The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-13 00:00:00

SIR R. PEEL'S LECTURE.

Mr. STAFFORD.—I rise to ask the hon. baronet the
member for Tamworth whether the report of a speech
of his, made on the 7th of January, at Saltby, near
Birmingham, which appeared in the daily journals, be
correct, especially those passages which referred to the
Grand Duke Constantine of Russia, M. de Morny, and
the Prince de Ligne ?
Sir R. PEEL.—My hon. friend has asked me a
question, and I hope the house will allow me to say a
few words in explanation. (Hear, hear.) It is said
that it has been "arranged"—and the word is a heavy
one—to put a question to me whether a speech reported
to have been delivered by me at Saltby, and reported in
the daily journals, is correct 3 Now, I do not think,
perhaps, that this is quite the tribunal in which I ought
to be called to account for expressions used in another
place, and totally unconnected with the business of
this house. (Hear, hear.) At the same time lam
quite ready to accept the challenge of the honourable
gentleman, and I am quite prepared to give him
every facility in obtaining the most accurate information
on this most important subject. (A laugh.) The hon.
gentleman asks me whether I delivered the speech at
Saltby which appeared in the daily journals. I beg to
say that did deliver that speech as the guest of the
h.m. member for Adderley—(laughter)—for North Staf-
fordshire. He invited me to attend that meeting on the
occasion of a jollification (laughter), and I addressed that
meeting. I admit that lam not in the habit of reading
reports of speeches of mine after they are delivered. I
generally rest satisfied with the favourable impression
that I produce at the time. (Laughter.) It is, therefore,
rather difficult for me at this distance of time to pledge
myself to the exact accuracy of every word that appears
in that report. I believe I spoke for nearly two hours
and a half without notes, so that it is rather difficult for
me to say whether that report is precisely correct. But
this I am prepared to say, that such is the ability, the
acknowledged ability, and impartiality with which the
leading journals report the proceedings of public meet-
ings that I am quite prepared to accept the entire
responsibility of every single sentence, except a particu-
lar phrase, which I do not think I used, but which if I
had used I should have been equally prepared to accept
the entire responsibility of. But I am sure that the
house, as a great deal has been said about this speech,
will give me ten minutes for a few remarks on it. (Hear.)
I shall be very glad indeed to offer some explanation, as
my phrases have been tortured a good deal from their
true meaning, and a meaning has been given to them that
I never intended to convey. I did address the meeting at
Saltby, and, as a great deal of comment has been made
on my words, it will perhaps be right, as I occupy a
public situation, to put them in their true and proper
light. (Hear, hear.) I am sorry, and I do regret
that any inconvenience should have arisen from any
xpressions that may have fallen from me, and which
have been misinterpreted on that occasion. It is
very far from my wish, and I think I may say
from my nature—and I am known to many members
of this house—to cause unnecessary pain to any one.
(General cheering.) But these sentences have been very
greatly twisted ; and, first, with reference to the Count
do Morny, the Grand Duke Constantine, and the Prince
de Ligne. (Hear.) As regards the Count de Morny,
I absolutely repudiate having said anything about him
which might not have been said by any gentleman with
reference to his friends or acquaintances. (Much
laughter.) I said that he was le plus grand speculateur
dc l'Europe. (Cheers and laughter.) Now, I did net
intend to imply anythi❑g detrimental to his honourable
character—(continued laughter)—and immediately on
my arrival in town, when I heard that these expressions
had been noticed, I wrote to Count de Dlorny to wig
that certainly envy and malice had done their best to
twist these expressions of mine into something odious
to him, but that I repudiated saying a single word
against his character or the position he occupied.
Now, I could not say more. (sheers.) As regards
the Grand Duke Constantine, that is another mat-
ter. I certainly said that the Grand Duke Constan-
tine did not quite impress me with the feeling of a
"frank and open-hearted sailor." (A. laugh.) I
said that ; but the words were not mine ; they
were used by the gallant admiral sitting there (pointing
to Sir Charles Napier, amid much laughter). I never
Raid one word against the Grand Duke Constantine, or
any other member of the Royal family of that country.
On the contrary, when I said that he did not give me
tae impression of being "a frank and open-hearted
sailor," I meant that he gave me the impression of being
man of great powers of mind. (Rears of laughter.)
What I intended to convey was, that he was not mert ly
a simple sailor—(continued laughter)—but a man of
greater grasp of mind. (Great laughter in which Sir C.
Napier heartily joined.) As'regards the Prince de Ligne,
I accept the responsibility of every phrase that I used.
I certainly did say—l should be sorry to cause any
unnecessary pain to any one—but I was talking in a
familiar way, and I did use the expression that he
was as stiff and starched as the frill of Queen Eliza-
beth." (A. laugh.) I cannot accept the responsibility
of every word in the report. I see my hon. friend
opposite (Mr. Adderley) who was present, and Lord
Lyttleton was also present, andl appeal to him to say
whether a single word fell from my lips that might not
have found an echo and express►on from the most
straight-laced gentleman in this house. (Laughter.) All
I can say is that if, in the opinion of the hon. gentlemen
who may have considered this question—if, in the at•
tempt, the innocent attempt, I made to paint a few light
and airy sketches of character—(laughter)-0, as Pope
said, " hold the mirror up to nature"—(continued laugh.
ter)—to "catch the manners living as they rise"—(much
laughter)—if I have erred in the good opinion of those
whose good opinion I honour and value, and whose
judgment has weight, I beg to say, on this public occa-
sion, as an earnest of the sincerity of my feelings, that,
though I do not feel that I did err, still, if I did err in
their opinion, I now offer the most ample expression of
regret—(cheers)—and that is the most fitting amende
honorable that I can offer. (Cheering from all sides of
the House.)
THE " SECRET TREATY."

