§ Mr. Whitbreadrose, pursuant to notice, to move for certain Papers, which there was a necessity for having before the house, previous to the discussion which he intended to introduce on Monday se'nnight. All these papers were so obviously necessary to come to a right understanding on the subject of the propriety or impropriety of the conduct of ministers, relative to the proffered Mediation of Russia, and Austria, and he was so much at a loss to conceive any inconvenience that could result from their production, that unless he had received intimation that some of the motions would not be acceded to, he would not have thought that, in the present instance, there was any occasion whatever for his entering upon the question at all. But, as the matter stood, he should be wanting in his duty to the house and to the public, if he did not say something in support of the argument so ably maintained the other night, that publicity was the essence of the British constitution; and that parliament had a right to call for, and demand, all information which it was consistent with the public safety to give. Publicity might indeed be emphatically termed the essence of the British constitution, and to withhold important information was therefore a violation of its most essential principle. —Having said this much generally, he would now advert to the particular object which he had in view, in the motions which he was now about to submit to 602 the house. Ministers, after the various transactions in which they had been engaged last summer, had laid upon the table notes, dispatches, and extracts of dispatches, explanatory of their conduct. These he considered deficient, and his design was to call upon them to supply the chasm which they had left. His first motion was for "Copies and Extracts of Dispatches from the secretary of state for foreign affairs to our ministers at Vienna relative to the proffered Mediation of Austria." As he understood that this was to be granted, he would say nothing further upon that point. The second, he considered as of paramount importance. It was for the "Substance of any communication made by his majesty's minister at the court of Petersburgh, to his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, of a conversation held between the emperor of Russia and lord Hutchinson, on the 23rd of Aug. 1807, relative to the Treaty of Peace concluded by Russia, and the offer made by that power to mediate a peace between G. Britain and France."—When he had given notice of this motion on a former day, the right hon. secretary had said, that he thought it improper to lay before the house any communication of an accredited minister with a foreign sovereign. After that, he must give up in despair all hope of convincing him that this document ought to be granted. But as his colleague, the fight hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, had modified that opinion, and said, that he did not go quite to the extent of the right hon. secretary, he would address himself to him, in the hope that he would not be altogether so inaccessible to the reasons which he might be able to urge for the production of these papers. But, addressing a few words, however, in the first place, to the right hon. secretary, he said, that one would think, from what the right hon. gent. had stated, that the communication of a conversation of a minister with a sovereign, was a thing which had never happened. The right hon. gent. thought that policy compelled our ministers to hold conferences with sovereigns, on account of the system to that effect introduced by the French ambassadors, with whom it was necessary that the British ambassadors should be on equality; and this he made an excuse for concealment upon the point of delicacy to these sovereigns. He spoke in high terms of the British ambassador being compelled to stand in the anti-room 603 and witness the conduct of the French ambassador bearding the sovereign. By that the right hon. gent. meant, perhaps, to insinuate, that our ministers, ought to copy the example of the French, and claim an equal privilege on that head. With this spirit he might, perhaps, think that our ministers ought not to remain at the court. Now, he would ask him, whether our ministers had been required to proceed in this manner? He believed he could not be so indiscreet as to say so. He insinuated that it was a breach of duty in an accredited minister, to mention the conversations he might have had with a sovereign. This was not the case in all circumstances; but, at any rate, the noble lord (Hutchinson) was not an accredited minister; but a most distinguished individual—a hero, in this age of European heroes—one who was renowned all over the world for his military talents, and no less celebrated for his high sense of honour, than for his skill in his profession. One who, as a private individual, maintained a communication with the emperor of Russia, with the knowledge of our accredited minister. The conversation which he held with the emperor on the 23d of Aug. was well known at the time, and had been conveyed to this country in a dispatch from lord G. L. Gower. It had, he knew, been communicated to lord G. L. Gower, with the intention of being sent to our