The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-02 00:00:00

that there is no inconvenience attending emotion which
criticises or assails the conduct of her Majesty's G.
vernment engaged in transactions with a foreign country;
but, before deciding the question whether the hon. mem-
ber for Mayo is open to the severe censures which have
been cast upon him, we must consider whether the
papers which have been laid on the table do not make
us acquainted with all tbe facts of the case—whether the
misunderstanding with America has not gone beyond
the point of mere diplomatic communication, and has
assumed Seism and action in the face of the world, and
whether tlhe house itself, or at least those individual
members who have familiarised themselves with the con-
tents of die blue-books, will not by declining to take
this opportunity of expressing their opinion upom them
become parties to the approval of the couduct of her I
Majesty's Government ? (Hear, hear.) For myself,
Sir, I frankly own that I have felt the greatest difficulty
in considering the question what vote to give upon
the present occasion. I never recollect a question
more difficult as pressing upon my own under-
standing and conscience (hear, hear) but with
my knowledge and experience of this house, I am
convinced that those who feel with me cannot do
better than throw themselves on the indulgence of
the house, stating fully the difficulties which they experi-
ence, exposing themselves if need be to adverse criticism,
but relying with confidence on the generous forbearance
of the house to put a fair construction upon their language.
(Hear.) At any rate, after what I have sai 1, I shall state
in intelligible language why it is I expect to find myself
voting with the hon. member for North Warwickshire.
My hon, friend stated, at the commencement of the dis-
cussion, that he deprecated the beginning of it as likely
to injure the interests of peace, and he likewise charac-
terised it as a party question, casting some discredit upon
it on that acceunt. Is it, then, in point of fact, a party
question ? Why, I appeal to his own example against his
precept. He himself has risen in his place and declared
that he will vote against the motion of the hon. member
for Mayo. So far that is an indication that it is not a patty
question. (Hear, hear.) Aaio, within the last few mi-
nutes the right hon, gentleman the memher for Man.
chester, who, I apprehend, does not belong to the same j
political school as the hon. member for Mayo, has
declared his intention to support the motion. But if my
right hon. friend and the hon. member for Mayo are
making it a party question, on behalf of what party are
tbey raising it ? Is it of the party opposite ? Does the
hon. member for Mayo belong to the school of the right
hon, gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire
Why, sir, it is quite plain this is not a party question.
And, sir, I am bound to say that, in my opinion, that is
a vital element in the consideration of the case. Disap-
proving the -conduct of her Majesty's Government in
the management of the foreign enlistment question, I say
here that I should be ready to express that disapproval
by vote if I saw a motion to that effect made by a party
ready to be responsible for the consequences of success,
Now, sir, I say to the hon. member for Mayo, with-
out the slightest disrespect, that these questions of
votes of censure upon Governments are matters of
great importance, and that in considering them we
must look not merely to the terms in which they are
framed, but likewise to the quarter from which they
emanate. (Hear.) I mean nothing disparaging to th•
hon, member for Mayo ; but are we to regard his mo
tion as the declaration of a party ready to be responsible
for the results of its adoption, or is it merely the expres-
sion of the opinion of individual members of this house,
who can have little influence upon the division, and who,
if the resolution were carried, could not themselves be
responsible for the consequences ? (Hear.) I think, sir,
it is a good practical rule in Parliamentary discussions
that we should not by our votes weaken the hands of Go-
vernment unless we are prepared to displace them from
office. (Hear.) I think it is not desirable that in these
foreign transactions the Government should be assailed
by votes that tend to weaken their influence on behalf
of their country, unless they are moved by those who
are responsible for carrying those opinions into effect. I
therefore should have approved the motion before the
house if it had been moved by some party who were re-
sponsible for carrying the resolution of the lion. member
for Mayo into effect. For a vote of censure on the Go-
vernment, as an abstract resolution, I am not able to
vote, but if the motion had come before me supported by
those whe were ready to carry out the principle it em-
bodied I should have felt it my duty to give effect to my
opinion. But then I may be asked, " Why, admitting
that we ought not to weaken the hands of the Govern-
ment in carrying on their difficult negotiations with a
foreign country—why do you enter upon this discussion
and express opinions contrary to the course taken by the
Government ?" My answer is plain. I have no choice
after the turn which this debate has taken. [An hon.
member made a remark, which was inaudible.] My hon.
friend says I am going to speak one way and vote an-
other. (A. laugh.) Well, Sir, I object to all votes of
an abstract character, and which cannot be carried to a
practical result. I believe it to be a wise rule that
votes of censure on the Government should only be pro-
posed by those who are able to give effect to the prin-
ciple contained in those votes. I should not shrink from
giving my vote in accordance with that opinion, but as
matters stand I shall vote for going into Committee of
Supply. The state of things with which you have to
deal is this :—Upon the British Minister the penalty of
dismissal from Washington has been inflicted. As far as
the honour of this country is concerned, the state of
things is therefore unsatisfactory. As far as regards the
American Government, what is its condition ? Was the
breach with America closed up by his dismissal ? Will
any man say he believes it is ? It it were rightto retain
Mr. Dallas, why do you keep our diplomacy in a state
of half animation? Why do you not appoint a successor
to Mr. Crampton ? I can conceive no reason for not send-
ing away Mr. Dallas that does not equally prove that
you should appoint a successor t 3 Mr. Crampton. If the
American Government had no cause to justify them in
dismissing Mr. Crampton, why do yon retain Mr. Dal-
las ? If they had a cause to justify them, why do you
not admit that they are right and send a successor to fill
Mr. Crampton's place ? (Haar.) My right hon. friend the
Secretary of State for the Home Department having
spoken last night, I presume we are in possession of the
views of the Government, and the Government were not
content to debate this question except upon its merits.
