The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-27 00:00:00

had arisen which would have had the effect of putting an '
end to any necessity again to resort to it. With respect
to France in alliance or in opposition, I never held but one
opinion. I think a cordial good understanding between
England and France essential to the p( ace and welfare
of Europe. I do not mean to say that individual elliauce
of an exclusive nature between this country and France,
which would give offence to the other Powers of Europe,
is necessar:' ; I am not prepared to say that such an
alliance would be beneficial; but I consider that the
maintenance of cordial good will between this country and
France is essential and necessary to the interest of Europe.
I cannot entertain a doubt that the French nation have a
false conception of the people of England ; I believe there
is no wish on the part of the great community of England,
which has been called the enemy of France—l do not be-
lieve there is the slightest wish on the part of the people of
England that the power of France should be curtailed.
And I believe that there would be no feelings of gladness
on the part of the people of England at any thing that would
deteriorate the interests of the people of France. At the
same time, with that feeling strongly in my mind,
I am not prepared to say that the policy of attempt-
ing the settlement of the Eastern Question was necessary.
I can sec complications arising from the continuance of
the Syrian question, in which ally attempts at adjustment
might have involved this country in war. It is true that
the Turkish Empire has exhibited weakness, but still it
existed, and every effort, in my opinion, should be made to
prevent that conflict which would arise upon the dissolu-
tion of the Turkish Empire. It is clear that the condition
of the Pacha had become inconsistent with the stability of
the Turkish Empire. Looking at Russia, I have thought,
and always have thought, that her natural position rendered
her a subject of jealousy and suspicion, but I think the
course that Russia has pursued ought to exempt her from
some of the observations which have been made by the
Honourable Member for Kilkenny. That Hon. Gentle-
man had thought that what had taken place on the
north-west frontier of England was attributable to Russia.
It would be no easy matter for us to make the evacuation
of Constantinople by Russia one of the conditions of
peace with that country. I shall, therefore, suspend al-
together my opinion upon the policy of the intervention,
until I receive that full explanation from her Majesty's
Government, which I presume they are prepared to give.
They may be enabled to show that the consequences of
England's forbearance would have been the immediate
intervention of Russia, or of Russia, Prussia, and Austria;
they may possibly remind us that that event which did
occur in the year 1833 would have occurred again in 1810.
The Porte applied to us in 1833 to protect her against
this very Pacha ; we refused, and what was the conse-
quence ?—an application to Russia. Russia did step in,
did protect the Porte, and obtained the signature of a
treaty against which we were the first to protest.
We were obliged to tell Russia, " We will not con-
, cider that treaty as part of the law of Europe." We were
driven almost to declare war in 1833 on account of that
very treaty ; and seeing that the Porte was about to be
spoiled, without a show of justice, by one of its own sub-
jects, who for that purpose abused the authority with
which he had been entrusted, I do believe that Russia, I
do believe that Austria, would have felt the necessity of
intervention ; that they would again have been led to the
same course which had been taken in 1833; and depend
upon it that Russia cannot twice protect Turkey, and
twice save her from annihilation within a period of
seven years, and be placed in any other relation
to her than that of master ; and therefore, Sir, though
I am not prepared to concur in any address
to the Throne approving of this policy, and would rather
suspend my judgment, and should not be acting an honest
part if I concurred in the Address in the absence of in-
formation implying censure on those who were parties to
the Treaty of July,-.4 say, therefore, Sir, that I am pre-
pared to admit the case, first that intervention was neces-
sary—advisable, perhaps, if you could have the co-opera-
tion of France—nay, necessary, perhaps, even if the as-
sistance of France were ultimately positively refused. But
then I must say this, that in proportion as the assistance of
France was withheld—in proportion as her cordial co-
operation and concurrence were wanting, and in
proportion as the loss of that co-operation and
assistance greatly decreased the chances of success,
you ought to have shown, and I trust you
hare shown, in the whole of these proceedings the utmost
consideration for the not unnatural feelings with which
France might view the revival of a former alliance. It is
in vain to say that the principles of this alliance are diffe-
rent from those of 1815. I am perfectly ready to admit
that ; but sometimes the coincidence of facts and circum-
stances is almost as unfortunate as the coincidence of prin-
ciples. Nothing can be more dissimilar than the princi-
ple of this Quadruple Treaty and the principle of that
Treaty which led to the occupation of Paris in 1814 ; but
it should be remembered that France is a country which
has always, and justly, set the highest value upon
its military glory. I should be sorry to think that