ministers. Why, then, should it not he communicated to the house? It was already known to all, and why should the house of commons remain without the knowledge of it in a regular and authentic form. The emperor, confiding in the judgment and integrity of the distinguished individual alluded to, asked him whether, considering the situation of affairs, peace ought not to be concluded? That noble lord asserted that it ought. The emperor then said, that he had offered his mediation for a peace with England, stating, at the same time, that from what he knew, peace might be concluded on honourable terms. Was not this document necessary, in order to enable the house to form its judgment? Was there any thing indiscreet in the communication made on this subject? No—the noble lord was prevented by no obligation whatever of duty or of expediency to conceal the conversation. It was not done rashly. He knew well what what to do ought to be concealed and what not. There were some parts of the conferences 604 which he had not detailed, which shewed that he had weighted the matter well, and withheld what he thought it improper to disclose.—The hon. gent. then proceeded to state instances in which communications of conversations with sovereigns had been laid before the house. He mentioned, first, the confidential conversation between the first consul of France and lord Whitworth, which had been made public, in his opinion, most indiscreetly. The next instance was the communication of the public conference of lord Whitworth with Buonaparte, the publication of which he considerable as manifesting a still greater indiscretion. He also adverted to the dispatch of lord Strangford, who talked of taking upon himself to forgive the paccadillo of the prince regent. Where was the delicacy of the right hon. gentleman when he published this? He might at least have spared the humbled prince this mortification. But there was a prince who was not ashamed of giving his conversations to the world—he meant the Crown Prince of Denmark, who, on Mr. Jackson's adverting to the asperity of his language, said, that no wonder if his reply was marked by asperity, when such propositions were made to him; who, on our offer of what we called advantageous terms, replied, "what will you give me as a compensation for the wounded honour of Denmark?" The ministers had been very liberal of their communications after the death of Mr. Pitt, and laid the treaties with Austria, &c. &c. on the table, together with a dispatch mentioning the sentiments of prince Charles, which, though very proper to be communicated to them, ought not to have been made public.—It might, perhaps, be said, that he went to the extent of claiming all information. But he disclaimed any such intention. Whatever it might be prejudicial to the interests of the public to produce, he did not want; but when information was refused, merely because it would be prejudicial to the interest of ministers, he would put it to the sense of the house of commons whether it ought to be withheld. It might be said that he might argue on the paper in question as a matter of notoriety. Why, so he might, but he thought it more decorous to have it in a regular way before the house. Did such a paper exist? If they said—no, he should then know what to do. If it did exist in an authentic form, the house would decide whether it ought to be 605 refused.—On these grounds, he trusted the house would decide in favour of his motion for this paper, and that they would compel the right hon. gent. opposite to produce it. There were other papers for which he should subsequently move, and to the production of which he did not know whether any, or what extent of objection, existed on the part of his majesty's government. They were as follow: "A copy of the answer that had been made by his majesty's minister, at the court of St. Petersburgh, to the Note from gen. Budberg, dated the 30th June, 1807; or any Instructions that he had received on that subject, from his majesty's government." it was scarcely possible to suppose, that the British ambassador had not returned an answer to a Note, containing such heavy charges against the British government. If he had not, let it be said so; if he had, let the answer be produced. 2. "A copy of the dispatches from the British minister to the court of St. Petersburgh, transmitted to his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, containing a confirmation of the assurances alluded to in the Note from lord G. L. Gower to gen. Budberg, dated Memel, 28th June, 1807, referring to a declaration made by his Imperial majesty at Tilsit, to the British ambassador, that no circumstances had occurred to weaken his attachment to Great Britain, satisfied as he was of the honour and fidelity of his Britannic majesty." 3. "A copy, or the substance of any assurances from this country, communicated to the court of St. Petersburgh after the commencement of the Russian war, with respect to any diversion on the continent by G. Britain, and particularly of the dispatches communicating the assurances alluded to in his majesty's Declaration; assurances, to which his majesty states, that his Imperial majesty had received, and acknowledged with apparent confidence and satisfaction."