My hon. friend the member fur Warwickshire said he
would not enter upon the merits of this question, and
that is a perfectly consistent course for me to take or for
my hon. friend to take. But the Government have en-
tered upon the discussion upon the merits of the case.
That was a manly course, and I do not find fault with
it. Whether it was a prudent course lam not so sure.
That they declared their adherence to all that has been
done and stated during the whole progress of this
painful discussion. Nothing can be more explicit than
the declarations they have made to this effect. The
Attorney-General declared that, whereas there had
been charges against the Government of violating both
international law and the municipal law of the United
States, he denied both those charges, and denied that
either law had been violatei. My right hon. friend the
Secretary of State for the Home Department was
even bolder iriehis manner of dealing with this subject
than the Attorney-General. He said that the officers of
the Government had acted up to the spirit of the instruc-
tions that they had received. He said that no acts bad
been done contrary to the American law, and that the
apologies made to the United States' Government did
not admit that such acts had been done, because her Ma-
jesty's Government felt all along that no wrong had been
done. So that the doctrine of the Government is that
their proceedings have been justified by their own in-
structions. - I am certainly not prepared to be respons-
ible for that opinion by the side of the evidence in this
blue-book. I believe, indeed, that such an assertion is
made in the teeth of the plainest evidence in every page
of these documents. That is not only my opinion, but I
believe it is in effect the opinion of a great many of the
inembirs of this house who have given their time and
labour to the perusal of these blue-books. Small is, I
fear, the number who answer to that description. Theme
are many things that the English people will d e They
will sign petitions : they will attend meetings ; they will
get up agitations ; they will pay taxes, and double taxes
if need be. But blue-books they will not read. That
is the case also with members of this house. I say fear-
lessly that the Attorney-General has not read these blue-
books. (A. laugh.) That is a fair challenge, and I will
show that the references of the Attorney-General to these
books—references evidently supplied to him at second
hand—betray that he has never entered upon the study of
these important documents. The effect of these declara-
tions of the Government is, that they keep alive the re-
collection of the differences between this Government and
the.Gloierisment of America, and I am not prepared to
asient to the opinion of those who say that it is not de-
sirable to remove these affairs from the hands of those who
have hitherto conducted them. On the contrary, I think
that no Government is so little qualified toconduct these
negotiations with America to a successful. result, be-
, cause{ of; the differences that have prevailed, because of
Theeeourse of combined obstinacy and weakness which
the Gbvernment have pursued, and because the recol-
leotion of these differences has been kept alive by claims
which present a great difficulty in the further progress
of the negotiations. My right hon. friend (Sir G. Grey)
stated in is fair and cand.d manner a point of great im-
portance. I refer to the supposed apology of the British
Government, It has often been said that the American
Government cannot complain, because if any wrong has
been done them it has been covered by a handsome apo-
logy. But that is not the language of my right hon.
friend. He did not say that if any wrong had been done
to the Government of the United States it bad been
covered by an apology. On the contrary, my right hon.
friend said, with the greatest candour and truth, that
the apology offered to the United States' Government
had always been a conditional apology, and was not an
apology that implied or admitted that a wrong had been
done, because her Majesty's Government, having been
fully conscious that they had done no wrong, had
not offered an apology that supposed that a wrong
had been done. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend
stated these were the apologies that had been made.
They had been repeated in various despatches. They
all run in one form. The British Government would
regret deeply if, either intentionally or unintentionally,
they have done a wrong to America. But they have
not done a wrong to America. (Hear, hear.) If no
wrong had been done I grant you that an apology so
couched ought to be accepted, and that it would be a
frank, generous, and conciliatory step, going as near as
possible to meet the views of the American Government.
But if a wrong has been done, such an apologys is no
apology at all. (Hear.) Whether a wrong h
been
done, therefore, is the question upon which we have
t_ to
fall back. I maintain that if a strong has been done that
wrong has not been atoned for by the apology. Let mesay two things, which will shorten ray part in the dis-
cussion. In e first place, I will not, as a general
rule, quote from these blue-books, bet fur every word I
utter I am ready, if called upon, to repeat the chap-
ter and verse. 'lf I do not quote much, it is be-
cause it would be unreasonable iu me to trespass upon
the indulgence of tbe house. In the next place,
I forbear to discuss the question of international law,
not that I think it unimPortvgi because I hold that no