the people of that country view the events of 1814
and 1815 with any feeling of bitterness. They
must view with regret the repulses to which they were
subject; but I am sure no impartial man, reading the his-
tories of the campaigns of 1814 and 1815, can fairly con-
template those campaigns, though unfortunate in the re-
sult to France, with any other feeling than that of admi-
ration for the skill of the leader, and the valour of the
army of France. But at the same time the events are too
recent, the reverse too great, that France should not be
exceedingly jealous of the nations to whom she was op-
posed. I entreat you, my Lord (addressing Lord Palmer-
ston) to take care that you do not excite and aggravate
those jealousies; I do think that there is some danger of
this. I attach the utmost importance to such a considera-
tion.—( Hear.) I hope the Noble Lord will not taunt
me by saying, " You do not find fault with the
great object which we contemplate, but you
select some minor point for the subject of your ic-
marks." I
do attach the utmost importance to this
point. If it were necessary for you to act without France,
I would exhaust every means of convincing France that
you came to that resolution with the utmost reluctance,
and would have left, as I hope they have been left, distinctly
upon record, the grounds upon which you felt bound to
act without the concurrence of France. I trust you will
be able to show that you exhausted every means of con-
ciliating the good feelings of that nation.—( Hear, hear.)
Now, 1 tell the Noble Lord that there is one point which, in
reading the French debates, struck me very forcibly, in order
that I may make the matter more clear. I will quote exactly
what passed in the Chamber of Deputies, and I must say
that it does carry internal evidence that both the parties
who were concerned in the discussion were speaking in
perfect good faith, and describing the feelings which
they really entertained. M. Guizot was making a speech,
and he was stating he gave some general warning to the
French Government that negotiations were pending which
would possibly lead to the conclusion of the Treaty be-
tween the Powers, when he was interrupted by M. Thiers
in this manner:—" M. Thiers (interrupting M. Guizot)
will prove to M. Guizot that he told me on the 14th
of July that we have still plenty of time be-
fore us, and that there was nettling to render
urgency necessary." " M. Guizot—lt is true."
" M. Thiers—The 6th, 9th, and 14th July, you wrote me as
follows The question is in:agitation, and at a crisis, but
nothing as yet decided.' This is what you wrote to me;
all your letters contain the supposition that before signing
any Treaty a proposition would be made to France."
Now (continued the Right Hon. Baronet) what
says the accused ? " M. Guizot—That is true, I believe.
All the world knows that France was kept in the dark as
to what was going on ; the Treaty was concluded apart
from us, and it was a proceeding against which we had a
right to complain." Now, I do not deny that perhaps from
the general tenour of the language held that M. Guizot
might have inferred that a treaty was about to be signed,
but I must say, cousidering the character of the man, con-
sidering the friendly feelings expressed towards him by
England, and considering the friendly feeling entertained
by him to England, we cannot wonder when the Treaty
of the 15th of July between those Powers who
were parties to the Treaties of 1814 and 1815,
were signed, and it was kept from the Ambassador
and representative of France that such a treaty was on the
point of being signed, I must say I am not surprised that
there were some feelings of indignation.—( Hear, hear.)
Considering all circumstances, I think it would have been
best to have apprised M. Guizot of what was intended, and
to have said to him, " Now, we tell you, in a friendly spi-
rit, that our first object is to unite with you ; but if you
will not unite with us, we must proceed without you." It
is quite clear from the letters that were written from the
French Ambassador to the French Minister that nothing
of the kind was done. On the 9th, 10111, and even up to
the 14th of July, M. Guizot was placed in the humiliating
condition of not being aware of the treaty which was
about to be signed. The Noble Lord says that it would
have been a greater ground of offence to France to com-
municate the intention, than it was to sign the Treaty
without her concurrence. Why, no doubt there is a way
of doing these things. If you had gone to France, and
said " We are going to sign a treaty, and we are utterly
indifferent whether you join us or not, we tell you,
whether you agree or not, we shall sign it." Ilknow that
would have been an offensive mode of proceeding, but if
you had gone in a perfectly conciliatory spirit, and told
France " this is going to be done, do not deceive your Go-
vernment by holding out any hopes of its interruption," I
cannot help thinking that there would have been less offence
in such a proceeding than in the one which was adopted,
namely, the signature of the Treaty without communica-
tion. I am sure that in private life and in the intercourse
of society generally, the principle for which I am con-
tending is most beneficially adopted. Now let me remind
the Nuble Lord of what took place at Verona. In the
Congress of Verona the position of England very much
resembled that of France at the present time, and in that
instance the course was pursued which I think ought to
have been pursued with reference to France.—( Hear.)