Lord G. L. Gowerwas desirous of speaking to two points, mentioned by the hon. gent. The first was with regard to the answer which he was supposed to have sent to gen. Budberg's Note of the 30th of June 1807. That Note contained charges of so heavy a nature against the British government, that he had thought it his duty personally to state, with respect, but at the same with courage, such reasons as occurred to him in their justification. He had done this not merely from respect for the character of the late 606 administration, but from the principle that, whatever party differences might exist at home, they ought not to influence the conduct of diplomatic agents at foreign courts. He had therefore put the emperor of Russia and his ministers in possession of the best defence that he could at the moment make. Subsequently, he had received from England copies of the correspondence between M. Alopeus and his right hon. friend. M. Alopeus's Note contained charges similar to those conveyed to him in the note from gen. Budberg, with this difference, that M. Alopeus entered into a detail from which gen. Budberg had abstained. To M. Alopeus's note an elaborate answer had been sent by his right hon. friend, which contained a most able defence of the conduct of his majesty's late government. At the first conference which he had had with the Russian minister for foreign affairs, after the reception of this answer, he had called his attention to its contents, but had not thought it necessary to add any thing of his own. As to any copy which he might have sent to England of the conversation enjoyed by lord Hutchinson with the emperor of Russia, the fact was this: during the period that lord Hutchinson had been with the Russian army, he was in the habits of constant and familiar intercourse with the emperor. It was therefore with great satisfaction he found that lord Hutchinson was induced, from motives of curiosity, to visit St. Petersburgh; for, knowing that that noble lord would have many more opportunities of private interviews with the emperor of Russia than he, in his official situation, could possibly expect, he flattered himself that the result might be highly advantageous to the two countries. Lord H. had communicated to him confidentially his conversation with the emperor; but certainly he did not understand that the noble lord meant this conversation to be the subject of a public dispatch. He had looked upon it as the confidential communication of a confidential conversation. He had therefore inclosed it in a private letter to his right hon. friend, not thinking it proper that the confidential conversation of the emperor of Russia with a private individual should be entered on the records of a public office.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, the account given by his noble friend of the circumstances connected with the two topics to which he had alluded, made it hardly necessary for him to trouble the house on 607 these points. The argument of the.hon. gent. however, who had made the motion, seemed to go to this, that a communication by a crowned head to an unaccredited agent of another country was equally proper to be produced, as if such communication had been made to an accredited agent. In this respect, he thought the hon. gent. had in some shape abandoned the motion of which he gave notice yesterday, and which stood on the Journals of the house. If, however, the hon. gent. after the statement of the noble lord had driven him from the one argument, should be inclined to maintain the other, he must contend, not only that communications made to accredited agents of this country, but even to travellers led to any foreign country by curiosity, and by them transmitted in a private letter to a person holding any official situation in this country, were proper evidence to be submitted to this house. He expressed his sorrow, that a right hon. gent. (Mr. Grenville) was not present. He might have suggested to the hon. mover the proper mode of rendering such private letter a good public and official document. He could have told him to what Board, to apply for this purpose, whether to the Admiralty, Victualling, or Transport. If he could only have laid his hand on some obsolete Note, that right hon. gent. would have instructed him how to make it official: he would have put him in the proper way to intreat—
Oh, let my little Note attendant sail."—Lord G. L. Gower had already explained, that he (Mr. C.) had, to the best of his ability, vindicated the late ministry from the charges made against them by the Russian government, and had also stated substantial reasons why neither the Note nor answer could be produced. He was convinced the hon. mover was satisfied on that head, and would not insist on the production of a paper which might do a treat deal of injury, merely with a view of making his own argument a little better or a little worse. Worse, he could assure him, after all, would it undoubtedly be made, were the Note produced. By sonic of the hon. gent.'s other motions, he seemed to have it in view, to ascertain, whether the cause of the country, as administered by the late government, had been defended by the present government. He appeared to think, that enough had not been done by the present ministers to maintain what had been done by the late ministers. 608 When the hon. gent. asked for any assurances of military assistance that had been communicated by his majesty's present government, in confirmation of the assurances that had been communicated by the last government, he supposed that he alluded to the discussion in that house, in which it had been stated by himself (Mr. C.) and his colleagues, that on their coming into office, they found the expectations of the allies of G. Britain of military assistance, raised to a great height, but that they found no means provided of satisfying those expectations. He now repeated, that those expectations had been stated by foreign courts, more particularly and with greater precision than the distinct assurances and instructions which he had found recorded in the foreign office, seemed to warrant. But it was well known, that with respect to assurances of this nature, much passed in personal communications, which was not transferred to paper. With some of the motions he should comply most willingly; because when the papers were produced they would show that great expectations had been entertained of British assistance, by the continental powers; they would spew that the noble lord to whose authority the gentlemen opposite were so fond of referring, and for whose authority on military subjects, and on subjects connected with his situation, he entertained the highest respect;—that lord. Hutchinson had distinctly stated to the emperor of Russia and to the king of Prussia, that