Lord E. Bruges, W. H. L. Buller, E. Buller, Sir J. Y. Burr, H. Burrell, Sir C. Burroughes, H. Busfield, W. Byng, rt. hn. G. S. Calcraft, J. H. Callaghan, Danie Campbell, Sir J. Canning, Sir S. Cantilupe, Visct. Cartwright, W. R. Cavendish, hon. C. Cavendish, hn. G. H. Cayley, E. S. Chetwynd, Major Childers, J. W. Christopher, R. A. Chute, W. L. W.

123

Barry, G. S. Bell, M. Bellew, R. M. Benett, J. Bentinck, Lord G. Berkeley, hon. H. Berkeley, hon. C. Bernal, R. Bethell, R. Bewes, T. Blackburne, J. Blackett, C. Blackstone, W. S. Blair, J. Blake, W. J. 127 Crawford, W. Crawley, S. Cripps, J. Crompton, Sir S. Dalmeny, Lord Darby, George Dashwood, G. H. Davenport, J.

Clay, W. Clayton, Sir W. R. Clerk, Sir G. Clive, E. B. Clive, fion. R. H. Codrington, C. W. Cole hon. A. H. Colquhoun, J. C. Compton, H. C. Conolly, E. Copeland, Alderman Corry, hon. H. Courtenay, P. Cowper, hon. W.F. Craig, W. G.

Goring, H. D. Goulburn, H. Graham, Sir J. Granby, Marquess of Grattan, J. Greene, T. Grey, rt. hon. Sir C. Grey, Sir G.

124

Davies, Col. De Horsey, S. H. D'Israeli, B. Divett, E. Dottin, A. R. Douglas, Sir C. Douro, Marquess Dowdeswell, W. Duff, J. Duffield, T. Dugdale, W. S. Dunbar, G. Duncan, Visct.

Grimsditch, T. Grimston, Lord Grimston, hon. E. H. Guest, Sir J. Hale, R. B. Halford, H. Handley, H. Harcourt, G. S. Hardinge, Sir H. Harland W. C. Hastie, A. Hawkes, T. Hawkins, J. H.

Duncombe, hon. W. Hayter, W. G. Duncombe, hon. A. Dundas, hon. J. C. Dundas, F. Dundas, hon. T. East, J. B. Eastnor, Visct. Eaton, R. J. Ebrington, Visct. Edwards, Sir J. Egerton, W. T. Heathcote, J. Heathcote, G. J. Heneage, G. W. Henniker, Lord Herbert, hon. S. Herries, J. C. Hillsborough, Earl of Hinde J. H. Hobhouse, Sir J. Hobhouse, T. B.

125

Egerton, Sir P. Eliot, Lord Elliot, hon. J. E. Ellice, A. Ellice, rt. hon. E. Ellis, J. Erle, W. Estcourt, T. Estcourt, T. Evans, W. Farnham, E. B. Farrand, R. Feilden, W. Fector, J. M. Fellowes, E. Ferguson, Sir R. Ferguson, R. Filmer, Sir E. Fitzpatrick, J. W. Fitzsimon, N Fleetwood, Sir P. H. Fleming, J. Forester, hon. G. Fort, J.

Hodgson, R. Hodgson, F. Hogg, J. W. Hollond, R. Holmes, W. Hope, hon. C. Hope, H. T. Hope, G. W. Hotham, Lord Houstoun, G. Howard, F. J. Howard, P. H. Howard, Sir R. Howick, Lord Hughes, W. B. Humphery, J. Hurst, R. H. Hurt, F. Hutton, R. Ingestrie, Lord Ingham, R. Inglis, Sir R. H. Irton, S. Jackson, Sergeant

126

Fox, G. L. Fremantle, Sir T. French, F. Freshfield, J. W. Gaskell, Jas. Milnes Gibson, T. Gladstone, W. E. Glynne, Sir S. R. Gordon, R.

James, W. James, Sir W. C. Jenkins, Sir R. Johnstone, H. Jones, J. Jones, T. Kelly, F. Kemble, H. Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Gordon, hon. Captain Kirk, P. Gore, O. J. R. Gore, O. W. 128 Knightley, Sir C. Knox, hon. T. Lascelles, W. S. Law, hon. C. E. Lefevre, C. S. Lefroy, rt. hon. T. Lemon, Sir C. Lennox, Lord G. Lennox, Lord A. Leveson, Lord Liddell, hon. H. T. Parker, M. Parker, R. T. Parker, T. A. W. Parnell, Sir H. Parrott, J. Patten, J. W. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Peel, J. Pemberton, T. Pendarves, E. W. Perceval, Col. Knatchbull, Sir E. Knight, H. G.

127

Litton, E. Lockhart, A. M. Long, W.

Perceval, hon. G. Phillips, Sir R. Philips, M.

Lowther, hon. Col. Philips, G. Lowther, J. H. Lucas, E. Lygon, hon. Gen. Lynch, A. H. Mackenzie, T. Mackenzie, W. F. Mackinnon, W. Maclean, D. Macleod, R. Phillpotts, J. Pigot, R. Pinney, W. Planta, rt. hon. J. Plumptre, J. P. Polhill, F. Pollen, Sir J. W. Pollock, Sir F. Powell, Col.

Macnamara, Major Power, J. Mactaggart, J. Mahon, Lord Maidstoue, Visct. Powerscourt, Visct. Praed, W. M. Praed, W. T.

Manners, Lord C. S. Price, Sir R. Marshall, W. Marsland, H. Marton, G. Master, T. W. C. Maule, hon. F. Maule, W. Price, R. Pringle, A. Pryme, G. Pusey, P. Reid, Sir J. R. Rice, E. R.

128

Maunsell, T. P. Meynell, Capt. Mildmay, P. St. J. Miles, W. Miles, P. W. S. Miller, W. H. Milnes, R. M. Milton, Visct. Monypenny, T. G. Mordaunt, Sir J.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S. Rich, Henry Richards, R. Rickford, W. Rolfe, Sir R. M. Rolleston, L. Round, C. G. Round, J. Rushbrooke, Col. Rushout, G.

Moreton, hon. A. H. Russell, Lord J. Morgan, C. M. R. Morpeth, Lord Morris, D. Murray, A. Murray, J. A. Neeld, J. Neeld, Jos. Noel, W. M. Norreys, Sir D. Norreys, Lord O'Brien, W. S. O'Ferrall, R. M. Ord, W. Russell, Lord C. St. Paul, H. Sanderson, R. Sandon, Visct. Sanford, E. A. Scrope, G. P. Seale, Sir J. H. Seymour, Lord Shaw, F. Sheil, R. L. Sheppard, T. Shirley, E. J. Sinclair, Sir G.

129

Ossulston, Lord Owen, Sir J. Packe, C. W. Paget, Lord A. Palmer, C. F. Palmer, R. Palmer, G. Palmerston, Lord Parker, J. 129 Stanley, E. Stanley, Lord Stanley, W. O.

Smith, J. A. Smith, A. Smith, G. R. Smith, R. V. Smyth, Sir G. H. Somerset, Lord G. Speirs, A. Spencer, hon. F. Spry, Sir S. T.

Waddington, H. Walker, R. Wall, C. B.

Staunton, Sir G. T. Walsh, Sir J. Stewart, J. Stock, Dr. Stuart, V. Stormont, Visct. Welby, G. E. Westenra, hon. J. C. Whitmore, T. Wilbraham, G.

Strangways, hon. J. Wilbraham, hon. B. Strutt, E. Sturt, H. C. Sugden, Sir E. Wilde, Sergeant Wilkins, W. Williams, R.

Talfourd, Sergeant Williams, W. A. Teignmouth, Lord Wilmot, Sir J. E.

130

Tennent, J. E. Thomas, Col. H. Thomson, C. P.

Winnington, T. E. Winnington, H. J. Wodehouse, E.

Thompson, Alder. Wood, C. Thornill, G. Tollemache, F. Townly, R. G. Trench, Sir F. Wood, Col. T. Wood, G. W. Wood, T. Worsley, Lord

Troubridge, Sir E. T. Wrightson, W. B. Turner, E. Tyrell, Sir J. Vere, Sir C. B. Verner, Colonel Vernon, G. H. Villiers, Visct. Vivian, C. Vivian, J. H. Wyndham, W. Wynn, rt. hn. C. W. Yorke, hon. E. T. Young, J. Young, Sir W. TELLERS. Stanley, E. J. Steuart, R.

131

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1839/feb/11/treaty-with-Turkey

TREATY WITH TURKEY. HL Deb 11 February 1839

vol 45 cc204-5204 The Earl of Ripon

had, he said, in allusion to the sixth article of the Turkish treaty, to ask a question of his noble Friend. The treaty referred to the whole of the dominions of Turkey. He wished to know whether the British Government had had any understanding with the Pacha of Egypt as to carrying into effect his part of the treaty so far as related to the portion of territory under his controul. It was true, that the Pacha of Egypt was nominally the subject of the Porte, but for all practical purposes he was in the state and condition of an independent sovereign. Now, the whole of the policy, commercial and financial, of that eminent personage, was at direct variance with the stipulated treaty. The article provided, that monopolies should be put an end to in the Turkish dominions. Now, it was notorious, that that very extraordinary personage was a great monopolist of every staple article of the country; for instance of cotton. That article was not suffered to be disposed of to any individual merchant, but must be sold to the Pasha himself. It was, therefore, important to know whether any understanding had been entered into with that individual; because, 205 if the Pacha of Egypt did not choose to give up his system of monopoly, he might resist this treaty, and then they would be placed in this singular predicamenteither to give up the treaty, as it respected Egypt, or to call upon Turkey to coerce the Pacha: or if the Pacha should prove refractory, and they were not able to obtain redress from the Turkish government they themselves might be obliged to take measures to coerce him. It was, consequently, of great importance to the commercial interests of this country to know how that matter stood and to ascertain whether British merchants might proceed to Egypt for the purpose of carrying on trade in the manner indicated by the treaty.
Viscount Melbourne

said, that it was not at all extraordinary, that the matter should have struck his noble Friend in the manner that it had done, nor that he should have put the question which their Lordships had just heard. In answer to his noble Friend he had to state that the Pacha of Egypt had distinctly and directly stated to Colonel Campbell, the English Consul, that it was his intention to accede to the stipulations of the treaty, and to carry them into effect.

132

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1839/mar/11/capture-of-aden

CAPTURE OF ADEN. HL Deb 11 March 1839

vol 46 cc207-8207 Lord Lyndhurst

said that, within the last few days information had been received of the capture of Aden, a fortress on the south-west coast of Arabia, by a British force from Bombay; and that, in possessing themselves of it, a considerable slaughter of the natives had taken place. He believed that the Sultan of Aden had always been on friendly terms with the British Government; and, therefore, he begged to ask the noble Viscount whether the information to which he had alluded was true?
Viscount Melbourne

said, that the place to which the noble and learned Lord had referred was under the dominion of the Sultan of Aden. Some time ago an attack was made from Aden on one of Her Majesty's vessels. For that outrage satisfaction was demanded, and a full explanation was given. Afterwards a negotiation was set on foot between the East-India Company and the Sultan for the sale of the place. That negotiation was carried through, and the place was ceded; but when the force sent from Bombay for its occupation arrived the son of the Sultan said, "No; the Sultan has no authority to give up the place, and thus to compromise my rights." I must have something equiva- 208 lent for those rights." Under these circumstances the Government of Bombay thought they had a right to attack the fortress. He should have no objection to lay the papers connected with the affair on the Table.

133

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1839/mar/12/the-Sultan-and-mehemet-ali

THE SULTAN AND MEHEMET ALI. HL Deb 12 March 1839

vol 46 cc325-7325 Lord Brougham

wished to ask the noble Viscount a question relating to Egypt and the Porte. He understood, that some time ago representations were made by the British Government both to the Sultan of Turkey and to Mehemet Ali, who was nominally the Governor of Egypt under the Porte, but in reality the Sovereign of that great country, requesting them to cease pursuing that system of mutual aggression on one another, which, if persisted in, could have a tendency only to produce the most frightful effects on themselves, as well as of endangering the peace of the East. He understood, that Mehemet Ali had pursued that coursehad regularly complied with the requisition of the British Governmentand had since directed his whole attention to the internal administration of his kingdom, in which great improvements had been effected. But he was informed, that the Porte, so far from acting in the same amicable spirit, had been arming itself, and that no less than 25,000 troops, 10,000 of one class, and 15,000 of another, had been raised since the intercession of the British Government; that 10,000 quintals of gunpowder had been laid in; a fleet had been manned, on board of which were several English officers; and that very large preparations had been made for raising artillery, and, above all, field artillery, to disturb the peace of the Levant. One reason why he felt the greatest interest in the affairs of Egypt was thisthat whether it were to be continued nominally under the power of the Porte, and really to be an independent kingdom, or to be nominally as well as in reality an independent state under the dominion of Mehemet Ali, the great wisdom and great genius for affairs which had been shown by that monarchwhom he scrupled not to term the most distinguished of any individual upon any throne in the present timehad been such 326 as to attract the most perfect approval and admiration of all to whom his proceedings were known. Of those measures he would mention only two. First, he had founded a department of public instructionan example, he (Lord Brougham) could wish were followed by some other powers not far off. He had had the honour, as well as other noble Lords, of making the acquaintance of Mehemet Ali's Minister of Public Instruction, when he was lately upon a visit to this country, where he profited much by observing all our establishments for education; and, secondly, he had put down by an ordinance, which, with his accustomed vigour, he had carried into effect, the abominable slave-trade which had formerly disgraced the kingdom of Egypt, and which was commonly called garzouah, and known in our Eastern dominions by a name meaning, in both instances slave-hunting, and using the means of war for the purpose of hunting our fellow creatures like beasts of the chase. They were hunted, and taken down the Nile to be sold in the markets of the Levant. Mehemet Ali had, by a truly just and humane ordinance, at once put down that abominable crime and nuisance. He, (Lord Brougham) therefore, felt the greatest interest in all that concerned so great and humane a prince. He hoped, therefore, that the same measure of justice would be dealt out to the Sultan on the one hand, as to Mehemet Ali on the other. Mehemet Ali had complied with the terms required of him; but he was informed, that the Sultan had thought proper to adopt a contrary course, after gaining all the benefit of our interposition with the Sovereign of Egypt.
Viscount Melbourne

134

said, it had been the most anxious desire of her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the Allies of this country, to restrain each party from making any aggression upon the other, and to preserve, as far as it was in their power, a general peace in that quarter of the world. It was true, that both powers had acceded to the advice which had been given them, and he trusted, that the disposition to comply with it would continue. He thought, that the information which had reached the noble and learned Lord, that preparations were being made by the Sultan, was, if not totally unfounded, greatly exaggerated; nor did he believe, that the intentions suspected by the noble and learned Lord 327 were entertained by that Sovereign. But, whatever might be the case, the noble and learned Lord might be assured, that it would be the continued policy of her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with her Allies, to do the utmost in their power to restrain both parties from doing anything oppressive against each other, or to make attacks upon one another.
Lord Brougham

said, that nothing could be more satisfactory than the spirit in which the noble Viscount had answered his question. He was quite confident, that the mere statement which the noble Viscount had made would have an excellent effect at Constantinople; he was equally certain, that the expression of approbation of the conduct of Mehemet Ali would have the same good effect, in inducing that prince to persevere in his present wise and virtuous course of policy. He would now hand to the noble Viscount the information he had received.

135

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1839/mar/27/russia-and-Turkey

RUSSIA AND TURKEY. HC Deb 27 March 1839

vol 46 cc1228-301228

On the ques- 1229 tion that the Report of the Committee of Supply on navy estimates be received,
Sir E. Codrington

begged to avail himself of that opportunity to make some observations in reply to what had been stated the other night by the hon. Member for Birmingham, with reference to his conduct while commanding the Mediterranean squadron at the battle of Navarino. He was sorry now to be obliged to trespass on the attention of the House; but the hon. Member's motion not having been seconded, he was prevented at the time from making those remarks which, in justice to his own character and the position he had occupied, he thought it but fair to offer. The hon. Member stated, that he had on the occasion alluded to an order in his pocket to pass the Dardanelles; if he had possessed any such order, his conduct must have appeared very inconsistent; but he had no such authority, although certainly it would have been the means of avoiding many of the difficulties which had since occurred. The hon. Member had also made some observations on the conduct of Russia, which, knowing the facts of the case, he felt himself bound to contradict. It had been said, that the present state of affairs in the Mediterranean was mainly attributable to the Whigs; in his opinion, the Tories were more to blame than the Whigs, but both in fact were implicated. He had stated in the Mediterranean, and he repeated now, that if Mr. Canning had lived to carry out the view he originally took of the treaty of Akerman, no difficulty would have occurred, and Russia never would have gone to war with the Porte. It was the different view taken of that treaty by Mr. Canning's successor in officeit was the use of that fatal word "untoward," which gave rise to all the difficulty. That word "untoward" led Turkey to believe that the alliance was at an end, that France and England were of different opinions, and that Russia would be left to take her own course. The consequence was, the Turks, to insure the execution of the treaty of Akerman, forced Russia into a war, that led to her aggrandizement, for when she did go to war, of course she had a right to do the best for herself she could. When Turkey looked to England for assistance against Mehemet Ali, what was our situation? He was then in command of the squadron, and he would say thishad they had five more 1230 sail of the line, Mehemet Ali would have been stopped, and Turkey would not have been thrown into the arms of Russia. He deeply regretted, that from false economy the navy had been reduced to so low a state; at the same time he could not but think, that for the discussion which had lately taken place upon that subject, they were more indebted to the influence of party motives, than to any general desire to promote the efficiency of the service.
Sir R. Peel

said, that as the gallant officer had thought it necessary to introduce this subject, he might also take occasion to observe, that in the speech by which the hon. Member for Birmingham prefaced his unseconded motion, not a few hard words had been applied to him; but even if that motion had been seconded, he did not know that he should have felt called on to give any reply. There was throughout an utter oblivion of dates, a total confusion and misstatement of facts. He was charged, for instance, with being a party reponsible for the proceedings of a
136

Government with which he had not acted; so that if he had been called on, he really did not know how he should have been able to reply to such a speech. In fact, the only construction he could put on it was, not that any real alarm existed, even in the mind of the hon. Gentleman, with respect to the state of our national defence, but that so great was his attachment to irredeemable paper, so urgent his anxiety for an issue of one pound notes, that he was perfectly ready to risk all the consequences of any war, however detrimental to the interests of the country, provided only it might lead to the adoption of his favourite monetary panacea.

137

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1839/apr/25/Turkey-and-egypt

TURKEY AND EGYPT. HL Deb 25 April 1839

vol 47 cc509-10509 Lord Brougham

had been very much gratified on a former occasion at the answer which he had received from the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government, when he made an inquiry as to the course which Ministers meant to pursue with respect to any dispute that might arise between the Grand Seignor and Mehemet Ali, the Pasha of Egypt. He had been then informed that the strictest neutrality would be observed between the two parties. Now, it was highly desirable that this intention should be carried fully into effect, and that the rule thus laid down with respect to Egyptian affairs should be strictly adhered to, that rule being, that no encouragement or assistance should be given to either party, but that a decided neutrality should be kept up with respect to both. Circumstances had occurred, however, which, to the untutored mind, 510 as it was termed, of the Pasha, might appear to warrant the conclusion, or might lead him to supposethat the British Government had a leaning more to one side than to the other. He alluded to five sail-of-the-line having been sent out to cruise in his neighbourhood, and also to the fact that a number of British officers had gone out to Turkey, and had enlisted in the service of the Grand Seignor. This certainly might be considered as looking something like a leaning more to one side than the other, as, in fact, a departure from strict neutrality, and he should be glad to have some explanation on the subject.
Viscount Melbourne

said, there was not the smallest alteration in the policy of her Majesty's Government with reference to this question. True it was, that some officers had gone out for the purpose of improving the Turkish navy, but, owing to some misunderstanding, they had not yet entered the Sultan's service, but remained unemployed at Constantinople. This country still continued completely neutral, and nothing whatsoever had been done in contradiction to the line of policy which he had declared on a former occasion. The policy of Government still remained precisely the same, and he was happy to say that they had received from all their allies the most distinct and explicit declarations that they meant to adhere to the same neutral course of policy, and that they would use all the means in their power to prevent hostilities taking place between these two parties. He thought it right to state, that her Majesty's representative at the Turkish Court had received the most distinct and positive instructions to use his best efforts, in conjunction with the representatives of other Powers, to preserve peace in that part of the world.
Lord Brougham

rejoiced that he had afforded the noble Viscount an opportunity to make so satisfactory a statement.

138

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1839/may/28/Turkey-and-egypt

TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 28 May 1839

vol 47 c10671067 Mr. Hume

wished to ask the noble Lord, in the absence of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Government had received any information of the Turkish army having crossed the Euphrates? He also wished to ask, whether the statement was true, that the Russians had demanded from Mehemet Ali that he should retire altogether from Syria?
Lord J. Russell

said, in answer to the first question of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he begged to state that the Government had received no intimation of the Turkish army having crossed the Euphrates. The latest intelligence which the Government had received was from the British Consul at Damascus, who had informed the Government of the advance of the Turkish army to the eastern bank of the Euphrates, but there was no information of that army having crossed over to the western bank. The Consul had also stated, that the forces of Mehemet Ali were concentrating in the same quarter. He must say, also, that there was nothing in the accounts. received by the Government to show that war had commenced, or that the efforts which had been made by the great European Powers to prevent hostilities between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali, would not be attended with ultimate success. With regard to the second question which had been put to him, he had to state, that the Government had received no intimation of any such demand as that to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, as having been made to Mehemet Ali on the part of the Russian Government; and he did not believe that any such demand had been made.

139

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1839/jul/09/the-east

THE EAST. HC Deb 09 July 1839

vol 49 cc80-280 Mr. Milnes

wished to put a question to the noble Lord on a 81 subject of great importancethe war between the Sultan and the Pasha of Egypt. As hostilities had commenced, he would ask the noble Lord whether he were aware of the negotiations said to have been begun between Marshal Soult and the Pasha of Egypt for the purpose of putting a stop to the war, and that a charg d'affaires had been sent out to say, that if the Pasha would only cease hostilities, the Five Powers would arrange affairs? Was it true, that in consequence of that message, the Pasha had addressed a letter to his son, who was in command of the army, desiring him to await the arrangement of affairs by the Five great Powers? And, if so, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether this was the isolated act of Marshal Soult, or whether the noble Lord was cognizant and approved of it? He was the more anxious to put this question, because it had been the subject of discussion in the French senate.
Viscount Palmerston

had great satisfaction in answering, that the English and French Governments perfectly understood each other, and were acting in concert with regard to these important matters. The French Government had signified their intention to send one officer to Alexandria, and another to Constantinople, for the purpose of endeavouring to effect a suspension of hostilities; and not only Great Britain and France, but also Russia, Prussia, and Austria, had all evinced a strong and sincere desire to bring about some arrangement, by which Europe might avoid the present danger with which she was threatened by the hostilities between Turkey and Egypt.
Mr. Milnes

had another question to ask with regard to the state of our relations with Persia. He understood that our ambassador had withdrawn from the Persian court, and he begged to know whether the noble Lord was aware of any satisfaction having been given on that question.
Viscount Palmerston

could only answer that the Persian ambassador was told at Constantinople, Vienna, and Paris, that be could not be received in this country, until the government of Persia had given the satisfaction which had been asked for. The Persian ambassador, considering, however, that he might facilitate the business by going forward to London, had arrived here; but as the ambassador had not shown that satisfaction had been 82 given, he had not felt it to be consistent with his duty to receive him officially.

140

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1839/aug/22/Turkey-and-egypt

TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 22 August 1839

vol 50 cc489-90489 Mr. Hume

begged to inquire of the noble Lord whether the statements were true, that arrangements had been entered into by the five great European Powers upon a basis calculated to preserve the peace of the East?
490 Viscount Palmerston

was glad that the hon. Member had put the question, because it afforded him the opportunity of making a statement which he felt assured would be satisfactory to the House. On the 28th of last month a note was presented to the ministers of the Porte, signed by the representatives of the five Powers, technically called a "collective note," which note said that they (the representatives) were instructed by their several governments to inform the Porte that the five Powers were agreed generally as to the affairs now pending between Turkey and Egypt; and that they were instructed to request the the Porte to suspend any negociations with Mehemet Ali, and not to proceed therein without the knowledge and concurrence of the five Powers. That note was received by the government of the Porte with great thankfulness; therefore, the House might rest assured, that nothing would be done to lead to a disturbance of the peace of the East, unless some new subject should arise, of which at present there was no prospect whatever.

