On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Feb. 1, 1852.] Cfrl? %t*Xtt. 119
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
History Of Parliament. Orening Of The Fi...
— ¦ „ niaces its constitutional confidence in a gSSS " ' thVt Minister is , on the other hand , bound to JJ » CroSn to the most frank and full detail of every UJaswe that is taken , and is bound either to give a m lease fas we understood ) , or to leave to the Grown ? £ ? fill liberty , a liberty which the Crown must possess , « f « avine that the Minister no longer possesses its con . « JH » Such I hold to be the general doctrine . But as ? e Ss the noble lord , it did ^ sa happen that in August , nSmrCte orecise terms were laid down in a communication £ tfc part of her Majesty witlr respect to the transaction of business between the Crown and the fioprltarv of State . I became the organ of making that communication to my noble friend , and thus became responsible for the document I am about to read from . I shall refer only to that part of the document which has reference to the immediate subject ;—
-« The Queen requires , first , that Lord Palmerston will distinctly state , what he proposes in a given case , in order that the Queen may know as distinctly to what she is civine her royal sanction . Secondly , having once given her sanction to a measure , that it be not arbitrarily altered or modified by the Minister . Such an act she must consider as failing in sincerity towards the Crown , and fustly to be visited by the exercise of her constitutional right of dismissing that Minister . She expects to be kept informed of what passes between him and the foreign Ministers before important decisions are taken based upon that intercourse ; to receive the foreign despatches in good time ; and to have the draughts for her aDProval sent to her in sufficient time to make herself acquainted with their contents before they must be s > nt off The Queen thinks it best that Lord John Russell should show this letter to Lord Palmerston . '
I 6 ent that accordingly , and received a letter in which the noble lord said—* I have taken a copy of this memorandum of the Queen , and will not fail to attend to the directions which it contains . ' ¦ _ ¦ " ^ I believe those directions were entirely in conformitywith the relations that exist between the Foreign Secretary arid the Crown . And now I will state what is the duty of . the Prime Minister , and I will state it not in my own words , but in words used by Sir ft . Pee } , with reference to the appointment of the Official Salaries Committee . The words
are' Take the case of the Prime Minister . You must presume that he reads every important despatch from every foreign Court . He cannot consult with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ,-and exercise the influence which he ought to have with respect tar the conduct of foreign affairs , unless he be master of everything of real importance passing in that department . ' I believe to that statement also there can be no contra , diction : it lays down the just principle with respect to the position of a Prime Minister , and makes him responsible for the business . "
He , therefore , found himself in a position of great delicacy . Under Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne , Lord Palmerston had submitted to control ; but not possessing Lord Grey ' s *« age and experience , " or Lord Melbourne ' s " long intimacy and connection " with Lord Palmerston , the Premier insinuated that he found great difficulty in exercising a controlling influence over Lord Palmerston . Sometimes , indeed , he felt ** great responsibility . " What , then , did he do to help himself ? On the 3 rdof November last there was a Cabinet meeting , and . at that meeting he made a statement .
" I stated that I thought the situation of Europe was exceedingly critical ; that I thought we were on the verge of seeing in 1852 ( and there I was mistaken )—pf seeing either what is called social democracy triumphant in other countries , or of seeing absolute power , on the other hand , prevail . I said that in either case the situation of England would be one of some peril ; that we could not expect that a social democratic republic in France would observe the faith of treaties or refrain from attacking our allies . I said , on the other hand , that if absolute power should prevail , there was a danger ,
this country being an exception in the form of its government from other countries of Europe , that there might be combinations on the subject of refugees in this country , and that demands might be made which this country , m consistency with its honour , could not concede . I stated that , in my own opinion , in this critical situation of affairs , it was the interest of England to observe a strict neutrality . ( Hear , hear . ) % said that we ought to guard moat especially against Riving any just cause of offence to France—*(/ iear , hear )—that vt & ought to exert the utmost vigilance in order to prevent any such cause of offence . ( Hear , hear . )"
In that statement the whole Cabinet concurred . But then followed the deputations from Islington and Finsbury , when addresses were presented to his "noble friend" containing " terms of the most offensive nature to the sovereigns of Europe . " Ho did not approve of this , but was inclined to put the best construction on . Lord Palmerston ' s conduct , and to consider that ho had fallen into "the error of that « ay wholly from ah oversight ; " and he was ready to adopt the responsibility 1 of tho conduct of his noble "lend . After that Lord John Hussell thought his colleague would have treated him with that
fairness to which ho wns entitled "; and that no , important stop would have been taken , or important communication made , without the Cabinet were first consulted . When the coup d ' etat took place , Lord JNormanb y wrote homo for instructions , on the 3 rd ; and in carrying out tho renolution of a Cabinet vouuwl , L . or , d . Palmerston , o « tho 5 th , instructed our
Ambassador , in the name of the Queen , to do nothing •* which could wear the appearance of « in interference of any kind in the internal affairs of France . " Lord John Russell then continued . •—" A few days afterwards , among the despatches from the Foreign-office which came , to my hands , there was one from the Marquis of Normanby to Viscount Palmerston , dated December . 6 , 1851 , and which was received December 8 . The > -despatch ran thus : ~ Paris . December 6 , 1851 .