he knew his government intended to make a continental diversion in their favour; that he was authorised to make them the strongest assurances on this subject, although he could not particularize the point at which the diversion was to be effected. By some of the papers it would appear, that at the commencement of the late war between Prussia and France, dispatches had been sent to the courts of St. Petersburgh and Stockholm, calling loudly on those powers to make the greatest exertins, and to march an army to the assistance of Prussia. He did not mean to contend that that exhortation was a distinct and particular pledge on the part of G. Britain, but surely G. Britain had no right to require such exertions, unless she meant bonâ fide to imply that she would hear her share in them. After this call however, a great interval elapsed without any specific promise of assistance on our part, and the whole correspondence between Russia and G. Britain consisted of applica- 609 tions and reproaches from the former. The court of Petersburgh was unquestionably entitled to suppose that they would receive support from this country, either by military diversion or by pecuniary assistance; they had neither. A proposal made by Russia to negotiate in this country a loan for six millions had been refused. He did not state this as attaching blame to the late ministers, for he fairly allowed that the negotiation of such a loan must, in effect, after the experience which this country had had, be considered as entailing a great risk, if not ultimately a burden, on us. But, there was a wide difference between refusing that loan and doing nothing. We might have declined making so considerable an exertion without disappointing Russia, by leaving her altogether without help. Had we agreed to raise 4 millions, or 3 millions, or 2 millions (for which of course provision must have been made as for a subsidy), we should at least have gratified the feelings of his imperial majesty; but of such an intention on the part of the late government no trace existed in the records of the foreign office. This complete refusal was the more censurable, as no power on the continent had been so uniformly faithful to its pecuniary engagements as Russia. When the wants of the Russian army were so pressing, towards the latter end of the last campaign, lord Hutchinson, in the sound exercise of the discretion with which he was invested, had advanced the miserable sum of 30,000l. to relieve them from their embarrassments. Since the war between the two countries that money had been repaid. With respect to the charge brought by the Russian government against the late administration of this country, for disturbing their commerce by unnecessary detentions, the present administration had refuted it in the face of Europe, with as much anxiety and decision as if it had been preferred against themselves. Though he thought it had been sufficiently refuted, he had no objection to the laudable desire expressed by the hon. gent. of vindicating his friends by the production of papers on the subject. The hon. gent. was desirous to obtain the dispatches from this country, containing those assurances of support and co-operation, which it was stated in his majesty's declaration, that his imperial majesty had received and acknowledged, with apparent confidence and satisfaction.' The hon. gent. implied, that in that passage of his majesty's Declaration, 610 a distinction was meant studiously to be taken, between the list and the present administration; and that the assurances referred to, as having given such lively satisfaction to his imperial majesty, were the assurances of the present administration alone. The hon. gent. was mistaken: the Declaration referred to the assurances communicated to Russia in March, by lord Hutchinson, from the last, government, as well as to those communicated in April from the present government. How could his majesty's ministers more fairly defend the conduct of their predecessors, than by their identifying that conduct with their own? On the accusations by Russia, of our interrupting her commerce, of our withholding from her pecuniary and military aid; as those accusations were stated in the Russian Declaration, he did not see that there was any thing that would be deficient in the information, which would be produced, by the hon. gent.'s motions. But, there was a specific charge brought by Russia against this country, namely, the Expedition to Alexandria, which the hon. gent.'s motions would not sufficiently elucidate. In the correspondence of his majesty's existing government with the court of St. Petersburgh (without any reference to their private opinion), that expedition had been defended against Russia, on the ground that the war with Turkey had been undertaken by this country on Russian instigation, and for Russian objects. That in the course of that expedition, it was diverted from a point where it would have been successful, to a point where it could not, was a part of the subject which could not be entered into with minuteness in his majesty's Declaration. In moving for the correspondence respecting the offer of mediation between Great Britain and France, made by Austria, the hon. gent. thought that the chasm which existed from the month of April to the month of Nov. in the official notes between prince Starhemberg and the British secretary of state, an extraordinary one. It was easily to be accounted for. The proposal of mediation was made in April, while the campaign on the continent was proceeding, and before Prussia and Austria had made a separate peace. Under those circumstances, it was cheerfully accepted by this country, subject only to the condition that we must not be expected to depart from our good faith with other powers. Mr. Adair was then at Vienna, but it was a 611 matter of general knowledge, that when a negotiation was carrying on between two courts, that the correspondence from the court where the negotiation was carrying on, to the minister at the other court, consisted only of a transmission of the official documents; lest a cross negotiation should be produced. Lord Pembroke soon after that time, was appointed the British minister at Vienna. Had his lordship found the terms of mediation accepted by the other powers, he would have communicated that acceptance to his government at home; but his voyage and journey had been so delayed by unfavourable circumstances, that he did not arrive at Vienna, until the latter end of June. A few hours afterwards the fatal news of the battle of Friedland reached that capital; and of course no more was heard of Austrian mediation; nor had government received any other political communication of importance from the continent, until that offer (at the desire of France) which was then on the table.
