On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
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.
Untitled Article
•"" " . nlaces its constitutional confidence in a Sr On ? S ' thSinister is , on the other hand , bound to ^ J ? L « to the most frank and full detail of every tbc Crown to the mosi ; ^ either to give a me ** TJ ™ fas w ^ understood ) , or to leave to the Crown % fuU Uberty , a liberty which the Crown must possess , iJvU that the Minister no longer possesses its conof saying " »« h « , , b the generai doctrine . But as Sds thenoMe " lord ? fcdid so ^ pen that in August , ffi the precise terms were laid down in a commumca-1860 , tue P a t of her M ajesty with respect to the ISsaTtioS oFfusiness between * the Crown and the transaciw" j became tne organ of making that S tmun { catiK my noble friend * and thus became C ° ^ Sle for the document I am about to read from . ^ Sr efer only to that part of the document which has Jefereice to the immediate subject :-• The Queen requires , first , that Lord Palmerston will ^ . tinctlv state what he proposes in a given case , in order to wnai is
that the Queen may know as aistmciiy sne divine her royal sanction . Secondly , having once given Sr 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 , ! md iustly to be visited by the exercise of her constitu-Snil right of dismissing that Minister . She expects to be kept informed of what passes between him and the foreiKO Ministers before important decisions are taken based upon that intercourse ; to receive the foreign desuatches in good time ; and to have the draughts for her anoroval 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 sent that accordingly , and received a letter in which the noble lord said 1 —
' 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 conformity with the relations that exist between the Foreign Secretary and tl > e 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 R , Peel , 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 to 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 rd of 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 fand there I was mistaken)—of 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 , in consistency with its honour , could not concede . I stated that , in my own opinion , in this critical situation of attairg , it was the interest of England to observe a strict neutrality . ( Hear , hear . ) I said that we ought to guard most especiall y against giving any just cause of offence to France— ( hear , hear)—that we ought to exert the utmost vigilance in order to prevent any such cause o ( offence , ( Hear , hear . )"
_ In that statement the whole Cabinet concurred , "ut then followed the deputations from Islington » "id Finsbury , when addresses were presented to his noble friend" containing " terms of the most ofjenaivo 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 he had fallen into " the error of that Jr ^ , y fr 0 l » on overflight ; " and he was ready to jaopt tho
• responsibility of the conduct of his noble mend . After that Lord John Russell thought his coueaguo would have treated him with " that fairtftn ? wl » oh he was entitled" ; and that no impor-It BteP would have been , taken , or important ~ ° mm -umcation made , without the Cabinet were first consulted . When the coup d ' etat took plaoe , Lord i n ,, . ttnb y Vote home for instructions , on the 3 rd ; Omi ji Stt"Yln 8 out tho resolution of a Cabinet vyuncu , lqj 4 Palnieruton , on the 0 th , instructed , © uj
Ambassador , in the name of the Queen , to do nothing '" which could wear the appearance of an interference of any kind in the internal affairs of France . " Lord John Russell then continued ;— - "A few days afterwards , among the despatches from theJForeign-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 .
' Mr 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 m 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 mention 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 .
'Ihave , &c ., Normandy . '" 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 , arid 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 of France—( 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 d ch of the 6 th
respecting Lord Normanby ' s espat , and asking for an explanation . Thereupon Lord John Russell 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 Majesty , but still the same " disdainful silence" was observed . " But on the 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 , 1 reported that his Excellency had mentioned thatM . Walewski had written a despatch in which he stated that your lordship had expressed your complete approbation of tho 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 ' s report to have been substantially correct . Inat being the case , I am perfectly aware that it is beyond the sphere of my present duties to make any remark upon the nets of your lordship , except inasmuch no they affect my these limits 1 mustwith due
own position . But within , deference , be permitted to observe that if your lordship , as Foreign Minister , holds one language on such a delicale point in Downing-strect , without giving mo any intimation you had done so—prescribing afterwards a different course to me , namely , the avoidance of any appearance of interference of any kind . in , the jnternal » ffairs of France—I am p laced thereby in a very awkward position . If the language held in Downmg-strcct Is more favourable to the existing order of things in 1 ' ranee than the instructions on which I am directed to guide myself upon the spot , it must be obvious ehat by that act of your lordship's I become subject to miBrepresention ana suspicion fn merely d oing my duty « o ° or < hng , to the official wdera received through your lordship from ner Majesty . All this is of more Importance t « ™ » { f flau e » Ml itftted before , WTer » i of my diplomatic co » le » gu , ea
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 . lliave , &c , Normanby , 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 gent to our ambassador at Paris , but which had not obtained the sanction of her Majesty . It was in these terms : — Foreign-office , December 16 , 18 > 1 ..
' 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 ycur 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 . 3 G 5 , 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 , 1 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 shpuld prevail inasmuch as the continuance of his authority might afford a prospect of the maintainance of social order in France , whertas 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 a 3 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 ,
• Palmekston . ' " 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 op inion with respect to the state of affairs in Paris . " That was unconstitutional . In 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 me a measure 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 the sanction of the
interference , and without 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 1 cannot refrain from saying a few words . The act of the President was not merely that of dissolving the Assembly , it w « s an act which , in the first place , dissolved the Assembly and put an 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 , together with Parliamentary government , suspended tho right of freedom of speech and the freedom considered tho usual
of the press , which are accompaniments of Parliamentary Government , I am not going to enter into any dispute whether that was a fit thing to bo done ; that was entirely a question for the French 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 produced Buch evils in Franca—it has so frequently led to convulsions in the State , and is bo incompatible with tho pence of society in their country—that it ought at once to be abolished , and a different system established in its place . If the French nation choose to say that , who has tho right or the least pretence to contradict it ? , ( Hear , hear . ) But it is 'another question to give the moral approbation of England , to place tho broad seal of England upon that doctrine with respect to bo great a question .
That w » s a wide departure from the policy hitherto pursued by tho Government , and that dopurturo , coupled with tho disregard of " tho authority of tho Queen , " led the Premier to the conclusion that ho and Lord Palmeraton could no longer sit in tho samo Cabinet . Later in tho day ho received a long letter from hia noble friend , stating his reauonB for approving of the act of the President—but it was too late , it « no
Untitled Article
^ . ¦^ . 1 ••» »»•*
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Feb. 7, 1852, page 119, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1921/page/3/
-