Count Walewski's despatch in 1858. class of politicians,' who insist upon the fullest information on questions of foreign policy, at unseasonable times.b Sometimes, however, the government, in the exercise of their own discretion, have laid before Parliament papers in regard to disputes with foreign nations, whilst the negotiations were still pending, expressly in order that the opinion of Parliament might be declared, so as to influence the course of events. But in 1860 a motion in the House of Commons, for the production of a copy of a despatch received from abroad (upon a subject on which negotiations were pending), and before it had been answered, was successfully opposed by the foreign secretary (Lord John Russell), on the ground that such a course would not only be contrary to precedent, but contrary to every principle recognised by the Constitution: ' it would be like inviting the House to dictate the answer.' a In 1858, a despatch was received from Count Walewski, foreign secretary to the French Government, referring to a recent attempt upon the life of the French emperor, which had been plotted in England, and angrily remonstrating against the alleged impunity of assassins in England. Instead of replying to this despatch, the government laid it before Parliament, and made it the foundation of a Bill, which they introduced into the House of Commons, to amend the law concerning conspiracy to murder. But the Commons, indignant at the imputations contained in this despatch, and at the conduct of the ministry in relation thereto, rejected the bill upon its second reading, by the adoption of a resolution, expressing their regret that the government, previously to inviting the House to amend the law of conspiracy, had not felt it to be their duty to make some reply' to Count Walewski's despatch. This resolution led to a change of ministry. In 1872, as a deviation from the general rule, ministers consented to lay before Parliament' the English case' under the treaty of Washington, the American case having been widely circulated by Rep. Com. Diplomatic Service, Mr. Disraeli, citing case of Cri- 173, p. 863. Hans. D. v. 157, p. 1177. And see ante, p. 441. 16. v. 148, p. 1758. the American Government. Otherwise, 'our own case would not be presented to Parliament because it is a document prepared for a process which has yet to come on, and it is for the consideration of the arbitrators,' &c.f of de It is a common practice, in order to save time, to Drafts send on a despatch, intended for presentation to a foreign spatches. court, by the British minister abroad, with instructions to withhold the delivery thereof until all the parties concerned had agreed upon it. If afterwards the despatch is not agreed to, it is simply cancelled. It then has no existence; and government have uniformly refused to communicate to Parliament the original draft of any such despatch. It is likewise contrary to diplomatic usage to communicate to Parliament, or to the public, the answer to a despatch, until it has been received by the power to which it has been addressed." and con spondence. Any attempt to coerce the government into produc- Private ing to Parliament all the papers they may possess upon fidential a matter of foreign policy, without regard to their being corre confidential, or unsuitable for general publication, could only result in compelling the agents of government to have recourse to private correspondence' for the communication of everything but mere ordinary information. This would occasion not only immediate public loss, but also permanent injury to the state; for when one administration succeeded another, it would be unable to discover, amongst the official records of the public departments, the real grounds of action, and motives for decisions, upon great public questions. In communications between the Imperial Government and its agents abroad, private and confidential letters are necessarily frequently made use of. These letters refer to circumstances not sufficiently certain, or sufficiently important, to be placed in the formal shape of a despatch; or it Mr. Gladstone, Ib. v. 209, p. 208. 540. (Layard), Ib. v. 175, p. 662. Etiquette towards foreign sove reigns. may be that they communicate circumstances which have been learnt from conversations, or otherwise express opinions which it would be impossible to lay before Parliament without placing the writer in a position that would exclude him thereafter from all means of information which it is essential he should obtain. Such letters it is the duty of the foreign secretary to receive, and it is equally his duty not to lay them before the House.i It is contrary to the etiquette observed towards sovereign princes to communicate to Parliament autograph letters addressed by them to the monarch of Great Britain. The practice is, for the secretary of state to refer to the substance of such letters in an official despatch, acknowledging the receipt thereof, whereby an official record is preserved of their contents. Nor is it proper, or consistent with practice, to lay before Parliament a letter from a foreign monarch to one of his ministers of state, even though a copy of the same may have been transmitted to the Foreign Office by our own ambassador.k It is also unusual to lay before Parliament any communications between ambassadors and ministers abroad and the sovereign to whom they are accredited. An ambassador is understood, in monarchical states, to be on equal terms with the sovereign to whom he is accredited, and therefore at liberty to appeal, by word of mouth, from the administration of a country to their