§ Mr. Percevalrose for the purpose of putting one or two questions to the noble lord opposite (lord Howick), on the subject of the papers then in the hands of the members of the house, with a view to obtain information upon certain points, which appeared to him to require to be further elucidated; He wished to put the questions to the noble lord, because the answers he might receive; might perhaps render it unnecessary for him to give any notice of a motion on the subject, and it might also happen, that the noble lord, when informed of the points to which his enquiries were directed, might not have any objection to accede to such motion as should be necessary, in order to cone at the information he required, in the most satisfactory manner. He should, therefore, state the points on which he thought information necessary, and be guided by the answers he should receive, as to the course he should ultimately adopt. The fist point upon which he wished to be informed, related to an extraordinary interpolation, which appeared in the letter from M. Talleyrand to Mr. Secretary Fox, dated April 1, as published by the French government, when compared with the letter of the same date in the official papers on the table (p. 95.) He wished to know whether there had been a passage similar to that extraordinary interpolation in any letter received by Mr. Fox from M. Talleyrand, and also whether any answer had been returned by Mr. Fox to that letter. The next object of the information he desired was the letter No. 3, from M. Talleyrand, dated March 5, as it appeared in the papers before the house. This was evidently an extract from the letter received by Mr. Fox, and it struck him that it would be extremely desirable, previous to the discussion of the papers, that the house should be in possession of the whole of this document. Of this he was so convinced, that if the noble lord should not be prepared to produce the document to the house, he should feel it his duty to make a specific motion upon the subject, reserving his reasons until he should come to make the motion. This letter, he was aware, was a private one; but as it had been made the channel of communication upon the relations of the two countries, 242 it was very material that the whole of it should be produced. Another point on which he desired to be informed, was whether lord Yarmouth had received any communication from Mr. Fox, or from any of his majesty's ministers, previous to his first leaving France; also the date of that noble lord's communication with M. Talleyrand; together with the date of his leaving Paris, and of his arrival in London. The first communication from lord Yarmouth to Mr. Secretary Fox certainly appeared dated the 13th of July, but he wished to know whether that was the date when the dispatch was addressed to Mr. Fox, or when it was drawn up. The next point related to a statement in an official note presented by lord Lauderdale to gen. Clarke, dated Aug. 6, "that intervening circumstances, which it was unnecessary to detail, had enabled his majesty to enter into a separate treaty." Now, it did not appear upon the face of the Papers what these circumstances were, and he wished to be informed respecting them. Another question he wished to ask, grew out of a passage in the dispatch of the 10th of September, from the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Windham) to lord Lauderdale. The passage was, "every effort was made at the outset of the negociation to obtain the restitution of Naples to his Sicilian majesty." He wished to know what those efforts had been" and whether there were any documents to skew that they had been made, and whether there would be any objection to lay before the house the details of the reasons for departing from that claim, as said in that dispatch to be detailed in the correspondence of the foreign office, with lords Yarmouth and Lauderdale. The last question he had to put, related to the communication made by lord Lauderdale to M. Talleyrand, stating that he was authorized to negociate also for Russia on the same terms as had been communicated to M. Talleyrand by his excellency count Budberg. It did not appear on the face of the papers what these terms were; and on an occasion in which the house was to be called on to decide upon the merits of the negociation and the rupture of it, he felt that it was absolutely necessary that they should be put in possession of the terms upon which it was proposed to treat.