All I contend for is, that a less unkind course might have
been adopted.—( Hear, hear.) Now I must enter my
protest against Parliament not having the slightest intima-
tion, on the eve of a rupture with that Power, the alliance
of which we all felt to be of such importance.—( Hear.
hear.) This was an event that might affect the interests
of the world. Parliament was sitting here on the 15th
July. The Noble Lord told us he hoped for the co-opera-
tion of France, and quoted a speech of the King of France
which left us under that impression. He also read a letter
from M. Guizot to the like effect ; and I must say, consi-
dering. the magnitude of the question, and that the Bri-
tish Parliament was then sitting, whatever may be your
technical forms and ceremonies, not to have called in
the assistance and advice of Parliament to prevent the se-
verance of the connection with France does appear to me
to have been a slight upon deliberative assemblies, which
may not have been intended, but which if drawn into
precedent may tend greatly to undermine their powers.—
( Cheers.) The answer I know is, that the treaty was not
ratified; hut recollect the peculiar condition of the ques •
tion—(Cheers)—Recollect the special and extraordinary
powers set forth in these treaties. So anxious were they
for their immediate execution, that the parties to them con-
sented they should be put into immediate execution with-
out being ratified.—( Hear, hear.) Orders were given to
your navy and army
with regard to these treaties, that
if other measures failed they should carry fire and
sword into the heart of Syria.—( Hear. ) Now
before ratification, it is not uncommon to carry into effect
the provisions of a treaty, but should this have been done
when the practical execution of the Treaty might endanger

the union with France ?—(Hear, hear.) Sir, as I have '
said before, there are many points in connexion with this
subject on which, before I form a conclusive judgment, I
must see the progress of the negotiations, and the founda-
tion of your alarm of Russia and other Powers. One
thing I will say. Considering the position of M. Guizot
when he consented to accept office, nothing should lave
been dune to add to his difficulties; but I think the letter
of the Noble Lord. of the 7th of November, might he
found fault with fot its temper. I cannot help saying
also, I share in the feelings of regret which have been ex-
pressed at the omission of the name of France in
the Speoch.—( Hear, hear.) It is difficult to over-
estimate the force of sympathy. Could there have
been any difficulty in taking the words used by the Noble
Lord in the first instance, and expressing ►egret—main-
taining your own ground, making no concession in point
of argument—at the termination of an alliance so long
continued ?—( Flear, hear.) In former speeches you have
mentioned the existence of that alliance with exultation,
as a security for the peace of the world, after the termina-
tion of it could there have been any difficulty, even if
France were to blame, in expressing your regret
at that circumstance ?—( Hear, hear. ) Remember, you
take credit for the success that has attended your opera.
tions. Could there have been any more becoming addi-
tion than time expression of your anticipation and hope that
a speedy and cordial understanding would take place.—
( Hear, hear.) It might have been an argument directed
against those who seize every opportunity of poisoning
the public mind against us. Her Majesty's Speech says,
" I have the satisfaction of receiving from Foreign Powers
assurances of their friendly disposition, and earnest desire
to maintain peace." Why, if France has conveyed to us
the intimation of her friendly disposition, in what would
it have been derogatory to your honour to have done so ?
—and if France has expres;ed an earnest desire to maintain
peace, what difficulty would there have been in adding
an expression of your regret at its interruption. Again
the Speech alludes to objects that are on the eve of ac-
complishment. What arc those objects? The great ob-
ject contemplated by this country was the maintenance of
the integrity and independence of the Ottoman empire,
and thereby "to give security to Europe." Why, if you
are on the eve of accomplishing this great object, why
take exception to the insertion of such a clause as this?