Lord PALMERSTON—I wish to set myself right with
the right hon. gentleman opposite with regard to an asser.
Lion I made on Tuesday night with respect to the mili-
tary convention to which I referred. I said that I had
been informed that that convention bad not been signed
and my belief was that it had not been signed. But I
think it right to state that, on further inquiry, I find
that in point of fact it was signed—(cheers from the Op-
po,ition benches)—but that, being in its nature more of
a military than a political convention, and having for its
object the regulation, the mutual regulation, of the
French and AuArian troops which might be in Italy in
the contingency of Austria declaring war against Russia.,
and Austria never having declared war against Russia,
that convention, although signed, became a deal letter,
and never had anyapplication or effect whatever.
DISRAELI—Although there is no question le -
fore the house, yet I hope I shall be allowed to make a
few remarks, and they shall be of extreme brevity. The
house will recollect that I mentioned on the first night
of the sesion that there was a secret treaty between
France and Austria. That statement received a direct
contradiction from the noble lord. ("No!" from Lord Pal-
merston.) It was "a romance." (Opposition cheers.)
The noble lord said I was distinguished for ray powers
imagination, that this was a complete invention, that
I had produced some works of imagination, and that
this was another " romance." (Cheers.) A week
elapsed, and I took the earliest opportunity of the noble
lord's reappearance in the house to make a statement,
which I hope from a sense of justice is still in the recoi-
-1 -ction of the hause. I stated that what I had said on
s previous occasion was perfectly correct—that, there
was a treaty between France and Austria, and that the
otrject of that treaty was to guarantee the security of
the Italian provinces of Austria. I said that that treaty
was signed—(Opposition cheers)—that it was acted
en, that it was indeed extensively acted on, for the
troops of Austria were withdrawn from Italy in con-
sequence of that treaty ; that at a subsequent period
alarm was felt by the Italian Governments at the
aitbdrawal of those troops, and that they requested
the
permission of Austria to communicate in con-
filence the existence of the treaty in order to tranquillise
their subjects. This was the treaty we were told was
never acted upon. (Cheers.) What was the answer I
received on the second occasion? The noble lord declared
on the first occasion that it was a romance. He was then,
after the details I gave, obliged
ttoeoowbnjetchtaotftwhehriechwawsaa :
to accorn
The
But,no(b saidle
written document in existence,
h
Pi
ishthaattrewal4chbult a convention,explaine The
(Cheers.)
thelords )
amble s) dt was
not
lord, "That convention was neversigned.
c

I have been in active communication with those who
can give me the best information on the subject. I
have received information, and the fact is that the
affair never was in operation, and so I was justified in
my statement that there was nothing of the kind,
and that the whole thing was a romance." Now comes
the third act. We now have an acknowledgment from
the noble lord, not merely that there is a written docu-
ment in existence in the shape of a convention between
those two Powers for the object I stated, and that it is a
secret document, but that the only statement which the
other night saved the noble lord from substantial refuta-
tion—namely, that the convention was not signed, is
incorrect, and that the convention was signed. (Hear.)
After these two admissions from the noble lord, I stand
here to state again that which I stated on the first night
of the session. I say it was not a convention, it was a
treaty—l say it was not only signed, but extensively
acted upon—l say that every expressien the noble lord
used in describing that instrument so little applies
to its real nature, as it has been represented to me,
that I really believed at the end of the debate the
other night that there must have been some mili-
tary convention in existence, founded upon the treaty,
which had not been signed, and that the noble lord was
entirely misleading the house. (Cheers.) I state again
that there is a treaty—a secret treaty—between France
and Austria, the object of which is to guarantee the se-
curity of the Italian possessions of Austria—that it was
executed on the day I mentioned—that it has been ex-
tensively acted upon—that to the best of my belief it
contains, on its surface, no limitation of the period of its
operation—and that the character given of it by the
noble lord the other night is entirely incorrect. (Loud
cheers.)