141

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1840/feb/25/commerce-with-Turkey

COMMERCE WITH TURKEY. HC Deb 25 February 1840

vol 52 cc611-2611 Mr. Hume

said, that the House would recollect that during the last Session there had been laid on the Table a copy of a treaty of commerce with the Sultan. No one could be more anxious than he was for the increase of our commercial connectionevery new market that was opened improved the prosperity of the countrybut this treaty, he understood, when applied to the provinces which had formerly constituted part of the Ottoman empire, was more likely to impede commerce than to forward it. Before that treaty, British goods exported to, or imported from Turkey, were liable to a duty of three per cent. In Turkey Proper there were various abuses and monopolies, and certain internal duties were, in consequence, imposed, amounting in some instances to 30 per cent, These were, by this treaty, done away with, and a fixed duty of nine per cent, imposed, making 12 percent., the outside charge that could be levied on British merchandise. This, which was a benefit on Turkey Proper, was otherwise in Syria, Egypt, and other parts where these abuses did not previously exist, inasmuch as England by acceding to the treaty, was liable to a duty of 12 per cent, while Russia which had refused to accede to it, was subject only to a duty of 3 per cent. His object in bringing forward this motion was to ascertain from the noble Lord what was the actual state of the case. France, Austria, and Sweden, had agreed to this Convention, but Russia bad not; and England could not be considered upon the same footing as the most favoured nations, while Russian subjects paid a duty of three per cent., and British subjects paid one of 12 per cent. He would conclude by moving for copies of any correspondence with the Foreign Office, or the British authority in the Levant, as to the continuance of monopolies agreed to be abolished by the Treaty of Commerce with the Porte; and of any representations made as to the increased duties levied by the said Treaty of Commerce in the provinces of the Danube, 612 or in Egypt and Syria. A comparative statement or return of the rate of duties levied in the Turkish empire, on articles exported and imported by British and Russian subjects, under the new treaty, and under the old one. Return of the rate of duties levied on imports from, and of exports to, Great Britain in Turkey Proper, and in the Turkish provinces of the Danube, and in Syria and Egypt, previously to, and since the late Treaty of Commerce with the Porte.
Viscount Palmerston

said, that it was not his intention to object to the production of the papers that had been called for. At the same time he begged to say in explanation, that there might be some difficulty in furnishing all the information that had been required. The treaty had led to great changes in the commerce of Turkey, and it might be difficult to furnish the amount of the duties levied under it as compared to former times. There had been different degrees of advantages produced by it to the different provinces of Turkey, and some doubts might arise as to whether it would be for the benefit of Turkey or of British commerce that the treaty should apply to the provinces of the Danube. It was quite clear, however, that if it should not be found advantageous to either, there could be no difficulty on either side in not applying it in those parts. The treaty would effect a great change in the trade of Turkey, and some time must elapse before it could be brought fully into operation. That time had not yet come, but as soon as it should arrive he would give the House all the information he should possess on the subject.Motion agreed to.
142

143

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1840/mar/27/Turkey-and-egypt

TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 27 March 1840

vol 53 cc180-219180 Mr. Hume

rose to move, pursuant to his notice An Address to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to lay before this House such parts of the correspondence between Lord Ponsonby, the British Minister at Constantinople, and Lord Viscount Palmerston, Her Majesty's Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as relate to the negotiations in the years 1839 and 1840, between the Sultan of the Sublime Porte and Mehemet Ali, for the hereditary possession of Egypt and other provinces claimed by Mehemet Ali, and for the settlement of peace between him and the Sultan; and for the delivery by Mehemet Ali of the Turkish fleet to the Sultan. The hon. Member said, the papers already laid before the House by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Affairs, were very deficient in information, and he had hoped, that, after what had passed in July last, the noble Lord would have, before this time, given the House the fullest explanation on the state of affairs in the east of Europe. It was announced in her Majesty's speech from the throne, on opening the present Session on the 16th of January last, that The affairs of the Levant have continued to occupy my most anxious attention. The 182 concord which has prevailed amongst the Five Powers has prevented a renewal of hostilities in that quarter; and I hope that the same unanimity will brine: those important and difficult matters to a final settlement in such a manner as to uphold the integrity and independence of the Ottoman empire, and to give additional security to the peace of Europe. Now, he (Mr. Hume) wished the House to have from the noble Lord some explanation of the nature of that concord, which was stated in the speech from the throne, to exist between these Five Powers. He believed, as far as he could learn, that out of these transactions instead of concord, the greatest discord had grown up, and he was sorry to find that, as regarded France in particular, the policy and conduct of the noble Lord had produced so great indifference of opinion, as to risk the good feeling and cordial co-operation which before had existed, and which it was so highly desirable should continue to exist between that country and ourselves on all questions affecting the peace of Europe. If it were true, as stated in her Majesty's speech, that the utmost concord and unanimity existed between the Five Powers, how did it happen that the question of peace or war between Turkey and Egypt, after a lapse of eight months, still remained unsettled? Independent of other disadvantages arising to the trade of this country, and to that of the Ottoman Empire, from the present unsettled state of things, the expense of maintaining our large naval armament in the Mediterranean had already cost this country an annual amount of upwards of half a million sterling. He did not think the Government, in the present state of financial difficulty, had acted fairly and candidly in the information they had given the House in her Majesty's Speech upon this subject. The whole proceedings of these Five Great Powers were involved in a mystery which required to be speedily explained. As the matter at present was understood, he must say, that the noble Lord had departed from the course of policy he formerly pretended to follow:instead of promoting peace between the Sultan and Mohamed Ali, and thereby supporting the integrity of the Ottoman empire, he had been the chief cause of increasing discord when peace was about to be concluded; and of keeping up hostilities, and all those evils which invariably resulted to every country from a state of civil war. For his own part, he (Mr. Hume) believed, and should be able to prove to the House, if the correspondence he asked for was pro- 183 duced, that, had it not been for the improper interference of Great Britain; and of the other four powers with the Divan at Constantinople, peace would have been established between
144

Turkey and Egypt eight months ago. The erroneous policy of the noble Lord had, in fact, put the people of England to an annual expense of between 500,000l. and 600,000l.; and, at the same time had kept the Turkish empire in a state of civil war. This required to be explained and he asked for the information. It was not his purpose at this time to discuss the character of Mohamed Ali; but this, at least, he might observe, that Egypt and Syria and Arabia were now much better governed under him than they had been for many years before. The noble Lord judging from his conduct, seemed to be quite ignorant of what the condition of those countries was in former times as compared with their present state: but he (Mr. Hume) could speak of it from his own knowledge, having been a traveller in several parts of Turkey and Egypt thirty years ago, and experienced how dangerous it was, at that time, to travel without a strong military escort: but now since these provinces had been some years under the government of Mohamed Ali, the European traveller could move from one extremity of that country to the other without personal danger or pecuniary extortion. It was said by the noble Lord and the other four powers that the integrity of the Ottoman empire must be maintained; and he (Mr. Hume) was anxious that such should be the case: but when he looked back to the proceedings of four of these five powers, against the Turkish empire, there were good grounds to doubt their sincerity. He found that Austria now held many districts formerly Turkish; and that England had separated Greece, and lately taken Aden from Turkey: that France had seized Algiers; and that Russia had been a spoliator on a grand scale, and he was, therefore, desirous to have the word integrity defined by the noble Lord. But let the House consider for one moment, who the parties were who thus united and acted with such concord to preserve its integrity? Russia was one of them; but surely France, England, and Austria were more interested in securing that object; and yet the noble Lord appeared, in all the negotiations, to lend himself to the policy of Russia. He would ask, could any man, knowing her general conduct, say that the object, the real desire of Russia, was to preserve the 184 integrity of the Turkish empire? For many years past, had not the undeviating policy of Russia been to encroach upon the provinces of her weaker neighbours; and, year after year, to proceed on a general system of aggression,the ultimate object of which was to render the dismemberment of Turkey as complete as that of Poland? Was the House aware of the spoliations of that power from her neighbours? He would state some of them. At the death of Catherine in 1796, the population of the Russian empire was about 36,000,000; at the death of Alexander it was 58,000,000. The acquisition of territory by Russia from Sweden, was greater than what remains of that kingdom. The spoliations of Poland are nearly equal to the whole of the Austrian empire; and the acquisitions from Turkey in Europe are of greater extent than the Prussian dominions, exclusive of the Rhemish provinces; her acquisitions from Turkey in Asia are nearly equal in dimensions to the whole of the smaller states of Germany: the spoliations from Persia are equal in extent to England whilst her acquisitions in Tartary have an area, not less than that of Turkey in Europe, of Greece, Italy and Spain. In fact, Russia has, within sixty-four years, doubled the size and population of the whole empire. She has advanced her frontier 700 miles towards Berlin, Venice, and Paris500 miles towards Constantinople630 towards Stockholm, and 1,000 towards the capital of Persia; and yet the noble Lord, with these facts staring him in the face, had chosen to make himself the ally of Russia; had submitted to become, apparently, the subservient tool of the crafty statesmen of that country; and his present policy seemed very materially to hasten the dismemberment of an empire which he professed his anxiety to preserve entire, as completely as if he had been one of the council of that Autocrat. He should be glad to hear from the noble Lord upon what grounds he risked the abandonment of the French alliance by joining in preference his policy with that of Russia. He should be glad, also, to know upon what ground or pretence it was that Mohamed Ali was now to be stripped of the hereditary government of Egypt, and of the possession of Syria, which was understood to have been guaranteed to him in 1833 by Mr.
145

Mandeville, the representative of the British Government, after the defeat of the Sultan's troops at Koniah. From the papers laid before this House last year, it was quite evident 185 that the representatives of the British Government used their influence to settle peace with Mohamed Ali in that year; and that they in reality, afterwards, also guaranteed all the possessions which the Sultan had given to him. If there was no specific treaty for that object to which Great Britain became a signing party, there was a printed correspondence between Mohamed Ali and the five powers which he had in his hands, which ought to preclude * the noble Lord from denying, that a clear and decided sanction was given by Great Britain to the treaty between the Porte and the Pacha, if it was not a guarantee in strictly diplomatic language. The noble Lord had admitted that there was a convention at Kutaya; but he had, at the same time, denied that England was a party to it. He was sorry to differ from the noble Lord, being quite confident, if the correspondence of Lord Ponsonby was produced, that the proof of that guarantee would appear to the House to be complete.On the 29th March, 1833, Mr. Mandeville writes, from Constantinople, to Ibrahim Pacha, that as the Baron de Varenne had been commissioned by the French ambassador to proceed to Ibrahim's camp with the Sultan's messenger to aid him in settling peace, "to inform him that the Sultan had conceded to Mohamed Ali, in addition to Egypt which he held, the government of the whole of Syria, with the towns of Aleppo and Damascus." And, in the name of the British Government, Mr. Mandeville requests him to accept the terms and to agree to peace. And, again, on the 4th of May, Mr. Mandeville informs Lord Palmerston, that the Sultan had conceded the administration of the Pashalic of Adana to Ibrahim, in addition to the government of Syria, which completed the requests of Mohamed Ali. I also hold in my hand the annual official list published by the Sultan, on the 15th April in that year, of the governors of the several provinces of the Turkish Empire, and in that list Egypt, Aleppo, Damascus, Safad and Beyrout, Tripoli in Syria, Crete with the military command of the fortress of Candia, and also Jerusalem, are all entered in the name of Mohamed Ali; and Abyssinia is given to Ibrahim Pasha. On these conditions being agreed to and settled, Ibrahim Pasha informed Monsieur de Varenne, in answer to a question, whether he had any answer to the letter which he * See Parliamentary paper, 1833.186 had brought from Mr. Mandeville, that his retreat from Kutaya with his army was the best answer to the English Minister's letter, requesting him to agree to the conditions of which Monsieur de Varenne was the bearer. He held in his hand Admiral Roussin's letter to Mohamed Ali, afterwards stating these facts in a manner not to be misunderstood. The Sultan had in 1833 refused, for some time, to grant Adana to Mohamed Ali, and it is also well known, that when Orloff the Russian ambassador heard that the Sultan had conceded the Pashalic of Adana, by which peace was concluded with the Pasha, he exerted all his influence with the Sultan to have that grant recalled: but, it is equally well known that Lord Ponsonby's interference prevented the Sultan from doing so; and thus gave the sanction of the British Government to these concessions to Mohamed Ali: and the noble Lord must know from the correspondence at that time and now in his office, that what I state is correct; and that Lord Ponsonby claimed and deserved from his Lordship joint credit for that part of his conduct. After these proceedings, on which Mohamed Ali placed perfect confidence, and by which the British Government was bound, why should it now refuse its sanction a second time? He should also be glad to know why, in the interval between 1833 and 1838, if we were really desirous to see peace in Turkey, the conduct of the British Government, and of her ambassador at Constantinople, had been such as to promote rather than allay the animosity and disposition to hostilities that remained on the part of the Sultan towards Mohamed Ali. It is generally stated that our ambassador at Constantinople, instead of exerting himself to lessen the unpleasant differences that existed between the Porte and the Pacha of Egypt, had acted in such a manner as, in the opinion of many well-informed persons, was calculated to bring on open hostilities; and Lord Ponsonby was considered to
146

have been, by his personal hostility to the Pacha, the cause of that state of affairs which brought on the defeat of the Sultan's troops at Nezib, on the 25th of June 1839; and which had produced the present disastrous state of things in the East. Acting, as is believed, mainly upon the advice of the British ambassador, the Sultan had become the aggressorhad, contrary to the existing Convention of 1833, passed beyond the bounds of his own frontier, and invaded the territory of Mohamed Ali. If the corre- 187 spondence he now called for were produced, he (Mr. Hume) could satisfy the House from documents, extracts of which he held in his hand, that whilst Mohamed Ali was absent in Soudon from Nov. 1838 to March 1839, the Sultan sent a large army into Asia Minor, under the command of Hafiz Pacha, who, in April 1839, passed the Euphrates at Beer with his army; whilst. Ibrahim Pacha did not advance his army until that event: that on the 28th of May, Hafiz Pacha took possession of fourteen villages in the province of Aintab, belonging to Mohamed Ali, urging the inhabitants to take arms against the Pacha, and thus commenced hostilities, which terminated so disastrously for the Sultan's troops. It would also clearly appear that the English minister had urged on and excited the animosity of the Sultan against the Pacha, until, at length, the lamentable catastrophe he has stated took place. He (Mr. Hume) regretted to say, that Lord Ponsonby appeared to have been acting really in accordance with the policy of Russia, which was well known to be hostile to, and against the integrity of the Turkish empire, which we had been avowedly anxious to maintain: and for which we had kept up a large and costly naval armament. In short, what he (Mr. Hume) complained of was, that the Government of this country had all along been, by their erroneous policy, keeping up a state of civil war between the Sultan and the Pacha, and lending itself, most injuriously for the Ottoman empire, to the policy of Russia. It was reported in Constantinople within the last month, that a stipulation had been lately entered into in England between M. Brunow and the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) that Russia should advance 30 or 40,000 troops into Asia Minor, and that England should send a powerful fleet to Alexandria, for the purpose of coercing Mohamed Ali to submit to the stipulations proposed by England; but as he (Mr. Hume) feared, only to produce a second "untoward event" as at Navarino. This line of conduct was in strict accordance with the policy of Russia, which, acting on a spirit of aggression, desired, beyond everything else, to obtain a footing, by fair means or foul upon the soil of Turkey; and nothing could favour the ultimate views of Russia so effectually as the keeping the Sultan and Mohamed Ali in a state of civil war, in which both their resources of men and money would, as they had been, be completely exhausted, when that country must fall, without a struggle, into 188 the power of Russia. How could the noble Lord blind himself to the real designs of a power which, for the last fifty years, had been unceasingly engaged in extending its own territory at the cost of its weaker neighbours? Yet the noble Lord, abandoning the alliance and friendly co-operation of France, which was valuable in so many respects, chose to unite himself with Russia, the whole of whose policy ran counter to the interests of this country, and of the representative governments of Europe. France had been charged with duplicity in her conduct towards the other four Powers and towards the Porte; but as far as he (Mr. Hume) could learn from the documents published in France and in Egypt, the charge was wholly without foundation. France was sincerely anxious to maintain the integrity of Turkey, and had taken the best means of securing it, by exerting her influence with the Sultan in 18389 to prevent his attacking Mohamed Ali, as can clearly be proved; and, then after the defeat of the Sultan's army, France had acted the friendly part, by preventing the destruction of the fleet at Alexandria, which might have been the case, but for the firmness of France in resisting the policy and the orders of the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston). He believed that the noble Viscount, instead of exerting the British influence to diminish the personal hostility that had unfortunately existed for some years past between the Porte and Egypt, had materially aggravated it: and his (Mr. Hume's) principal complaint against the noble Lord was this that
147

after in 1833, having recommended peace, he had interfered to prevent the mutual adjustment of differences between the young Sultan and Mohamed Ali, which would certainly have taken place after the battle of Nezib, if the five powers of Europe had not interfered in a most extraordinary manner to prevent it. It is now notorious, that amongst the first acts of the young Sultan was a proposition sent to Egypt of peace and friendship between himself and Mohamed Ali, to which the latter willingly assented. Mohamed Ali agreed to continue the vassal of the Sultan provided he was secured in the hereditary possession of Egypt, and Syria, provinces which he had held before the battle of Nezib; and he agreed also to pay a greater amount of tribute for those districts than had ever before been paid by any former Pacha when nominally subject to the Porte. Could it be 189 expected that Mohamed AH after the second victory at Nezib, would relinquish the provinces he had had granted to him after the first battle of Koniah? The Divan acceded to these propositions, and an officer was appointed to proceed from Constantinople on the 29th of July in a steamer to Alexandria to settle a treaty; and in a few days peace would have been restored between the Sultan and the Pacha. But, unhappily, on the 27th of July, a note was presented to the Divan by the representatives of the five great European powers, stating that the Sultan and the Pacha must not presume to settle their own affairs, but that the adjustment of the terms, upon which peace was to be reestablished, must be left to the five great powers. He had, in his hand, a letter from a public functionary at Constantinople, which explained what followed the delivery of the note on the 27th of July. The Divan objected to the interference of Christian powers in the affairs of the Porte with her vassal; but as the representatives of the European Governments had interfered and insisted that no peace should be agreed to with Mohamed Ali, except through their mediation, the Divan had very reluctantly stopped their messenger to, and the negotiation with, the Pasha. What was the result? Why, that, from that moment, up to the present time, a period of eight months, everything had remained in the same state. Both parties had been thus kept in a state of suspended war, with all the expenses and great uncertainty arising from that state of affairsnothing had been done. Under these circumstances, it became a matter of great importance to this House to know what the policy of the Five Powers really was, in which they were in concord and unanimity; and when it was probable that a state of things which entailed so much expense upon England, and imposed so many difficulties upon Turkey and Egypt, was likely to terminate. What hopes could the noble Lord have of making any impression on Egypt by force? Mohamed Ali was thus forced most unwillingly, as he (Mr. Hume) believed, to look to an alliance with France, and to protection from that country; and consequently, of becoming an enemy to this country;events necessarily to arise from the mistaken policy pursued towards Mohamed Ali by the noble Lord. He was told, indeed, that there was no dependence to be placed on the declarations of, or on any treaty with, 190 Mohamed Ali. Now, for his part, from all experience of the past, he knew of nothing that secured the good faith of one state on another, but that which States considered to be for their mutual interest. Did history ever show any country that felt more for the interests of other states than for its own? Upon this principle they must judge of, and depend upon, Mohamed Ali. He (Mr. Hume) would ask the House to consider what was it his obvious interest to do? Looking at the situation of Syria, Arabia, and of Egypt, it must at once be seen that it was most essential to the interests of Mohamed Ali to have a friendly alliance with England. Looking to the interests of Great Britain in India, as well as in Europe, was it not equally our interest to be in friendly alliance with Mohamed Ali? Instead, therefore, of regarding him with suspicion, he ought to be considered as having a strong interest to be the friend of England, and the faithful vassal, as he was disposed to be, of the Sultan: and, there was every reason to believe, if the treaty between him and the Sultan were guaranteed by England and France, which the Pasha only required to be certain of not being attacked again, in a similar manner to the attack upon him of last year, that Mohamed Ali would observe the stipulated terms. He
148

(Mr. Hume) should be glad to know whether the course which England was now taking to irritate and oppose the Pasha was not calculated to throw him and Egypt into the hands of France? France had evinced a sincere desire to co-oporate with England and to be the friend of Mohamed Ali. She had indeed been his friend, and had declared that England should not burn the Egyptian fleet, nor attack Mohamed Ali, as report states to have been the intention of the noble Lord. France had very wisely prevented this additional calamity to the Ottoman empire, as she was fully justified in doing, in the view she took of strengthening the Ottoman empire by uniting all Mussulmen. Was it, he would ask, a wise or a just policy, that British means should be applied to keep up the civil war with all its evils, which existed between Turkey and Egypt? It was said that Mohamed Ali was treacherous, and had been especially so in the case of the Turkish fleet. Now, in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, formed on documents believed to be correct and published to Europe, Mohamed Ali knew no more of the treachery of the Turkish fleet or of the intention of its going to Alexandria than 191 he or any other person in the House did until the determination had been come to by the admiral and officers commanding. The fleet was lying at the Dardanelles when the account of the death of the Sultan was received. Thereupon the chief officers of the fleet met and determined to communicate with and to proceed to Mohamed Ali, as they could not go back to Constantinople, where they feared there was treachery; that they would not, in fact, trust the fleet into the hands of those who were believed to be in alliance with, and favoured the interests of Russia. A council, consisting of five of the leading officers of the fleet, are reported to have come to the determination that the only way to save the fleet for the future protection of Turkey, was to go down and deliver it over to Mohamed Ali, the man to whom the Ottomans look as the future saviour of their empire. That course they considered was the only one by which they would be able to assist the new Sultan to regain that power which the Turkish Empire ought to possess. After the council had so resolved, a steamer was despatched to Alexandria to announce the determination of the officers, and the approach of the fleet and that it is well known was the first notice which Mohamed Ali had of the disaffection of the fleet! But what had Mohamed Ali since done? He had offered to restore the fleet, and to proceed himself in a steamer and do homage to the Sultan at Constantinople, provided he could obtain the settlement of the hereditary possession of Egypt and Syria in his family as was requested by him, and the guarantee of Great Britain and France thereto. For the statements he had ventured to make, he had the authority of public and private documents, which he held in his hand, and his object in now moving for the production of the official documents was, that hon. Members might be able to ascertain how far those statements were correct, and how far the policy of England towards Egypt and Turkey was wise. If the statements made by him were correct, as he (Mr. Hume) believed them to be, then there was great culpability attached to the noble Lord, or to the agents of the British Government in the whole of this affairthere was a courting of Russia and a support of her well-known policy in all our proceedings that was not creditable to this country. Before he sat down, he again called upon the noble Lord seriously to consider what were the probable consequences to be ex- 192 pected to follow from his present hostile policy towards Egypt. What was the situation of English interests in Egypt and in the Red Sea. There England had recently taken possession of the fort of Aden. Now, if Mohamed Ali should become the enemy of this country, and be allied with France, he might take Aden from England, and interfere very prejudiciously with the communications with India, with Persia, and Afghanistan. How, he asked, would it be possible that the fort of Aden could be retained, if we made Mohamed Ali our enemy, unless at an expense to this country, too great to be justified? On the whole, there appeared to him to be a natural alliance between France, England, and Egypt, which it would be equally the interest of all three countries to cultivate. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving an address to her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to lay before this House such parts
149

of the correspondence between Lord Ponsonby, the British minister at Constantinople, and Lord Viscount Palmerston, her Majesty's Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as relate to the negotiations in the years 1839 and 1840, between the Sultan of the Sublime Porte and Mehemet Ali, for the hereditary possession of Egypt and other provinces claimed by Mehemet Ali, and for the settlement of peace between him and the Sultan; and for the delivery by Mehemet Ali of the Turkish fleet to the Sultan.
Viscount Palmerston

felt, in the first place, persuaded that his hon. Friend and the House could not suppose that it was possible for him to agree to the motion for the production of these papers, because, if there was any one point more settled than another in the practice of that House, it was, not to call for papers of this kind pending the negotiations to which those papers related. For the same reason, he also presumed that the House would not expect that he should follow his hon. Friend through the long disquisition into which he had entered, with respect to the policy of this country and the other powers of Europe, with regard to the question to which his observations related. His hon. Friend had stated, that he entertained the opinions he had expressed honestly, and from a sincere conviction that they were for the good and the interest of this country. He was the last man in the world to dispute that fact, though most certainly he thought his hon. Friend was entirely mistaken in his views, and was altogether misled in the greater part of the information he had received, 193 while he was sure that his hon. Friend was mistaken in many of his facts. He was also convinced that if his hon. Friend could see things as they were, and if he were in possession of all the various information which was to be obtained upon the subject, his opinions would be entirely different. With regard to the paragraph in the Queen's Speech, that, he thought, required no explanation whatever. It was in that paragraph stated, that the concord of the five great powers had maintained the peace of Europe with regard to the affairs of the East, and it expressed a hope that the same concord would bring those difficult negotiations to a satisfactory and peaceful issue. But his hon. Friend had stated one or two matters which he could not pass without observation. He had again stated that after the battle of Koniah, a convention took place between Ibrahim Pacha and Khosrew Pacha, in which the British representative guaranteed the cession of Syria to Mehemet Ali. No convention was made at Koniah between the two parties, neither was any guarantee given by the British Government on that occasion; but there was a negotiation, which ended, not in the cession of any part of Turkey to Mehemet Ali, but in the appointment of his son Ibrahim to the government of certain provinces in that country. But England was no guarantee to that transaction. His hon. Friend, indeed, seemed to hare no objection to using the word guarantee, nor did he object to the British Government becoming a guarantee; but he had asserted that England had given a guarantee where she had not, while he wanted her to become a guarantee, but on the other side of the question. His hon. Friend thought that the British Government and Lord Ponsonby, the British Ambassador at Constantinople, had stimulated the Sultan to renew hostilities against the Pacha of Egypt. He (Lord Palmerston) could assure him that he was entirely mistaken. In the first place, it was the Pacha who was the aggressor, and not the Sultan, inasmuch as it was the Pacha who, in the first instance, publicly declared his determination to throw off his allegiance, and make himself the independent sovereign of the provinces over which he was appointed to govern. In the next place, the Pacha of Egypt was the first who last year sent an army into Syria, and the battle which was fought between the two parties was fought at Nezib, beyond the limits of the territory of which the Pacha was governor, which 194 limits ended near the river Sadjour. The force under Ibrahim Pacha was the attacking party; the soldiers of the Sultan having at that moment been ordered to stand upon the defensive, and retire if they were attacked. Therefore,
150