* Mt Lord , —I this morning received your lordship ' s despatch , No . 600 , of yesterday ' s date , and I afterwards called on M . Turgot , and informed him that I had received her Majesty ' s commands to say that I need make no change in my relations with the French Government in consequence of what had passed . I added , that if there had been some little delay in making this communication , it arose from material circumstances not connected with any doubt on the subject . M . Turgot said that delay had been of less importance , as he had two days since heard from M . Walewski that your lordship had expressed to him your entire approbation of the act of the President , and your conviction that he could not have acted otherwise than he had done . I said I had no knowledge of any such communication , and no instructions beyond our invariable rule to do nothing
which should have the appearance of interfering in any way in the internal affairs of France ; but that I had often had an opportunity of showing , under very varied circumstances , that whatever might be the Government here , I attached the utmost importance to maintaining the most amicable relations between the two countries . I added that I was sure , had the Government known of the suppression of the insurrection of the Rouges at the time I had heard from them , I should have been commissioned to add their congratulations to mine . I have thought it necessary to rfiention what was stated about M . Walewski ' s despatch , because two of my colleagues here mentioned to me that the despatch containing expressions precisely to that effect had been read to them in order to show the decided opinion which England had pronounced . ?
I have , & c , Normanby . ' " He thought that this did not create any serious difficulty . He wrote to Lord Palmerston to this effect , thinking that his noble friend would easily explain it ; that Lord Normanby would be told to follow his instructions , and let it be understood in Paris that " the Government of England expressed no opinion with regard to the internal affairs of France . " " I own that appears to me the only wise and the only safe course that could have been adopted . However , I heard nothing—I received no information from the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the meaning of this declaration at Paris that England had pronounced in favour of the act of the President . Let me here say what is the view I take of this case . If England were to allow her Foreign Secretary to pronounce an opinion of that kind , it could no longer be said that she had no interference with the internal affairs ofFrance—( hear , hear )—for in pronouncing such an opinion by her Secretary for Foreign Affairs , a moral support , a moral sanction , and a moral influence , would be given and exercised in favour of the course which had been taken by the President , "
Lord John was at Woburn-abbey on the 13 th , when a messenger from the Queen arrived to make inquiries respecting Lord Normanby ' s despatch of the 6 th , and asking for an explanation . Thereupon Lord John liussell wrote on the 14 th to Lord Palmerston ; but neither on that day nor on the next did he obtain an answer . On the 16 th he wrote a note representing that this silence was not respectful to her Maiestv . but still the same " disdainful silence" was observed . „ " But on tho morning of the 17 th I received copies of two despatches , one from the Marquis of Normanby to Lord Palmerston and the other from Lord Palmerston to the Marquis of Normanby . The former despatch was in the following terms : — Paris , December 15 , 1851 .
« My Lord , —In my despatch , No . 372 , of the 6 th instant , notifying my communication of my instructions to M . Turgot , I reported that his Excellency had mentioned that M . Walewski had written a despatch in which he stated that your lordship had expressed your complete approbation of the course taken by the President in the recent coup d ' etat . I also reported that I had conveyed to M . Turgot my belief that there must be some mistake in this statement , and my reasons for that belief . But , as a week has now elapsed without any explanation from your lordship on this point , I must conclude M . Walcwski ' 8 report to have been substantially correct . Hint being the case , I am perfectly aware that it is beyond the sphere of my present duties to make nny remark upon the acts of your lordship , except inasmuch an they affect my these limits mustwith due
own position . But within I , deference , bo permitted to observe that if your lordship , aB Foreign Minimer , holds one language on such a delicate point in Downing-street , without giving me any intimation you had done so—prescribing afterwards a different course to me , namely , the avoidunce of nny appearance of interference of any kind in the intetnul affairs of France—I am p laced thereby in a very awkward position . If tho language held in Downing-str ^ et la more favourable to the existing order of things m Uranee than tho instructions on which I am directed to guide mvHelf upon the spot , it must be obvious ahat by that act of your lordship ' H I become subject to misremcaention and Huapicion in merely doing my duty nooordjiig to the official orders received through your lordship Irom ner Majesty . All this is of more importance to me , because , as I stated before , several of my diplomatic colleagues
had had the despatch read to them , and had derived from It the conviction that , if accurately reported , your expressions had been those of unqualified satisfaction . * I have , & c , NojtMANBYi ' Now , although no answer had been given to me , and although I was unable to satisfy the inquiries which were made by the Sovereign , it appears that Lord Palmerston , on the 16 th , the day on which this despatch was received , wrote on his own authority a despatch which was sent to our ambassador at Paris , but which had not obtained the sanction of her Majesty . Ifwas in these terms : — Foreign-office , December 16 , 1851 .