Mr. Ponsonbyfelt a good deal of astonishment at the conduct of the right hon. gent. who had just sat down. His observations seemed all to be stated from the question, rather than to the question, and to have been prepared more in contemplation of an accusation against the late ministers, than to have presented themselves on the motion of his hon. friend. First, the late ministers were culpable in having held out assurances, or exciting hopes of co-operation to the continental powers. Again, they were wrong in not granting a subsidy under the description of a loan. In one point he was perfectly ready to agree with the right hon. gent. that it would be highly improper, that any communication should be made which could at. all go to affect any districts, the inhabitants, of which were now subject to the emperor of the French. He was certain his hon. friend would agree with him in thinking, that nothing could be so wrong as to put the French in possession of any information which could enable them to wreak their vengeance on persons in this unfortunate predicament. But, the right hon. gent. said the communications made by the emperor of Russia to lord Hutchinson cannot be produced, because they are verbal. He believed there never was an instance of a crowned head making any other but verbal communications to those who were in his confidence. Did the 612 right hon. gent. expect that the emperor should have sent, or delivered, a dispatch to lord? H.? He would wish to know, however, why the communication had been made to lord H. but that he might impart it to his government? Why it had been by him communicated? Why it had been by him communicated to our ambassador but for the same reason? And why the ambassador had thought it of such consequences as again to communicate it to the secretary of state of foreign affairs? It was said however, that this last communication was made by a private letter. He did not ask for the private letter, but for the genuine purport of the communication. When the chief of a government, offering to us his mediation, condescended to communicate on that subject with a native of this country, and that communication was transmitted to our official servants at home, was not the house entitled to know that such mediation was not improvidently slighted? As to the right hon. gent.'s observations on a member of this house, but not now present (Mr. Grenville) that was all a joke; the observation was below him. At least it was below the house to listen to it. He, the king's minister, received from the king's ambassador, and for the people of this kingdom, a letter, the very essence and quality of which proved it to be of a public and important nature. Did the right hon. gentleman deny it was so? Did he allege that his friend lord G.L. Gower had sitten down to write him a letter of pleasure; that he had entertained him with an account of a concert or dance; that it, contained an account of all the beautiful ladies of St. Petersburgh; or that it was a letter facetious and entertaining? He could say no such thing.—Would the noble lord stand up and say that it was a private correspondence by one individual, not connected with the king's service, to another individual not connected with the king's service, and on a subject not connected with the king's service? On the contrary, would he not say, that it contained communications from the emperor of Russia on the subject of his mediation between this country and France? How the letter was addressed to the right hon. gent. was of little consequences, its contents must shew whether it was in its nature public or private. He should suppose that the right hon. gent. were to be impeached for neglecting a favourable opportunity of concluding a peace, and that he should say he was indeed perfectly 613 aware of the fact, but that he did not chuse to treat because the communication which had been made to him was of a private nature, to which he did not think himself entitled in his public capacity to attend. Would that be esteemed a sufficient vindication of his conduct? Would it not be said to him, 'It is not sufficient for you to allege that the information you had was private; you knew well it was authentic?' If lord H. was once the confidential agent of this country, and the emperor chose to send for him, and communicate his intentions to him, was it not the same as if he had done so to the accredited agent of this country for the time, and he had again made the communication to our ambassador? Was not lord H. to be entitled to the same degree of belief as if he had been the accredited agent of this country? Had the letter been in a different form, still it could have contained no more than it now did; and if these contents were important, there was no reason why the form of the letter should prevent the substance of it from coming before the house. The house had a right to know what it contained. As to the other papers connected with this subject, to the production of which the right hon. gent. said he had no objection, what would they enable the house to do, farther than just to form a conjecture of the tone, frame, and temper of mind which actuated the emperor of Russia in the mediation in question, as to which the letter alluded to would have afforded a complete proof? The right hon. gent. refused to the house the thing itself, but he granted them something else, which would enable them to form a conjecture as to what was refused them.
