§ Mr. Herries rose to make his promised motion upon this subject. He had given notice of his intention, in consequence of what had occurred in the answer received by his right hon. friend, the member for Tamworth. It was not his intention to delay the resumption of the debate on the Reform Bill, but he deemed it an imperative duty to call the attention of Parliament and the country to a subject which he looked upon as equally important, for it appeared to him that Ministers had put an interpretation on the treaty with Russia, which was most extraordinary to all those who had read that treaty, or the Act of Parliament connected with it. That treaty distinctly stated, that on the occurrence of a certain event, certain payments made by this country were to cease. This arose out of certain conventions entered into at the last peace, by virtue of which we were to pay part of a debt contracted by Russia with Holland. The first of these conventions specified in its third article, that England should "bear equally with Holland such further charges as might be agreed upon between the high contracting parties and their allies, towards a final and satisfactory settlement of the Low Countries in union with Holland, and under the dominion of the House of Orange, not exceeding in the whole the sum of 3,000,000l., to be defrayed 425 by Great Britain." The next convention still further proved that, by virtue of this treaty, dated the 13th of August, 1814, we were to take upon ourselves that charge in equal part with Holland. In this treaty there was a distinct condition annexed, which was, that the payment would cease and determine on the separation of the Netherlands from Holland. Now, it was notorious that that event had occurred, and that, consequently, the people of England had no right to be called upon to pay this money. Holland, our partner in the engagement, had ceased to pay her share, and so put an end to our power to continue it ourselves. He would not, at this time, include in his Motion the opinions given by his Majesty's Law Officers upon this subject, as these were always confidential, and consequently ought to be treated with the greatest delicacy; but it might be possible that Ministers would voluntarily bring them forward, when the debate, which must ensue on the production of these papers, took place. Perhaps the House was not aware that the decision of his Majesty's Ministers would cost this country nearer four millions of money than three, from the payment of which he considered the country ought to be exonerated. It had been the usual practice in that House to give immediate explanations when such matters were brought forward, but now it appeared an adjournment for several weeks was to take place, without having any information afforded them. He, however, gave notice, that he should resume the subject on the earliest opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, "that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying him to order that there be laid upon the Table of that House. 1st. A copy of the Convention between Great Britain and the king of the Netherlands, signed on the 13th of August, 1814—And 2nd, A copy of the Convention between Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Russia, signed on the 19th of July, 1815. The right hon. Gentleman further moved for an account, "shewing the total sum which had been paid on the 1st of January, 1831; and an estimate of the whole sum then remaining to be paid, for defraying the charge imposed on Great Britain for the principal and interest of the Russian loan in Holland, under the Convention of 19th May, 1815; with copies of all warrants, orders, or directions, issued by the Lords of his Majesty's Treasury, for making any payments thereupon within the year 1831."
426§ Mr. Hunt rose to second the Motion, and he had no doubt he should be taunted by the public Press, and the hangers-on of the Ministers, that he was always ready to support the motions of the Tories. He had no communication with them however, further than if they were disposed to look into all wasteful expenditure of the public money, he, as a Radical, would be ready to go hand-in-hand with them, and it probably would come to that at last, that the two extremes of the Radicals and the Tories would meet. He regretted much to see, that under pretence of delaying the Reform Bill, such extravagance and profligate expenditure were to be passed over with little notice. The right hon. Gentleman had no occasion to have been so delicate in moving for the opinions of the Law Officers, when he had heard the Attorney General declare his readiness to discuss the question. He trusted these opinions would be laid on the Table. He hoped the time was fast arriving when three millions of money would be considered an object not to be lightly treated by Ministers.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, he had no objection to the production of these documents, and gave every credit to the feelings that induced hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to agitate this subject; when they brought it forward regularly he should be ready to meet it, and had no doubt but that he should show that Ministers had acted properly. With regard to the remark made by the hon. member for Preston, he did not believe that the Tories, by making these inquiries, had lent themselves to the Radicals, nor did he believe the public would look at the transaction in the same light as the hon. Member had been pleased to consider it.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyanthought, that as Parliament had been called together three times in one year, an inquiry into other matters besides the Reform Bill might be tolerated, and he trusted that the country would not be satisfied with the air of mystery assumed by Ministers on the present occasion. If the House, or a majority of it, desired to overturn the established laws, and, by clamour, put a stop to the consideration of every other subject, he would be no party to such a course of proceedings. The public had a right to know, how an Act of Parliament, so clear and precise as this was, could be tortured into a warrant authorizing the Treasury to pay the money in question, while the express words of the Act were, that in the event of a separation, 427 the payment should cease. By the new treaty, Holland and Belgium were separated. It was said, that the king of Belgium had been acknowledged by the other Powers as he had been by England, yet the money was still paid. It was possible that, according to their view