* My Lord , —I have received your Excellency ' s despatch , No . 406 , of the 15 th inst ., referring to the statement made to you by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs on the occasion of your communicating to his Excellency the instructions with which you have been furnished by her Majesty ' s Government for your guidance in the present state of affairs in France ; and I have to state to your Excellency that there has been nothing in the language which I have held , nor in the opinions which I have at any time expressed on the recent events in France , which has been in any way inconsistent with the instructions addressed to your Excellency , to abstain from anything which could bear the appearance of any interference in the internal affairs of France . The instructions contained in my despatch , No . 600 , of the 5 th
instant , to which your Excellency refers , were sent to you not in reply to a question , as to what opinions your Excellency should express , but in reply to a question , which I understood to be , whether your Excellency should continue your usual diplomatic relations with the President during the interval which was to elapse between the date of your Excellency ' s despatch , No . 365 , of the 3 rd instant , and the voting by the French nation on the question to be proposed to them by the President . ' As to approving or condemning the step taken by the President in dissolving the Assembly , I conceive it is for the French nation , and not for the British Secretary of State , or for the British Ambassador , to pronounce judgment upon that event ; but if your Excellency wishes to know my own opinion on the change which has taken , place in France , it is that such a state of antagonism had arisen between the President and the Assembly , that
it was becoming every day more clear that their coexistence could not be of long duration ; and it seemed to me better for the interests of France * and through them for the interests of the rest of Europe , that the power of the President should prevail , inasmuch as the continuance of his authority might afford a prospect of the maintainance of social order in France , whereas the divisions of opinions and parties in the Assembly appeared to betoken that their victory over the President would be the starting point for disastrous civil strife . Whether my opinion was right or wrong , it seems to be shared by persons interested in property in France , as far at least as the great and sudden rise in . the funds and in other investments may be assumed to be indications of increasing confidence in the improved prospect of internal tranquility in France . ' I am , & c , ' Palmerston .
That was not written in . the usual style of his noble friend . He did not answer the question put to him , and he neglected and passed by the Crown " in order to give his own opinion with respect to the state of affairs in Paris . " That was unconstitutional . la small matters a Foreign Secretary might so act . " But , on a matter which was of the utmost importance—namely , giving the moralinfluence and the moral support of England , to the act of the President of the French Republic—it seemed to nie a meastire so grave that the opinion not only of the Prime Minister but of the Cabinet should have been taken , and that no such question should have been decided upon without their interference , and without the sanction of the Crown . ( Cheers ) What was the act to which that despatch
referred ? It is a question certainly of the utmost delicacy , but it is , nevertheless , one upon which I cannot refrain from saying a few words . The act of the President was not merely that of dissolving the Assembly , it xvas an act which , in the first place , dissolved the Assembly and put au end to the existing constitution ; it was an act , in the next place , which anticipated the elections of 1852 which were to take place according to that constitution , but with respect to which great apprehensions had been entertained . In the third place , it was an act putting an end to Parliamentary , government in France — ( hear , hear )—an act which , tojrether with Parliamentary government , suspended tho right of freedom of speech and the freedorn of the press , which are considered the usual accompaniments of Parliamentary Government , I am not going to enter into any dispute whether that was a fit thing to bo for tho French
done ; that was entirely a question people to decide . ( Hear . ) The French people might say , and their history entitled them to say that what we call in England Parliamentary Government has producod auoh evils in France—it has bo frequently led to convulsionH in the State , and is so incompatible with the peace of society in their country—that it ought at once to be abolished , and a different system established in its place . If tho French nation choose to say that , who has tho rijsht <> r the . least pretence to contradict it ? ( Hear , hear . ) But it is another question to give the moral approbation of England , to place tho broad Bealof England upon that doctrine ) with respect to 80 great a question . That waB a wide departure from tho polioy hitherto pursuod by tho Government , nnd that departure , coupled with the disregard of " tho authority , of tho Queen , " led the Premier to the conclusion that ho and Lord Palmerston could no longor ait in tho samo
Cabinet . Later in tho dny ho received a long letter from his noblo friend , mating his reusons for approving of tho act of tho President—but it was too lato , it " no
Feb. 1, 1852.] Cfrl? %T*Xtt. 119
Feb . 1 , 1852 . ] Cfrl ? % t * Xtt . 119
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Feb. 7, 1852, page 3, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_07021852/page/3/
-