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

we made several propositions to France, and made several
concessions of our own views. We made a last repre-
sentation, stating the utmost extent we should go in sacri-
ficing what we considered expedient to obtain her co-ope•
ration; and now the Hon. Member for Kilkenny accuses
us of incon,istency, in having gone so far, although at
least it is a proof of our sincerity in wishing to make every
possible sacrifice for the purpose of obtaining the co-opera-
tion of France in the transaction to which I allude.
After the lapse of five or six weeks, we received a posi-
tive refusal on the part of France to concur in the arrange-
ment, and that refusal was grounded on the distant and
broad principle that it could not be carried into effect with-
out resorting to coercive measures against the Pacha, to which '
France would not be a party. Our Treaty was founded
upon that very arrangement, with a proviso of having re-
course to coercive measures. Would it have been seemly
or any thing but a mockery to France, to have gone to
her and said, " You have refused to join us; we told you
the ultimate extent of our concessions, to which, if you did
not agree, we should act without you ; and we now call
upon you to be a party to those coercive measures which
you declared on no consideration would you take a share in."
So far from that being a cause of quarrel with France, I
think the Ambassador would have had just cause of quarrel,
for it would have implied on our part that we thought them
insincere, and that we had disbelieved France in her
former declaration. But then, Sir, to the point of expe-
diency. It must be clear to every one, after the) have
read the debates in the French Chamber, that the
only object of the French Government: was to gain
time to prevent us from doing anything except by negotia-
tion ; and every one must know, that had we made any
communication, it must have led to others on the part of
the French Government, and time would have been lost
which, considering the period when operations must
cease on the coast of Syria, must have prevented any ope-
rations altogether durinr, that season. Had we taken that
course, it would have shown the greatest imbecility, be-
cause the French Government would have found some
means or other to cause delay, and all effective measures
would have been rendered useless for a year. Then, Sir,
again I am perfectly aware that such a course would have
been inconsistent with usage, for I am not aware that the
Plenipotentiaries at this Court would have been justified
in consenting to any modification, unless they kNew that
their own Courts would agree to and ratify them. An-
other objection taken by the Right Hon. Baronet was the
secresy-__

Sir-R. PEEL—It was communicated.
Lord PALMERSTON_Undoubtedly. The second
day after the Treaty was signed I communicated to the
Ambassador of France, not only the fact, but the substance
of the Treaty ; but that, I apprehend, would not be enough.
The French Government would have said, " You must
give us the Treaty in exteizso ; we have already said we
will not agree with your proposition ; you must let us see
the Treaty itself in order to know whether any of the de-
tails will make amends to us for its substance." Now,
Sir, with regard to the communication to Parliament, the
Right Hon. Bart. says it was unfitting for Government to
allow Parliament to separate without making them aware
of the nature of the engagements which had been entered
into by the Crown of this country. Now, Sir, as to lay-
ing the Treaty itself on the table, the objection was insur-
mountable. We could not lay a Treaty on the table of
the House without its having been ratified. That the
Treaty was signed was a matter of notoriety in the House.
The Treaty itself wns published in the newspapers either
a day or two before or after the separation of Parliament.
Sir R. PEEL—Not till three weeks after.