master. An envoy is presented to the sovereign, but transacts his diplomatic business with the minister alone. Ld. Palmerston, Hans. D. v. 157, p. 1182. And see Walrond's Letters of Ld. Elgin, p. 79. For discussions concerning the publication of 'private and confidential letters' addressed by Sir D. Lange to the foreign secretary, see Hans. D. v. 227, pp. 14261436, 1500. As to the use of private correspondence in communications between the Home and East Indian Governments, and especially with the Indian Frontier States, see Ib. v. 234, p. 1829. For further particulars in regard to the practice of private correspondence between the foreign secretary and the diplomatic servants of the crown, see post, v. 2, on 'Departments of State' (the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs). Mr. Canning, in Parl. D. v. 36, p. 187. * Hans. D. v. 184, p. 381. A chargé d'affaires has no recognised claim to approach the throne, except by favour.1 Such documents are regarded as 'confidential' for the obvious reason that their production might lead to serious consequences." , m ment of dors. The sovereign, considered as the representative of Appointher people, has the exclusive right of sending ambassa- ambassadors to foreign states, and receiving ambassadors at home." This prerogative should be regarded as inviolate, and should not be interfered with by either House of Parliament, except in cases of manifest corruption or abuse; else the responsibility for its faithful exercise by the minister of state who is properly accountable for the same would be impaired, if not destroyed. In 1814, the Right Hon. George Canning was appointed ambas- Not to be sador extraordinary at the Court of Lisbon, for the purpose of concontrolled by Parliagratulating the Prince of Brazil upon his return to Portugal. The ment. salary and allowances to Mr. Canning were on the scale ordinarily allowed to such functionaries; but a few months previously, it appears that the foreign secretary had written to the resident minister at Lisbon, requiring him, as a matter of economy, to reduce the expenses of the mission. The subsequent appointment of Mr. Canning, at a greatly increased rate of expenditure, led to the imputation that he owed his nomination to corrupt influences, and that his appointment was, in fact, 'a pecuniary and profitable party job.' Accordingly, on May 6, 1817, after Mr. Canning had returned home, Mr. Lambton moved in the House of Commons a series of resolutions reciting the particulars of the case, and asserting the appointment to have been inconsistent with the previous declarations of government in regard to this mission, uncalled for, and resulting in an ' unnecessary and unjustifiable waste of the public money.' The foreign secretary (Lord Castlereagh) defended the conduct of the government, and afterwards Mr. Canning himself gave full and satisfactory explanations, which entirely exonerated all parties from corrupt or improper conduct in the matter. Nevertheless, the motion was pressed to a division, but it was negatived by a large majority. Upon the accession to office of Sir Robert Peel, in 1835, he Houses of directly selected the Marquis of Londonderry to be ambassador at St. Petersburg. This choice was unpopular in the House of Commons, and on March 13, 1835, a motion was made for an address 'for a copy of the appointment, if any, of an ambassador to St. Petersburg, together with a return of the salary and emoluments attached thereto.' No vote was taken on this motion, it being stated that the appointment, although intended, had not yet been made. But the adverse feeling towards Lord Londonderry on the part of the House of Commons was so very apparent, that his lordship, without communicating with any member of the government, declared in the House of Lords that he would not accept the mission.P Both the Duke of Wellington and Lord John Russell protested against the unconstitutional invasion by the House of Commons of the royal prerogative; and Sir R. Peel, who had announced his intention of adhering to the choice he had made," afterwards stated that he had been no party to Lord Londonderry's withdrawal, and that had the address passed, he should have resigned office." It would be a manifest breach of this prerogative and of international courtesy for either House of Parliament to communicate directly with any foreign prince or power. All such communications should be made officially through the government, and by a responsible minister of the British Crown.t In 1836, the French Government made a valuable present of books to the libraries of the Houses of Lords and Commons. The fact was duly reported to each House, by their respective library committees. In the House of Lords, a resolution, expressing grateful satisfaction for this donation, was adopted; but it was admitted that no precedent existed to warrant the House in transmitting the same direct to the French Chamber of Peers. After a short discussion on the point of form, it was agreed that the resolution should be forwarded through the secretary of state for foreign affairs, without any further action on the part of the House." It was decided in the Commons, that, after the session, their Speaker should make some arrangements for conveying an expression of thanks for this donation to the French authorities, without the adoption by the House of any formal vote thereupon. V And in 1868 a resolution was agreed to by the House of Com P Mir. of Parl. 1835, P. 350. a Ib. pp. 350, 358. • lb. P. 335. ・ 1b. 1841, p. 1834. Peel's Mem. v. 2, p. 88. Hans. D. v. 206, pp. 62, 64. "Mir. of Parl. 1836, p. 1936. ▾ lb. P. 2836. |