Lord Howicksaid, he was most willing to give every explanation on the subject of any part of the papers that were to be discussed an Monday, which might be thought 243 necessary for the perfect elucidation of that important subject. He rose therefore to answer the various topics of enquiry that had been touched upon by the hon. and learned gent. If he should not be able to answer them in the order in which they had occurred, or should omit to notice any particular question, he had only to beg of the learned gent. to remind him of the omission, and he should endeavour to satisfy the enquiry. The first question of the hon. and learned gent. was, whether there was any passage in any other letter from M. Talleyrand, similar to the very extraordinary interpolation, which appeared in the publication by the French government. His answer to this was, that there was not, in any letter received from M. Talleyrand, any passage bearing the most distant reference to the interpolation alluded to. To the next question, which related to the extract, No. 3, he had only to answer, that the whole of the contents of that letter, which could throw any light upon the negociation, had been published; and here he could not but observe, that the publication of the French government had rendered it unavoidable to publish several documents, that it would not other wise be regular to insert in such a collection. As to the enquiry, whether there had been any private letter from Mr. Fox in answer to the letter of the 5th of March, he could not answer, he did not know, and should make enquiry; but he rather thought that some such answer might have been sent. The next question of the learned gent. was, whether any communication had been made by this government to lord Yarmouth, previous to his leaving France. To this he should answer, none, most certainly not, consistently with his knowledge. As to the date of lord Yarmouth's communication with M. Talleyrand, he could not precisely answer; but as that noble lord left Paris on the 23d of May, it must have been previous to that day. The noble lord, in consequence of having been obliged to come round by Morlaix, did not arrive till the 4th of June, and his communication must have been made to Mr. Fox in a very few days after his arrival. It had been made on the 7th or 8th, verbally, and it had afterwards beets deemed necessary to have it reduced to writing, when it was thought advisable to send back lord Yarmouth to Paris, upon receiving an account of the intention of the Russian cabinet to send a minister to that city, in order to 244 have an opportunity of communicating with M. d'Oubril. As to the intervening circumstances, stated by lord Lauderdale, that enabled his majesty to enter into a separate negotiation, the learned gent. must be aware, that M. d'Oubril had concluded a separate treaty on the 20th of July, and that such a circumstance released us from the obligation of not treating separately. Until it could be known whether it would or would not be ratified, it was to be considered the act of the Russian government, and we could not have had any moral certainty, that the cabinet of St. Petersburg would refuse to ratify that treaty. As he had not been prepared for this question, this was all that he could at present answer; he did not mean, however, to say, that there might not have been other sufficient reasons. The next question of the learned gent. respecting the detailed communications in the correspondence between the secretary of state's office and lords Yarmouth and Lauderdale, with regard to the efforts for the restitution of Naples to his Sicilian majesty, he should answer by saying, that they had laid all the documents before the house, which they looked upon as necessary, to enable them to form a complete judgment upon the case. There were not many more documents, but those that had not been produced were of such a confidential nature, and upon the subject of the views of his majesty's government, that it was not thought discreet or wise to publish them, especially as such publication might affect a future negotiation. The last point upon which the learned gent. had desired information was with respect to the terms on which lord Lauderdale was authorized to treat for Russia. The terms had been confidentially communicated to his majesty's government, and consequently they had not considered themselves at liberty to publish them. But he could have no difficulty in stating, what must appear on the face of the papers, that the terms on which Russia proposed to treat, as stated in the projéet of count Budberg, were that Sicily should be confirmed to his Sicilian majesty, and that Dalmatia should be evacuated by the French. These were all the points to which the learned gent. had adverted, and on these points he had endeavoured to satisfy his enquiries. The learned gent. had undoubtedly a right to call for explanation on ally point that might seem to him to want illustration, relative to the rupture of the negotiation; but the 245 could assure the house, on his, part, that it was his most anxious desire to put the house in possession of every document that could, consistently with a sense of public duty, be produced in order to enable them to form a correct judgment on this important case.
§ Mr. Percevaladmitted the statement of the noble lord to be satisfactory upon this point, as well as upon most of the other points upon which he had called for information. But until this statement had been made, they had no means of knowing what were the terms upon which Russia proposed to treat. However, as the communication had been made to the French government, he did not think there could be much impropriety in producing it to the house. But he would not press this farther. The statement in lord Lauderdale's note, appeared to him to refer to something that had occurred previous to the signature of the separate treaty; it might be an allusion to something that had been previously communicated by the court of Russia. There was one point upon which the noble lord's statement was not satisfactory to his mind, and therefore he should feel himself bound to submit a motion to the house upon the subject. If the house would permit him, he would then state the grounds upon which he meant to bring the motion forward. This course would save the time of the house, and prevent the necessity of his returning again to the subject. The two governments appeared to him to be at present at issue upon a fact. If there was any assertion in his majesty's declaration that was not true, the ministers who had advised the insertion of it, were guilty of a heinous offence by such conduct. It was necessary for the house to have every document that could throw any light upon this point. In the extract from M. Talleyrand's letter to Mr. Fox, stated, "if you are pacifically disposed, you know where to find the basis upon which to negociate." If this expression referred to the extract from Buonaparte's speech, it could not mean the uti possidetis, but the peace of Amiens. He wished therefore to know whether there was any passage in the remainder of the letter which referred to the basis uti possidetis. There was another reason why he wished for the production of that letter, arising out of the nature of the transaction. It was with peculiar jealousy that house ought to view a 246 correspondence carried on during a war between the minister of the enemy, and a secretary of state. Besides, in the answer to the letter from which the extract is taken, it appears that an apology is made for having submitted any part of it to his majesty. If any part of it ought to have been so submitted, the whole ought. And what opinion should the house entertain of a private communication, where such an apology was necessary for laying any part of it before his majesty? They were told, the letter was private; but he insisted, the house ought to be jealous of such communications, and contended, that the whole of the letter ought to be called for. On these grounds he moved, that an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to give directions, that the whole of the said letter should be laid before the house.