the Sultan was the attacked instead of being the attacking party. His hon. Friend had said, that if Russia could have had a person who was exclusively devoted to her interests in the British cabinet, he could not have served her more sincerely than he (Viscount Palmerston) had unconsciously done; that he had been labouring to destroy the Turkish empire, and put an end to its integrity, and subject such portion of it as would remain under the nominal sway of the Sultan entirely to the views of Russia. Now, he was bound to say, in justice and in candour, that it was impossible for any government to have acted with more honour and good faith in any matter than the Russian government had acted with the other powers in respect to Turkey. He was bound to say this, from a thorough knowledge of all the facts of the case. They could only judge of the intention from the conduct; and, speaking of Russia at the present time he must say that it was not just to impute to that power that her present conduct had any tendency whatever inimical to the integrity of the Turkish Empire. But if Russia really did entertain any such views, it appeared to him that the course which his hon. Friend had taken was the readiest course to further that policy; because the policy which he would pursue led immediately to the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire, and would lay all that remained to the Sultan, prostrate at the foot of Russia, or any other power that might wish to overcome him. With the best intentions, his hon. Friend would pursue a course that, if adopted, must inevitably end in a manner the most opposite to his wishes. What would any man say, supposing he were to argue that the best way for maintaining the integrity of the British Empire would be to make the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland a separate hereditary sovereign over Ireland and Scotland; and then were to tell the House that by that means they would more firmly unite the population of the British islands: and that the best friends of the British Empire therefore could do nothing better to maintain the integrity of Great Britain than to divide it between two independent sovereigns? And yet that was the policy which his hon. Friend wished to pursue. His hon. Friend had stated that 195 in former days, when he happened to be in Egypt, great perils existed in travelling there;that travelling was very insecure; that in fact the whole of the Turkish Empire was in a state of comparative anarchy: whereas, at the present day there was every security afforded to travellers throughout that part of the world. It was perfectly true, that in Egypt, and indeed in every other part of the Turkish Empire, things in that respect were greatly changed. Now, persons might travel, not only through Egypt, but through Syria, Asia Minor, and Turkey in Europe with perfect safety, without risking any of those dangers to which, in former times, every person was exposed. At the same time he could not see how the internal improvement of the police in Egypt told either one way or the other on a great political question, namely, whether it was for the interest of this country or not to maintain the integrity of the Turkish Empire- His hon. Friend had further stated, that there were papers published in this country which he imagined to be influenced by considerations proceeding from Russia. He did not know what the papers might be which his hon. Friend alluded to, but he would ask his hon. Friend whether he thought there were any papers or individuals in this country who were swayed in their opinions upon this question by considerations coming from Mehemet Ali? If it were found that there were opinions coming from Egypt similar to those entertained by his hon. Friend, might it not be suggested whether they were not dictated by personal feelings towards the individual, and not by general principles of public policy? His hon. Friend had likewise stated, that he had been informed of certain circumstances with regard to the going over of the Turkish fleet to Mehemet Ali. Now, he also had received an authentic account of that transaction, but a very different statement from that which had been mentioned by his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had stated that all the officers of the fleet concurred in going over to the Pacha of Egypt. Now the account he had received was from a person on board the fleet, and his statement was that none of the officers of the fleet knew of the intention of the admiral to go to Alexandria; nor any one on board, except one or two who were about his person; that the admiral sent a
151

steamer as soon as the fleet got out of the Dardanelles to communicate with Mehemet Ali 196 and make arrangements with him; that when the fleet came in sight of the Egyptian fleet at Alexandria, so little did the captains of the ships know of the purpose for which they were taken there, that many of the ships actually prepared for action, thinking they were in sight of an enemy instead of going to join a friend. In point of fact, the whole fleet thought they were, throughout, going to meet an enemy. That account he had from a person who was an eye witness, and upon whose accuracy he could place an entire reliance. He thought, as this account was so very different from the statement made by his noble Friend, that it would be well if in future he were to receive with some distrust statements from others of so opposite a character. His noble Friend was equally mistaken in what he had stated respecting Col. Hodges, our resident consul at Alexandria, having been denied and barred access to the Pacha. So far from this being the fact, on the contrary, accounts had been received very lately from Colonel Hodges, in which he stated that he had recently transacted business with the Pacha and his minister (Boghos Bey), and which was carried on by him personally with the Pacha. He was sure the House would feel that nothing could be so inconvenient as for a person holding the responsible office which he had the honour to hold, to be called upon in this incidental way to discuss matters of the highest importance, and which were matters of negotiation not only on the part of this country with Egypt, but with all the other powers of Europe. Therefore, if he did not enter into this matter, or explain the policy of her Majesty's Government, farther than to say that they still adhered to those opinions which were stated in the speech from the throne; and that it was, in their opinion, for the interests of this country that the independence of the Turkish empire should be maintainedan opinion in which his hon. Friend concurred, though he went to work in a very different manner to give it effect. If he resumed his seat without entering into a detailed statement of the present position of those negotiations, either with France or with Russia, or with Austria, or with Turkey, or with the Pacha of Egypt, he trusted the House would feel that he was only following what he considered to be an imperious duty, and acting from a deep sense of the great public inconvenience that would result from a premature discussion 197 of important matters still in negotiation, and under the responsibility of one acting on the part of her Majesty's Government. But he should be perfectly prepared, when these matters should be brought to a close, let the result be what it might, to defend the course which her Majesty's Government were pursuing. He was convinced that when that time arrived he should be able to state grounds for the course which had been so pursued, which would be satisfactory both to the House and to the country.
Mr. Fector

Sir, I cannot allow this discussion to come to a conclusion without offering my thanks to the hon. Member for Kilkenny, for having brought this important subject under the consideration of the House. I have listened attentively to the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and I must confess that I am by no means satisfied with the explanation which he has given. It appears to me that the noble Lord has introduced into the discussion of his foreign policy a principle of very doubtful expediency. The noble Lord says, whilst negotiations are pending that it is detrimental to the public service to give any information concerning them, and when they are concluded, then he tells us, if we object to their results, that the public faith is pledged that our objections should have been urged before, and he thus takes a very unfair advantage of our forbearance. I should ill discharge a duty, which I owe to a country in which I have received kindness and hospitality from all classes, if f did not express to the House my sense of the weakness of the basis on which the policy of the noble Lord is founded. If the Turkish empire were now in the same state as before the battle of
152

Navarino, then it might be possible to talk of the independence and integrity of the Turkish empire. But now we must look to Alexandria rather than to Constantinople, if we wish to maintain the independence of that empire. When I was in Egypt, I found all the most intelligent persons residing there, both natives and foreigners, agreeing as to the great improvements introduced into the country by Mohammed Ali. Thirty years ago it was impossible to travel in Egypt with any security either to life or to property; but at present, owing to the active and enlightened exertions of the Pacha, travelling in Egypt is as secure as travelling in England. At that period it was unsafe to go from Cairo to Boulac, 198 a distance of not more than two miles; now that road is as safe as any street in London. Formerly the Bedouins were in the habit of making descents upon and pillaging the villages, now Mohammed Ali has converted them into the peaceful guides and carriers of the desertand had he done nothing else for Egypt, his success in effecting an object which each succeeding government had attempted in vain, would have entitled him to the gratitude of the people of Egypt, and to the admiration of posterity. It has been asserted that Mohammed Ali is the oppressor of his subjects. [Here Lord Palmerston nodded assent] I will tell the noble Lord that the main cause of any distress which may exist in Egypt arises from his own policy. So long as the noble Lord leaves Egypt in its present uncertain condition, the only security of the people of that country for their lives and property depends on the maintenance of a force sufficient to repel invasion. I have it from the lips of his highness the Pacha himself, that no person can be more anxious than he is to diminish the number of his army and navy, and to reduce the burdens which now press heavily on the industry of the country, but that he cannot do so as long as he is exposed to the invasions of an enemy, upon whom the European powers will not allow him to retaliate. The noble Lord has said, that in the late contest the Pacha was the aggressor, but the very reverse was the fact. The Turkish army entered the Egyptian territory, took possession of fourteen villages, whose municipal authorities were changed by the Turkish general before the Pacha resorted to hostilities. I consider that justice and humanity, as well as sound policy, call for an early settlement of this question, on a basis calculated at once to secure our political and commercial interests and the education and permanent improvement of the Egyptian people.
Lord C. Hamilton

had certainly entertained a hope, that the noble Lord (Palmerston), would have felt it to be incumbent on him to afford the House some information on the important topics touched upon by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, but that hope had been entirely superseded by the manner in which the noble Lord had met the motion of the hon. Member. Nor was even the very slender information which the noble Lord had ventured to offer to the House, at all in accordance with the knowledge of the facts which he (Lord C. Hamilton) had obtained on the 199 spot. It was on record, as far as the diplomatic documents had been made public, that the Sultan, after the disastrous campaign of Hafiz Pacha, had expressed his willingness to concede the claims of Mehemet Ali, and to confirm him in his independent government of Egypt and Syria, when at the very moment that this mode of settlement was being negotiated, the five powers stepped in, and said "No nothing shall be settled until we are satisfied that it is right and proper;" and up to the hour at which he addressed the House, nothing more, had been done in the matter, notwithstanding the noble Lord had professed his satisfaction -with the present aspect of affairs at Constantinople. The noble Lord in the very short speech which he had addressed to the House, had taken occasion to deny several of the facts and assertions put forward by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. It was greatly to be desired, and indeed it was very reasonable to expect, that the noble Lord would have specified more particularly what the facts really were, in contradiction to the statement of the hon. Member; for he (Lord C.
153

Hamilton) must really say, that he having been cognizant of many of the occurrences which took place in Egypt during the last year, could vouch for the accuracy of several of the facts advanced by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He was present, on one occasion, when Mehemet Ali entered upon the topic of the advance of the Turkish army beyond the Euphrates; and he was, upon inquiry, informed by the Viceroy that he had sent the most positive instructions to his son (Ibrahim Pacha), by no means to advance beyond his own territory to meet the Turkish general, nor even to approach the frontier, but, on the contrary, in case Hafiz Pacha should advance into Syria, to withdraw gradually within his own boundaries, until the whole of the Turkish army should be on Syrian ground, and then, and not till then, to repel any attempt at aggression by the most determined resistance. Now it ought to be shown by something more stringent and conclusive, than the vague denial of the noble Viscount opposite, that the facts were not as he had stated; and it was information elucidating this and other disputed points in the proceedings of Mehemet Ali and the Sultan, that the country wanted. The noble Viscount had also alluded to the declaration of independence which Mehemet Ali had expressed it to be his inten- 200 tion to put forth in the course of the last spring, and had cited that as an evidence of the restless and ambitious spirit which animated the Viceroy in all his proceedings towards the Porte. Now, as far as he (Lord C. Hamilton) could understand the motives and intentions of Mehemet Ali, he must assert, that the intimation of the Pacha afforded no such indications as those drawn from it by the noble Viscount; on the contrary, it was pro tanto an evidence of the earnest desire entertained by the Viceroy to relieve himself and the countries under his rule from the evils attendant upon the continual state of irritation and exhaustion into which they were thrown, and in which they were kept by the menaces and intrigues of Mahmoud, the late Sultan. Mehemet Ali could not witness the daily increase of the army in Karamania (near his own frontier city of Aleppo), the constant transmission of supplies and of warlike stores to that army, and the ill-disguised preparations in the arsenal at Constantinople, without great irritation and inquietude, and without feeling that his very existence was menaced by these displays. His commerce was also, by these means, kept in a state of feverish weakness; his expenses for the maintenance of a standing army and fleet, to enable him to repel his adversary, were enormous, and were felt as a drain upon the resources of his kingdom, and it was, therefore, in order to put an end to this ruinous state of things, that he had expressed his determination to the consuls at Alexandria, openly to declare his independence of the enemy by whom he was threatened. The proof that his designs extended no further than to secure his own safety, might be found in his extreme moderation after the decisive victory over the Turkish army at Nezib; for though there was not a single soldier to oppose the march of his troops between the spot where the action was fought and Kutaya, still he sent the most positive orders to his son not to advance one foot into the Turkish territory, which order was punctually obeyed; nor had he altered or advanced his pretensions one step beyond the mark at which they stood previous to the encounter of the two armies.
Sir R. Peel

said, that, the noble Viscount opposite had urged in excuse for his unwillingness to produce the information asked for by the hon. Member for Middlesex, that it was quite unusual for any 201 Government to bring forward any documents during the period that the negotiation to which those documents referred was pending. Now, he certainly did not feel himself authorized to press for the production of papers or information which he was formally assured by a Cabinet Minister could not be laid before Parliament without great inconvenience to the public service; but, he must also observe, that the noble Viscount had not given the House to understand, that such was the case in this instance, nor did he so comprehend the terms in which the noble Viscount had refused to accede to the motion of the hon. Member for
154

Kilkenny. If the noble Viscount would ground his refusal upon that reason he (Sir R. Peel) was convinced, that no House of Commons would, for one instant, contemplate forcing a Minister to produce papers under such circumstances. But now, with all due consideration to the prudent reserve which must necessarily envelope the proceedings of a Government under the circumstances of such a negotiation as that now pending with the five powers, he really did think there was a limit to which such reserve ought to be confined, and that it ought not to be a perennial reserve, but should terminate within some reasonable period of the occurrences to which it related. The negotiation in question might be pending during a very long time, and the House of Commons was, according to this view of ministerial decorum and of expediency, to be precluded from obtaining any official information on the subject, and consequently debarred from exercising any discretion or control over the actions of the Government. Now, he really did think the noble Viscount ought to afford some answer to the inquiries of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. What did the Speech from the Throne, at the commencement of the present Session, say? Why, it says: The concord which has prevailed amongst the five powers has prevented a renewal of hostilities in the Levant, and I hope, that the same unanimity will bring these important and difficult matters to a final settlement in such a manner as to uphold the integrity and independence of the Ottoman empire, and to give additional security to the peace of Europe. It was the duty, he thought, of the noble Lord to state now whether there was an approximation towards a settlement of that important matter thus treated in the paragraph which he had read, The inter- 202 vention of the European powers had prevented war; but had it produced any results approaching towards an approximate termination to the difficulties between the Porte and the Viceroy? If there was, as had been broadly asserted, a difference between three of the negotiating powers and France, upon some important points under discussion, then he must candidly state his fears, that the next Session of Parliament would still find the parties negociating, and, according to the noble Lord's doctrine of ministerial reserve and secrecy, the country would, in the interval, be wholly deprived" of all information to be relied on in the matter. The noble Viscount had in his observations referred to the position of Ireland and Scotland towards the British throne, and had attempted to draw a sort of parallel between the state of Turkey, with Egypt and Syria independent of her, and that of Great Britain. Did the noble Viscount, he must ask, mean by that comparison to insinuate that there was in his opinion any similarity between the relation of the Porte and Mehemet Ali, and those of Ireland and Scotland towards the throne? The Lord-lieutenant of Ireland differed in his position from that of Mehemet Ali, in not being an hereditary and independent governor, but, on the contrary, an officer removable at the slightest turn of the balance of power in the Ministry. The noble Viscount had expressed his hopes that the congress of the five powers would be able to maintain the integrity of the Turkish empire; but did the noble Viscount mean to treat Mehemet Ali during the negotiations that were going on, as if he were in the same relative position towards the Porte that the Lordlieutenant of Ireland held towards her Majesty? He (Sir R. Peel) recollected during his official life many changes of Lord-lieutenants, and some fifteen or sixteen changes of the Irish Secretary since he held that post, whereas the Viceroy of Egypt had maintained himself in his kingdom in direct and open opposition to the efforts and orders of the Sultan, his less than nominal sovereign; and if the noble Viscount persisted in treating with the Viceroy upon that footing, and had given directions to the British Minister at Constantinople to put Mehemet Ali upon the same category with a Lord lieutenant of Ireland, then he (Sir R. Peel) must confess he was not at all surprised at the differences which were said to exist between France and the other negociating powers. 203 Now there were four great points of foreign policy which had been pending for some very considerable period, and upon which it was really of importance that the House should possess some information. He considered; those four points to be the Levant; Persia, which also was alluded to in the speech from the Throne, and which was in the
155

same position with respect to this country as the Levant; the third point was the north-western boundary question in America, on which the whole of the relations of Great Britain with the United States partly depended; though the negotiations were, and had been for a long time, pending, still in this particular case there was this difference from the other negotiations to which he had referred, that England was indebted to the Americans for all the information she possessed as to its progress. The noble Lord had entered into a sort of pledge that, as the American papers brought the news of what was doing in this matter, he would dole it out to the House; but he was afraid the noble Lord had forgotten his pledge; for since he had last touched on the subject, a fresh batch of newspapers arrived from America, and he hoped the noble Lord would be prepared to afford shortly some further scraps of information. The fourth point to which he referred, was the present state of the relations with China, and in this case he did think, that if the noble Lord's rule with respect to withholding information, pending the settlement of a misunderstanding or of a negotiation had been departed from, and that some intelligence on the state of things had been given to the house in the Session of 18389, respecting the condition of trade and the opium question he must repeat, had this course been pursued, the House would have been enabled to have offered the Government some advice upon the matter, and the situation of affairs in that quarter would have been materially improved. There were instances in which the rule of the noble Lord, that whilst negotiations were pending, no communication ought to pass between the Crown and the House, might with great advantage and safety be departed from, and the instances he had referred to proved his assertion. But if the whole of the correspondence asked for could not be produced, did the noble Viscount mean that no part of it, not even any extracts from it, could be made public. If so, he would adhere to the rule he had laid down, not to press 204 for the production of papers which, in the opinion of Ministers, would be attended with danger or inconvenience; but he must express a hope, that the noble Viscount would think proper to afford some answer to his inquiry, whether there was, any approximation towards a final and satisfactory settlement of the dissensions which had recently agitated the Ottoman empire.
Viscount Palmerston

was understood to decline pledging his official responsibility to the assertion that the production of the papers asked for, would be attended with danger; but the inconvenience and risk which would be consequent upon such a course, were sufficient to induce him to persist in his desire to maintain a cautious reserve upon their contents; nor could any extracts from them, calculated to convey any useful information, be with safety made known. With respect to the approximation of a definitive and satisfactory settlement of the Turco-Egyptian question, that consideration involved points which he was precluded from discussing; but as far as he could answer the inquiry of the right hon. Baronet, he was happy to be able to say, that the negotiations, as far as they had hitherto gone, had been such as to afford satisfaction.
Mr. Charles Buller

wished to show one inference from the doctrine which the noble Lord had laid down, that whilst he was doing anything the House of Commons should never know what he was about, that it would lead to this inconvenience, that whether the noble Lord was doing anything or nothing, the House would never know what he was about. He would take as an instance the question of the north western boundary. The House and the English public hardly knew anything about it, whilst year after year reports were published by the Senates of the United States upon the subject. The public there might be misinformed, or even partially informed, still they were much excited from all the publications, which were urging the public mind
156

there on one side, whilst the English had no information except the driblets of despatches that were published after a fresh arrival from America. Again, on this Eastern Question, when they found that we had twelve ships of-the line in the Mediterranean, when they were told that there was likely to be an attack, and that one power (France) would take one side, and other powers another, he, for one, wanted to know what 205 was going on, and. what they were going to quarrel about. His impression was, that they were going to war against the only civilized Ottoman Prince in the world, and with the man who holds the key of our Indian possessions, to bring him to the condition of a kind of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to the Sublime Porte. The noble Lord might be all right in what he was doing, but the House ought to know something about it. He did not say, that he should differ from the noble Lord when he had done, but he would be glad if, from any information he could obtain, he should be able to come to the same conclusion as soon as possible.
Lord John Russell

said, that there had been so much discussion on the general principle adopted by the House, in respect to information to be sought on foreign affairs, and on the reports which ought to be laid before Parliament and the country, that he must make a few remarks, because, differing little from the right hon. Gentleman as to the general rule, and disagreeing in his assertion that there should be a limit to that rule, he could not agree in this particular instance with that right hon. Gentleman, and still less with the hon. Member for Liskeard. He took the general rule to be, that the House of Commons was not accustomed to press for information, when the Secretary of State for that department said that public inconvenience or danger would arise from the disclosure, and he thought that the determination of the House of Commons in that respect was founded on a wise and enlarged view of public policy. If it were said that negotiations should go on, not between government and government, but between popular assembly and popular assembly, he could only say that no principle could be worse; and he thought that it was the duty of the Secretary of State to ask the House to place that limit for which he had contended. With regard to the production of papers relating to public affairs, he thought that there was not much reason to complain of the noble Lord. Had there been no documents produced with regard to Persia, with regard to China, or with regard to North America? There had been many papers laid before the House relating to those subjects, but they were produced at a time when no inconvenience could result from their publication. But supposing he took another matter, which related to Russia. There was at one time a strong feeling in exist- 206 ence against the proceedings of that power in the East. The British Government received information with regard to those proceedings, or with regard to the proceedings of some persons who were supposed to be the agents of Russia, which it felt itself bound to notice, and it was determined that some steps should be taken in the matter. The manner in which it was deemed most prudent that it should be brought to issue was, that the noble Viscount, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, should state all that he had heard upon the subject to the Russian authorities, and should ask for a candid and honourable explanation of the circumstances alleged. The despatch was drawn up, but it contained a great deal that, if it had been produced in the House of Commons on the first day of the session, before an answer was obtained, would have been productive of much indignant and angry feeling. The noble Viscount did not bring forward the despatch, but when the papers were compared, when on the one hand the statement of the explanation required appeared, and on the other hand the full and complete explanation appeared, which had been given on the part of Russia, and which consisted of a positive disavowal of the acts which were supposed to have been its agent's, peace was found to have been placed on a more sound basis than that on which it before rested, and no objection any longer existed to the production of the papers. This was
157

one instance; but he would give another, to which his noble Friend had alludedhe meant the question of the eastern boundary in America. Papers were produced two years ago before the senate of America. Their production led to a great deal of discussion and angry declamation against England: but when the accounts reached this country, no discussion was raised in the House of Commons. He had been told that when intelligence was carried back to America that there had been no discussion complaining of the conduct of the United States, it relieved the minds of many, who thought that what had taken place might have led to some recrimination on the part of this House; and he was sure that if, instead of sending despatches, such matters were made the subject of speeches, the danger of disturbing the harmony of countries would be greatly increased. Now, having spoken as to the general rule to be observed, he must say that he had no objection to produce those documents, which were produced 207 before the senate of the United States, though he might find it necessary to add some papers to them, in order to explain some transactions which had been alluded to in them. He would mention an instance, which was not of great consequence, but which would serve to illustrate his observations. Mr. Fox complained, on the part of Great Britain, of certain incursions on the state of Maine, and the answer which the Secretary of State of the United States gave was, that it was very astonishing that that complaint should be made, because an attack had been made on one of the block-houses, in which were some citizens of the United States, which had been led by an officer of militia. The fact was, that one night a sort of a mob of persons went to attack this block-house, and among them was an officer of militia. The Governor, Sir John Harvey, disapproved of the conduct of this person, but the militia officer having expressed his deep regret that he had done anything so contrary to orders, Sir John Harvey wrote a despatch to the Colonial Secretary, saying that he thought it would be sufficient to give him a strong reprimand. He however, thought that that would not be enough, and that the adoption of such a course as that suggested would be to give encouragement either to the American side or to our side to continue the system of warfare which had prevailed; and being of opinion that the dismissal of the officer was necessary, he conveyed the Queen's commands that he should be accordingly dismissed. Now, this would not appear upon the face of the papers which would be, under ordinary circumstances, produced; and perfect justice, therefore, would not be done unless he produced some others besides those asked for. There were two questions; the one was that of the boundary, with respect to which a proposition had been made in the course of the last year. The other was as to the effect of the violation of the agreement which had been made. He did not think that, either on the general question, or on the particular question as to certain transactions, that that union and peace which now prevailed was likely to be interrupted; on the contrary, the governments of the two countries were both too much impressed with the advantages arising from peace to these two great and enlightened countries, and were too well convinced that there was no question with respect to the boundary of the Maine, which might not be satisfactorily settled, 208 if they were both determined, as he believed they both were, to abide by the principles of justice, not to feel that these discussions on the subject, though they might be interrupted at times by the wild and unsettled state of the country, would end in an amicable arrangement. After what had passed in the course of the debate, he did not wish to enter into a discussion on the Eastern Question; but he thought that all our acts and negotiations on this subject proceeded, first, on the great principle of wishing to preserve the integrity of the Turkish empire; and secondly, on the representations made by the five powers to the Sultan last summer. On those two points, the five powers were agreed; and if the House thought that the integrity of the Turkish empire should not be an object with England, and that the other four powers, as well as ourselves, were wrong in saying that it was, then we must not interfere, but at present the opinion was the other way. In the case of France the words were strong, that they wished to preserve the integrity of the Turkish empire, and all the powers agreed to the
158

same principle, and signed the declaration to that effect last year. The matter itself was a matter of great difficulty; but so long as the policy of this country remained unchanged, we were bound to maintain the integrity of that empire. Quite sure he was, that the course proposed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that we should abandon the Sultan altogether, would be at once saying to Russia, "We do not mean to abide by our policy," or declaring that she remained as the sole protector of Turkey; that Turkey should have no defence from the whole of the powers, but only such as Russia might give her. He was speaking now upon general views of our policy; there were differences of opinion on certain points, but he trusted that no difference existed upon the subject of giving a greater security to the integrity of the Turkish empire.
Mr. H. G. Knight

spoke to the following effect:I am not surprised that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, should have wrapped himself up in his diplomatic mantle; but I regret that the little information which he has condescended to afford, should not be of a nature to remove the anxiety with which the public are beginning to watch the progress of the Eastern Question. The only point upon which any great stress appears 209 to be laid, is the complete integrity of the Turkish empire. But how is that integrity to be maintained? Not by the Turkish force, for it is confessedly incompetent to measure its strength with the Egyptian. Unfortunately that problem was solved, in the sight of the world, in 1832, at the battle of Koniah. How then is this integrity to be enforced? Are we to believe the accounts which we read in the newspapers? Is it true that a Russian army is to be permitted to descend in Asia Minor? By no other means, I admit, can the object be achieved; but the remedy is worse than the disease. Nothing, in my mind, should be more pertinaciously resisted by those who wish to keep the Sultan on his throne. The presence of a Russian army in Asia Minor would be seen with the greatest anxiety by all who really wish well to our ancient ally, and who desire that Europe should remain at peace. Such an army, once admitted, would not be easily dislodged; and, perhaps, would not return home by the same way that it came. At any rate it would be the beginning of a bad habit. It would familiarise the public mind with a dangerous thing. It might lead hereafter to events which would set all Europe in a flame. The very means to which the Sultan, in his alarm and his helplessness, seems to be willing to fly for protection, might, eventually, lead to the subversion of his throne. And what is it that Mehemet Ali asks? Nothing more than, in fact, he possesses already. Nothing which the Sultan, at least, can now take from himall he asks is a change of name. Of what importance would it be to this country if the authority which Mehemet Ali possesses for life over Syria and Egypt should be transmitted to his posterity? Would British interests be, in that case, less secure than if those countries reverted to a distant, a feeble, and, perhaps, disputed sway? But it would be of great importance were we to allow Mehemet Ali to feel himself under great obligations, not to England, but to France. I should have thought the noble Lord had had enough of such mistakes. By a similar error, on a former occasion, we gave the advantage to Russia. Are we now going to give the advantage to France? Are we to be outwitted by all the world? The only point upon which it is necessary for this country to insist, is the restoration of the Turkish fleetthat is indispensablefor never did the world behold a more disgraceful transaction. An officer, high in command, de- 210 serting the son of his Sovereign, to whom he owed his elevation, deserting him at his utmost need, depriving him of his means of defence, and putting his most powerful armament in the hands of his enemy ! It would be unworthy of this country to permit so black an act of treason to be crowned with success. The restoration of the fleet should be insisted upon as a sine qua non. With this single exception, I trust that British interference in the affairs of the East, will not go beyond mediation, that we shall show
159

ourselves in that quarter only in the character of a friend, and not as an enemy to either party. The alarming hints which dropped from the noble Lord, have induced me to make these few observations; but, as the noble Lord says, that the production of the papers moved for by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, would be of detriment to the public service, I shall not think of pressing him further on that subject; and, for the present, content myself with expressing the hope, that the noble Lord may be able to steer his bark in safety through the perilous and intricate straits into which he has been drawn, by a current which is now the more irresistible, because it was not resisted at an earlier period.
Mr. Hume