Sir, I still hope that the clouds which hang over the poll-
tical horizon will pass away, and that the reasonable part
of Europe will exercise such forbearance as shall prevent
a recurrence to the dreadful calamity of war.—(Cheers.)
What has war done I What a consumption it is of time
and capital, uselessly and unprofitably—nay, not only so, if
it were sunk to the bottom of the sea, there would be
some limit to it, but you cannot wake these preparations
fur war without reviving that fell spirit, and all those bad
passions and animosities which belong to it ; and how
shall these be suppressed ?—( Cheers.) Every shilling
devoted to these prepatations is an additional tax and
burden upon France, as well as upon us, withdraws so
much capital, and promotes a spirit pregnant with the
most obnoxious principles.—(Cheers.) I do hope that
France will hear what is almost the unanimous voice of
this [louse, and will henceforward disbelieve the false re-
ports which are originated to create animosity between
the two nations.—(Hear, hear, hear.) I see several
grounds for not being released from apprehension,
that the peace of Europe will not be affected.
I look to Syria. You are perhaps determined to
lenit the power of the Pectin, and to confine him to Egypt ;
hut remember t i's, while France remains in her insulated
position, you will find, after the present temporary settle-
ment, a thousand questions arise you cannot satisfactorily
settle without the co-operation of France. The relations
between the Pacha and the Porte are still to be settled.
These may be framed entirely destructive of his power ;
but from the relations of Turkey, and the peculiar situa•
tion of Turkey with respect to the Mediteraanean and the
entrance to the Bosphorus, how important for our own ob-
jects to effect a general and amicable settlement, and that
France should take part in it, not to extort from you a
confession that you were wrong, but if possible, forgetting
the past, to prevail on her to unite with you for mutual good.
No man is more convinced then I am that you have no gua-
rantee for peace. I again say lam not prepared to con-
demn in the slightest degree many of your objects. Once
begun you have no alternative but to persevere. But you
say that your measures have been attended with signal
success. Now, it appears to me that this is an opportunity
in which you may make—not unreasonable concessions,
for that might only encourage the war party in France—
but let me advise you, because you are strong, because you
are successful, because you have shown that years of peace
have not abated the gallant spirit of your army and navy—
now, I say, is the time to say to France, Enter into
communion with the great Powers of Europe for
;sake of peace ; we are all of us animated by an
earnest desire to admit you again into the great family ; we
entreat you now to enter into our councils. I trust France
would accede to this request, and I formed that hope on the
opinions expressed by the present Prime Minister of France
with respect to the Porte, to which I trust he still ad-
heres. The Right Honourable Baronet then read some
extracts from a letter of Marshal Soult, dated July 17, 1839,
and addressed to Baron Bourgeney, in which he informs
that Minister that France, and indeed all the great Powers
of Europe, desired the integrity and independence of the
Ottoman Empire under the present dynasty, and expressed
a hope on the substance of his note being communicated
to Lord Palmerston, that England would not refuse to
join with France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, in
taking proper steps to secure such an important ob-
ject. M. Gaizot expressed similar sentiments, and
a wish to preserve the integrity of the Ottoman Em-
pire, and, at the same time, peace with England. If
there was any man—if there were any two men, who
would shrink from a conflict with England, it was the
combination of these two men. It would be a sacrifice of
opinion on my part if I did not give expression to it, and
my belief is that these men acted from their honest con-
victions. I admire the honesty and manliness with wnich
Marshal Souls came forward and stated that he
bore a grateful recollection of the reception he
had met with in this country.—( Hear and cheers, )
That reception wan not so much the personal esteem in
which the old warrior was held, as an indication that the
old ungenerous national antipathies and animosities against
France were extinct in this country, and that we took
that opportunity of proving our kind feeling towards it.—
( Cheers from both sides of the House.) Sir, I have
risen at the risk of doing a disservice to Marshal Soult,
by complimenting him in a British House of Commons,
when I express my anxious hope that ho and
M. Guizot, aided by the enlightened King of France,
may be successful, and that, while maintaining the
honour of France inviolate, they may have power
enough, aided by the returning good sense of that country,
to rescue it and the rest of Europe front the miserable
calamity of renewed hostilities.—(Loud cheering.)