Mr. Secretary Canningrose to state his regret that the right hon. gent. who had last addressed the house, should have shewn himself totally ignorant of the question before the house. He had discussed the propriety of giving all the information required, while the question now before the house was, the propriety of granting information on the proposed Mediation of Austria alone.
§ Mr. Adamcalled the right hon. secretary to order; but, at the remonstrance of the Speaker, sat down.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, he had only taken the right hon. gent. at his word. The right hon. secretary had said, nothing could be given of information to the house on the subject of Austria; he was, therefore, disinclined to attempt to fix the atten- 614 tion of the house on nothing—a subject on which, however, the right hon. gent. could display his abilities: he, unfortunately, never found himself so much at home. —The first motion was then agreed to.
§ Mr. Whitbreadbegged Leave to alter his second motion, by substituting 'the Substance' for 'a Copy' of the communication from lord Hutchinson.
Mr. Secretary Canningopposed the motion in its amended from, because the substitution of the word 'substance' for copy,' in no way changed the merits of the question. He begged to be understood as putting the individual merits of lord Hutchinson wholly aside. He professed to have a high respect for the character of that noble person; but contended that the question ought to be discussed without any regard whatever to his character. When a person was, delegated by the crown to represent it at a foreign court, he conceived it to be invariably meant, that the interests of the country were confided solely to this individual, and that all communications of a public nature, in as far as they tended to influence the conduct of the government at home, ought to come through this channel. If it should he argued, that the communication, for the production of Which the hon. gent. had now moved, came through this channel, still he would maintain, that an ambassador at a foreign court had a discretionary power of judging what communications he should transmit to his government in a public and official shape, and what he might think proper to make in a private and confidential manner. To the latter of these descriptions, the communication alluded to by the hon. gent. belonged; and on that account he did not judge it a fit paper to be produced. If the hon. gent. imagined that this was the only instance in which accounts of conversations which certain individuals had held with the emperor of Russia, and of which his majesty's government were in possession, he was under a great mistake. He was in possession of minutes of conversations which other persons, for whom he had as much respect as for the noble lord, had held that sovereign, and the purport of which was certainly very different [a cry of hear! hear! from the opposition bench]. The hon. gent. might refuse to rely on such conversations; but he was equally entitled to refuse his confidence it that in which they trusted; and the simple fact was, that his majesty's government did not find it- 615 self, under all the circumstances, warranted in changing the line of policy which they had adopted, and were determined to pursue, in consequence of lord H.'s communication. He deprecated extremely the present motion, not only because it was calculated for the invidious purpose of creating misunderstandings, but because he conscientiously believed that if the present motion was agreed to, it would countenance the idea that if any British traveller [loud cries of hear! hear!] happened accidentally, from affability of manners, or any other cause, to recommend himself at a foreign court, so as to have frequent opportunities of communicating, in private with the prince, he might institute a cross correspondence, calculated to shake the confidence of the government of his own country in the communications which it received from its own accredited agent. He might, for example, put a possible case, which he stated simply as possible, from having read the history of former times—should a young man (he would not say connected with any party, for parties were not supposed to exist), but should a young man while abroad on his travels, happen, accidentally, to go to a foreign court white an important and delicate negociation was pending between that court and his own, should he insinuate himself into the confidence of that court, and in his communications with his friends at home, give information directly the reverse of that transmitted by the king's plenipotentiary, and by these means perplex the councils of ministers, and introduce confusion into the measures of government,—it would be a natural effect of that principle for which the hon. gent contended in his present motion. It would, he contended, be recurring to the system of double diplomacy, which had been acted upon in the reign of Louis XIV. when some young man was generally sent along with the accredited representative of the sovereign to foreign courts, who insinuated himself into the confidence of the prince, the minister, or the mistress of the minister, and who was employed as a check upon the correspondence of the ambassador, a system which he was convinced the house would not be of opinion as proper to adopt, in conducting the affairs of this country.