, in reply, said, that he had refrained from reading the documents which were in his hand, and on which he relied for the statements he had made, lest he should take up too much time of the House. But as the noble Viscount had denied some of the assertions, he (Mr. Hume) had made, and as the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had also made some statements which could be refuted, he must be allowed to notice some of them. The noble Lord (Palmerston) had said, that England was no guarantee to the convention of Kutayah, which could not be reconciled with the printed correspondence of the British Minister at Constantinople. He would now read a letter of Admiral Roussin of the 8th of May, 1833, to prove that France was also a party and a guarantee to that convention. LETTER ADDRESSED TO HIS HIGHNESS MOHAMED ALI PACHA, BY ADMIRAL ROUSSIN, FRENCH AMBASSADOR, DATEDTherapia, May 8th, 1833.Illustrious, magnificent, and magnanimous Prince.I feel satisfaction in being one of the first to announce to you the happy conclusion of peace, between the Grand Seignior and your Highness, on conditions equally advantageous and honourable to Egypt,211Your. Highness had already learned that all the Pachalics of Syria had been conceded to you, in consequence of the mission with which I charged M. le Baron Varenne to your illustrious son. The point of Adana remained in dispute, and I will not dissimulate that the abandonment of that position by the Ottoman empire has experienced much resistance; the munificence of the Grand Seignior has made it disappear, and Adana is a gift of his goodness.The peace so much desired by the friends of Egypt, and the Ottoman empire, is therefore concluded, to the regret of their enemies who wished to profit by the war in order to gratify their ambition.Your Highness will be just enough to recognise to which side France has constantly been inclined; attentive to the events of the East, she has felt that the immediate termination of war between the Mussulmans was the condition of their safety. She has desired this peace, sincerely and ardently. Such was the object of the steps taken by me on the 23rd of February, in proposing terms, which circumstances rendered at that time suitable; and which your Highness from principle might have adopted, fully persuaded that France would not have withheld her endeavours to ameliorate them.Your adhesion, at that time, would have prevented the aggravation of actual events. May Heaven dispel the danger with which they menace.Notwithstanding the just dissatisfaction felt by France, she has followed the enlightened and generous views that direct her.What is passing* in the Bosphorus, has convinced her of the necessity of strengthening Egypt still more, she has obtained for Egypt the whole of Syria, and can say that in that, she has done for your Highness more than any other power.Such have been the fruits of three months' uninterrupted efforts, the results of which will testify whether the interest of France has been wanting to your Highness, and if the unfavourable impressions attributed to her ambassador, have been justified.You could not have believed it, magnificent Seignior; but I am happy to be able to prove to you that they had no foundation, and that in all that has passed, general interests alone have regulated my conduct.I beg your Highness to accept, &c.ROUSSIN. To shew that Colonel Campbell, the British Consul at Alexandria, considered
160

that England was a guarantee, he (Mr. Hume) would read one paragraph from a letter dated Alexandria, the 12th of July, 1838, addressed to Viscount Palmerston. * The Russian fleet and army were there. See Parliamentary Papers on the Table, 1839, 212 In a conference with Mohamed Ali, Colonel Campbell says, I replied to him, that I thought he ought to remain contented with the status quo, as settled at Kutayah, and trust to the great powers for any arrangement for the future. And it appears by other parts of Colonel Campbell's correspondence, that the status quo was what had been agreed to in 1833, and which Lord Ponsonby not only used his influence to have settled, but pledged the British Government to support; and it will be proved, if the papers be produced, that his Lordship claimed and obtained as I have before stated, great credit for what he had done at that time. The noble Lord had also charged the Pacha with having commenced hostilities, although the facts and dates stated by him (Mr. Hume) had not been contradicted. He (Mr. Hume) repeated that the Sultan, urged on, as generally believed, by Lord Ponsonby, collected troops and attacked Syria, whilst Mohamed Ali was in Upper Egypt. That Hafiz Pacha, at the head of the Sultan's army, on the 28th of May 1839 entered the province of Aintab, took fourteen villages belonging to Mohamed Ali, and put arms into the hands of the inhabitants to urge them to rise against the Egyptians. That Ibrahim Pacha, at the head of Mohamed Ali's army, demanded an explanation from Hafiz Pacha, who refusedthat, in fact, Hafiz Pacha began on the 23rd of June, the warfare which ended so ruinously to the Sultan's troops on the 25th. The noble Lord was, therefore, in error in the assertion he had made. It is well-known, that Ibrahim Pacha had received orders to stand on the defensive, which he did. The noble Lord also accused Mohamed Ali of treachery in obtaining possession of the Sultan's fleet; but he (Mr. Hume) would read a letter from Alexandria, which explains the cause of the defection of the Turkish fleet, and the reasons why Mohamed Ali demanded the dismissal of Housroff Pacha. Whilst the Ottoman fleet was at anchor at the Dardanelles, the Capitan Pacha learnt the death of Sultan Mahmoud the 2nd, the elevation to the throne of his son Abdel Medjit, and the nomination of Housroff Pacha to the post of Grand Vizir with unlimited authority. Immediately after the receipt of this last intelligence at the fleet, the chief officers presented themselves in a body to the admiral and addressed him in the following terms:' We know well Housroff Pacha, and are not ignorant of all his past intrigues. Now that he is placed at the head of the government, and invested with full powers, we shall see the 213 Ottoman empire go from bad to worsewe will not return to Constantinople to make over the fleet to such an intriguer as Housroff Pacha, being persuaded that it will be employed to the greatest possible prejudice of the Sublime Porte. We entreat you to direct your course towards him who is an old and devoted servant of our magnificent Sovereign. Let us proceed to Mohamed Ali, and entreat him to deliver the Mussulman nation from ' the yoke of this minister so fatal to the empire.The Capitan Pacha seeing little chance of altering the determination of his officers, and being moreover persuaded of the truth of their statements, gave orders for the fleet to make sail towards Alexandria.Before Housroff Pacha had taken up his abode at Constantinople, and had occupied different public situations there, Mohamed Ali lived uninterruptedly in good harmony with his Sovereign, and sought for every opportunity of giving him proofs of his entire devotion, having on many occasions rendered very eminent services to the Sublime Porte. These facts are known to all the world; but from the moment that Housroff Pacha arrived at Constantinople, misunderstandings arose between the Sultan and the Pachaand it is, in fact, from that period that their enmity commenced the consequences which have been so disastrous for the Mussulman nation are generally known. In this state of things, Housroff Pacha, availing himself of the great power vested in him by the high functions to which he has been promoted, is proceeding to involve the empire in new dangers, and thus to accomplish its ruin, In order to put an end to his intrigues, and to render
161

his evil propensities less detrimental to the empire, Mohamed Ali determined to adhere to the wishes expressed by the officers of the fleet.In soliciting the removal of Housroff Pacha from the direction of public affairs, Mohamed AH feels convinced that he is working for the adoption of a measure that will be productive of the greatest national utility. This result being once obtained, Constantinopolitans and Egyptians will, thenceforward, form but one body, and will unite their efforts for the consolidation of the Ottoman throne, and for the advancement of its prosperity. It will then be seen, whether Mohamed Ali will or will not give convincing proofs of what has now been advanced. With respect to the noble Lord's praises of the conduct of Russia, he (Mr. Hume) must leave the House and the public to judge from the general policy and encroachments of that power for the last fifty years without intermission, rather than rely on the noble Lord's opinion. The comparison made by the noble Lord that Mohamed Ali, the conqueror of the Sultan in two great battles, and the possessor of several provinces by the sword, was to be compared with the viceroy of Ireland, was too ridi 214 culous to require further notice than had been taken of it by the right hon. Baronet. The noble Lord, the Secretary to the Colonies, had said, that the policy of the fire great powers WHS to preserve the integrity of Turkey, as they had stated in their joint note of the 27th of July, 1839; and that the policy of England in that respect remained unchanged. He (Mr. Hume) desired to say, that there was no such principle or policy stated in that note to which the noble Lord alluded, and which he would now read Constantinople, 27th July, 1839.The undersigned have received from their respective Governments, instructions in virtue of which they have the honour to inform the Sublime Porte, that the accord upon the Eastern Question is confirmed among the great powers, and to invite her to suspend all definitive determination without their concurrence, in anticipation of the effect of the interest they feel towards her.(Signed) "PONSONBY,Ambassador of England.BARON STMER,Internuncio of Austria.ROUSSIN,Ambassador of France.A. BONTENIEFF,The Minister of Russia.COUNT KNIGSMAECK,The Minister of Prussia. The House would see, that the only thing in that note was a request to the Sultan to suspend settling with Mohamed Ali; and, from that day to this, the suspension of hostilities continued, and no progress to peace, so anxiously desired by both the Sultan and by Mohamed Ali had been made. He (Mr. Hume) was called upon to prove what he had asserted to the House, that peace might have been settled in August 1839, if the British Government and the other powers had not interfered by the presentation of that note, to prevent it; and the British people were burthened to support a large fleet which had been the means of doing all the mischief which had arisen from protracted war, and preparations for new war, for eight months. He (Mr. Hume) would read three lettersthe first to show that Mohamed Ali had on the 17th of July, received, in a friendly manner, the proposition sent by the Divan for peace Reply given by Mohamed Ali on 17th July, 1839, to the Representatives of the Five Great Powers on the subject of the communications received from Constantinople, to be by them transmitted to their respective Ambassadors at Constantinople.In two days hence, Akiff Effendi will set 215 out on his return to Constantinople. He will be the bearer of a letter of congratulation and submission on my part to the new Sultan Abdel Medjid. I shall write a letter also to Housroff Pacha, in which I shall represent to him.1st. That the late Sultan Mahmoud had some time ago, through Sari in Effendi made to me more advantageous proposals than those which his Highness, now addressed to me; the hereditary succession of Egypt having at that time been offered me, as well as of the Ayalet of Seida, and of the Sandjakat of Tripoli.2nd. That under present circumstances, I solicit the hereditary succession of Egypt with that of Syria and Candia, that is to say, of all the territory I now possess, as before notified by me.3rd. That on that condition, and by observing good faith towards me, I will be the most faithful of the servants and vassals of his Highness, and will defend him when and against whomsoever he may desire.It is in this sense that I propose writing to Constantinople. I shall refrain from any
162

allusion to the fleet in my letter to the Grand Vizir out of delicacy; but I beg you will have the kindness to assure the representatives of the great courts at Constantinople, that I never had any intention to retain it, or to make use of it with any hostile design against the Sultan; on the contrary, I engage finally to restore it as soon as my proposals have been accepted; In that case, all the vessels composing the fleet of the Sultan, to the last, will be sent back to Constantinople; as to the Ottoman Admirals, those who are afraid of returning to Turkey may remain in Egypt, which forms a portion of the same monarchy. As soon as the Sultan shall have acceded to ray prayer, and Housroff Pacha shall have been removed from the direction of affairs, I shall without hesitation, at the first invitation of his Highness repair in person to Constantinople; and it will not be with the fleet that I shall proceed thither, but alone on board a steam vessel, and with the sole object of presenting my personal homage to my Sovereign, and for the purpose of tendering my services to him.I declare to you, finally, that if my proposals are not accepted, I shall not make war, but maintain my present position and wait. The letter from Housroff Pacha to Mohamed Ali of the 30th of July 1839, sent by Mouffet Bey, the envoy of Mohamed Ali, proves that the Divan had agreed to the demands of Mohamed Ali; and that a special messenger would have been dispatched on the 29th of July to Egypt, to conclude a treaty, if the note of the five great powers had not been presented. "Letter of Housroff Pacha to Mohamed Ali, by Mouffet Bey, about 30th July, 1839.By the return of Akiff Effendi, I received the reply to the letter which I had the honour 216 to address to your Excellency by that envoy, and have understood its contents, as well as the report of Akiff Effendi, and in particular what passed between your Excellency and him. I have deposed both at the feet of his Highness our august master, who took cognizance of their contents, and I communicated them subsequently to the principal dignitaries of the Sublime Porte assembled in council.We are rejoiced to learn that your Excellency, who is an ancient feudatory of the empire, who has rendered more real services to the state than all the others, and who on that account, is become one of the greatest of our colleagues, had evinced the noble determination to make common cause with the most influential and most devoted members of the Mussulman nation, and we pray to God that our mutual prayers for union may be accomplished for the prosperity of the empire.In the letter which I had the houour to address to your Excellency by Akiff Effendi, I spoke of the transmission by hereditary succession of the Egyptian provinces only, but that was merely a form adopted for announcing your pardon to your Excellency. Akiff Effendi, moreover, was not charged to treat of any such matters. He was only entrusted with the communication of the most desirable of all intelligence, your restoration to favour; and for that reason, I omitted to give more ample explanations to your Excellency. All the great dignitaries of the Sublime Porte, however, being equally desirous with myself that you should have all the security and all the necessary guarantees, and being ready to unite their efforts with yours for the prosperity of the empire, I had, after obtaining the sanction of his Highness, our august master, given orders to his Excellency Saib Effendi, one of the ministers of the Sublime Porte, to proceed to Egypt for the purpose of concerting with your Excellency respecting the demands which you had presented, the services which you intended to render, and the measures to be adopted under present circumstances.This envoy was about to depart on board the steam vessel, when the ambassadors of the five great powers presented to the Sublime Porte a note signed by them of which a translation is enclosed, and the purport of which was to make known that the five great powers had come to an understanding for the discussion and adjustment of the affairs of the East. Immediately after the presentation of that note, the high dignitaries of the Porte again assembled in Council and expressed their opinion that the interference of strangers in a question between Suzerain and Vassal was by no means proper; but, considering that the five great powers had already come to an understanding upon the subject, the refusal of their mediation being contrary to European custom, might cause offence to them and occasion
163

disturbances and difficulties to the Mussulman nation. Looking, therefore, to the general state of things, and reflecting that in 217 Consequence of your pardon being granted and plans for a reunion being in progress, the guarantees of foreign concurrence become superfluous, and the intervention or non-intervention of the powers in the settlement of the question of no importance, the great dignitaries assembled at the same time that they put up their prayers that we may never have occasion to appeal to strangers, did not think it advisable under present circumstances to reject the unforeseen demand of the five ambassadors and accordingly gave their consent to it.We are desirous, and it is the will of his Highness that you should, in the first instance be informed of what has just taken place; the departure of the envoy has been in consequence suspended. I have taken the liberty to address the present letter to your Excellency by the steam vessel. As soon as your Excellency shall have been made acquainted with its contents as well as with the communication from the ambassadors to the consuls general, I beg you will be pleased to convey to me your sentiments thereon.(Signed) "HOUSROFF PACHA.P.S. "It has been arranged that your Charg d'Affaires at Constantinople, Mouffit Bey, should himself be the bearer of this letter to your Excellency in order to elucidate its contents by viva voce explanations. Your Excellency will thus know more fully the real state of things. The answer of Mohamed AH, of the 9th of August, to Housroff Pacha, would, he believed, be conclusive with every considerate person, that the five great powers had at that time prevented peaceEngland taking the lead. "Translation from the Turkish Language of the Reply of Mohamed Ali to Housroff Pacha, dated 9th Aug. 1839.I have received the letter which your Excellency was pleased to address to me by Mouffit Bey, my Charg d'Affaires at Constantinople.Your excellency informs me that you had perused the despatch which I had the honour to address to you by the return of Akiff Effendi, together with the report made by that envoy; and that the high dignitaries of the Sublime Porte assembled in council, after receiving communications of my letter and of the report of Akiff Effendi, and in order to give course to my demand as well as to ascertain the nature of the services which I could render to the empire, and to determine what measures it was proper to adopt under present circumstances, had agreed to send to me the minister Saib Effendi by the steam-boat. Meanwhile the ambassadors of the five great powers presented a note to your excellency of which a translation is stated to accompany your despatch, and on the subject of which you add that the consuls general of the five great powers residing at Alexandria would make the 218 necessary communications, which with the verbal reports of my Charg d'Affaires would assist me in understanding the matters now in agitation.The Consuls General have communicated to me the instructions received by them from their respective Ambassadors, and Mouffit Bey has explained to me what he was charged to state.My sole desire and object is to make my submission, and to devote all any services to our magnanimous and all powerful Lord and Master. But I have very humbly supplicated his Highness, that in consideration of my quality as an old servant of the empire and out of regard for my past services, he would generously be pleased to grant two prayers which I ventured to address to him. I pray to God that he may continue on the throne till the end of the World, the august person of our Lord and Master.When my Charg d'Affaires received the order to come to me, he was admitted to the distinguished honour of doing homage at the feet of his Highness, who was pleased to say to him, ' Mouffet Bey, make my compliments to the Pacha. Tell him that I have acceded to the prayer he has addressed to my throne for the hereditary government of Egypt and its dependencies, and that I have given orders to arrange that affair.'These benevolent expressions of his Highness have rejoiced my heart inasmuch as they accomplish my most ardent prayer for the hereditary succession, and rank me among the grandees of the empire.The high dignitaries of the Sublime Porte, assembled in Council subsequently stated to Mouffet Bey, 'Our august Lord and Master has just granted the object of the prayer presented by Mohamed Ali Pacha at the foot of the throne, for the hereditary
164

succession to Egypt and its dependencies; but in the ' meantime the Ambassadors of the five great powers have presented this note of which it is necessary that Mohamed Ali should take cognizance.'In consequence of what has been said and done, I rejoice that one of my prayers has been accomplished, and I perceive that for the moment the other has been neglected. Nevertheless, I trust, that that also will be conceded to me by the high benevolence of his Highness. In this case, I conclude, that it would not be necessary to have recourse to the mediation of the five great powers.Your Excellency will further learn my opinion on these affairs from the communications of the Ambassadors after the receipt of the dispatch as addressed to them by their respective Consuls General at Alexandria.This is the purport of the letter which I have now the honour to address to your Excellency by my Charg d'Affaires Mouffit Bey. The proofs might be multiplied in support of the view he (Mr. Hume) had given to the House of the policy and conduct of 219 England, and of the other four powers towards Egypt; but he had stated enough to satisfy the House as to the statements he had made, as the grounds for his motion. He was confident that the reports of the Consuls of the five powers at Alexandria, published to all Europe, would bear out all he had stated: and he would only add that, in agreeing to withdraw his motion, in consequence of the declaration of the noble Lord, that it would be injurious to the public service to produce those papers now, he would give notice that in one month or so from this time, he (Mr. Hume) would renew his motion; and then he hoped the House would support him in demanding a full explanation of the policy of the noble Lord (Palmerston) which was maintained at so heavy an expense to England at this time of financial distress.

165

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1840/may/04/Turkey-and-egypt

TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 04 May 1840

vol 53 cc1180-21180 Mr. Hume

rose to put the following questions, of which he had previously given notice to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs:Whether, as stated in the public papers, the British Government has again interfered, through Lord Ponsonby, to prevent the Sultan from entering into direct negotiations with Mehemet Ali for a settlement of their differences; and whether, on that occasion, it has acted in concert with the other European powers or their Ministers at Constantinople? Whether any orders have been issued by her Majesty's Government for reprisals against Mehemet Ali; whether, as stated in public journals, two ships sent by Mehemet Ali to bring recruits from Albania to Candia had been detained by a British frigate and conducted to Corfu; and, whether returned or not? Whether orders have been 1181 issued by her Majesty's Ministers, or by Lord Ponsonby, to Colonel Hodges, the British Consulgeneral in Egypt, to interfere in the affairs of Egypt by giving subjects of the Sultan passports to leave Egypt? The questions were such as involved peace or war, and he trusted the noble Lord would give an explicit answer to them.
Viscount Palmerston

said, the same state of affairs now existed as when on a former occasion his hon. Friend moved for the production of correspondence, with regard to negotiations, and therefore he did not know how far it would be prudent to accede to any motion his hon. Friend might make on this subject; but he was quite ready to give an answer to his questions. In the first place, the House was aware that in July last the representatives of the five powers, fearing that the Sultan might from the pressure of circumstances make unnecessary and injurious concessions to Mehemet Ali, presented a note in the name of their respective courts, requesting him not to enter into negotiations with Mehemet Ali respecting anything that had been done with the concurrence of the Five Powers, and Lord Ponsonby received instructions to use any influence he might possess to induce the Porte to comply with this request. With regard to the affair of the ships, the fact was, that information having been received by the High Commissioner of the Ionian Islands that two ships had arrived to recruit, inquiries were made with regard to the officer, who was an agent of Mehemet Ali, and it was found, that they were there for the purpose of decoying certain subjects of the Porte at Albania to proceed to Egypt to form troops to act against the Sultan, and Sir Howard Douglas took steps accordingly, and two Greek ships that were hired for the purpose were stopped. He believed the ships were not claimed, but the measure was prevented, and the agent of Mehemet Ali sent back to Malta, and the recruits remained there. The ships were detained a short time, and were afterwards released. With regard to the third question, no orders had been given to Colonel Hodges, because, as was well known, it was not the practice, except in peculiar cases, to give passports to any but British subjects; but as this question concerned the officers of the Turkish empire, he had no hesitation in saying that Colonel Hodges would only perform his 1182 duty if he afforded any protection he was able o give to any subjects of the Sultan who,t having been engaged in rebellion against him, were desirous of returning to their allegiance. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1840/jun/01/Turkey-and-egypt
166

TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 01 June 1840

vol 54 cc779-89779

On the Order of the Day being moved for a Committee on the Customs Duties Bill,
Mr. Hume

said, that as that bill imposed a taxation of more than 2,000,000l. upon the already impoverished people of this country, he would avail himself of the present opportunity to state his objections to the foreign policy of the Government, which was alleged as the cause for the necessity of that increased taxation. The people of England were going to be punished to support the policy which the British Government was erroneously pursuing with regard both to Turkey and to Egypt. If the policy of the British Government were erroneous, as he sincerely believed it to be, the House of Commons ought to withhold the supplies from that Government until it saw clearly what that policy was, and what object it was intended to attain. In the most gracious Speech which was delivered from the Throne at the commencement of the Session, Ministers claimed credit for the peace which had been maintained in the East, owing to the union of the Five Powers. The collective note of the Five Powers, delivered on the 27th of July, had prevented the Divan from concluding peace without their concurrence. He had, on a former occasion, made such comments as he thought fit upon that note; and the noble Lord had not felt himself in a situation to deny any of the positions which he had then laid down. All that the noble Lord had then said was, that he had been completely misinformed on all the points which he had noticed, and that he was consequently totally unacquainted with the policy pursued by the Five Powers. Since that time an important event had occurred. The French ministry had been changed. The French Chamber, before they would consent to vote the money which the new minister, M. Thiers, had called for, required him to declare explicitly the policy on which France was acting towards Turkey and Egypt. M. Thiers then stated what his policy was, observing that he had made it known to the British Government and to others, 782 and added that France was strong enough to maintain it, whether the other Powers concurred with France or not. He would read to the House one or two sentences from the speech of M. Thiers, as reported in the Moniteur, to show how different was the policy professed by that statesman from that followed by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He was sorry to say that we had estranged ourselves from France, that we had allied ourselves with the great enemy of Turkey, that we had joined in supporting the policy of Russia, and that in so doing we had promoted and forwarded the ambitious projects of that Power. For those projects we were now maintaining a fleet in the Mediterranean at the expense of half a million sterling a-year, and, instead of forwarding, we were positively preventing peace between Turkey and Egypt which was essentially a Russian object. Now, if it were true that France had offered to withdraw ten sail of the line from the Mediterranean if we would do the same, it was quite clear that France had no idea of war or of the necessity of war. He, therefore, thought, that as the French Chambers had called upon M. Thiers, so the British House of Commons ought to call upon the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for a declaration of his policy before it voted the taxation requisite to support it. M. Thiers, in his address to the Chamber of Peers, on the 14th April, 1840, said The opinion of France is, that the independence of Turkey should be maintained; but by the word independence, we do not mean an impossibility. France believes, at least her cabinets have believed, that to maintain the Turkish empire, could not mean the restoration to the Turkish empire of all the provinces which have been successively detached from it; but we have thought, that to maintain the
167

Turkish empire was to prevent any new dismemberment; and, if by the side of the Turkish empire a new empire had risen up which consented to the bond of vassalage which consented, as in other times, to be the faithful vassal of the Turkish empirethat if Egypt had succeeded better than Constantinople in arranging her finances and in creating an army which, though they do not resemble our finances nor our army, are yet superior to, those of Constantinople, it would be a real service to the Turkish empire to give to it the Pacha of Egypt as an ally, for besides the Turkish empire, which might defend itself, you would have the rear guard of a powerful vassal, useful and able to support the Sultan in moments of difficulty.783 The dispute between France and England upon this question seemed to be this: that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, insisted that the Divan should not make peace with Mehemet Ali, by yielding up to him Egypt and Syria. The noble Lord was willing to let the Divan yield up Egypt. France, however, was desirous that Syria, as well as Egypt, should be yielded up to Mehemet Ali, and that for Syria he should pay tribute, own his vassalage to the Porte, and consent to assist the Sultan, whenever he was required to do so. M. Thiers further said, that if the Powers should attempt to take Syria from Mehemet Ali, he would interfere on his behalf, and would prevent it from being taken from him. Such being the case, he thought that our Government was the cause of the present state not of peace but of suspended hostilities, and of the large naval and military establishments now kept up in the Mediterranean and along its coasts. He called upon the House, as it valued the interests of England, and those of free and liberal Governments, to act in concert with France, and to cease from being the ally of Russia. Why was there this difference of policy between England and France, the two countries, of all others, which ought to be united? He complained that the present policy of the British Government was hostile not only to a strict alliance with France, but also to the interest of Egypt, which we of all others ought to maintain. He maintained that, in the year 1833, the Sultan had given Mehemet Alia Syria as a Pashalic, and had afterwards given him Adana and other places as an appendage to it. He likewise maintained, that it was in consequence of the Sultan's having attempted to take back those provinces from Mehemet Ali, and of his having landed troops in Asia Minor to enforce his attempt, that Mehemet Ali had been compelled to put his own forces in motion, and that in the progress of events the Turkish fleet had deserted to him from the Sultan. What he further complained of was, that the policy of the British Government had not only stopped the negotiations for peace, but that when Mehemet Ali had offered to give back the Turkish fleet on certain terms, to be guaranteed by France and England, England had refused to guarantee those terms. The hon. Member read an extract from the speech of M. Thiers on the 14th of April 784 last, but we could not collect even the substance of it. It was his opinion that it would not be in the power of France and England united to take Syria from Mehemet Ali, and as the sentiments of M. Thiers were in direct opposition to those of Lord Palmerston, it became a question of great importance whether we should persevere in our present erroneous course at so heavy an expense to the British people, and whether we ought not to promote an union between Turkey and Egypt, and allow the heavy armaments to be put down which were now kept up at an immense expense to every country. He understood that within the last six months Redschid Pasha had made a proposition for peace to Mehemet Ali, which would have been accepted, had not the British Government interfered to prevent it. These were points into which it was necessary that the House should inquire, before it gave the means of supporting so large a naval force as was deemed necessary to support our negotiations with Turkey and Egypt. He wished that the noble Lord would satisfy him and the country that he was proceeding in the right course. He would, in conclusion, ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any proposition had been made to him from the government of France for the purpose of promoting peace and withdrawing the heavy armaments now in the Mediterranean?
168

Viscount Palmerston

said, that his hon. Friend had placed him in considerable difficulty, by endeavouring to draw him into what he regarded as a premature discussion of the details of a negotiation which had not been concluded, and it would be very prejudicial to the public interests if he were to discuss it in the manner in which his hon. Friend had invited him. It would not be consistent with the public interests, with those interests especially of which the department over which he presided was charged with the conduct, to state to his hon. Friend all the particulars which he wished to know; yet he did feel t his duty to assure the House that almost very assertion which his hon. Friend had made as to the folly of the course pursued by this country, as to the communications which had taken place between this country and other powers, as to the conduct of her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, and as to the desires and wishes of 785 the Turkish government, were all founded on the most extraordinary misinformation, and he might really venture to say, that not one of them had the remotest resemblance to what had really taken place. The hon. Member had told the House, that the French government had notified to us, that they would have recourse to arms if we attempted to take Syria from Mehemet Ali. No such communication had ever been made to us by the French government. The hon. Member had also said, that the British Government had been informed, that if any attack were made by the British on the Egyptian fleet, it would be protected by the fleet of France. No such communication had ever been made. This method of denial came to almost the same result as that of assertion, and if he were to deny, and explain why he denied, all the information on which the hon. Member had proceeded, and which he was sure the hon. Member fully believed, he would be led very nearly to the point to which the hon. Member wished to bring him. He had denied the basis on which the hon. Member had founded his observations. The hon. Member said, the House had been called on to vote a very large amount of additional taxation, and that it was rendered necessary by the mistaken policy which he had endeavoured to pursue. Had the hon. Member forgotten that the great bulk of this increased taxation arose from measures which he himself had urged on the Government, and which he admitted were not founded on an erroneous policy? A great part of it arose from the reduction of the rates of postage; a great part of it also arose from the wants of the public service in Canada, and the question in which we had been involved with China; and a very small proportion of the whole amount now proposed to be raised was required, as the hon. Member wished to represent, for the service of the navy. But he would tell the hon. Member further, that the increased demand for the service of the navy did not arise, as he imagined, from the particular question now pending in the Mediterranean. The reasons which rendered it necessary were stated by Government when the condition of the navy was discussed. Larger supplies were required to place the navy on a footing more consistent with that which ought to be its standing with reference to the navies 786 of the other great powers of Europe. So far was it from having been stated by the French government, as the hon. Member supposed, that if this question were settled ten French sail of the line would be withdrawn from active service, that he was not aware that the settlement of this question would lead to any reduction whatever in the aggregate amount of the French navy. He believed the contrary to be true; he believed that if France and Britain were entirely agreed upon every matter of detail that could arise in connexion with this question, there would not be, as the hon. Member seemed to suppose, any reduction whatever in the naval force of France, and he said that, independently of the Eastern Question. When we looked at the various important questions now pending in every quarter of the globe, and considered the amount of the naval armaments of other powers, it must be seen that a very small portion only of the increase of taxation had been called for owing to the state of affairs in Egypt. He objected no less strongly to the other principle which seemed to have furnished the staple of the reasonings of his hon. Friend. The
169

hon. Member seemed to suppose that if he could show to the House that the French government or any French minister entertained a particular opinion on any question, it became a duty and obligation on the British Government immediately to adopt and follow that opinion in all respects. Now, no man in the House attached greater value than he did to the intimate alliance of Britain and France. He believed it was not more advantageous to the interests of the two countries than beneficial to the security of the peace of Europe; and since he had had the honour of holding his present office he had zealously endeavoured to promote the continuance of that alliance. On more than one occasion he had had to defend himself in that House against a charge of doing the very thing which the hon. Member thought he should now have donethat was placing the British Government entirely at the beck of France, and serving the interest of France, whether or not it was consistent with our own. On those occasions he had always stated that he thought nothing was more to be wished for the interests of both countries, than that the alliance should continue as long as it was consistent with those interests; but he 787 had at the same time not concealed the consideration which must force itself upon every mind, that the two nations were too great, two powerful, and too high-spirited, and had too many important interests at stake, which each Government was bound in duty to protect, to allow of their being coupled in any such indissoluble bond as would induce them to follow each other's policy invariably. The Government of Britain should neither follow the policy of France, as contradistinguished from that of Britain, nor that of Prussia, nor that of Austria, but they ought to look to the interests of Britain, without paying any regard to the opinions that might be entertained by any foreign government or minister. The point was to show that any proposed policy was consistent with the interests of Great Britain, and if that could be made out, the denegation of it would become a matter of charge against a government. But the mere fact of a foreign minister holding a particular opinion on any point was no argument, and proved nothing as to the soundness of its policy. He utterly denied, and so far the House would believe him, that the French government had at any time intimated any intention of taking up arms against the other four Powers on this question. He was assuming the statement made by his hon. Friend to be correct, that France differed on some points from the other four Powers but he assured the hon. Member that he was mistaken if he thought that difference if difference existed, likely to lead to a war between Britain and France. He thought that was very improbable, independent of the other relations existing between Britain and France, which would be sufficiently strong to prevent the French government from breaking them, and rushing into the other extreme of hostility. Looking at the other great interests of France, and the questions she now had on her hands, it was not to be supposed that France would enter into a chivalrous crusade in defence of interests not her own, which she could not reconcile with the national faith and honour, and with the obligations she had entered into with the other Powers. The hon. Member had done him the honour of supposing that the collective note presented in July last to the Sublime Porte at Constantinople was entirely the work of his (Lord Palmerston's) own hand. The hon. Member said 788 it was by that note that he had prevented an amicable arrangement being concluded between Mehemet Ali and the Porte. If the hon. Member supposed that we had such an entire influence and control over the other four great Powers, as to be able to persude them all, France included, to sign and deliver that note, he must admit that the hon. Member paid a compliment to the influence of the British Government. It was not for him to explain from what quarter the note arose. All he would say was, that the British Ambassador immediately and most cordially joined in it; but the suggestion did not come originally from him. The French government had never retracted or disowned that note, and when the hon. Member asked him to state to the House what had been the policy of Britain on this question he could only refer him to the speech from the Throne at the beginning of the Session, in which it was said that the integrity of the Ottoman Empire was an object which it was thought
170

deserving of every endeavour on our part to defend. That opinion he still held, and the more he thought of it, the more satisfied he was that it was sound doctrine. He was fully persuaded that the interests of this country required the maintenance of the independence and integrity of the Ottoman empire, and that those interests would be sacrificed if the policy which the hon. Member wished for were to be adopted. The integrity of the Ottoman empire would at once be destroyed by the dismemberment of some of its most fertile and rich provinces, and consequently its independence would be reduced to the mere shadow of a shade. He was convinced that even taking that view, which was so much a favourite of the hon. Member, bearing on the naval expenses of the country, if what the hon. Member called peace, which was a mere surrender to Mehemet Ali, had taken place at the time mentioned by him, this country would have been compelled in order to prevent the consequences that would have ensued, to keep up a large naval force in the Mediterranean. Thus, as far as we were concerned, peace would have taken place without any of the advantages which peace ought to bring with it. He could not conclude without expressing a hope that we should be able to make some arrangement, in conjunction with the other powers of Europe, which would restore amicable 789 arrangements between Turkey and Egypt, and prevent the recurrence of that unfortunate policy which once brought the Russian army to Constantinople, and if it were resumed, would in a short time bring another to the shores of the Bosphorus. He could only say, that when negotiations of this importance, complicated from their very nature, from the number of interests concerned and the distance which separated the Powers who were acting in them, were made the subject of discussion before they were finished, and when hon. Members, acting, like his hon. Friend on misinformation made statements which were entirely unfounded, and incorrect regarding those transactions, persons holding the situation he filled were placed in great difficulty. He might, perhaps, not have answered the expectations of his hon. Friend, and he was afraid he should not be able to do so until matters came to something more like a termination; but till that time he should be compelled to refuse to go into the points on which explanation was sought by his hon. Friend, and confine himself to setting him right as to the misinformation he had received. He trusted, however, that the House would not take for granted that the facts were as his hon. Friend had stated, for he could assure them that his hon. Friend had received the most extraordinary misinformation on all the material points to which in the course of his speech he adverted.
Mr. Hume

wished to know if the British Government were acting in accordance with the French, as was stated in the Speech from the Throne?
Viscount Palmerston

said, what the speech stated was, that the concord of the five Powers on the Belgian question had led to satisfactory results, and it was hoped that the same concord would bring the questions pending between Turkey and Egypt to an amicable termination. He had not abandoned that hope. Order of the day read. On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair to go into Committee on the Customs' Duties Bill,

171

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1840/jul/22/foreign-commercial-policy

FOREIGN COMMERCAL POLICY. HC Deb 22 July 1840

vol 55 cc881-902881

On the Order of the Day for the Speaker to leave the Chair for the House to go into a Committee of Supply, and after some discussion on point of form and of precedence, which we omit,
Viscount Sandon

rose to address the House on behalf of the commerce of this country, the interests of which were surely deserving of at least one heating in the Session. The noble Lord opposite had often assured the House that no Minister bad ever done so much for the foreign trade of the country as himself. He thought it, therefore, his duty to call the attention of the House to some points which induced him to come to a different conclusion as to the conduct of the noble Lord. There were two points of 882 view in which the foreign commerce of the country might be consideredin the first place, as regarded the exports of our manufactures; and, in the second place, as regarded navigation. Now, it was his opinion that as regarded the exports of our manufactures, this country had suffered severely from the conduct of the Government. He would not go into the sulphur question, but he must say, that if the noble Lord opposite had exerted himself as he ought to have done, the dispute with Naples relative to this matter would never have gone to the extent of creating a rupture with the Neapolitan Government, or to perilling the valuable interests of our trade with Sicily. It was only a short time since, that he had called the attention of the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the fact of Mexico having imposed a duty of nearly 200 per cent, on some articles of our exports, without the notice of six months, required by treaty, having been given. The attention of the noble Lord had been called to this subject early in February, and he should have supposed, considering the valuable outlet which Mexico afforded to the manufactures of Manchester and Glasgow, that the noble Lord would have lost no time in issuing the necessary instructions for Obtaining a redress of this grievance, and for applying a remedy to the injury which had been inflicted on our commerce by the imposition of this heavy duty without, due notice. But a period of two months had elapsed from the time the noble Lord's attention had been called to the subject, before any instructions had been sent out. During that time the British goods in Mexico had remained unsold. Great loss had been suffered by the British merchants in consequence, and the loudest complaints were made against the delay of the noble Lord. Even now he did not know what had been the result of those remonstrances, or whether they had had any effect at all. It was true that the noble Lord had informed him that he had received assurances from the Mexican government with respect to the duties imposed in 1837, that the excess of duties thus levied without notice would be restored. No money, however, had yet been returned, and the grievance which our merchants complained of was still unremoved. He would next pass to Buenos Ayres, and in regard to this part 883 of the subject, he wished to know from the noble Lord how long the blockade of that country was to be permitted. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government, when interrogated relative to this matter in the other House of Parliament, said in the first month of the Session that he had received assurances that the blockade was only of an occasional character. But for two years the trade of this country had been interrupted by that blockade, and at the present moment all the assurances which the noble Lord opposite had given of its speedy termination were as little likely to be realized as they were when his attention had first been called to the
172

matter. The trade of this country with Buenos Ayres was of great value. The value of British property locked up in that country amounted to something more than 1,000,000l., and the interest on that sum which was yearly lost to our merchants was upwards of 50,000l. The articles thus lying locked up uselessly were also in great part of a perishable nature, and it was estimated that 20,000l. annually were required to give them the necessary care and attention. Besides all this, local funds had been created in Buenos Ayres, in which British capital was locked up to the amount of about 5,000,000 dollars, and the redaction from seventeen per cent, to three and a-quarter per cent., which had taken place in the exchange by reason of the blockade, had greatly reduced the value of that property. A national bank had also been established, in which other 2,000,000 dollars had been invested by British merchants, but that bank had been broken up, and both the interest and capital destroyed, and all this loss had been occasioned by the blockade. Under such circumstances, he thought the noble Lord ought not to allow that blockade to remain, and ought to make the strongest remonstrances to prevent a continuance of that interruption to our trade which was so fatal to the interests of our merchants. But besides the amount of British property locked up in Buenos Ayres, there was at least British manufactured goods in Monte Video to the amount of about 1,000,000l. Now, if the French party were expelled from that country, and the national party secured in power, they would in all probability have another French blockade, if the noble Lord did not exert himself to prevent it. The Americans were not quite so negligent of 884 the interests of their merchants as the Government of this country. Two American vessels had broken the blockade, and although they had been captured in the end, and carried to Monte Video, yet they had been released on the remonstrances of the American commodore. He thought the noble Lord would do well to follow the example of the United States in this particular, and adopt a more energetic line of conduct. Passing from Monte Video, he next wished to call attention to the state of our commercial relations with Portugal. It was now three years since Portugal had imposed a differential duty of fifteen per cent. on all British goods carried to that country from England in British vessels, beyond the amount of duty charged on British goods conveyed in Portuguese vessels. On this subject the strongest remonstrances had been made to the noble Lord and the President of the Board of Trade. It had been clearly proved to them that a differential duty of this nature, operating on the most valuable cargoes, would have the effect of driving British vessels out of the Portuguese trade. That prediction had not for some time taken effect, because an understanding had been entered into amongst the British merchants that they would export goods to Portugal in British vessels only. After a year or a year and a half had elapsed, a Glasgow merchant, seeing the advantage that would result from exporting his goods in vessels belonging to Portugal, had however resolved to act contrary to that understanding, and had accordingly exported his goods in Portuguese ships. When one merchant had adopted that resolution, all the others were necessarily obliged to follow his example, arid the consequence had been highly injurious to the shipowners of this country. He would show the effect of this differential duty which had been imposed by Portugal. In 1838 there were only two Portuguese vessels which shipped cargoes from Liverpool, the nominal value of which cargoes did not amount to more than 171l. In the same year, seventy-British vessels sailed from Liverpool with cargoes for Portugal, the nominal value of which was 887,617l. In 1839, the number of Portuguese vessels had risen to forty, and the value of their cargoes had increased to 292,770l. In the same year the number of British vessels was ninetysix, but the value of their cargoes had 885 fallen from 887,616l. to 559,790l. He was aware that the noble Lord and the President of the Board of Trade had issued, under Mr. Huskisson's act, an order of retaliation, but the effect of that order was nugatory. This country had retaliated on Portugal, by imposing an additional duty of one-fifth on all cargoes corning from Portugal; but as, with the exception of wine, the cargoes which came from that country were only of slight value, the additional duty was no protection to the British merchant. The
173

distinction of a duty of 15 per cent. made by Portugal in favour of Portuguese vessels were so large as to throw all the valuable trade between this country and Portugal into the hands of the Portuguese shipowners. The advantage given to the British merchants by the retaliatory order in Council was about 50l. or 60l. on vessels of ordinary size. But the duty of 15 per cent, imposed by Portugal on British ships going from Liverpool gave an advantage of from 600l. to l,600l. in favour of Portuguese vessels. He would here appeal to the example of the United States. In 1834 Spain imposed a differential duty on vessels of the United States, but Congress at once passed an act following out in every particular the example of Spain, so as to place Spanish vessels in America on the same footing as American vessels in Spain. He would therefore ask the noble Lord why he had not come down to that House when he found his power was insufficient, and asked for fresh powers to enable him to meet the Portuguese on their own ground? They had had the same war to carry on against Spain, as the Americans had had. He would not press the Government on the subject of the commercial treaty with Spain, which had been promised for the last twenty years, but which still remained unsettled. That treaty was matter of negotiation, and the noble Lord might answer that he had done all in his power to accomplish an object which was so desirable. With respect to navigation, however, the noble Lord had ample powers which he had declined or neglected to exercise. It was now six years since Spain had imposed a duty varying from 30 per cent, to 200 per cent, in favour of their own vessels, while we continued to receive Spanish vessels into our ports on the same footing as our own ships. He thought this was a very great hardship to our ship owners and 886 merchants, and one which called loudly for redress. Here the noble Lord might exercise his power, and issue a retaliatory order in Spain, which he was fully authorized to do by Act of Parliament. The merchants of this country had, however, submitted to this injustice for six years, and during that period, British navigation had almost been driven out of the trade with Spain. He therefore trusted the noble Lord would, without further delay, exercise the power which he possessed, and retaliate on Spain, so as to remedy this gross injustice to the British merchant. The apprehensions which were entertained by our merchants as to the effect of the duty imposed by Spain on British vessels were not without good grounds. The papers which he held in his hand had relation to the Havannah; but the result would be the same as if they had reference to Spain, as the same duties on British vessels and cargoes existed at Havannah as existed in Spain. By those papers he found that the result of the Spanish differential duty, in regard to the freight and cargoes of vessels passing between Liverpool and Havannah was as follows;In 1839 six British vessels exported from Liverpool to Havannah 284 bales of manufactured goods; 11 vessels of other nations carried out 812 bales, while Spanish vessels, sailing from Liverpool to Havannah, carried out 6,265 bales. This of itself was, he thought, sufficient to establish a case of great grievance; but he would look at the matter in another point of view, and show what was the result of the differential duty as to cargoes. This duty came into operation in 1834. In 1834 the exports from Liverpool to Havannah in British vessels amounted in nominal value to 382,724l.; and he found that from that time down to the present, there had been a gradual decline in that amount. In 1835 the amount was 205,202l.; in 1836 it was 153,754l.; in 1837 it was 75,000l.; in 1838 it Was 61,487l.; and in 1839 it had fallen to 35,997l. The decrease here was enormous, and he thought that this grievance ought to be redressed without a moment's delay. The noble Lord was bound to adopt some retaliatory measures to put an end to such gross injustice to our merchants. But let the noble Lord see how this differential duty had operated as regarded Spanish vessels during this period. In 1834 the value of the cargoes carried out to Havannah from Liverpool in Spanish bottoms 887 was 13,204l,; in 1835 it was 123,602l.; in 1836 it was 264,928l.; in 1837 it was 279,784l.; in 1838 it was 318,534l.; in 1839 it was 269,106l.; showing a progressive increase, while the value of cargoes carried in British vessels had greatly declined. He thought he had now made out a case which showed the
174

necessity for some steps being taken by the Government to put an end to this injustice on the part of Spain. He was sure that the noble Lord must have had before him the state of our trade at present with the Basque provinces. For six years we had been sending protest after protest against the impositions and the restrictions which had been placed by those provinces upon our trade, but at the end of those six years we were exactly at the same situation as when we started. Nay, we were even worse; for not only were the old illegal duties still levied upon our commodities, but new restrictions were placed upon our commercea fact which he was almost inclined to quote as a proof that the more the noble Lord remonstrated with the government of Spain, the more was that Government determined to embarrass our commercial transactions with accumulated restrictions. Now, when we considered the great sacrifices which the British Government had made in favour of the present dynasty of Spain, he thought that we had a right to expect that our interests should be treated with at least the same consideration that the government of Spain exhibited toward another member of the Quadruple Alliance, who had not assisted it so effectually as we had done. But even that degree of consideration had not been extended by the government of Spain to the commerce of this country. The noble Lord, at the head of the Foreign Department, was bound to show what progress he had made on all the points to which he had adverted. He was anxious to know whether the noble Lord was going to offer to the House and to the country, anything more reassuring to British commerce than the vague and general declarations which he had hitherto made on this subject.
Viscount Palmerston

said, that the speech of the noble Lord who had just sat down had undoubtedly relieved him from a considerable degreehe would not say of apprehension, but of natural curiosity. He certainly had felt curious respecting the points on which the noble Lord would dwell, in the hope of establishing that 888 general charge of neglect of the commercial interests of the country which he had brought forward against her Majesty's Government, and particularly against himself. Though he had been at a loss to imagine the points on which the noble Lord would attempt to support his accusation, he had hardly expected that in his performance the noble Lord would have fallen so short of the promises which he had held out; for the noble Lord, instead of taking a large and general view of our commercial relations with the different states of the world, had confined his remarks to one or two special points, on which he could satisfy the House that no complaints could be made with justice. In those remarks, too, the noble Lord had carefully withheld from the notice of the House that general view of the enlargement of our commerce by the progressive increase of our exports and imports to which he should feel it necessary to advert before he concluded the observations which he was now about to address to it. Nothing struck him more in these discussions on the commercial relations of the country than the difference between the language used by hon. Members when they were exciting the Government to obtain redress for the injuries alleged to be sustained by our commerce, and the language which they held after the Government had taken measures to obtain redress, when they charged Ministers with embarking unnecessarily into war, and with putting in jeopardy thereby commercial interests which did not require such a sacrifice. On this occasion the noble Lord opposite had even gone beyond the example of former days; for he had asked how long we should permit France to continue to blockade Buenos Ayres, and how long we should defer compelling Spain to make a commercial treaty with this country. Now, if England were the dictator over all the rest of the world, and if we had power over all foreign and independent nations, such language might be well, and the noble Lord might be justified in blaming her Majesty's Government for not compelling every other nation to grant us all that we wanted; but so long as one country was not in a situation to dictate to another,
175

