Slike strani
PDF
ePub

is rude, petulant, full of point and cavil,
laying down no principle upon which
great statesment ought to act: dwelling.
upon those particularities, and insisting
upon those conditions, which England
ought to have put entirely out of the ques-
tion, and going out of the way for the
purpose of behaving in a manner offensive
and uncivil towards the prince de Stah-
remberg himself.
In the second para-

pose that he interpreted the French ori- | It is conceived in any thing rather than ginal as follows, "between England and the spirit of conciliation and wisdom. It all the powers in alliance against her," (to the exclusion of the powers in alliance | with her). That, Sir, I say is not a fair interpretation of the phrase. I have taken some pains to inform myself on the subject, and I think I can venture to assert that the true interpretation is," a pacification among all the powers at war, including England." The real meaning then of the prince de Stahremberg was the furtherance of the original offer made by graph, (the first being merely a paragraph Austria, namely to mediate for a paci- of formality), Mr. Canning says, (p. 106,) fication among all the powers at war, "that the prince de Stahremberg has both with England and against her. I omitted to explain, from whom he has rehave dwelt with some particularity upon ceived his commission to propose sending the construction of this phrase, and I plenipotentiaries to Paris, whether from must further observe, that the word avec the Austrian minister, or from the govern in French, and with in English as applied ment of France;" such explanation was to war in the respective languages to wholly unnecessary, he certainly had prowhich they belong, admit of equivocal in- duced no powers from France, but he proterpretations; (in common parlance) when fessed not to be the accredited agent of you say, that one power is at war with France, nor indeed to be the agent of another, you mean that one power is at France in any way; he told you that he war against another: but it is not uncom- acted under the orders of his government; mon to say, and it is sufficiently correct and, in so acting "conformed to the deto say, for instance, that Russia is at sire of the court of the Thuilleries." He war with Prussia against France, it would had his credentials from Austria, they were indeed be more correct at all times to say, in your hands, he was therefore the minisEngland is at war against France, than to ter of Austria only; from Austria alone say England is at war with France. But he had received his powers; you could if there could exist any doubt upon the not doubt whether he was the Austrian or interpretation of this phrase, why, before the French minister, and pretending to the right hon. secretary dwelt upon it in have such a doubt, was in itself most ofthe manner which he so injudiciously fensive to the person whom you addressadopted in his answer to this note, did he ed. The alternative is then put, that the not ask the prince de Stahremberg in a prince de Stahremberg acts under the auprivate communication, what the real thority of the court of Vienna: and recogmeaning and intention of Austria was? nizing the ambassador in his proper chaInstead of that, giving his own interpre- racter, his majesty complains" of the littation (and that as I contend a wrong one) tle reference that is had by the court of to the phrase in question, he builds upon it Vienna, to the conditions which were in the most offensive paragraph of his offen- April stated by his majesty to be indispensive answer. But in my view of the mat- sible preliminaries to the opening of a neter, it is most material as to the future, gociation, for while the note of the underthat it should be impressed upon the signed of the 23d of November last, is mind of the house, and upon the pub- cited by the prince de Stahremberg as lic, that such was the offer of Austria, and the foundation of the present proposal, such the intention of France, because it his majesty observes with surprise, that will strengthen the main argument, that this proposal nevertheless extends only it is possible still to negociate with France to the powers combined with France in upon the footing of equality, and that the the war against G. Britain, and not to French government hitherto has not mani- the allies of G. Britain in the war with fested any design, that England in any ne- France." Sir, in dwelling upon the gociation that may be entered into with expression contained in the note of the her, should be placed on a footing of in- prince de Stahremberg, I have said all I equality with respect to France. Sir, I have to say, upon this part of Mr. Canpass on to the Answer signed by Mr. Can- ning's answer. I contend that the exning, upon which I must dwell in detail.pression, in the prince de Stahremberg's