of the case, it might be politic, under certain circumstances, to act as Ministers had done, but it would have been more respectful to the House of Commons had they been informed what those circumstances were. He was sorry that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was absent, and that during the short time they had been together, that noble Lord had been almost always out of the way at the moment when questions might, and ought to have been asked about this treaty. Today there was a notice on the paper which he thought might have attracted the noble Lord's attention. This subject of the payment of the interest of the Russian loan, was intimately connected with the secret policy of the Cabinet, and he believed that policy to be most dishonourable to tins country, and unjust to the king of the Netherlands. Though all the papers had published notes and Protocols respecting the affairs of Holland and Belgium, and there had been discussions upon the subject in the Chamber of Representatives at Brussels, in the States General at the Hague, and in the Chamber of Deputies at Paris, yet the House of Commons were left in complete ignorance, as far as the Government was concerned, with respect to these important matters. The king of Holland had protested against the arrangement with respect to the navigation of the rivers, and indeed with respect to all the water communications with the Rhine, as they had been opened by the decrees of the Conference to the Belgians. He wished to know, whether the decision of the Conference upon this point was based upon the principle of conformity with the treaties of Vienna, which laid down certain rules to be adhered to, supposing the union of the two kingdoms to continue. Such a separation as had now taken place had never been contemplated when the two treaties of the internal navigation, and of that of the Rhine, were framed, and the ruinous consequences to Holland could not have been foreseen. He contended, therefore, that those rules did not apply, and ought not to be applied to present circumstances, and that the king of Holland, and the Dutch generally, had been cruelly treated throughout the whole business. Those who wished to see fair and even- 428 handed justice done, had a right to complain, for it must be remembered, that Holland was likely to be a more useful Ally than Belgium which must in a great degree be under the influence of France if not entirely dependent upon that Power. The Conference had made this country guarantee the performance of a most arduous and difficult task respecting Belgium. The subject was well worthy the consideration of Parliament, and although it might be said, that until the treaty was ratified, and laid upon the Table, all discussion was useless, the importance of the interests involved, rendered he thought no apology necessary from him for entering upon it. Before the treaty was ratified, he would suggest to the consideration of Ministers, whether there were not certain articles which deserved re-consideration. In his opinion, it was not a question whether the king of the Netherlands had a right to complain of the way in which he had been treated; and, under all the circumstances, he would put it to Government, whether there were not such difficulties in the way as might induce re-consideration. He would suggest, that if the complaints were not removed, the king of Holland might find allies in other parts of Europe ready to uphold his rights, and who would consider the treaty in question as so much waste paper. Were the people of England, who, by the express words of the Act of Parliament, were not liable, notwithstanding the opinions of the lawyers, to pay this sum of money, were they to give to Russia that which neither the treaty nor the Statutes which recited it required of them? He hoped that the payment in question was not the price at which the internal navigation and security of Holland had been purchased for Belgium from one of the great contracting Powers. If it were so, he could imagine nothing more disgraceful to that Power or to Great Britain. His Majesty's Treasury was clearly not bound to advance the money, and had, in doing so, beyond all doubt, exceeded its duty. He knew that he might be charged with intending to retard the debate on the Reform Bill, by provoking a discussion upon this question, but he could assure any Member likely to impute to him such motives that the charge was most unfounded; for, anxious as he was to have the subject discussed, this was the only opportunity that had presented itself. He hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would take that course which would secure the interests and honour of the country.
§ Lord Althorpunderstood the hon. Baronet to wish that certain questions might be answered; but though he might attend to the arguments of that hon. Member, he certainly could not on that occasion answer any question that might be prejudicial to the public service. He had no desire to impute to the hon. Baronet, that he had made a speech merely to delay the Reform Bill; such certainly was the tendency of the speech; but it had a far worse tendency, for it was calculated to interfere with the conclusion of a treaty, and so to endanger the peace of Europe. The merits of that treaty he would not then discuss; but when it should be laid on the Table of the House the proper occasion would arise, and he should then be prepared to justify in every respect the conduct and proceedings of his Majesty's Government. To enter upon the subject in its present state would be glaringly inconsistent with his duty as a Minister of the Crown, and he could not suffer himself to be drawn into a premature discussion by anything that had fallen from the hon. Baronet or the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Baronet complained, that the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs was not in his place, for the purpose of giving the necessary explanations respecting matters which belonged peculiarly to his department, and had said, that sufficient notice had been given to his noble friend, that his attendance in the House would be required. The notice to which the hon. Baronet referred was, that given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to move for papers connected with the Russian loan; but in justice to his noble friend, he must say, that although he had seen that notice on the paper, he did not conceive it was likely to bring on a discussion, and he was not therefore astonished at the absence of his noble friend.
§ Motion agreed to.