and so long as nations withheld treaties from a mistaken view of their own interests, or it might be from ignorant prejudices, such language could not rest on any just or reasonable foundation. The noble 889 Lord had begun his speech by observing on our intercourse with Mexico. That was an unhappy topic wherewith to commence a speech which was to prove our neglect of the commercial interests of the country; for in Mexico we had successfully, and after much exertion, brought about an amicable arrangement between France and that country, by which the embarrassment to our commerce, occasioned by their quarrels, was happily put an end to. The noble Lord bad also found fault with him for the delay of two months which he had suffered to intervene between his receiving complaints of the imposition of new duties on our commerce in Mexico, and his sending out instructions to our representatives in that country to remonstrate against them. But it was quite clear that such instructions could not be sent out until the grounds on which they rested had been considered by the proper legal authorities; and therefore he thought that that delay of two months, on which the noble Lord had animadverted so strongly, was capable of an easy and satisfactory explanation. With respect to Buenos Ayres, it was true that our commerce, and American commerce, too, had suffered great inconvenience from the protracted blockade of the Rio de la Plata by the French flotilla. The noble Lord had asserted that the American government had not been so patient as our Government had been; to which he would only reply, that the American Government had shown, as we had done, great forbearance, and that that forbearance was highly creditable to the temper and prudence of its statesmen. But the noble Lord was mistaken if he supposed that we had not made exertions to bring that quarrel to a conclusion. The noble Lord must be aware that it was quite impossible for him to state at present the details of our efforts and of our negotiations. The noble Lord had said, "What we may have done I know not," and then had inferred from his own ignorance that nothing had been done. He could, however, assure the noble Lord that it was his belief, little as the noble Lord might be inclined to place credit in him, that from the nature of the communications which the French Government either had made or was about making to the Government of Buenos Ayres, both parties would soon come to a friendly termination of the disputes between them. He could likewise assure the noble Lord, that no efforts on 890 our part had been wanting, or would be wanting, to produce that desirable result: but when the noble Lord asked how long we should permit a great and powerful nation like France to continue its quarrel with an independent state like Buenos Ayres, he used language for which there could be no excuse, except that it had fallen from the noble Lord unpremeditatedly, and in the hurry of debate. It was true that the inconvenience of the blockade had been peculiarly great to our commerce, owing to the perishable nature of the commodities which we imported from Buenos Ayres. But the noble Lord was mistaken if he supposed that that inconvenience had not affected American commerce likewise. The noble Lord was also mistaken if he thought that the Americans had not respected the French blockade. The circumstances to which the noble Lord had alluded, to an American ship of war having protected two American merchant vessels from one point of the coast to another, was peculiar. It was an isolated instance, justified by particular circumstances; but in general the Americans had respected the blockade, and had been put, like us, to inconvenience by it. With respect to Montevideo, he would only observe that it would be time to speak on the inconvenience, which the noble Lord had alluded to, when it occurred; but till then he thought that he might pass over the remarks of the noble Lord on that subject without further observations. With respect to Portugal, it was true that the retaliatory duty which we had laid on in consequence of the discriminating duty which had been levied on our vessels by the Portuguese Government had not been a sufficient retaliation upon Portugal; but it was equally true that we had gone to the full extent that the law allowed us. The noble Lord was not, however, to suppose that the narrow-minded and exclusive system of commerce which Portugal had pursued had been beneficial to Portugal, while it was injurious to us; for he
176

could assure him (Lord Sandon) that Portuguese commerce had suffered considerably from the blind and ignorant system which it had recently pursued. He believed that at this moment the Portuguese Government saw the error of its course, and that a feeling was springing up among the principal men in the Cortes which would lead before long to the formation of arrange- 891 ments more beneficial to the commerce of the two countries. It was idle to suppose that any one country could adopt a system of discriminating or of prohibitory duties with advantage to itself; for, if so, every country would adopt a similar system. The fact was, and it was happily undisputed, that such a system was as injurious to the country which adopted it, as it was to the country against which it was levelled; and it was only necessary to let a country taste the bitter fruits of such a mistaken policy to bring it to the adoption of a better system. With regard to Spain, he believed that the Board of Trade had not yet issued directions for any retaliatory proceedings against the shipping of that country. But if such directions had been delayed, there were circumstances in the peculiar situation of that country at present which accounted for our forbearance. Those circumstances, however, had now ceased to operate. We had now reason to flatter ourselves on the improved prospects of that country, notwithstanding all the prophecies to the contrary which had issued from the other side of the House; yes, notwithstanding all the principal speakers on the other side had pledged their reputation and skill as statesmen to the success of the cause of Don Carlos, that cause had miserably failed, and the civil war which had so long desolated Spain had been brought to a termination. The time was, therefore, now come in which we could call upon Spain to liberalize her system of navigation, or meet those retaliatory measures which we should be justified in applying. But those who had so successfully established the liberties of Spain, must in the course of the struggle have imbibed liberal principles of commerce, which would teach them that Spain would best consult her own interests by sweeping away its present impolitic tariff, which impeded its commerce, foreign and domestic, and by substituting in its stead a more liberal system, would give additional elasticity not only to its own resources, but also to those of other countries. With respect to the embargo which had been laid on our vessels at Bilboa, a discussion was still going on between the two Governments. Hitherto we had not been successful in persuading the Spanish authorities to view the question in the same light in which we viewed it. But we ourselves had not always been open to con- 892 viction on points where foreigners differed from us, and therefore allowance ought to be made for the reluctance of the Spanish authorities to admit concessions which they imagined would interfere with their local revenues. That point, however, would not be lost sight of by her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord had touched on a few points to show, as he said, the neglect of the commercial interests of the country by a Government which had boasted that no former Government had done half so much for their enlargement as the present. He begged to disclaim ever having made any such arithmetical proposition. He had never made that boast; but as he was compelled to speak on that subject, he would assert as his opinion that no former Government had ever attempted so much to improve the commerce of the country, or had ever attempted it with so much success. The noble Lord in his commercial review had omitted all notice of the various treaties of commerce which we had obtained from other countries. The noble Lord had also intimated, that if the office in Downing-street had done such great things, it was passing strange that all the rest of the world should be ignorant of it. He would not take up the time of the House by entering into matters which had been discussed before. He would just call the attention of the noble Lord to the different amounts of imports and exports in different years. He was, at least, entitled to say, that if during the period in which he had the charge of the foreign interests of the country, our imports and our exports had continually and largely increased, that was a proof that the commerce of the country had been increasing, and that, whatever complaints had been made by particular interests, applicable to particular quarters of the globe, on the whole, if Ministers
177

had not paid attention to the interests of British commerce, they had at least been very fortunate in seeing it advance progressively. He held in his hand a statement of the exports from the United Kingdom. He would take 1830 as the first year, and he found that the total official value of the exports in that year was 38,000,000l.; in 1831, it was 37,000,000l.; in 1832, 38,000,000l.; in 1833, 39,000,000l.; in 1834, 41,000,000l.; in 1835, 47,000,000l.; in 1836, 45,000,000l.; in 1837, 893 42,000,000l.; in 1838, 50,000,000l.; in 1839, 53,000,000l. The exports, then, had risen between 1830 and 1839, from the value of 38,000,000l. to the value of 53,000,000l., a very considerable increase. It might be said, that we export without being gainers by the processeither giving commodities away, or selling them at a reduced value. But, if it appeared, that during the same time, the imports also had increased in the same proportion; it was quite clear, that it would thereby be established that the wholesome and substantial trade of the country was advantageous while it had gone on progressively extending. In 1830 the official value of our imports amounted to 46,000,000l.; in 1831, to 49,000,000l.; in 1832, to 44,000,000l.; in 1833, to 45,000,000l.; in 1834, 49,000,000l.; in 1835, to 48,000,000l.; in 1836, to 57,000,000l.; in 1837, to 54,000,000l.; in 1838, to 61,000,000l.; in 1839, to 62,000,000l. Here, therefore, the imports had increased between 1830 and 1839 from 46,000,000l. to 62,000,000l., a clear proof, that notwithstanding the local and temporary checks which our commerce had experienced, on the whole the commerce of the country had gone on steadily improving, and that between the two periods it had increased not much less than from two to three. Looking generally to the interests of British commerce, as well as to those various other measures which had tended to the development of the internal resources of the country, he thought he might assume that they had acquired confidence for their adherence to an enlightened system of Government, as well as by securing the interests of British commerce by means of treaties and other relations with foreign countries. He contended, therefore, that so far from the noble Lord being entitled to say that he had established his charge against her Majesty's present advisers, the commercial interests of the country had been greatly improved, its commerce had increased in the ratio which he had mentioned, and he had established a claim to some pretension, at least, of having successfully attended to the commercial interests of the country.
Mr. Maclean

was of opinion, that the noble Lord who had just sat down, had not fairly answered the speech of his noble Friend. His noble Friend had ex- 894 pressly said, that he meant to circumscribe his observations within certain portions of our foreign relations, and to exclude from them, for instance, the entire Eastern Question. Yet the noble Viscount opposite had made a speech, which if any speech could have such a tendency, was calculated to delude the country on the subjects of his address. He had endeavoured to prove, that the commerce of the country had been gradually increasing from 1830 to 1840, but had omitted to mention for what portion of that increase we were indebted to our own colonies, and what portion had arisen from that successful vigilance which, in dealing with our foreign relations, the noble Lord bad taken credit to himself for having so assiduously applied. He could not, however, forget the attacks which had been made on the Government for its utter indifference to our interests in connexion with the gum trade at Senegal and Mozambiquethe repealed animadversions which bad proceeded even from the other side, from hon. Members in the confidence of the Government, on the mode in which that important branch of commerce had been treated, when they were constantly assured that the matter was still under consideration, and told that, though British merchants were suffering year after year from unnecessary procrastination, they were notwithstanding to rest satisfied that their negotiations would terminate to the entire satisfaction of those individuals who were such diplomatic sufferers? His noble Friend had
178

put forward his most prominent cases, to which the noble Viscount's reply was, "True, we are not able to do as might be desired with Spain and Portugal; but Spain is now pacified, and has established her constitutional government." But did he forget that it was not through the instrumentality of the Foreign-office that the constitutional government of Spain was established, but by the energy of the French Government, which having entered with us into the Quadrupartite Treaty, and abandoned the strong ground which they took in the early period of the operation of that treaty, at last acted in so energetic a manner as to decide the contest in Spain? The noble Lord had no right whatever to plume himself on his policy as having produced this result. Were they now to be told of the noble Lord's influence with Spain, when he not 895 only could not succeed with a negotiation for a commercial treaty, but was unable to -obtain the liquidation of claims admitted to be in no manner doubtfulclaims which remained still pending, to the eternal disgrace of the country for which these men had fought, and also, he must add, of the country which had sent them to pour out their blood like water, for a dynasty which made them so ungrateful a return? His noble Friend had refrained from alluding to the great question of the East, more especially with reference to the Black Sea; but he could promise the noble Lord, that this subject would be submitted to the notice of the House early in the next Session. An opportunity had then occurred, of which the noble Lord might have availed himself to advance the commercial interests of this country, and to which the Foreign-office had by no means attended with the due degree of care. Some time since, a discussion had arisen in that House with reference to the treaty of Unkiar 'Skelessi, and the particular position in which that treaty placed England with respect to Russia, Turkey, and Austria. Since that treaty had been made, he had never understood that the noble Lord had given his assent to it. In the affair of the Vixen, it was always extremely difficult to ascertain the noble Lord's real opinion. Up to the present time the opinion of the Foreign-office remained in obscurity as to whether Russia obtained possession of the coast of Circassia by the 6th article of that treaty, and whether we were not excluded from the whole coast of Abasia. Whether the Turks had a right to cede it, or the Russians to take possession of it, was a question that was likely to be set at rest by the continued exertions of that magnificent race of menhe could give them no other title. If the invaders were driven from the stronghold of which they had unjustly possessed themselves, and the whole of that line of coast, 200 miles in extent, were opened to British commerce, he should be glad to hear from the noble Lord whether it were his intention, and the intention of his Government, to admit the validity of this secret article in the treaty of Unkiar 'Skelessi, and shut up the Dardanelles against English commerce, by which it had already received such material detriment, as instanced in the Vixen affair. He should be glad to know whether, upon the cessation of that 896 treaty, Government was prepared to act with energy, without which our commerce with the Black Sea would be entirely sacrificed, the independence of these brave men would ultimately become a dead letter, and the noble Lord's Government would do much to advance a power which had proved itself most inimical to British interests, and more particularly to British commerce in the Black Sea. He greatly deplored the speech of the noble Lord the other night. It was with great regret that he heard him let fall the declaration, that although the integrity of Cracow was guaranteed by France and England by solemn treaty, and that although that treaty was violated while the commerce of Cracow by that violation was annihilatedthough this was all proved, and though the noble Lord had pledged himself to send a commercial agent to Cracowin the face of all this, he lamented to hear the noble Lord say, that as Russia, Austria, and Prussia were powerful, it was necessary to act with prudencethat though they had violated a treaty to which we were parties., yet it would be unjustifiable to plunge the nation into warbecause, in fact, they were strong, the Government should be satisfied with mere demonstrations. What was this but holding out to the world that where a nation was weak, as in the case of Naples, the British Government would act with great energy; but that,
179

in such cases as those of Cracow, Buenos Ayres, and Mexico, they would act with great caution? Though he did not believe the noble Lord would be capable of carrying out a policy so painful to the feelings of Englishmen, yet such a speech as that of the noble Lord would lead foreigners to imagine that powerful nations might injure and insult us, as in the case of Cracow, or the insult given by the French to our flag in Mexico, or the gum trade at Portendic, with the most perfect impunity; that we would, in fact, submit to any insults rather than go to warinsults which, in the time of England's greatness, would not be submitted to for a moment. The noble Lord took credit for the settlement of the Mexican question, but then it took two years to obtain that settlement, during which the British merchants connected with that country suffered severely. Neither was the question much touched upon relative to the opium and China trade. The noble Lord was cer- 897 tainly taking active steps, but while he was fighting the Chinese, the English merchants, and still more the Parsee merchants, were exposed to very great suffering. The noble Lord might rely upon it, that very early in the next Session of Parliament, he would be called upon to give a much more explanatory account of the foreign policy of the Government.
Mr. Hawes

had hoped, that the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, would have suggested something valuable in the way of taking off restrictions, or altering our own tariffs with a view to improving the commerce of the country. But the noble Lord's speech was most extraordinary, for though a Member for a great commercial town, he had absolutely suggested nothing of the sort. He had talked of Mexico and of Spain, and would have this country proceed by blockade with respect to Mexico, and by retaliatory duties with respect to Spain. He congratulated the people of Liverpool upon possessing a representative who was so well acquainted with their interests. As to the hon. Member who had just sat down, he had made a speech de omnibus rebusbut he was all for cannon balls. He had spoken in the true Tory spirit, which always meant cannon balls. He would ask those hon. Gentlemen if they would propose to reduce any of the duties which formed a restriction to commerce? Would the noble Lord (Sandon) propose to reduce the duty on sugar? or on corn? or on timber? Not one of those duties would he propose to abate or ameliorate in order to encourage commerce. Not one Gentleman on the other side of the House, had ever proposed a single reduction of duty with a view to the increase of commerce, nor had they ever proposed any reduction with a view to lessen the burdens of the people. With respect to the course we ought to pursue, in order to placing the commerce of the country on a proper footing, he would quote the words of the late Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck), who had placed the subject in the most concise, and, at the same time, most forcible point of view that he remembered. "Why," said the hon. Gentleman, "should we practise folly because other nations lack wisdom?" If this country were to resort to blockade in every instance similar to that of Mexico, it would soon have its hands full. And 898 even in the case of Mexico, had the Government pursued such a course, they would very soon have the right hon. Member for Pembroke (Sir J. Graham) coming down to the House with a long motion demanding to know why the Government had plunged the country into a war. He perceived, by a paper he held in his hands, that additional customs duties were to be levied on certain articles. Would the noble Lord oppose those duties, or would he propose a reduction in any of those existing? [Lord Sandon No:] No; because the noble Lord had peculiar interests to contend for, the colonial interests; there was to be 100 per cent, paid upon coffeewould the noble Lord take off that, or the duty on corn, or any other duty whatever; no. No hon. Member on the noble Lord's side of the House even proposed taking off a duty, no matter how beneficial to commerce might be the reduction. With respect to the commerce of the Black Sea, the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, and the coast of Circassia, which had been
180

spoken of by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Maclean), it seemed to have escaped the hon. Member that Lord Aberdeen had more to do with these than the noble Lordand that the name of the former was much more conspicuous in the correspondence.
Lord Sandon

said, that if the revenue was in a flourishing condition, he would support a proposition for the reduction of duties; but as there was at present a positive and acknowledged deficiency, he could not be the person to propose a reduction.
Mr. E. Tennent

said, it was no doubt true, that the blockade of Mexico had been raised; but had France, he would ask, abated one jot of her iniquitous demands on that country? Had France remitted one shilling of the 800,000 dollars she claimed? France had refused, and Mexico, in order to replenish her exhausted treasury, had imposed a duty of 25 per cent, on British goods consumed within her territories. The effect of this measure, he knew, was, that extensive orders for British goods had been already countermanded. Why had not the noble Lord, he would ask, interfered to stop the blockade of Buenos Ayres? So long as the foreign affairs of the country were managed as at present, that blockade could not be expected to terminate ex899 cept, as the Mexican blockade had been terminated, on the terms and at the moment when France pleased. What protection had the noble Lord granted our commerce in Brazil? It was now five years since the question of the injuries done to British subjects at Pora had been under the noble Lord's consideration, and he should like to know what progress had been made in settling it? A memorial on the subject was sent to the noble Lord in 1835, and it was not till the middle of 1836 that he had even condescended to acknowledge its receipt. The noble Lord might say, there were legal difficulties in the way of settling the question, but it had now been before the law officers of the Crown for three years. At Bahia also, British subjects had been robbed of their property. A memorial, detailing the grievances of our countrymen at that place, had been put into the noble Lord's hand in March last, and up to the moment at which he spoke no answer had been received to it, not even the mere answer of ordinary civility, or acknowledgment of its being received. The noble Lord boasted of his readiness to interfere for the protection of our merchants; but he could venture to say, from an extensive knowledge of the merchants of Liverpool and of London, that not one of them placed any confidence in the noble Lord.
Mr. Sheil

complained that the hon. Member had brought forward his accusations against the noble Lord, when by the forms of the House, the noble Lord was unable to reply to him. If the hon. Gentleman had brought forward his allegations at a time when the noble Lord could have risen, he would have made retaliatory statements; but it was a deviation from the ordinary course, after a Minister of the Crown had delivered his speech, to come down upon him with a charge which he was precluded from answering. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman ought to have avoided allusion to Spain. Supposing the hon. Gentleman's aspirations had been heard, and his wishes granted, supposing the cause of despotism had triumphed, and that liberty had fallensupposing Don Carlos had ascended the throne of Spainwhat had that to do with the question? The question before the House was of a commercial nature, and yet the hon. Gentleman asked if payment had been obtained for the arms sent out to Spain. Was that a commercial question? Was 900 that within the scope of the motion of the noble Lord? Why,
181

the question rather belonged to the Secretary at War. And why introduce Cracow into this discussion? Was it legitimate to lug a question that had been already fully discussed into a topic of another kind with which it had nothing whatever to do? With regard to Portugal and Spain, it was not by bringing forward isolated points of import and export, as the noble Lord opposite had done, that a question like the present was to be judged, but by looking to broad and general results. He held in his hand the customs returns, which in a short compass presented a splendid picture of the prosperity of the country. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the increase of our exports and imports in a series of years previous and subsequent to the passing of the Reform Bill, and said,these were facts, and such facts could not be contradicted or mistaken.
Mr. D'Israeli

could not allow a discussion of that kind to terminate without attempting to infuse into it a spirit somewhat more comprehensive than that which had characterized it, and he was anxious to place before the House some circumstances of an extraordinary nature that had occurred within the last ten years. When the noble Lord first assumed the portfolio of foreign affairs, he adopted a new system of foreign alliances, and he told them that the first guarantee of his intention would be a commercial treaty with France. Nine years had elapsed, and that treaty had not appeared. Whether they were any nearer to its accomplishment now than at first was a question he would leave the House to determine. It appeared to him that the noble Lord, in forming his new arrangement, occasioned two of the severest blows to fall upon the commerce of this country that it had ever experienced. With Poland and the Black Sea, this country lost a commerce with twenty-one millions of men, in order to cement the alliance with France. Those were amongst the results of the new system of the noble Lord. In anticipation of the promised commercial treaty with France, we had supported the policy of that country in Belgium, in Spain, and in Portugal. What were the fruits of this support of interests which were not English interests, except so far as France might be considered the friend of England? We had been rewarded by French blockades established 901 in Mexico and at Buenos Ayres, by the interruption of our commerce at Rio de la Plata, by the exclusion of our trade from the eastern coast of Africa, from Portendic and Gambia. Having played us false in seven portions of the globe, the Eastern Question, which all along had been lowering in the distance, at length developed itself, and then it became evident that the intention of France was to betray us in Egypt. Reluctantly convinced that the vaunted friendship of France was hollow, the noble Lord turned round to Russia, whom he had previously threatened, and endeavoured to obtain the support of a power which had destroyed our trade with Poland, and excluded us from the Euxine. Finding, however, that Russia would only support him in a very limited degree, the noble Lord was fain at last to revert to the principles of his early life, and to strengthen himself by seeking the alliance of the Conservative power of Austria. Succeeding in this return to the Tory principles of commercial policy, the noble Lord came down in triumph to the House and claimed applause for the wisdom of his arrangements. He for one did not object to this part of the noble Lord's policy. He thought that the Austrian connection was valuable. He thought that if ever there Were two countries calculated by nature, and by the relations of trade and commerce, to be great and influential as allies, it was Great Britain and Austria. It was, in fact, the old traditionary policy of the countrybut what was to compensate the country for the noble Lord's eccentric and erratic course during the last nine years? Were we, by our recently renewed alliance with Austria, to regain the trade which we had lost in Poland and the Black Sea? Were we to recover the markets of which France had deprived us in seven portions Of the globe? Supposing the noble Lord to have adopted this Austrian alliance in 1832, was it probable that we should have suffered the losses and
182

indignities to which we had been subjected under a different course of policy? For his own part, he thought that British commerce had been more prejudiced during the foreign administration of the noble Lord than in any other period of the like extent in the history of the nation; and he feared that the seeds of events had been sown, which hereafter might mature with consequences that would shake the empire to its centre.
Mr. Ewart

, without entering into de- 902 tails, without discussing the policy of a blockade in this quarter of the globe, or a restriction to our commerce in another, was prepared to express his approbation of the general line of policy pursued by the noble Lord. The real question to be considered was, whether the broad principles which had governed the noble Lord's conduct were consistent with the great leading interests of the country? He thought, that fairly weighed, whatever partial defects might be discovered, the general scope and tendency of the noble Lord's foreign policy had been wise and prudent, and generally advantageous to the nation. Thus judging of it, he had the satisfaction of being able to give it his own individual approbation. He was the more disposed to approve of it, because the commercial policy of the noble Lord had throughout been a policy of peace. The question "that the Speaker do now leave the chair" was carried. House in committee, supply postponed. House resumed.