Lord Howickobserved, that if, after the manner in which he had assured the learned gent., that the whole of the letter that had any reference to the negotiation had been produced, he should still persist in his motion, he should not object to it. He doubted, however, whether the mode adopted by the learned gent. was the proper one to attain his object. This letter was not preserved in any of the public offices. However, there could be no doubt that a document in the possession of his majesty's servants would be produced, if his majesty should lay his commands upon him for that purpose. To the whole of the doctrine laid down by the learned gent. as to the heinous nature of the offence, if his majesty's ministers were to introduce any false assertion into a declaration bearing Ins majesty's signature, he fully subscribed. But when his majesty's ministers laid papers before the house, they were bound upon their responsibility to lay the whole that bore any reference to the case. He took that occasion to repeat, what he as expressly declared before, that the whole of the remainder of that letter had no reference whatever to the overture for negotiation. When he said this, he meant none that he knew of. He could not tell what reference to that overture might be discovered by the ingenuity of the gentlemen opposite in the expressions of civility, which it might be found to contain, but he could positively assert, that it contained no direct reference whatever to that subject. As to the other ground upon which the learned gent. had thought proper to 247 rest his motion, he could not discover any weight in it. When the learned gent. had argued, that that house should regard with jealousy a correspondence conducted under such circumstances, did the learned gent. mean to say, that there was any thing criminal in the expressions of reciprocal civility that appeared in these communications? Did he mean to say, that, when such a correspondence had taken place, it was reprehensible in persons who had formerly been acquainted, to recall some of the feelings of past intimacy, and give way to friendly enquiries respecting mutual connections and acquaintances? Did he mean to assert, that it was criminal in persons under such circumstances, to cultivate a disposition of mutual conciliation, with the desirable view of finally accommodating the differences between the two nations? He had stated before, that this letter contained nothing relative to the case before the house, and it would be for the house to decide, whether it should be produced. Of one thing be was clearly satisfied, that there was not, in any letter or document written by the illustrious person now no more, (Mr. Fox) a single expression that in the slightest degree committed the honour or dignity of his sovereign. He had but one word more to add by way of explanation. He admitted that the passage, quoted by the learned gent. from the note of lord Lauderdale, would seem to refer to something antecedent to the signature of the treaty of M. d'Oubril. It might have arisen from some inaccuracy in the language of the note, but certainly no communication relative to a separate negociation had been sent by his majesty's ministers until after the signature of the treaty of July 20. It was, previously to that event, proposed that Russia and Great Britain should treat provisionally with France, that the two treaties should go on together, and that neither should be signed until both were brought to a conclusion. The circumstance might possibly have arisen from the communication from the court of Russia, that M. d'Oubril was to be sent to Paris.
Mr. Canningobserved, that the fact at issue between the two governments was not with respect to the first overture, but to the basis of negociation. His majesty's declaration stated, that the overture on the basis of the uti possidetis came from France. The overture contained in the letter which his learned friend moved for, referred to 248 the basis of the treaty of Amiens. It was also to be observed that the French government had uniformly throughout denied having acceded to the basis of the uti possidetis. The question, therefore, to be ascertained was, whether France had at any time, and if she had, when, consented to that basis. On the face of the papers there did not appear any basis but the treaty of Amiens, to have been proposed by the French government; whereas his majesty's declaration positively asserted, that the first overture had come from France to negociate on the basis of actual possession. The noble lord, therefore, could not but be sensible of the necessity of setting this variance right, because, though the French government had shuffled on almost every other subject, they had uniformly held out on this. Upon this fact, therefore, the two governments were committed, and he must say, that the declaration was not borne out by the papers. He could not conceive how this could be got over, if no other documents could be produced, unless perhaps it should be said that there was no negociation, till that second negociation commenced when lord Yarmouth was sent over. He thought it essential that every document should be produced, that could throw any light upon this subject, because he thought every other part of the negotiation comparatively unimportant. Upon the decision of this fact, as to the basis of the negociation, it appeared to him that the faith of the two governments would stand or fall; and therefore he was of opinion, that every light should be afforded to the house upon the subject.