Lord PALMERSTON—I will not lay any stress upon
that fact. I am not quite aware of the circumstances,
but the object of the treaty and the fact were matters of
public notoriety, and the Hon. Member for Kilkenny had
brought the question two distinct times before the House ;
therefore it was impossible but that Parliament was com-
pletely aware of the circumstance, and could not by possi-
bility be kept in ignorance of what had been done. The
Right Hon. Baronet said that although the treaty could
not be laid before them unless ratified, still there was an
accompanying protocol which ought to have been laid upon
the table. It was true that there was such a document,
but that protocol was founded upon the treaty, and there-
fore could not be laid before the House without the instru-
ment out of which it arose, and although the Plenipotentia-
ries of the Four Powers determined that certain ineasui es
should be immediately carried into execution, still the proto-
col had to go to the various Courts, and they might object to
the steps proposed to be taken, and might have stopped
their execution before the orders given could have been
acted upon. Now, Sir, with regard to my despatch of the
2d of November, I should certainly have wished that it had
been communicated before the change of the Government
in France, but circumstances prevented me from sending it
sooner, and I did not think that the change was any reason
why they should allow matters to be recognised in which
they could not concur. With respect to th general policy
it would certainly be the duty of the Government to lay be-
fore the House such documents and information as would put
Hon. Members in possession of better grounds on which to
form a conclusive opinion upon these matters. The Noble
Lord ( Lord J. Russell) stated in so masterly a manner
the general outlines upon which our policy rests, that it
is only necessary to refer to that Speech for a full and
satisfactory answer to all that has been advanced, and I may
fairly say that the Hon. Members for Kilkenny and Lon-
don are the only Members who, upon general grounds,
would be disposed to vote any objections to the cause
which Government has pursued. The state of affairs in
the Levant for many years past has been pregnant with
danger to the people of Europe. The Sultan was
threatened by a powerful vassal upon whose for-
bearance no reliance could be placed, nay, who
was about to carry his aggressions further. The
Sultan felt obliged to throw himself upon the pro-
tection of some Power in Europe, and it was neces-
sary that we should either form a combination, or leave
him, as in l 532, to the support of one Power, which
Power would have acquired undue preponderance in the
affairs of Europe. The intention of the Treaty was to
avert events which might have involved the Great Powers
of Europe in great difficulties, if not in actual hostilities.
Then it is said we ought not to have engaged in this po-
licy, knowing the objection of France ; because, by so
doing, we incurred the danger of war. In the first place,
I will say that, acceeding to all the diplomatic tra sanc-
tions of France, they were entitled to assume that,
without an entire departure from her own professions, she
could not take up arms in support of the Pacha, and
against the Sultan, and then if not, it was clear no war
could ensue ; it was said that;the interference would be
beset with difficulties, and that the means would not be
sufficient. The result has proved that that information
and those opinions were based upon wrong calculations,
because we have not only succeeded, but we may say that
our success has been more rapid than it was possible to
have anticipated. It appears to me that the very reason
which ought to recommend the course we have pursued
has been made a subject of complaint by my lion. Friend
the Member for Kilkenny—namely, that we were assisting
a willing people to emancipate themselves from a tyranny
which they felt to be intolerable, and that we were
aiding them to give effect to their own wishes with regard
to their allegiance to their own sovereign ; for if the
people had not been anxious to return to the direct autho-
rity of the Sultan, and to get rid of the rule of Egypt, it
is clear that the Turkish force and our squadron of marines
on the coast, would not have been sufficient to accomplish
that great and rapid result which we had the good fortune
to realise. Therefore I say we have had good grounds in
the first place in thinking that what we were about would
not disturb the peace of Europe ; and, secondly, in beetle
of opinion that we were not undertaken; an object which
e had not means to accomplish. And though undoubtedly
great irritation has been created in France by the course
which the Four Powers have pursued, yet I feel bound to
say that if the same pains had been taken to enlighten and
inform public opinion in France as to the nature of those
transsetions—( Hear)—and as to the spirit in which
they were conceived, which have been taken to mislead the
people of that country, to excite uefounded jealousies and
groundless animosities, I am convinced that the interrup-
tion which has unfortunately for a moment taken place
between the two countries would either not have existed
at all, or, if it had existed at all, would have been of an
infinitely more trifling and more transient nature.—
( Hear.) I will not, on the present occasion, go into the
details of the minor points, to which my Hon. Friend, the
Member for Kilkenny, has adverted. Many of those
Points he will find explained when the papers are laid be.
'fore him ; and I will then be ready when the House is in
possession of full information on the subject—l will be
ready to go into more detailed explanations, which will
be more easily understood by the House than they could
be at present. I shall now only say, that if my Hon.
Friend presses the amendment he has introduced, it affords
me great satisfaction to think that he will not find a lurge
number of supporters. If I were inclined to criticize his
Address on the same principle on which he has criticized ours,
I think I might point out almost as many omissions in his
address of the matters which ought to be touched on, as
he alleges he has found in our Speech and the Address
moved tonight. I will not further detain the House; I
.can only again repeat, that if we did not advise the Crown
to introduce into the Speech from the Throne any expres-
sion of regret that France has not been a party to the
transactions, it was not because we did not feel that regret,
or because we thought that the House would not respond
to such an expression, but I apprehend it would have been
unusual—it would have been inconsistent with the ordi-
nary principles on which Speeches from the Throne are
framed, to express regret at an interruption of good under.
standing which had not beets marked by any diplomatic
event. If either country had formally expressed its dissa-
tisfaction—if there had been an interruption of diplomatic
relations, then there would undoubtedly have been an act of
which the Crown might have taken notice in its Speech. But
for the Crown merely to have taken notice of that irrita-
tion , which in various ways has been unfortunately manifest
in France, would not, I think, have been consistent with
the ordinary course of proceedings in regard to documents
of that nature. But if the Right Hon. Baronet thinks
that the omission implies any want of regret on the part
of her Majesty's advisers on the subject, I can assure him
—and I am satisfied that every one of my colleagues would
equally assure him—that the regret he has expressed is sin-
cerely shared in by us ; and I have a confident hope that be.
fore any length of time shall have elapsed, we will find that
the present irritation in France has subsided, and that
France will revert to her natural and proper position in
Europe, and that that understanding which is essential to
the fundamental interests of the two countries, will be
found to have returned to its former condition.

The Address was then put and agreed to. It was or-
derred to be referred to a Committee and reported to.
morrow, and the House adjourned at Half-past Eleven
o'clock.

THE INUNDATIONS AT BRENTFORD.---The
subscription in behalf of the unfortunate destitute boatmen,
their wives and families, and the poor cottagers, is pro-
gressing favourably. In addition to the sums already men-
tioned in the daily papers, the Vicar and Churchwardens
have this day received, among others, the following
sums :--Her Msjesty the Queen has forwarded twenty
guineas ; the Duke of Northumberland, 50/. ; tho Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, 10/ ; the Duke of Cleveland. 20/. ;
Ge irge Byng, Esq., M. P. for Middlesex, 30/. ; Woad
T. Wood, M. P. kir Middlesex, Si.; Colonel Wood, M. P.
for Brecon, 5/. ; Archdeacon Camb•idge and Mr. Cam.
bridge, 101. ; Baroness de Rothschild, 1 04,84.