183

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1840/aug/06/france-and-egypt

FRANCE AND EGYPT. HC Deb 06 August 1840

vol 55 cc1366-781366 Mr. Hume,

on rising to call the attention of the House to the relations of this country with France, as regarded the affairs of Egypt and Syria, said that every one knew in what a critical position our situation was as respected France and Russia; but what he was anxious at present to do was, to remove the effect of what had fallen from the noble Secretary for the Colonies on the last occasion. The noble Lord had excepted to the use he then made of the word "insurrection," as applied to the Druses, and denied that British interference had anything to do with that rising. Now the truth was, that the noble Lord very much forgot what was the real state of the case, because there were papers on the table of the House which showed that British authorities had interfered, as he had complained. Besides a despatch of the noble Lord to Colonel Campbell, which justified this assertion, there was another despatch which he held in his hand, and which was from Mr. Mandeville, the British resident at Constantinople in the absence of Lord Ponsonby, to Ibrahim Pacha, bearing date March 29th, 1833, which fully corroborated his assertion. His words were The Sultan has deigned to concede to his Highness Mehemet Ali the government of the whole of Syria. His position was thisthat the authority of Mehemet Ali had subsisted in Egypt and Syria for the last eight years; that it had been established by the admission both of the British and French Courts; that the British authorities and agents in the Levant had acted on that conviction, and therefore the noble Lord was not right in saying that the authority of Mehemet Ali was not fully established there. In reply to an intimation from Mehemet Ali that he would declare himself independent of the Porte, Colonel Campbell said I replied to him that he should remain contented with the status quo, as settled at Kintayah, and trust to the great Powers for any arrangement for the future. In this state of facts he (Mr Hume) 1367 thought that he had made out his original statement that Mehemet Ali was de facto governor of Syria. But, however that might be, he held in his hand a letter which stated that the insurrection was entirely at an end. It appeared from this letter, written by M. Arago, the nephew of the philosopher, that this rising, which they had been told was to create a revolution, had proceeded from about 1,500 men, and that in quelling it every desire was manifested to spare the effusion of blood. With respect to the war into which it appeared that Great Britain was about to be hurried, without knowing what might be the results, he might mention that he had just seen a naval officer who had arrived in the Alecto from Beyrout, and had told him that Captain Napier, of the Powerful, had said that if he had arrived in time he would have interfered to prevent the event. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to contradict this, because he could not believe that any officer would have so interfered, of his own account, in the present state of our relations with France as regarded this subject. His question then was, whether a convention between England, Prussia, Austria, and Russia, had been signed, and whether there was any objection to laying a copy before the House previous to its adjournment? If the convention had been signed, he must say he could not conceive any policy more disastrous to England. One of the greatest evils under Lord Castlereagh's administration was the system of interference with foreign Powers, and it would be recollected that when Mr. Canning was called to power he declared that the policy of Great Britain should be nonintervention. The same principle was one of the three principles on which Earl Grey came into office. Now, his objection to the present proceeding of the British Government was, that they were thereby joining the holy alliance of the despots of Europe, a name now so odious, and that they were retiring from the alliance with France, the
184

only constitutional Government among the great powers, for the sake of forwarding Russian objects, as he contended. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to deny the orders which had been said to have been given to the British fleet, and which, if acted upon, would risk immediate hostilities. To Lord Ponsonby, and to him alone, we owed, in his opinion, the whole of this 1368 risk. From the expenses which France had been at, war appeared to him to be imminent. Government appeared to him to be playing the part of Russia. He trusted the noble Lord would do nothing that would have the effect of promoting the views of Russia, or advancing her progress into Asia Minor. Mehemet Ali had offered to restore all that he had conquered elsewhere, with the exception of Syria; and he asked the noble Lord to confine the war within Syria. We had postponed a peace through our agent at Constantinople. He protested against the House closing without having some further explanation on the subject. He hoped that if hostilities took place either with Mehemet Ali or with France, that Parliament would be called together, without delay, before the country was involved in war. He begged to move: That a humble Address be laid before her Majesty, praying her to lay before the House a copy of the Convention entered into by the four great Powers of Europe.
Viscount Palmerston

said, that his hon. Friend, entertaining the opinions on this subject which he did, very sincerely and honestly no doubt, it was impossible for him to have expressed himself more calmly or dispassionately. He entertained opinions on this subject as sincere and honest as those of his hon. Friend, but directly the reverse, and where parties had examined a subject, and entertained such essentially different opinions on that subject, of course, they could only leave it to future events, and to the result, to see which was the correct opinion. As strongly as his hon. Friend believed, that the proceedings that had taken place, and that the convention which had been entered into between this country and other great powers on the subject of Turkey would promote what his hon. Friend believed to be the selfish interests of Russia, so firmly was he convinced, that it would lead to a directly opposite result. Before he began to notice the observations of his hon. Friend, he would just contradict a statement which had been made with regard to the Russian expedition having reached Khiva. He could assure his hon. Friend, that he might be as certain as that he was at present in that House that the Russian expedition did not reach Khiva; but that on its advance, met with so many difficulties, that it was obliged to return to the sea of Aral. The report, 1369 therefore, which had been spread in Asia, and whether it had been done by Russian agents or not, for some purpose or other, he would not stop to inquire, was certainly unfounded. The next point his hon. Friend adverted to was the possession of Syria. His hon. Friend, on a former occasion, stated that although he did not recollect the precise period of the negotiations when this took place, his hon. Friend was satisfied that England had offered to guarantee to Meheraet Ali the possession of Syria: he denied his hon. Friend's assertion at the time, and he now repeated his denial. His hon. Friend now stated that Mr. Mandeville, our minister to Turkey, at the period of the advance of the Egyptian army in Asia Minor, recommended Mehetnet Ali to be content with Syria, and that he consented to this after negotiations. Now, there was nothing in the proceedings of Mr. Mandeville to justify any assumption on the part of his hon. Friend, that the British Government or its representative was prepared to recommend Turkey to give up Syria; on the contrary, the documents from which his hon. Friend had quoted, would, if he had referred to another part of them, have shown that this opinion was not entertained; for in one of the despatches of Mr. Mandeville, in that volume, dated April 14, he stated, that he had had a conversation with Admiral Roussin on the subject of Mehemet Ali and Syria, in which he had assured that Minister, that so far from there being any probable intention of this Government being induced to consent to the cession of Syria, it was a matter with respect to which there
185

could be no doubt as to the opinion of her Majesty's Government, and as to their determination on that point. It was, therefore, clear, that the person representing England in Turkey, could not have given anything like an assent to the cession of Syria. His hon. Friend, however, asserted, that Mr. Mandeville recommended Mehemet Ali, or rather Ibrahim, who was advancing at the head of his army, to be content with Syria; certain, however, it was that it was after that advice, or after the advance of the Russian force through the Bosphorus, he did content himself with the possession of that province. His hon. Friend had spoken as if Egypt was regarded by this country as an independent state; whereas our consul-general in Egypt acted and was appointed under an 1370exequater from the Sultan as sovereign of Egypt and Turkey; therefore, it was the Sultan and not Mehemet Ali, who was regarded by this country as the Sovereign of Egypt. The revolt, then, as it had been termed, in Syria, took place against the local authorities now in possession of t the country, and was not a revolt against the Sovereign. He could also assure his hon. Friend, that whatever might have been the causes of the revolt, it was in no way caused by the instigation of British authorities, or by British officers. Lord Ponsonby, soon after the news of it reached him, sent his dragoman, Mr. Wood, to Beyrout, to report on what was occurring there. He went there in June, and on his arrival on the coast, he very: properly did not land at Beyrout, for by I doing so he would have exposed himself to insult and danger, as the Egyptian army i was committing; every kind of atrocity and outrage in that place and in the country; but he went elsewhere to get every information that he could on the subject, and after a short time he returned to Constantinople. His hon. Friend said, that the insurrection had been entirely put down, and that Captain Napier had avowed to some one on that coast that he was instructed to take part in it, and to render assistance. Now, with regard to the fact, he could assure his hon. Friend that he had been, altogether misinformed; for although Captain Napier had been ordered to that spot, it had been done only with the view of protecting British property and interests. He had not had instructions sent out to him from home, but that gallant officer had been directed by Sir Robert Stopford, or, in his absence, by Sir John Louis, to proceed to that place, to protect British interests. It was true that benig there, Captain Napier did address himself to the Egyptian commander, and urged him to put a stop to that scene of devastation, of crime, and of outrage, occasioned by the troops under his command. He stated that, without saying whether the instructions of those who had risen for the Sultan were right or wrong, the commander of the Egyptian forces could not be justified in carrying on his proceedings against these people with so much barbarity; and he added, that if a stop was not put to these proceedings, he would inform Mehemet Ali of the acts of atrocity and outrage that had been committed in his name, by which the whole country was 1371 destroyed, and thousands of women and children, who could have taken no part in the rising, were made to perish. The answer of the commander of the Egyptian army was that it was the insurgents that had set fire to and destroyed the neighbouring villages and crops; but he had the satisfaction to believe that the urgent recommendations of Captain Napier had been the means of putting a stop to scenes of this horrible nature. His hon. Friend asked for a copy of the convention that had been entered into with the other great powers; that a convention had been entered into was certain, but it was not fulfilled, until it was ratified and exchanged by each of the powers that was a party to it, and until this was done it was impossible that the document could be made public, or that it could be laid before Parliament. It had not yet been ratified or exchanged, but he had not the slightest doubt that it would be exchanged, but it was impossible for him to tell what the objects of the convention would be until this was done. Whenever the convention was ratified and exchanged, there could be no objection, on the contrary, there would be every desire to lay it on the Table. His hon. Friend stated, that he or the Government had abandoned the alliance with France, and had embarked with the Holy Alliance in the pursuit of interests hostile to those of England, and which could only promote the advantage or interest of one of
186

the five powers, who were parties to the convention, viz., Russia. Now, he could give a most complete and entire contradiction to the conclusion drawn by his hon. Friend. He denied, that there was any disposition on the part of the Government of this country to abandon the alliance or intimate connection which existed with France, and to which he had always attached the greatest importance, knowing, as he did, how beneficial it was to the two countries, and how essential it was for the preservation of the peace of Europe; and although upon this particular subject there had been some, he trusted unimportant differences for no doubt, there had been some difference of opinionfor that power did not assist in the late convention; yet he spoke with hope and confidence that he did not believe that this could operate on the good feelings which existed between the two countries, and that it would not interfere 1372 with those long-enduring and lasting interests which should connect France and England together, and that it could not lead to a permanent hostile feeling between two great nations which had so many interests in common; on the contrary, so far from any abandonment of France, he could repeat what had been stated elsewhere, that he was happy to say that in these proceedings no concealment had been practised towards France. No exertion had been wanted on the part of this country, or of the other parties to the convention, to bring that nation to adopt something like an unison of views with the other powers on the subject during the negotiations for the last twelve months. For, with respect to the maintenance of the integrity of Turkey under the existing destiny, there never existed any difference between France and the other powers. The French government declared in the most positive manner, that it was as anxious for the maintenance of the Turkish empire in its integrity. In the month of July, last year, France joined in declaring, with the other four powers, that it considered the maintenance of the present dynasty in Turkey essential to the peace of Europe, and that it was determined, with the other powers, to prevent any dismemberment of that empire. Again, the King of the French, in the speech from the throne to the two chambers, at the commencement of the present year, declared that: Our policy is always to secure the preservation and integrity of the Ottoman Empire, whose existence is so essential to the preservation of the general peace. Our efforts have at least succeeded in stopping those hostilities in the East which we had wished to have prevented; and whatever may be the complications which may result from the diversity of interest, I hope that the agreement of the Great Powers will soon end in an equitable and pacific conclusion.'' On this point, there was no more difference between the two Governments than there was between his hon. Friend and himself. There was undoubtedly a difference of opinion as to the tendency of particular measures to contribute to the end which both nations had in view, and the result of events would show which was in the right. When two great countries agreed in the great and leading principles of a particular policy, he could not believe that any divergence as to the mode of 1373 carrying out that policy, or their objects, could lead to any permanent difference. His hon. Friend said, that the object of the convention was to weaken and divide Turkey. He could not understand by what process of reasoning his hon. Friend arrived at this conclusion, or how he could suppose that the restoring Syria to the direct authority of the Sultan could have the effect of weakening and dismembering the Turkish empire and destroying its power. He certainly thought that the adoption of the suggestions of his hon. Friend would tend that way, for his hon. Friend would at once give to Mehemet Ali the hereditary government of Egypt and of Syria. By giving him Syria, he would have the constant means of access to some of the most vulnerable parts of the Turkish empire, for the line of separation that was proposed to be drawn would leave open some most important provinces to constant attack. If his hon Friend looked to the documents on this subject, from which he had quoted, he would find amongst the latest papers a letter from Colonel Hodges, in which he stated: The Pacha said that he would persist in retaining Syria, and in the object that he had of making himself independent.'' Now, if this was not a dismemberment of the Turkish empire, he did not know what was. Colonel Hodges then went
187

on to say: Your Lordship will see that Mehemet Ali is using every exertion in his power to endeavour to effect the object with reference to which he is so anxious. He therefore contended that the direct tendency of the policy advocated by his hon. Friend would be the dismemberment of the Turkish empire; for he would place one third of it under the government of the most bitter enemy to the Porte. Turkey, weakened in this way, and so many of her richest provinces taken from her, and transferred to her formidable rival, would be almost at the constant mercy of the latter. In a case of emergency she could not call upon France, nor could she demand any aid from England, according to the policy of his hon. Friend, of nonintervention; she must then resort to Russia, and by that means they would place the Sultan in a state of weakness and exhaustion, under the protection of that power of which his hon. Friend was so jea- 1374 lous: and this must be at a price most dangerous to the peace of Europe. If Russia, then, entertained the project which his hon. Friend said that she did, his policy would be the most dangerous that could be adopted for the promotion of it. His hon. Friend had asked what had become of the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi? He could tell his hon. Friend that Russia had stated that other powers had mistaken her intentions with respect to that treaty, and that in signing it she had not been actuated by any selfish or exclusive views, and she would consent if the other powers of Europe would join with her, and take the position she held with reference to this treaty between herself and Turkey, that she would not renew it, as she did not wish to have any exclusive control in the matter. Therefore, the distinct policy of her Majesty's Government and the other powers led to a clear understanding, that the separate treaty between Russia and Turkey should expire, and should not be renewed. As to what his hon. Friend had alluded to with respect to the holy alliance, he could only say that his hon. Friend entertained a most unfounded impression on the subject. What on earth had the holy alliance to do with this treaty, which had been entered into for a specific purpose? The treaty, also, was not with the same parties that contracted the holy alliance, for England was no party to that alliance, and France of that day, although not directly a party to it, was by no means adverse to it. It was the anxious desire of the five powers (for he might include Turkey in the number), that France should be induced to join in the proceedings that had taken place, for it must be obvious that it was most desirable that France should give the weight of its moral influence to the alliance, and thus secure the peace of Europe beyond all doubt. It was with the deepest regret, then, that her Majesty's Government found that it could not obtain the consent of France to the proceedings that had recently taken place. But in all the communications with, the government of France since that time, there was no foundation for the impression which had been attempted to be spread in certain places; and, above all, in France, as to certain hostile intentions existing with respect to the arrangements which had been come to by the other powers. He most sincerely hoped, and believed that any mere differences as to the carrying out the same 1375 object would not lead to any interference with the peace and harmony which existed between the two countries. France was a great and powerful nationFrance had great interests of her own to advance in peace, and she was governed by men who were too wise rashly and wantonly, and without just cause, to convert Europe into one general scene of war, and thus put a stop to the general peace which now so happily existed. There was nothing in the engagements which had been entered into, which ought to give rise, even in the view of the most jealous mind, to a supposition that any hostile feeling was entertained towards France. And he could assure the House, that in the whole of our proceedings, nothing had been done in any way inimical to the interests of France, and if she did not embark in the same course of policy with us in carrying out the common object, he trusted that the enlightened government of France would not embark in a hostile career as alluded to by his hon. Friend. He would only add, that as the treaty had not been ratified, it could not be produced; but, when that was done, he could assure his hon. Friend there would be no delay in laying it en the table; and when the convention was published, and her
188

Majesty's ministers were enabled to lay before the House the negotiations that had been carried on, and the reasons which had influenced them, and the motives which impelled them in the course which they had thought it to be their duty to pursue on this subject, he felt assuredhe had almost said, that his hon. Friend would be convincedthat not only England but Europe at large would admit that the line of policy that had been adopted and carried out was the best calculated to put a stop to those unhappy scenes in the Levant, which, if allowed to continue, must be destructive to the peace of Europe.
Mr. Leader

was sure, that the House must be gratified that his hon. Friend had brought forward this motion, for the explanation of the noble Lord must have given some satisfaction even to his hon. Friend. For his own part, he was willing to admit, that it was of a much more satisfactory nature than he expected to hear. He was sorry to find, that the exclusion of France from the negotiations on this subject had led to the manifestation of such a feeling of bitter hostility amongst the French on account of the ill-treatment 1376 which they believed they had experienced from this country on this subject. Looking into the French papers, there appeared to be a general feeling of bitterness and disappointment, and a belief, that their honour had been insulted, and that in these proceedings the noble Lord had sacrificed them to the other great powers of Europe. If this feeling was allowed to continue it must lead to the very worst consequences. The noble Lord would allow him to ask whether in the course of their proceedings or negotiations, there had been no concealment, as he had heard from several quarters, and it appeared to be the general feeling in France, that there had been a want of official courtesy towards France in the mode in which these negotiations were carried on. It was stated, that when the convention was signed, the Minister of France in this country did not even know the day. The noble Lord had stated, that France did not take any part towards the conclusion of these negotiations, but when the convention was agreed to by the other powers, and when the negotiations were brought to a close, it had been stated that France should either have an opportunity of assenting to it, or that, at any rate, the French Ambassador should have had an opportunity of giving the reasons which induced France not to assent to it. It was broadly asserted in the French papers that no intimation whatever was given to France on the subject. He might be told that this was a mere matter of form in the negotiations, but unfortunately the French were very nice and touchy on points of honour in matters of this kind, and certainly they could not be blamed for having a nice sense of honour, and there was, in addition to this, a feeling that this country wished to act against them or over-reach them in this matter. He sincerely hoped, that there was no ground for any feeling of the kind, for the newspapers in France exercised a much greater influence over the minds of the people than they did in this country. That strong feeling did not seem to be manifested against the other three powers, Prussia, Austria, or Russia, but was entirely directed against England, for France imagined that there had been something like a breach of confidence in the proceedings, after she had been for the last ten years on such terms of amity with this country. It should be remembered that 1377 France and England were the foremost and most enlightened Governments in Europe, for in them alone was there anything like liberal government or institutions, and, united, these two great countries could secure the peace of Europe: but in this matter France unfortunately imagined that this country had left or abandoned her, to court the alliance of the other powers. Whatever advantages the noble Lord imagined might be obtained in the East by these negotiations, they were as nothing in comparison to the evils that would arise from the breach of the alliance between England and France. He would only add, that he sincerely hoped that this was not the first step towards a change of policy on the part of this country. He hoped that there was no feeling in the present
189

Government, and he hoped that there would be no such feeling in any Tory Government that might succeed it, that there was a too liberal feeling growing up in France for an intimate alliance with this country, and that, therefore, it was expedient to unite with other governments more disposed to these views. He hoped that the noble Lord would distinctly state that no affront whatever was intended to France in any steps of this negotiation, and he must add, that for his own part he did not believe that either the noble Lord or any one else could commit such a blunder.
Viscount Palmerston

said, that although it was not exactly in order, he trusted that the House would allow him to make one or two observations in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He could assure the hon. Member, and he could assure the House, that there was no want of courtesy whatever towards France in the manner in which these negotiations had been carried on. During the course of the last ten months, it was the desire of all the powers to act in concert to secure the important object with respect to which they were all agreed, but it turned out, after a short time, that there was such a difference of opinion between France and the other powers as to the measures which should be adopted to insure the result which all desired, that they could not act together with any probability of arriving at a conclusion. On this being found to be the case a communication was made to France that if this difficulty continued, and the other four powers came to 1378 an understanding on the subject, that must not be a matter of surprise to her. In the course of the negotiations which were then carried on with the view of arriving at a general conclusion, a projet was drawn up on our side which was presented to France, which was answered by a contre projet on her part. Thus there was one plan furnished on our side, and another on the part of France. We then offered a middle course to which France stated, that she could not agree. Again, between two and three months before the convention was signed, a communication was made to her on this subject, and it was distinctly stated to be the extreme to which the other powers were prepared to go. After two months' deliberation she gave pointed and conclusive reasons why she could not be a party to this arrangement. The four powers then determined, in accordance with the regulation already made with France, that they would join in carrying the arrangement into effect, and notice of the same was given to the French Minister two days after it was completed. In the case of the convention made between France and England alone, in reference to Belgium, notice of the same was not communicated to the other powers till some time after.

190

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1841/feb/19/Turkey-syria-and-egypt

TURKEY, SYRIA, AND EGYPT. HC Deb 19 February 1841

vol 56 c759759 Mr. Hume

wished to save the House the trouble of presenting an address to her Majesty, and would therefore put a question to the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs. At the commencement of the Session the noble Lord had promised to lay upon the Table of the House the papers connected with the late Syrian war. Three weeks had since passed, and he was desirous of being informed whether the noble Lord could fix any definite day when they would be ready? He was waiting for them in order to submit a question to the House founded upon them.
Viscount Palmerston

observed, that the time that had elapsed certainly might seem long, but there had been no unnecessary delay. The papers formed a great mass, and the severe pressure of the current business had, perhaps, in some degree interfered with their preparation. No time should be lost, but if he were to name any definite day it would only be mere guess-work.
Mr. Hume

remarked, that the delay that had occurred looked a little like trifling with the House, especially when it had been told that the object of the treaty of July had been attained. Subject at an end.

191

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1841/mar/12/christians-in-syria

CHRISTIANS IN SYRIA. HC Deb 12 March 1841

vol 57 cc142-4142 Sir R. H. Inglis

, seeing the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, would take that opportunity of presenting a petition to which he would beg to call the noble Lord's attention, as he wished to put a question to him respecting its prayer. The petition was from the vicar and clergy of the parish of Sheffield. The petition related to the condition of Christians in the Levant. The House was aware that for a long period the Emperor of Russia was regarded as, and in fact was, the protector of the Christians of the Greek church residing in the Levant. In the same way, as was also well known, France had claimed the right of protecting the Christians of the church of Rome resident in Syria. Under those circumstances he would urge that the Sovereign of England should be regarded as the protector of Protestantism in that country. Considering, as he should always consider, that Protestantism was the brightest jewel in the British Crown, he felt that as Russia protected the Greek Christians, and France those of the church of Rome, Protestants in Syria should be considered under the special care and protection of the Sovereign of England. The petitioners, indeed, did not pray for this; but he did urge that such steps should be taken by our Government as would place the Christians in Syriahe alluded more particularly to Protestantsin at least no Worse condition than they were before the late events in that quarter. He was aware, and he spoke in the hearing of some noble and hon. Friends who had still more recently visited those regions, that before those events the Christians did enjoy protection in the exercise of 143 their religious rites, as well as a more general security under the Turks, and certainly an unrestricted access to the holy places. What he was anxious about was, lest by any results of the late events they might be placed in a worse condition than before. The petitioners felt grateful to Almighty God for the successful termination of our late efforts in Syria, and they hoped for full protection to Christian worship. They were aware that matters of this kind were in general better left to the executive Government; but they hoped that the expression of opinion in that House might influence the executive in favour of the Christians resident, in Syria and the Holy Land. They also prayed that protection might be extended to the Jews in the exercise of their worship. On this he would not say any thing, but one circumstance he would mention as he had heard it that the first use which the Jews of Damascus and other places made of their liberty was to persecute the Christians. He said he would not trespass longer on the House, but, thanking it for the kind indulgence extended to him, he would beg to ask the noble Lord whether her Majesty's Government had done every thing in their power to make the condition of the Christians in Syria better, or at least to prevent its being worse, than it had been before the late events in that quarter?
Viscount Palmerston

could assure the House and the hon. Baronet that the matters to which the petitioners referred had not escaped the attention of her Majesty's Government; they were too interesting on every account to have been neglected. Without stating the particular steps that had been taken, he was happy to be able to inform the House that a course had been adopted in order to urge the Porte to do what the petitioners so earnestly recommended, namely, that the Christians in Syria should not only not be in a worse position than before the late changes, but, if possible, that their condition should be improved as regarded the exercise of their religion. As to what
192

was called the right of protection, he might observe that the protection of the Greek religion by the Emperor of Russia arose out of distinct treaties with the Porte: every body was probably aware of the circumstances under which these treaties had been signed, and they stood on peculiar grounds. The sort of acknowledged right of the French Government to intercede for Roman Catholics was of very ancient date, and arose out 144 of circumstances, as well as out of times, very different from the present. It was not, therefore, easy for the British Government to obtain an analogous privilege as regarded the Protestants; but care would be taken to employ all the influence which the British Government might have acquired at Constantinople to effect such an object. With regard to the Jewish population also, her Majesty's Government had taken steps to obtain from the Porte full security for that portion of the subjects of the Sultan; indeed, if the hatti scheriff were fully enforced it would secure, both to Christians and Jews, the objects which the hon. Baronet had in view.

193

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1841/mar/12/turker-and-egypt

TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 12 March 1841

vol 57 cc144-7144 Lord Francis Egerton

I wish to put a question to the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It has reference to a document received subsequently to the last advices from Egypt, which has appeared in the ordinary channels of information. It is an extract from a hatti scheriff issued by the Sultan, conveying to Mehemet Ali and his descendants the pachalic of Egypt. Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to inform the House whether the version of the document which has been published be correct; and if so, whether it have received the sanction of her Majesty's Government, and of the three other Powers, and whether it is proposed to adhere to the provisions of it.
Viscount Palmerston

I have received an official copy from the Turkish ambassador of the firman sent to Mehemet Ali, conferring upon him the government of Egypt in hereditary succession, that is to say, upon him and his descendants, on certain conditions. I have not compared it with the document which has appeared in the public journals, and I am therefore not able to say whether the latter is a correct version, but I dare say it isindeed I have no doubt of it. This instrument has been issued by the Sultan on his own authority, and it was only yesterday communicated to her Majesty's Government. Until some question shall arise thereupon on which the four Powers may be consulted, I apprehend it is a matter between the Sultan and his subject Mehemet Ali.
Sir Robert Peel

This is certainly a subject of great importance, and out of which serious questions may arise. It was understood that an engagement was entered into with Mehemet Ali, that the hereditary pachalic of Egypt should be 145 conferred upon him and his family. By the document lately received, the Porto has reserved to itself the power of determining which of the sons of the Pacha shall succeed him. I beg to ask, whether this new engagement is conformable with that formerly entered into, and whether it is a measure to which the four Powers are parties?
Viscount Palmerston

As the questions are put to me I answer them, and the right hon. Baronet must not complain if I do not reply to questions not distinctly propounded. I now understand him to ask whether the four Powers do or do not approve of that particular condition of the firman which reserves to the Sultan the right of selecting one or other of the descendants of Mehemet Ali, who is to succeed him in the pachalic? I am sure the right hon. Baronet will see that it is impossible for me to say what the four Powers may or may not do on that point. We understand by a private, and not an official, account from Alexandria, that the Turkish commissioner who carried the firman to Egypt, did, on the 23d or 24th of February, transmit a representation on the point to Constantinople. What the Sultan may determinewhether on his own authority he will modify the provisions of the firman, or whether before he modifies them he will ask advice of
194

the allies it is impossible for me to say beforehand. The intention of the four Powers in advising the Sultan undoubtedly was, that he should grant the bon fide hereditary succession to the descendants of Mehemet Ali, in as nearly a direct line as the nature of things and the interests of both parties would admit. It was never intended, however, to derogate so far from the rights of the Sultan as to create in Egypt a separate and independent sovereignty; but that the pachalic should be guaranteed bon fide to Mehemet Ali and his descendants.
An Hon. Member

on the opposition benches was understood to ask whether the firman alluded to, had received the sanction of the British Government?
Viscount Palmerston

The Porte, as I observed, has issued this firman on its own authority; what the precise communications were between the Porte and the representatives of the four Powers at Constantinople, I really cannot with accuracy State.
Lord Sandon

Am I to understand the noble Viscount to say, that he has no knowledge whether the hatti scheriff was 146 communicated to the British ambassador before it was sent to Alexandria?
Viscount Palmerston

I mean to say, that the representatives of the four Powers at Constantinople, have been constantly in communication with the Porte regarding every step in these negotiations. If I am asked whether the hatti scheriff in the shape in which it was issued, was communicated to the British ambassador before it was so issued, my answer is, that I cannot tell.
An Hon. Member

on the opposition benches: Am I to understand that the noble Viscount has received no despatches from the British ambassador on the subject?
Viscount Palmerston

No despatches containing a copy of the hatti scheriff.