Lord Howickstated that there were certainly no papers that could be produced in which the uti possidetis was recognized formally by the French government. That fact however was established in the communications with the French government, and clearly supported by the authority of lord Yarmouth's word. He had no objection to rest the whole of the case on the papers then on the table, and he felt no apprehension, that when the subject should come to be discussed on Monday, he should prove by arguments founded on these papers, that every statement in his majesty's declaration was fully borne out by the documents on the table.
Mr. Canningdid not mean to insinuate that lord Yarmouth's word was not a sufficient authority, but he would not admit 249 that he had not a right to question whether the interpretation of the words in which the basis was supposed to be contained, was correct or not.
§ Mr. Sheridanrose just to make a single observation. When his noble friend had assured the learned gentleman that no part of the remainder of the letter for which he had moved had any reference to the case, it appeared to him that his word might have been taken. As to the point upon which the learned gent. seemed, to be so anxious for information, that was precisely the case that was to be discussed on Monday next. He was only surprized that the learned gent. should have expected to discover in some other part of the letter a basis different from that contained in the part that has been extracted. If the learned gent. Had looked, a little farther into it, he might, perhaps, have found wherewith to satisfy his curiosity. All that part of the letter that related to the case, had been submitted to his majesty, and certainly there was no necessity for laying any more of it before parliament.
§ Mr. Percevalpleaded guilty to the absurdity charged upon him by the right hon. gent., if it was an absurdity to think to find out that his majesty's present ministers had dime something wrong, for to that, and that only, the right hon. gentleman's argument would come. All he wanted to know was, whether there was any passage in the letter which referred to any other basis than the treaty of Amiens. As the noble lord had stated that there was no reference to any such basis contained in it, and the noble lord had also declared, that he was satisfied to take the argument upon the papers, as at present before the house, he had no objection, with the permission of the house, to withdraw his motion.
Lord Yarmouthbegged leave to say a few words on something that had fallen from the learned gent. in a former part of the debate, before the motion should be disposed of. That learned gent. had desired to be informed whether he had received any communication from his majesty's government before he left France. To this he had to answer that he had not received any communication whatever, Here he begged to state to the house the reason why he had been selected to be the bearer of the communication to Mr. Fox. The letters that had passed between Mr. Fox and M. Talleyrand, had usually been accompanied with private letters. In some 250 of these, Mr. Fox had strongly solicited his (lord Yarmouth's) release from France, where he hed been detained as a prisoner of war three years. He had not himself had the honour of being intimately acquainted with Mr. Fox, and for his kind exertions to obtain his enlargement, he was indebted to good offices with that minister, from a, quarter to which, he must ever look with gratitude and respect. M. Talleyrand imagined, from the interest, Mr. Fox had taken he this application, that the person for whom it was exerted would be most likely to possess his confidence, and therefore it had been that he was very properly selected from the other gentlemen, who were coming over at the same time, to be the bearer of the communication to Mr. Fox. M. Talleyrand always gave him to understand, that the actual state of possession, subject to subsequent exchanges upon equivalents, was the basis of the negociation. M. Talleyrand had also often stated to him, that the basis of the treaty, of Amiens would be a source of endless quarrels; and that the status quo ante bellum would be liable to the same objection, and that therefore the state of actual possession, subject to exchanges upon just equivalents, was the only basis that could lead to any solid peace. He had also been the bearer of dispatches to France, and when he returned to Paris, the French government continued to consider the state of actual possession as the basis of the negociation, until some circumstances, which it was not necessary to detail to the house, led them to depart from it, and then they objected to it, as if we wanted to make the basis the treaty.—After a few words from Mr. Perceval, the motion was allowed to be withdrawn.