letter, is, to say the least of it, equivocal; | of such a request made by France, that
that if it be equivocal, it was the duty of
Mr. Canning to have obtained from the
prince de Stahremberg, a distinct in-
terpretation of it; and if he did not
think that necessary, he ought to have
given an interpretation the most favourable
to the court of Vienna; which would have
been, that she adhered to her original pro-
position of the 18th of April; but that it
is most unjustifiable to put an arbitrary
construction upon an equivocal sentence,
and then argue as if that construction were
it's real, true, undisputed construction.
In this case, undoubtedly, the grammatical
construction of the sentence in question
was of great importance: and I am per-
suaded, that neither Austria offered, nor
did France intend that the mediation of that
court should be offered to the exclusion of
the allies of G. Britain. The other alter-
native is then taken, that the prince Stah-
remberg speaks in the name of the court
of the Thuilleries. It is on this hypothesis
said, that in professing to speak in the
name of another power, besides that of
Austria, a statement of some precise au-
thority on the part of that power should
have been made, or some specific and au-
thenticated document produced which
alone could justify the court, to which he
addressed himself, in founding a public
and important measure upon such a com-
munication;" certainly if he had professed
to speak in the name of France, powers
from France ought to have been produced;
but the decisive, and ready answer to the
whole of that paragraph is, that he did not
profess to speak in the name of France.
We now come to a most extraordinary
part of the Note, in which the secretary of
state says,
"that it was reasonably to be
expected, that a pledge as solemn and au-
thentic on the part of France, as that given
by his majesty to France, should have been
communicated before his majesty could be
called upon to make any further advance."
I should have thought that the proposal on
the part of France, for England to send
negociators to Paris, was a pledge of the
pacific disposition of France; but to my
great surprise, I find that this desire is most
grossly "misconstrued into an implication
of an unjustifiable doubt of the sincerity
of his majesty's professions." I really am
quite at a loss for any ground, upon which
this can be plausibly stated. It appears to
me so completely different from the notion
that any person endowed with the least
degree of candour would have formed,

I must pass it over without comment.
Very soon after, is revived the difficulty
about a basis, and a complaint is made,
that no intimation is given of the basis
upon which it is proposed to negociate.
The answer to that, I have before given.
If you think a basis indispensible, it must
be presumed that you are prepared with
one; if you are prepared with one, why,
instead of raising a difficulty with regard to
the enemy, do you not level the difficulty
by making a communication of your own
basis? It is then observed, that if ever it
could have been matter of doubt, whether
the previous settlement of a basis of ne-
gociation were necessary to the hope of its
successful termination, the experience of
the last negociation with France would
have placed that question beyond contro-
versy. Sir, undoubtedly I think it would,
but not in the way intended by Mr. Secre-
tary Canning. I think that the prelimi-
nary condition of a basis was the bane of
that negociation. That its introduction
into the discussions was fatal to them, and
that owing to the insisting upon the preli-
minary basis, it was impossible to ascer-
tain whether peace could or could not
have been accomplished. Then comes a
paragraph which in itself is perfectly un-
exceptionable; and if it had been sent to
Paris, accompanied only by one or two
preceeding sentences of form, and one or
two succeeding sentences of conciliation, a
negociation might have now been on foot.
The paragraph runs thus," his majesty is
willing to treat with France, but he will
treat only on a footing of perfect equality;
he is ready to treat with the allies of France,
but the negociation must equally embrace
the allies of G. Britain." Had the answer
been confined to that one paragraph, and
the reply on the part of France had been
in the negative; no question would have
remained that she was insincere, and
there would have been an end of the whole
matter. Had the answer been in the affir-
mative, no obstacle to negociation could
have presented itself. Another unneces-
sary difficulty is raised in the course of
this note, and a punctilio created between
this court and the court of the Thuilleries,
which, but for the ingenuity of the secre
tary of state, would never have existed.
I

am not aware of any inconvenience which has ever resulted from the negociation carried on at Paris. I do not recollect that lord Malmsbury stated any inconvenience arising from this source, and

I do not know of any circumstance in the court of Vienna, and professing to act mission of the earls of Lauderdale and under the orders of that court in the comYarmouth, that should induce England munication he had made), and having in to declare positively that she never would this very note received the exposition of again send negociators to Paris. I know the sentiments of the court of London, on that my view of the negociation of 1806 the important subject of negociation beis not that which is taken by the right tween the belligerents, is expressly told, hon. gentlemen over against me, and I" that he has no authority to speak in the perfectly well recollect, the delay in giv-name of his majesty to the government of ing passports to lord Lauderdale was dwelt upon with great indignation and acrimony by those right hon. gentlemen; but I viewed that circumstance in a light very different from them; and at all events they will allow me to recall to their recollection, that admitting the demand of passports had not been attended to with the respect and promptitude which is due to all such demands made by a negociator in the country of the enemy; an apology for the delay was both demanded and made; and that lord Lauderdale did not renew his conferences, until he had obtained the satisfaction due to his court. Here, however, is an unnecessary difficulty created. You profess only to be upon a footing of equality with France, she offers you a place of negociation which you peremptorily decline, whatever place for negociation you may designate, she will have an equal right to refuse. How are these disputes to be terminated, and which power is to concede this false point of honour? Sir, I only hope that ministers may be more wise, than to think it necessary to abide by their own premature and intemperate declarations. I cannot pass over the remainder of the note without some observation. The prince de Stahremberg is a person of consequence in his own country. Throughout Europe, he is known to be attached to the interests of England, and has even suffered, on account of his avowed attachment to her welfare, some indignities on the part of the French emperor. He is a man of high honour and reputation, and a person, for whom one should imagine, as well on his own account, as on account of the court of Vienna, which has been faithful to England under all circumstances, might have met with respect from his majesty's ministers. But Mr. Canning having gone out of the way to offend him, by separating the person of the prince from the character of the Austrian ambassador, concludes his note by the most extraordinary declaration perhaps that ever was made at any time by any minister. It is this: the princeing the stipulations of the treaty of de Stahremberg (so accredited from the VOL. X