Mr. Ewart

The firman does not, if I am correctly informed, adhere to lineal descent. May I ask the noble Lord if he knows what is the intention of the Porte on the question?
Viscount Palmerston

had not distinctly heard the question of his hon. Friend.

Mr. Ewart 195

It was understood formally that the pachalic of Egypt was to descend by hereditary succession, according to usage, and without being subject to the arbitrary nomination of the Sultan. Is the noble Lord aware what advice was given by the four Powers upon that point?
Viscount Palmerston

The advice given by the four Powers did not go into any minute details, but it was, that the Sultan should grant the hereditary succession to the pachalic in a direct line; each succeeding Pacha was to receive his investiture from the Sultan, and the pachalic was not therefore to descend as an independent sovereignty.
Lord Sandon

Do I understand that the discretion the Sultan now appears to reserve to himself, was made known to the British ambassador before the hatti scheriff was issued? If it were made known, then, I ask if it is remarked upon in the despatches or other communications to the noble Lord. In short, was it made the subject of remonstrance by the ambassador of Great Britain?
Viscount Palmerston

I am not aware that there was any remonstrance on the subject. But I really must put it to the House whether this is a fit course of proceeding. I am called upon to give explanations before any official communications have been made, and while discussions are still pending. It is calling Upon a British 147 Minister to speak to much more than he is able to answer for. If I am to give my opinion, it can only be an opinion upon circumstances, not yet communicated by any of the representatives of the four Powers. I should certainly say, that my understanding of the hatti scheriff is, that it was intended to reserve to the Sultan the sovereign right which must belong to himto confer the government of Egypt, but not to evade the bon fide execution of the previous arrangement, or to set aside those successors who would be naturally looked upon as the descendants of Mehemet Ali.

196

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1841/apr/06/syria

SYRIA. HC Deb 06 April 1841

vol 57 c935935

The Speaker communicated to the House a letter from Sir Robert Stopford, in acknowledgment of the resolution of thanks voted by the House on the 5th of February. The letter of Sir Robert Stopford was read as follows: Her Majesty's ship, Princess Charlotte.Malta Harbour, March 11, 1841.SirI have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 8th ultimo, transmitting the unanimous resolution of the House of Commons, giving the thanks of the House to myself, Commodore Sir Charles Napier, and the officers, seamen, and marines under my command, as well as to the officers and seamen of the allied forces, for the late operations on the coast of Syria, terminating in the successful and decisive attack on the batteries and fortress of Acre on the 3rd day of November, 1840.Having had the good fortune, during a long naval career, of being placed in situations and circumstances under which I frequently had the distinguished honour of receiving the thanks of both Houses of Parliament, it is particularly gratifying to me now, at the close of my career, to be again thus honoured.I beg leave to assure you, Sir, that I am deeply sensible of the flattering terms in which you have been pleased to convey to me the thanks of the House of Commons, of which I shall ever retain the most grateful remembrance.I have transmitted to Rear-Admiral Baron de Bandeira and to Admiral Sir Baldwin Wake Walker the resolutions of the House of Commons, which I shall also communicate to Major-General Sir Charles Frederick (Felix) Smith, who is now in England.I have the honour to be, Sir,Your most obedient humble servant,(Signed) "ROBERT STOPFORD, Admiral.P. S. Having just learnt the arrival of Sir Charles F. Smith at Gibraltar, I shall send the thanks of the House of Commons to the major-general at Gibraltar.

197

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1841/aug/26/the-syrian-war

THE SYRIAN WAR. HC Deb 26 August 1841

vol 59 c270270 Sir Charles Napier

took that opportunity of inquiring whether it were intended to give compensation to the peaceable inhabitants o Syria, whose houses were destroyed, their trees cut down, and their plantations ruined by the necessary operations of the British troops in the recent war? and also, whether it was intended to give compensation to the inhabitants of St. Jean d'Acre for their losses under similar circumstances?
Viscount Palmerston

was much gratified to be able to state to his hon. and gallant Friend, whose interest in these matters he was aware must be very great, on account of the eminentand distinguished public services which he had performed in the quarter to which he had alluded, that he had on that morning received a despatch from Lord Ponsonby, enclosing a copy of a renewed order, the execution of the original having been delayed, which had been sent to the Governor of Acre by the Sultan, directing full reparation to be made in both cases which had been alluded to.

198

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1841/sep/20/syria

SYRIA. HC Deb 20 September 1841

vol 59 cc627-34627 Dr. Bowring

said, before he put the question of which he had given notice, he hoped he should be allowed to make one or two observations that would make the subject intelligible. For a very long time past there had existed between this country and the Ottoman empire certain treaties known by the name of the Capitulation Treaties. By those treaties, a duty of 3 per cent, was agreed to be imposed upon all exports and imports, and the tariffs which regulated those capitulations had been settled at various times by commissioners, so that the imposts intended to be levied never exceeded this 3 per cent., and from the diminished value of merchandize were in most cases much less than this amount. But in the progress of years, and the general disorganization and anarchy of the Turkish rule, enormous abuses had introduced themselves into many of the provinces, especially those immediately under the sway of the Sultan, and in these the capitulations had become of no effect. One article after another had been monopolized heavy imposts had been levied on consumption and transitsand commercial operations were interfered with by every sort of exaction and abuse,and to remedy which grievances, in 1838, a treaty was entered into between Great Britain and the Porte, by which it was agreed that instead of the 3 per cent, formerly levied upon exports, 12 per cent, should be collected by the Turkish empire, and that instead of the 3 per cent, upon imports there should in future be a duty of 5 per cent. At the same time, however, all internal taxes or impediments, that had formerly interfered, were to be put an end to. Now, he was very ready to admit, that, as far as Turkey Proper was concerned, the treaty to which he had last referred was of the utmost commercial importance, supposing it was really carried into effect, which it had not been up to the present hour, for so inveterate were the ancient habits of misrule and oppression, that the feeble hand of the Sultan 628 had been controlled by that all-pervading corruption which characterizes the officers of the Porte. But beyond the limits of Turkey Proper, the treaty of 1838 was positively mischievousfor, in many of their dependencies, the ancient capitulations existed in their full vigour, and only 3 per cent was levied on articles of export and import. That treaty exhibited a lamentable ignorance of, or a reckless inattention to, the state of thingsand even to the solemn engagements of the Porte in many of the provinces which came, or were supposed to come, under the operation of the treaty. The Porte had no right to interfere with the taxes of the provinces of the Danubewith Servia, Wallachia, or Moldaviathey paid a fixed tribute and regulated their own internal taxation. They had already trampled the treaty under foot and considered it as a dead letter. They would not allow the Porte to quadruple the duty on exports or double that on imports; and the Porte dared not insist on giving effect to the treaty in those districts. To Arabia also, the treaty had been found utterly inapplicable; and the same observation would apply to Egypt, where the payment of fixed tribute by the Viceroy, and the whole system of administration and government placed the ruler in a position wholly different from that of the direct nominees of the Sultan. But in Syria the operation of the treaty had been most injurious and cruelly oppressive, for the Syrians had not been subject to those internal duties, charges, and monopolies, which had made the capitulations of no effect elsewhere. They paid, and had continued to pay up to the period in which Mehemet Ali's sway was overthrown, the low duties which the capitulations had established. Since the restoration of the Turkish authorityif, indeed it be, or can be restored, the Turks had endeavoured to increase the export duties to 12 per cent, under the plea of the treaty; they had been changing the whole system of collectionand had in fact
199

been introducing that state of things to which an experienced Austrian statesman had referred. Prince Metternich's despatch of April 20, 1841, to the internuncio, in reproving the "inept innovators" of the East, had these words: If I am not altogether deceived the Porte will have to abandon in the greater part of its dominions, the mode of receipt recently introduced into several of them. By collecting the duties through its own receivers it will only have augmented the exactions so far as its 629 subjects are concerned, and the deficiencies as far as the Treasury is concerned. It seemed that in Syria, Mouhassils and Defterdars were employed to collect the duties, persons not of the religion of the principal part of the population, who were Druses and Maronites, and that they were imposing enormous duties in Syria, contrary to the engagements entered into by the Government. Our own Cabinet was a party to these engagements. We had stimulated the Syrians to revolt against Mehemet Ali we had held to them splendid promises. As long ago as 1 836, Lord Ponsonby had sent a subordinate official of the Constantinopolitan Embassy, a Levantine, to sow the seeds of discontent and insurrection; and he had been rewarded by the consulship of Damascus. This gentleman (Mr. Wood) returned again, when it was decided by the Four Powers to eject Mehemet Ali from Syria, and Lord Ponsonby thus instructed Mr. Wood on August 4, 1840: I direct you to declare in my name loudly to whoever chooses to hear you, that I am authorized to acquaint the Syrians that the British Government, in union with the Governments of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, will protect the Syrians who shall return to the direct obedience of the Sultan. At about the same time Sir Charles Napier thus addressed the Syrians: The allied powers have engaged to recommend to the Sultan to make an arrangement to render your condition happy and prosperous. And Mr. Wood thus wrote to the Emir Bechir El Sheckaby on the 13th of August, 1840: Four years ago I alluded to the probable separation some day of Syria from the dominion of Mehemet Ali, and he promised them if they would revolt,' peace and happiness, and liberty.' To the Emir El Kasim, Mr. Wood thus wrote: My Prince, you must remember the conversation we had together four years ago, and the determination you then declared to arm your countrymen, provided England assisted you in your noble efforts to procure liberty for your countrymen. And thus to the Maronite Patriarch on August 15, 1840: The sublime Porte has only at heart now the general prosperity of its Syrian subjects, to whom it will grant the free exercise of their laws and perfect liberty, and the powerful intervention of England and Austria Will secure these blessings to them630 Again, Mr. Wood wrote to the Emit Bechir, (confidential:) The great powers have decided to relieve the country from the burdens imposed oh it, particularly that part which is governed by you. On the 29th of September, 1840, Lord Ponsonby thus wrote to Lord Palmerston: The Porte will effectually engage to make a remission of taxes in Syria. And the Grand Vizier also authorised Mr. Wood "to regulate and settle the actual affairs of the Porte in Syria." To the Emirs and Sheiks of Damour, Mr. Wood thus appealed on the 27th of September, 1840: Come to us armed, both you and your chiefs, in order that you may assist us in making you free and happy. In his despatch to Lord Ponsonby of the 8th of October, 1840, Mr. Wood said: I had declared to the Syrians that the Porte would grant them their ancient rights and privileges. In consequence of such promises, they were encouraged again to revolt against the Egyptian authority after they had laid down their arms. I was sent by your Lordship, authorised to make a number of promises to the Syrians, and was, in a manner, pledged to see them executed by the Sultan's officers. Lord Palmerston wrote to Lord Ponsonby, November 9, 1840. The honour of the British Crown requires that the promises made to the Syrians in the name of the Sultan by the British agent, Mr. Wood, should be fulfilled.
Mr. Wood's

200

zeal, indeed, seemed to be boundless. This Christian envoy of a Christian Government called upon the Mussulmans in the name of the Koran, which he entitled "the Holy Book" "the Sacred Law," to revolt, and so strong was Lord Ponsonby's confidence in him that he writes, November 18, 1840, I have instructed Mr. Wood to consider himself absolutely free from the authority and control of every body in Syria, in his execution of the duties and trusts reposed in him by the Porte. It would seem, however, that accounts of the misdoings of the Turks had reached the Foreign-office at this time, for, in answer to a despatch representing "the unusual vexations-the infamous and unpunished proceedings of the Constantinopolitan troops towards the Christian Rayahs and their clergy," Lord Palmerston instructed Lord Ponsonby to obtain 631 from the Sultan arrangements giving full satisfaction and security to the Syrians; and Lord Ponsonby replied, that the Porte was ready to take any measures for insuring to the Syrians the reward of their loyalty to the Sultan; and in a despatch so late as March 14, 1841, Lord Ponsonby said It is particularly necessary that the Porte should faithfully perform the promises Redschid Pasha authorised Mr. Wood to make to the Syrians. There can be no doubt therefore that we are bound to give effect to the pledges under whose influence the Syrians had thrown oft' one Government and assisted us to establish another. We have made them promises and they have a right to call upon us for their fulfilment. Every communication from Syria shows that the utmost disregard is shown by the Turks to the pledges that have been given. The Syrians had suffered much; their towns had been destroyed, their fields had been devastated, and multitudes of them had perished. His object was to ascertain from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, whether her Majesty's Ministers were cognizant of the fact, that the duties on exports and imports had been greatly increased by the Turkish authorities in Syria, notwithstanding their engagement to the contrary, entered into in the most solemn manner; and whether, such being the case, any measures had been taken for the purpose of obtaining a redress of the grievance.
Sir R. Peel

could not help suggesting, that the noble Lord, the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, would, perhaps, have been the best authority to appeal to for satisfactory information upon this matter. He apprehended the state of the question was this:In 1838, he thought it was, a treaty was ratified between the Porte and this country, which, for various internal monopolies, and exactions of different kinds, substituted an export duty of 9 per cent. There had been previously an export duty of 3 per cent., which still continued, and at present the whole duty to which British subjects were liable was 12 per cent, on exports. In some cases he had no doubt the levy of that duty might bear hardly on the native inhabitants, comparing the present amount of duty with what they were before subject to in particular districts of the country; but, on the whole, he apprehended that the substitution of a duty of 9 per cent., 632 in lieu of various monopolies and exactions which formerly prevailed there must be advantageous. That abuses existed in the enforcement of that duty he was not disposed to deny. It was impossible, however, to form an opinion of the results of that treaty by restricting their view to any one point of Syria; they must look to its general effect, and. so far as British interests at least were concerned, he had every reason to believe that its operation had been beneficial. The inhabitants of Lebanon complained of the exactions to which they were subject under the rule of Mehemet Ali. He believed, however, that commissioners had been appointed by the Porte, who were in communication with the local authorities appointed by the inhabitants of Lebanon, and some arrangement was made to remit certain duties, in the first instance exacted by the Turkish authorities, and of which the inhabitants of that district complained. He believed, also, that the inhabitants of Lebanon demanded exemption from the operation of these duties for three years, in consequence of assurances which had been given them by the
201

Turkish government. That question remained still unsettled. He had only to state, that there was every disposition on the part of the Government of this country to use its influence with Turkey for the purpose of securing to the inhabitants of Syria any advantages which they had a right to expect in consequence of engagements which had been entered into by British instruments acting under the authority of the Porte. But the great object of the Syrian operations being to restore the independence of Turkey, it was not very easy for foreign powers to interfere beyond certain limits in respect to the acts of the Turkish government. It was possible for us to interfere in respect of any contravention of a treaty when British subjects were concerned; it was possible for us to use our interest, in order to induce Turkey to fulfil the engagements she had entered into with her own subjects; but the great object of the recent movements being to restore the independence of the Ottoman empire, the hon. Member must himself see it was, as he had already said, no very easy matter for foreign powers to interfere. He rather thought, from the inquiries he had been able to make in the course of the morning, that some convention had been made between the authorities of Turkey and Lebanon, under which a certain sum was to be paid by the latter, 633 which, in point of amount, was not unreasonable. This was the only satisfactory answer he could give the hon. Gentleman beyond a repetition of the assurance, that so far as this country could consistently with the maintenance of the independence of the Ottoman Power use its influence for the purpose of preventing the great change which had taken place in Syria from operating to the disadvantage of the inhabitants, that influence would not fail to be exerted.
Viscount Palmerston

wished, although it was not altogether regular, to add a few words to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet. With regard to the treaty of 1838, although the hon. Gentleman considered it a bad one, he certainly thought it a good one: and when he stated that several other powers had, in imitation, concluded exactly similar treaties with Turkey, he thought it might be inferred that the treaty had been advantageous to the Christian inhabitants. He knew that his hon. Friend had a strong feeling in favour of Mehemet Ali, and it was honourable to him that he had not abandoned the Pasha when he had encountered misfortune and failure. It was, therefore, not unnatural that the hon. Gentleman should look with some degree of dissatisfaction on the state of things established in Syria. He was also particularly anxious that this treaty should not be applied to Egypt, because that would of course, diminish those fiscal means which Mehemet Ali had applied in a manner not very consistently with his allegiance as a subject. But first of all, with regard to what had been done in Syria, the statement of the right hon. Baronet was quite correct. When first Syria was restored to the lawful dominion of the Sultan some officers, Mouhassils and Defterdars, were sent to collect the revenues, and it was perfectly true they had committed great excesses. On that being made known to the Turkish Government every desire was manifested to correct those abuses, and persons duly authorized were put in communication with the people of Lebanon and other parts of Syria, for the purpose of making some satisfactory arrangements with regard to the tribute they should pay; and before leaving office he had reason to believe that some arrangement would be made, which for a certain number of years would relieve the people of Lebanon from anything which could be considered oppressive. With regard, how- 634 ever, to the other transactions to which the hon. Gentleman had alludedthe employment of Mr. Wood to hold communications, on the part of the Turkish and English Governments, with the people of Syria, he must protest against the statement that he had been sent there to excite the inhabitants to rebel or revolt. What he had been sent to do was, to assure them that they would be protected, not in returning to their allegiance, for they had never swerved from it, but in asserting within their country the authority of their legitimate sovereign. It was Mehemet Ali
202

who had encouraged rebellion, and not those who promised them assistance in maintaining the authority of the Sultan. The conduct of Mr. Wood, therefore, was perfectly correct. He was authorized by the Ministers of the Sultan, to hold out certain promises and expectations to the Syrians if they supported the Sultan against his rebellious subjects. They did sothey were entitled to have those promises made good, and he believed every step had been taken, as the right hon. Baronet had stated, consistently with the rights of an independent Power, to obtain the performance of those engagements. The strongest representations, consistent with a regard to those rights, had been made, calling upon the Porte to fulfil the promises which had been given to the Syrians, and his firm belief was that they would be performed.
Lord C. Hamilton

was understood to express a doubt whether Mr. Wood should not properly be regarded as altogether a British agent in the negotiations with the people of Syria.
Viscount Palmerston

admitted that Mr. Wood was a British dragoman acting under Lord Ponsonby, but he had authority from the Turkish government, and in virtue of it he held those communications with the subjects of the Ottoman Porte.

203

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1842/feb/11/Turkish-commercial-treaty

TURKSH COMMERCAL TREATY. HC Deb 11 February 1842

vol 60 cc293-5293 Dr. Bowring

rose to put the question of which he had given notice, and which he had postponed to afford the right hon. Baronet an opportunity of gaining a knowledge of the facts; and it would be necessary for him to make a short statement. By the old commercial conventions with the Ottoman empire a duty of three per cent. was levied on all goods ex- 294 ported from, or imported into, Turkey. In the progress of time a great many abuses and monopolies were introduced into the interior of the country. In order to induce the Turkish government to remove those abuses, which that government contended did not affect the treaties with foreign powers, our government had agreed to allow a further duty of nine per cent. on exports, and two per cent. on imports, as an equivalent for the overthrow of internal taxation and monopoly, making a total of twelve per cent, on exports, and five per cent, on imports. The Turkish government thereupon abolished the internal taxes, and, having so abolished them, Russia and other countries, who were not parties to the treaty of 1838, said," we will stand upon the antient regulation;" and at this moment, while the exports to Great Britain were charged with a duty of 12 per cent., the exports to Russia were only charged with a duty of 3 per cent.; and while the subjects of her Majesty paid a duty of 5 per cent, imports, the subjects of Russia and other countries, not parties to the treaty, only paid a duty of 3 per cent. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Baronet whether he was cognizant of the fact, and if he were, whether any steps had been taken to make representation to the Turkish government, or to give effect to another clause in the treaty, by which it was stipulated that Great Britain should be placed on the terms of the most favoured nation?
Sir R. Peel

believed that, with the exception of Russia, and perhaps Naples, every country in Europe had entered into a treaty with Turkey, similar to that entered into by this country in 1838. What the hon. Gentleman had stated was perfectly true, and Russia continued to have the advantage of exporting and importing goods on more favourable terms than other countries. The Russian tariff, however, would, he believed, expire in 1843. The question was, whether Turkey had not entered into incompatible treaties. She had entered into a treaty with Russia, that Russia should send imports and receive exports at certain duties, and with this country into another treaty at higher rates of duty. Whether the other article of the treaty, therefore, by which we were entitled to the position of the most favoured nation, could be enforced, was a matter of grave consideration. The rates of duty in the convention of 1838, were 295 distinctly specified. He should not have the slightest objection to the production of the consular returns when they arrived, for the purpose of showing the effects of the treaty in different parts of Turkey.
Dr. Bowring,

after the production of those papers, would call the attention of the House to the effects of these duties in Turkey.

204

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1842/feb/11/syria

SYRIA. HC Deb 11 February 1842

vol 60 cc299-301299 Sir Charles Napier

rose, in pursuance of notice, to ask the right hon. Baronet, whether he had any objection to lay before the House a copy of the instructions given by Sir Robert Stopford to General Mitchell, General Jochmus, and Captain Stewart, after the submission of Mehemet Ali; also the instructions given by Lord Ponsonby to General Jochmus and Mr. Wood; likewise, if any correspondence had taken place between the British and Turkish governments, relative to the amelioration of the inhabitants of Lebanon, as was promised by the Allied Powers? The hon. and gallant officer said, he had been induced to ask the last question in consequence of his having received from very high authority a statement that the condition of the inhabitants of Lebanon was one of increased distress, and that they were now worse off than when we had first landed there. Quarrels had arisen, too, it appeared, between certain classes, and a great loss of life had taken place; but although the Turkish government had been applied to, the Pacha had refused to send any assistance.
Sir Robert Peel

would answer the questions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the order in which they stood in the notice of motion which he had given. First, he asked whether there was any objection to lay before the House a copy of the instructions given by Sir Robert Stopford to General Mitchell, General Jochmus, and Captain Stewart, after the submission of Mehemet Ali. In answer to this question, he had to state that he had been unable to find in the public departments to which he had access any record of these papers. Search had been made in the Admiralty and Foreign-office, but no trace could be found of such instructions. Reference was indeed found to be made to such instructions, but they themselves were not forthcoming. The second question was, whether there was any objection to produce the instructions given by Lord Ponsonby to General Jochmus and Mr. Wood? His answer to this must be similar to what which he had given to the first question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the instructions could not 300 be found, and he was unable, therefore, to state whether there was any objection to their production or not. Thirdly, as to whether any correspondence had taken place between the British and Turkish governments relative to the amelioration of the inhabitants of Lebanon, as was promised by the Allied Powers? He had to state that frequent correspondence had taken place, and the Porte had been urged in the strongest manner to comply with the assurance which had been given. Since Sir Stratford Canning had left this country as ambassador to the Ottoman court, instruction had been given him to urge upon the Porte the necessity of complying with its assurances of making every effort to prevent disorder in Syria, and ameliorate the condition of its subjects in Lebanon. He did not think it would promote the object the hon. and gallant Gentleman had in view, if the correspondence applied for were produced, and he should therefore be permitted to exercise his discretion in withholding it. However, he would state, that application had been made to the Porte to fulfil the engagements it had entered into, both by the present and the late Government, in the most urgent manner. He might take this opportunity of referring to an erroneous impression which commonly existed, that this country had declared itself the special protector of some portion of the population of Syria. The Druses supposed themselves to have a particular claim upon Great Britain. What we had to do was to procure the amelioration of all the subjects of the
205

Porte in Syria generally, without reference to religious principles. He would assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that every effort on the part of the present Government would be made to cause the Porte to fulfil its engagements with respect to the amelioration of the condition of its subjects, but at present he could not accede to the motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Sir C. Napier

said that it was very much to be lamented that the despatches to which he had alluded were not to be found, because it would appear, from statements which had been published in the Malta Correspondent, that after Admiral Stopford had, in the most humane manner, as it was believed in accordance with the instructions which he had received from home, suffered Ibrahim Pacha to retreat without opposition, and had even assisted 301 him in that retreat, General Jochmus, in obedience to instructions which he had received from Lord Ponsonby, proceeded to take measures for the destruction of his troops, and had boasted that he had destroyed between 20,000 and 30,000 human beings after Mehemet Ali had submitted, and after that submission had been accepted by the Porte.

206