Lord PALMERSTON—I have no right to trespass
again upon the indulgence of the house, but I hope I
shall be allowed to say a few words after the observations
of the right hon. gentleman, by which he attempts to
cover his ignominious retreat from his first position.
(Ironical cheers from the Opposition, and counter cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman has misstated what he said on
a former occasion. (Cheers and counter cheers.) He
has entirely misrepresented his own expressions—his own
statement. What was the right hon. gentleman's state-
ment ? His statement was that there was a treaty be-
tween Austria and France for guaranteeing the Italian
possessions of Austria—(hear)—that it was now in exist-
ence—that it bad been recently quoted by Austria in
corasequence of the discussions between France and Eng-
land on the one hand and Naples on the other—and that
it had been executed at the instigation of the English
Government—(loud cries of " Oh, oh," and cheers)—that
it had been executed not only with the knowledge, but
at the instigation of her Majesty's Government. (Con-
tinued cheers and counter cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—At tha " instance !"

Lord PALMERSTON—No, " instigation." But the
right hon. gentleman cannot rest his statement upon syl-
lables. However, I heard the word, and I recollect it-
I am sure he made use of the word " instigation."

Mr. DISRAELI—" Instance" or "advice."

Lord PALMERSTON—WeII, advice. (Cheers from
the Opposition.) Oh ! but I heard the word " instiga-
tion" distinctly. (Renewed cheers and counter cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—You say it is instigation.
Lord PALMERSTON—What the right hon. gentle-
man meant was that the treaty originated in advice and
counsel given by the English Government to the Govern-
ments of France and Austria. I denied the whole of
that statement at the time it was made, and the whole
of that statement I again deny. To the best of my know-
ledge and belief co such treaty exists or ever was exe-
cuted. I state most distinctly that the British Govern-
ment has no knowledge of such a treaty, and therefore
cannot have instigated it. I said the other night that if
the right hon. gentleman bad seen such a treaty, and
could assert its existence on his own knowledge, of
course I would bow to his assertion, and although I
knew nothing of it I would take for granted that it did
exist. I also said that a convention of a totally different
kind had been negotiated—a convention regulating the
mode of action of the French and Italian troops which
might happen to be in Italy at the time, in the event of
Austria declaring war against Russia and fighting i❑
concert with England and France, as Austria naturally
wished her rear to be secured while she was fighting in
the va❑ in concert with the allies. I said that convention
was founded upon the assumed case of a declaration of
war by Austria against Russia, and such a declaration
never having taken place the convention became a dead
letter, and, whether signed or not, had no effect, and
never could take effect. These assertions I stilt maintain,
and I say the right hon. gentleman, notwithstanding the
vapouring manner in which he has been pleased to follow
up his statement-----(cries of " Oh!" from the Opposition,
and cheers from the Ministerial benches)—has been lin_
posed upon. (Continued cheers.) I beg your pardon
the right hon. gentleman used hard words, and I shall
express my opinion, whatever he may think of my
mode of expression. (Cheers.) I say, then, that the
right hon. gentleman has, to the best of my belief,
been grossly imposed upon ; that a military conven-
tion, which never came into operation, because that
which was to have been the basis and foundation of it
never took place, has be en represented to him as being
that which it never was, and was never intended to be,
as a permanent guarantee of the Italian possessions of
Austria by France say that it is utterly impossible
that the military convention could have been made use
of in the manner he described, because Austria could not
have said to Naples, " I have a permanent guarantee
from France for my Italian possessions," seeing that the
only thing signed, as far as I am aware, was a con-
vention providing for a case which never bad any exist-
ence, and that the military convention I have described
was not signed at our instigation or by our advice, but
was communicated to us as an arrangement already
settled between France and Austria ; and the only que--
tion with us was whether, on the whole, France was
bound in honour to make such arrangements as would
render the position of the Austrian armies in Italy secure.
So far, therefore, from that which I have stated bearing
out the statement of the right hon. gentleman, it shows
that my own statement was perfectly true, and that the
right hon. gentleman is entirely misinformed as to the
facts of the case. (Loud cheers and counter cheers.)