Mr. Ponsonbyreplied, that the right hon. gent. had alledged, that the motion of his hon. friend was calculated to produce cross feelings [Mr. Canning said across the 616 table, that he had applied the word cross, not to feelings, but to correspondence]; well, said Mr. P. a misunderstanding between two noble persons. This, he was sure, was an insinuation to which the house would not listen fur a moment. But, was the right hon. gent. serious when he talked of putting aside the character of lord Hutchinson, and if he did this because it happened to suit his purpose, did he suppose that he would acquiesce in the attempt so to do? For this he must have the consent of two parties, and certainly he never would have his. He might wave the consideration of the noble lord's character for himself, but he should not do so for him. Nor would he admit the puerile comparison which he had thought proper to institute between that noble person, and any young man who might be abroad on his travels. The communication now moved for, was considered of sufficient importance to be transmitted by his majesty's ambassador to his government, and as it was necessary to enable the house to judge of the conduct of government, he could not see upon what grounds it could be reasonably withheld.
§ Dr. Laurenceexpressed his surprize, that the right hon. gent. should have represented the motion of his hon. friend, as made for the invidious purpose of creating misunderstanding, at the same time that he himself introduced an allusion into his speech to air affair which had happened many years ago, at which time inquiry was challenged into all the circumstances, and in which a, gentleman was implicated, who since that time had held an official situation under his majesty's government, and from whom the right hon. gent. himself, he believed, could not withhold the tribute of his approbation. At the very time too, that he professed to discuss the question upon its general merits, he had substituted for the character of lord Hutchinson, that of a young man who was a creation of his own fancy. If the right hon. gent.'s argument had any meaning at all, it was art attempt to quibble away the constitution of his country; for he maintained, that if his doctrine of the obligation of secrecy was admitted to its full extent it would be in the power of any minister, by a private understanding with a foreign agent, to keep the public completely in the dark respecting the whole foreign relations of the empire. It would be sufficient for a foreign minister, in corresponding with the secretary of state, merely to begin his 617 dispatch with 'dear sir,' or 'dear Canning,' entirely to defeat all inquiry. He contended, that there was no analogy whatever between the case in question, and the double diplomacy of Louis XIV. because the communication to which it referred was transmitted by the accredited agent of government; and he put the right hon. gent. in mind, that it was only now called for in consequence of the system of misrepresentation, which he bad been the first to introduce into debate by reading partial extracts from documents, for the purpose of giving more effect to a brilliant speech.
§ Sir T. Turtoncontended that all precedents were against the production of papers relating to confidential conversations with sovereigns. He commended the resistance made by the secretary of state in the present instance. It was only by a reserve of this kind that the dispositions of sovereigns and their ministers, to hold confidential communications with us, could be preserved. He was ready to vote for the production of all papers necessary to the justification of the late ministers, from the charges preferred against them throughout the country. But he would not consent to the production of any papers, not in themselves proper to be produced and called for, only from mere party motives. He professed a great personal esteem for the noble lord, who was particularly interested in the production of the paper principally alluded to, and he therefore lamented the more, that the noble lord had disclosed as much as he had done.