Mr. GROTE explained, He had not said that the
danger of Russia occupying Constantinople was an insuffi-
cient cause for the war, but that there was no security for
such an occurrence from their interfering in the concerns
of the Ottoman empire.
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir I am not going to dis-
cuss the whole of the topics introduced in the speech of
the Right Hon. Bart., or to find fault with him for find-
ing fault with some of the details of our conduct while
approving of the main policy. The Right Hon. Baronet
has a perfect right to make these distinctions ; but I
think that I shall be able to show that the objections he
has made do not rest on any solid foundation. I hope, on
the contrary, to show that in many things which have fallen
from the Right Hon. Baronet, and especially at the con-
clusion of his speech, we do not entirely concur.—
( Hear, hear.) Sir Ido concur in deeply lamenting that
the course these discussions has taken have for a time,
and only, I trust, for a short time, interrupted that
good and friendly feeling which has happily so long, or at
least during the last 10 years, subsisted between England
and France. I agree with the Right Hon. Baronet that
it is of the greatest importance not merely to the welfare
and prosperity of the two countries, but to the peace
and tranquillity of Europe, that there should be a good un-
derstanding between England and France. Sir, I have gone
further on that point than the Right Hon. Baronet, fur I
have attached greater importance and value than himself
to a closer connection between the two countries.
( Hear, hear.) It has often been my lot to stand in my
place here and to justify myself against the charge of at-
taching too much importance to that connection. I al-
ways have said, when that topic was brought up against
me, that I understood the alliance between France and Eng-
land rested upon the interests of the two countries, and
whenever their interests diverged the alliance would be
placed in the same antithesis. Sir, I should deeply la-
ment that the interests of those two countries should di-
verge; and although it may be presumptuous in an Eng-
lishman to estimate the interests of France differently
from the French people themselves, I cannot help thinking
that the real interests of France with regard to
the Turkish question are identical with those of England,
and that we have not been pursuing any course which
would justify the resentment or hostility of that country.
I am persuaded that when the French nation comes to a
calmer temper and reflects more coolly upon our princi-
ples of action, and the ends we have endeavoured to main-
tain, and when they know and understand more fully that
we have not acted in a spirit of jealousy or unfriendliness
towards France, I cannot divest myself of the conviction
that wo shall find that the temper of the French
nation as regards England will turn to that form
which we most anxiously desire, and which we regret has
been departed from.—Sir, I rejoice that the speech of the
Right Hon. Baronet has shown that in the great interests
of England both parties in this House concur, and what-
ever party rivalships exist with regard to competition for '
power in this country, they do not stand in the way of
unity of opinion when it is shown that the great interests
of the country are at stake. lam glad also to find by
what has fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet, that,
whatever may have been said casually by individuals on
former occasions, among the leading men on both sides
there is a settled conviction and an earliest desire that the
best understanding and the kindest feelings should
exist between the two countries.—( Hear, hear.)
I can assure the House and the Right Hon. Baronet,
that as, on the one hand, no efforts on our part shall be
omitted during the course of these negotiations to
obtain and retain the co-operation of France ; so, on the
other hand, no proper efforts on our part shall be
omitted to regain the good will of France, and to bring
back our ancient friendly relations. Sir, I am perfectly
ready to admit that, considering the great power of
France, possessed as she is of vast military and naval
means, and placed geographically in the centre of Eu.
rope, she cannot be excluded from the great affairs of
Europe in any settlement of any of its great affairs, nor
can they be complete or secure until France is brought
to take a part in their settlement. I' shall now dis-
pose of some of the objectiors of the Right Hon. Baronet ;
viz., that we did not show sufficient courtesy to France,
in not making her acquainted with the intention of the Four
Powers to conclude the Treaty. Sir, I hare on former
occasions discussed that point in this House, and it is
entirely a mistake to say that we allowed Parliament
to separate without giving it any intimation or a know-
ledge of the transaction. Sir, I need scarcely re-
mind the House that on two occasions it fell to may
lot, after the signing of the treaty, to enter into explana-
tions as to the course we had pursued. We had been
for twelve months endeavouring to bring France to an
understanding with us. We failed in so doing, although