France." To what end then has the
whole been written? Sir, it appears that
the bitter and sarcastic language contained
in this note was not intended to answer
any practical purpose whatever, and that
the only object of it was to offend the
prince de Stahremberg, who had been
guilty of the high crime of acting in obe-
dience to the orders of his own court, and
agreeably to the desire of that of France.-I
have now, sir, gone through the whole of the
Austrian correspondence; and can only
say, that if ministers were determined that
this offer of mediation should not issue in
a negociation, and should not be produc-
tive of any avenue to negociation, in any
way whatever, they could not have con-
ducted themselves otherwise than they
did; and that if they had conducted
themselves in any conceivable manner,
different from that which they have done,
a negociation must infallibly have been
the consequence. I have only further to
observe a little, upon one of the conditions
stipulated both here, and in the Russian
mediation, that of a preliminary basis: and
I do so with a view of calling the attention
of the house, and of the right hon. gent.
himself, to his own opinions upon that
subject. For myself, I must always con-
sider the demand of a precise basis, (as
preliminary to the acceptance of media-
tion, or even as preliminary to entering
into negociation) neither wise nor expe-
dient, and if I wanted any confirmation of
my opinion upon that subject, I think I
could find it in a pamphlet published
under the name of Mr. Canning, purporting
to be a speech delivered by him in this
house, on the 5th Jan. 1807, in a debate
on the conduct of the late negociation with
France. In that speech, Mr. Canning is
represented as making use of these re-
markable expressions. I trouble the house
with the passage at length, because I think
his argument clear and decisive upon the
point. Mr. Canning says, and if, as the
noble lord (Howick) has informed us,
Mr. Fox rejected the suggestion of tak-

Amiens for the basis of negociation, be-
SH

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

cause he thought that they were vague, and indefinite; and that more time therefore would be lost in defining and adjusting the basis, than might be sufficient (if well employed) for discussing and settling the main points of a negociation, is it possible that the noble lord should not perceive that the adoption of the uti possidetis would have been liable to similar embarrassment; that he should "not be aware of the perplexed and in"terminable discussions which must have ' arisen in the attempt to define the precise degree of possession, occupation, or 'controul which should or should not entitle to the benefit of the uti possidetis ? to determine, for instance, whether the kingdom of Holland, whether the principalities of the Rhine, whether Southern Germany, whether the fortresses of Austria herself, should at the outset of a negociation, be acknowledged by us to be the lawful and confirmed possessions of France, except so far as they might be redeemed by such equivalents as we might be able and disposed to give in exchange for them. I am confident, (and the very argument which the noble lord himself has advanced, renders me 'still more confident in the opinion) that such was Mr. Fox's view of the subject, that his passing by the treaty of Amiens, when it was first suggested by M. Talleyrand, and proceeding to suggest, instead of it, something which he called a basis, but which in fact amounted to nothing more than the statement of a principle, which might be taken for granted to prevail in every negociation, the honour and glory of the two countries, was dictated, by precisely the same motive which afterwards induced him in his answer to M. Talleyrand's letter of the • 2nd of June, to accept so easily M. Talleyrand's proposed additional principle of continental and maritime guarantee, in preference to (and one must fairly say in exclusion of) the other offer, which is asserted to have been made at the same time through lord Yarmouth, of uti possidetis, and the motive which in each case operated with Mr. Fox, appears to have been simply the desire to avoid any technical basis, as utterly inapplicable to the existing state of the world, and as likely to require (as the noble lord Howick has himself contended would have been the case with the stipulations of the treaty of Amiens, and as I think I liave shewn would equally have arisen in