§ Mr. Whitbreadhoped, notwithstanding the general cry of question, that the house would permit him to make one or two observations, in reply to what had fallen from the other side. The right hon. secretary, with his usual ingenuity, had contrived to favour the house with two speeches upon the same subject; but had, whether from design or inadvertency, wholly departed in his second speech from the line of argument adopted in his first; at one time a paper called for was objected to as unofficial; and at another, the substance of that paper was refused, because the source of the intelligence was not at that time duly accredited. The right hon. gent. set out with requiring to be understood as speaking to the general principle, and then proceeded to state the particular case of Mr. Adair. This was certainly a very curious way of speaking to a general principle, without any reference 618 to individuals. The right hon. gent. had talked a good deal on the contusion that would arise in the public business, from the consequences of a double diplomacy; and had taken great pains to impress upon the house the meaning of cross-dispatches, by the pantomimical gesture of crossing his fingers—(a laugh). He was resolved, it appeared, to tale his stand by the accredited, and the accredited only. He would not look at lord Hutchinson, but the general principle; and in the same breath, the right honourable secretary, spoke of English travellers passing through any continental court, &c. How was he to understand the right honourable secretary? Did he mean to say, that lord H. was merely in an ordinary character? Was his lordship to be considered merely as one of the heedless, gay, young travellers that occasionally sojourn at a continental court; whose intelligence must have been as unimportant as his observations were superficial? It was not a trifling familiar communication of court scandal from any of the buffoons or parasites that flutter about the person of the minister, the mistress, or the crowned head, that was demanded. What he asked for was the information which the right hon. gent. in his capacity as foreign minister, received from our accredited minister at the court of Russia, ld. G. L. Gower. And what was the avowed source of that information communicated by the noble lord, to the right hon. gent.? No less a-source than lord Hutchinson; who had at that time but just ceased to be an accredited minister himself. What had been the character of lord H.'s mission? Had he not the confidence of the Prussian court to such a degree, that he felt himself warranted in advancing on the part of this country, 30,000l. for the immediate service of the Russian army? And yet they were to be told, that his lordship was to be loooked upon, in discussing the present question, merely in the light of an ordinary English traveller; if so, he would ask the noble lord why ho thought it expedient to lay such stress upon the communication made to him by lord H. as to forward it with his other dispatches to the foreign minister of this country? if he did not so forward it on account of the individual, he must have forwarded it from a just consideration of its importance. But this importance was coupled with no necessity of secrecy, or mysterious apprehension of disclosure: and why not, then, give it to the house and 619 to the country? The question of the propriety or impropriety of ministers rejecting the proffered mediation of Russia might depend upon that information. And yet, in answer to a demand for such information, they were told forsooth, that it was most important to be sure, both in its own nature arid in reference to a great question of continental policy, but that, unfortunately, though it had flowed through the customary channel of accredited agency, it had not sprung from it; for that lord H. happened not at that time to be accredited, and therefore that this information, however otherwise desirable, must be withheld, rather than the etiquette diplomatique should be violated. But, it seemed, an hon. baronet had done him the favour of imputing the present motion to party motives; the hon. baronet was rather unfortunate in his selection, for out of the nine there was not one less liable to the imputation, than that alluded to by the hon. baronet; for, it did happen that on that very question relative to the Russion offer of mediation between this country and France, he and his right hon. friends did not so entirely agree as on the other subjects. The hon. baronet had commented upon his inability to preserve the gravity of his countenance, during a certain part of his speech. He (Mr. W.) could not avoid smiling, when the hon. baronet had said that he would vote for the production of those papers which he knew ministers had already acceded to the production of; and according as ministers assented or resisted, it was not difficult to divine the vote of the hon. baronet. In a word, he asked for information; he asked for official documents of the last importance, and to the production of which no objection of secrecy or confidence was set up—it was public property, and as such he demanded it. He feared that its intelligence would but serve to confirm what at a future day he should have to bring before the house, that his majesty's present ministers were guilty of a fatal error in rejecting the proffer of Russian mediation. He wished before he sat down, to ask the noble lord, whether there was not some error, probably of printing, in the dates of some of his dispatches? There were three, for instance, dated 2nd Sept. thought it was evident from the tenor, that all could not have been written on the same day. There were two more dated the 9th Sept. in which that same inconsistency appeared.
Lord G.L. Gowersaid the first of the three notes now dated the 2d Sept. was written on the 1st, but by an error of the secretary dated as the others. Of the two under the date of the 9th, one was written on that day, and the other on the 19th. This date was altered in printing. The assurances alluded to in the Note of 28th June, addressed to gen. Budberg, were given in a private conference by the emperor of Russia at Tilsit, in which his Imperial majesty assured him (ld. G. L. Gower), that nothing that had happened should alter his friendly disposition and attachment to England, satisfied as he was of the fidelity and justice of the principles of his Britannic maj.—Mr. Whitbread then withdrew his first motion; the second, calling for Extracts from lord G. L. Gower's Dispatch, containing the assurances referred to in his Note to M. de Budberg, 28th June, was negatived; the one for Copies of all assurances of co-operation given to the courts of Russia and Stockholm, was acceded to, with some modification, as were all the others.