HC Deb 05 March 1807 vol 9 cc20-3
Mr. Hobhouse

brought up the Report of the Committee of supply. On the resolution for granting 80,000l, to make good a like sum granted to the King of Prussia,

Mr. Bankes ,

regarding this grant as the first instalment a subsidy to Prussia, and regarding subsidies, though they might be wise in some circumstances, as very generally unwise, felt, himself bound,to state his sentiment at some length. He would recal the attention of the house to the subsidies granted since the commencement of the late war, every one of which it was thought hard to refuse at the time, but everyone of which had altogether failed of producing the benefits expected from it. He first instanced the subsidy to the King of Sardinia, agreed upon in 1793, the amount of which was to be 200,000l. a year during the war. But the King of Sardinia was obliged to make a separate peace in less than 3 years. In the same year a treaty of subsidy was entered into with Hesse Cassel, and that power was obliged to make a separate peace in 2 years. In 1796, another treaty was made with no better result. The electoral troops of Hanover, the mar-grave of Baden, and the landgrave of Hesse Darmstadt, subsidised at the same time, all made peace in the same year. In 1793, a subsidy was granted to Russia, guaranteed by the United States. The sum was 50,000l. a month during the war, and 300,000l. in advance, but Russia made a separate peace in 1795. A larger subsidy was granted to Austria in 1795. There was a loan to that power of 4,600,000l. in 1796, and a further loan of 1,603,000l. in 1797. But Austria also was compelled, by distress, to make a precipate peace shortly after. A new loan of 2,000,000l. was advanced in 1800, and, shortly after, the battle of Marengo extinguished all hopes of benefit from the co-operation of Austria. In 1798, a treaty of subsidy was concluded with Russia. The sum to be supplied monthly was 50,000l with an advance of 300,000l. But the policies of the court of Russia changed suddenly, and that power became our active enemy. In 1800, the electors, of Bavaria and Mentz, and other powers, were also subsidised with as little effect. Since the renewal of the war on the continent in 1805, another treaty had existed, and it was only last night that sums had been voted to pay some arrears accrued under that treaty. But that treaty had had no better effect than the former. The fatal battle of Austerlitz compelled that power to make what terms she could, and now we had to make good to Sweden and to Russia the arrears of tint unfortunate subsidiary alliance. The present grant seemed to be the commencement of a new system of subsidy. He should not be disposed to cavil at this sum, if it were not to lead to many larger grants. (lord Howick said across the table, no; there is no treaty of subsidy.) The hon. gent. in continuation, said, if there was no provision for subsidy in the treaty with Prussia, he had trespassed too long upon the house. He had addressed the house only on the idea that a larger subsidy was in contemplation.

Lord H.Petty

sated, that this advance was made by lord Hutchinson for the particular exigencies of the army and the fortresses in Silesia. He conceived the cause of the misunderstanding, that this advance was the commencement of a subsidy, arose from its having been mentioned in the message from his majesty communicating the intelligence of the treaty of peace with the king of Prussia. But there was nothing of subsidy in the treaty, the advance had been made in consequence of a discretionary power given to lord Hutchinson, whose discretion could not be doubted in case any particular emergency required such a grant or any particular services could be effected by it. This advance had had great effect in preventing the progress of the enemy in the quarter in which it had been applied. He agreed with the hon. gent. that in making future treaties of subsidy, we ought to be regulated by past experience, and that our advantages ought to be regulated by the benefits, which according to past experience, we might reasonably hope to receive.

Mr. Bankes ,

under the explanation that had been given, had no objection to make good the advance that had been made by lord Hutchinson. He was pleased with the assurance given by the noble lord, that in future treaties of subsidy past experience would be made the guide, and that vast sums would not be advanced without any certain benefit.

Lord Howick

said, that lord Hutchinson had a discretionary power to make advances in case of any pressing emergency, and he was sure every person would agree that such a discretion could not be placed in better hands. There was no treaty of subsidy But he would not have the house go away with the idea that government was precluded from granting a subsidy, if circumstances should render it desirable. He agreed that many of the former subsidies were must unwise in principle, and most unproductive in even. But every case depended upon its own circumstances. A principle of caution ought always to be applied, to prevent the advances from being made unnecessarily, or incautiously, so as to hazard a risk, that no benefit would be derived. He dissapproved of all subsidies which would hold out English money to induce foreign powers to enter into war without any objects of their own. But when they were engaged, or ready to engage, for common interests, he thought it would be very wrong not to hold ourselves at liberty to second and support them. He allowed that past experience ought to be made the rule of our conduct with regard to future treaties; but not so far as to prevent us from entering into such treaties.—The resolution was then agreed to.