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

any attempt to apply the uti possidetis) more time in the application and adjustment of the basis than would have been sufficient to discuss and settle the terms of the most complicated negociation.* Sir, I am perfectly well aware that Mr. Canning is here stating what was Mr. Fox's reasoning upon the subject of a basis; and what the line of his conduct appeared to have been. I agree with him in the position he has laid down with regard to Mr. Fox, and I think that the rea-soning which he has given to Mr. Fox upon the impropriety of insisting upon any technical basis whatever, is incontrovertible. I am however warranted in supposing that the right hon. gent. also himself thinks that reasoning perfectly correct; because, after having stated it so clearly and ably as he has done in that pamphlet, he gives no opinion in contradiction to it, although in the course of the speech he took every opportunity to stigmatize such errors as he supposed imputable to the conduct of the whole of the administration engaged in that negociation. And he evidently contrasts the wise policy of Mr. Fox, with that which he represents as in the highest degree blameable in those who succeeded him in the management of the negociation.-Sir, a question may be here asked of me, why, if you think the paragraph which you have quoted, and which is contained in the letter of Mr. Canning to the prince de Stahremberg, namely, "that his majesty is willing to treat with France, but he will treat only on a footing of perfect equality; he is ready to treat with the allies of France, but the negociation must equally embrace the interests of the allies of G. Britain ;" why, if you think that paragraph contains all that would be necessary as an overture to France for entering into negociation, do you require any thing more at the hands of the administration? Sir, I allow that the paragraph in question contains the whole that would be necessary for my purpose: but a paragraph may be so accompanied as to make it obnoxious in the company which it keeps, when by itself it might convey an amicable meaning. Such is the present case. And moreover Mr. Canning has so contrived it, that even if there were nothing offensive in the letter, to detract from the amicable construction which might be put upon the paragraph separately considered, he has

*See vol. viii. p. 393.

path which England had left open for her advances. In that light indeed I am inclined to view it, and I cannot conceive any thing more desirable than that one of the belligerent powers should avail herself with the utmost promptitude of the influence which she possessed over another power recognized by both, as competent to exercise the high and friendly office of mediation, to communicate her intentions directly to the other belligerent. It is in vain to dwell longer upon this subject, because no such objection has been started upon the part of government.-I ought to apologize for having detained the house so long upon this part of the question; but in justice to the right hon. gent. so deeply interested in the transaction, I was bound to go into a minute detail. In justice to myself, and to the propositions which I intend to establish upon these papers, it was necessary that I should discuss them much at length, and I trust that I have in some measure succeeded in convincing the house, that another golden opportunity has been lost, not indeed of making peace, (for I beg the house again to understand, that I do, and always have carefully abstained from the assertion, that peace in any case might have been made) but of entering into ne

precluded the possibility of eventual | France humbled herself to adopt the only advantage by telling the Austrian ambassador that he is not to communicate to France the intentions of the king's government; and therefore the paragraph is without effect, excepting so far as it may be calculated, in common with the rest of the letter, to offend the court of Austria, in the person of its ambassador. Upon the whole, I think that in all the records of diplomatic transactions, no production can be found more replete with offence, or more inconsistent with the true and genuine character of a statesman. It may be said in extenuation of Mr. Canning's conduct, that it is evident from some short notes of a posterior date, that the prince de Stahremberg could have had no authority for his conduct from the court of Vienna; because in answer to a question put to him by Mr. Canning, relative to the departure of Mr. Adair from Vienna, the prince de Stahremberg says, that he has received no dispatches from his court since the 30th of Oct. In answer to that, I have only to remark that the count de Metternich, the Austrian ambassador to the court of the Thuilleries, was at Paris: it was therefore very possible that communications should be transmitted from the count de Stadion, the minister for foreign affairs at Vienna, through count Metternich to the prince de Stah-gociation, for the purpose of ascertaining remberg, and that he might have full authority for every step that he took (as in fact there can be no question that he had), without any immediate and direct communication with Vienna.-Another observation may be made, upon the situation of the court of Vienna, as offering to mediate at this period, between G. Britain and France. It may be objected that the state of subserviency in which that court was placed towards the court of the Thuilleries, disqualified her for the office of mediation. If such indeed had been stated by the king's ministers to have been the reason of their rejection of the mediation, it would have been fair to argue, that as on the one hand, the subserviency of the court of Vienna to the French government, disqualified her for the office of mediatrix; so on the other hand, that France being in possession of the full powers given to the Austrian minister at Paris, to make such communications as France should think fit to dictate to the Austrian minister at the court of London, and knowing that England could not be approached, except in the way of mediation,

whether peace could or could not be effected. I have thought it my duty to expose to the severest censure of this house, the conduct of the king's government upon this occasion, and more particularly that of his majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs; because it does appear to me necessary to state my opinion to the house and the country at large of his utter insufficiency to guide us through the dangers and difficulties which surround us in this crisis of our fate. I am sure the right hon. gent. from the freedom that he has taken with the characters of some of his colleagues in office, will excuse the freedom which I have taken with his official character; having on a former occasion declared in his place in this house, his colleague lord Hawkesbury unqualified to hold the office of foreign affairs, he cannot object to my expressing the opinion that I entertain of the comparative merits of his majesty's present secretaries of state. Upon a review then of the papers which have been laid upon the table of the house of commons signed by lord Hawkesbury, and those signed by Mr. Canning, I can have

« PrejšnjaNaprej »