Commons Sitting of 20 December 1813

DECLARATION OF THE ALLIED POWERS.
Mr. Hornerbegged leave to ask a question or two of the noble lord, his Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. A document had been received in this coun-
300
try, of the authenticity of which no doubt seemed to be entertained by the public, purporting to be a Declaration on the part of the sovereigns of the allied powers. The information which he wished to obtain, with respect to this document, was such as, in his opinion, it could not be inconsistent with the noble lord's sense of what was due to the public service to give. He was the rather disposed to put to the noble lord the questions which he was about to state, because the information which they were calculated to elicit appeared to him to be very material, with reference to the expected discussion of that evening. The document to which he had alluded expressly stated, that offers of peace had been made to the enemy by the sovereigns at the head of the allied army on the banks of the Rhine; and the tenour of it seemed to imply that those offers had been rejected; although that was not expressly asserted, and although the passage from which it was to be inferred was certainly susceptible of an opposite interpretation. The questions, therefore, that he begged to ask the noble lord were these, viz.—Was the document authentic? If so, had his Majesty, as one of the confederated powers, concurred in the offer that had been made to France? Had the offer, which the Declaration stated to have been made to France, been rejected?
Lord Castlereaghsaid that he felt no difficulty in replying to two of the questions put to him by the hon. and learned gentleman. The document which he had mentioned was authentic. He had also the satisfaction to state, that a perfect concert existed among all the allies with respect to the measures that had been adopted; every proceeding having been marked by the utmost spirit of cordiality. What those measures were, however, or what had been the result, of them, he trusted the hon. and learned gentleman would not press him to declare.
Mr. Hornerobserved, that the first part of the noble lord's reply afforded sufficient proof of the property of his (Mr. H.'s) enquiry.

ADJOURNMENT OF PARLIAMENT.
Lord Castlereaghthen proceeded to move, that, at its rising, the House should to Tuesday the 1st of March. It was the state of parliamentary business that induced him to propose this long adjournment. The House had sat uninterruptedly from its meeting; and in the

301
course of that time had gone through public business to an extent, and, in a manner, unprecedented in any former session. He was not aware that the jealousy of parliament had been during that period, or was at this time, excited towards the conduct of government; or that the House felt that any peculiar necessity existed at the present moment for continuing, without intermission, the exercise of their vigilance and authority. On the contrary, with a view to the convenience of government at this important crisis, many questions had been conceded without discussion, which at other times would probably have called forth the expression of great differences of opinion. In looking, therefore, at the state of public and at the state, of private business, he did not see any thing which could make it be considered an act of indiscretion on the part of parliament to adjourn to the period which he proposed. He was certainly prepared to admit, that if by this long adjournment the executive government might be placed in any situation of embarrassment or difficulty—if it would be prevented from availing itself of the deliberative wisdom of parliament in any great and important events which might require the aid of such wisdom, and which might take place before the expiration of the term of adjournment, a fair ground of objection would be established to such a proposal. But the hon. gentlemen opposite were aware that an Act had been passed to obviate the occurrence of any such inconveniencies. If by either prorogation or adjournment the sittings of parliament were suspended, the Act gave the crown power to re-assemble, parliament in 14 days. He was not aware that any practical inconvenience could be sustained by the adjournment until, the 1st of March; and therefore, reserving to himself the right of replying to any objections which might be urged against the proposition (although he acknowledged that he could not anticipate the nature of them), he would move, "That at its rising the House should adjourn to Tuesday the 1st of March 1814."
Sir James Mackintoshthen rose and spoke to the following effect:—
Sir;—I confess, that when I came down to the House I. was so far from expecting that the noble lord would take the course which he has adopted, that I entertained great hopes he would open, the grounds
302
on which he intended to move the long adjournment which he has proposed, so, fully, as to remove some of the difficulties, under which I labour; and to relieve me from the necessity of defending myself from the appearance of wishing for a moment to disturb the unanimity which has so happily prevailed during the session, and which has had my most hearty, though silent support. It cannot, Sir, be very agreeable to me thus to address this House, for the first time, under the pressure of severe indisposition, and exposed to the impression which the noble lord has made by his declaration, that he did not believe any good grounds could exist for an opposition to his motion.. Greatly, therefore, as at all times I should require the indulgence of the House, there can never be a period at which. I shall stand in greater need of that indulgence than on the present occasion. I wish, however, in the first instance, shortly to set myself right with the House as to the scope and extent of my object. The only point of contest, between the noble lord and myself is one of mere parliamentary proceeding. On all those great questions, so interesting to the House, to the country, and to Europe, and on which a feeling so unanimous has existed among us, it is far from my wish to dwell. A few incidental remarks may escape me with respect to them; but they are not the topics to which, in the present instance, I wish particularly to call the attention of the House; and I shall merely, advert to them as they bear upon that which is the immediate question before us. That question, Sir, is the duration of our intended adjournment. The noble lord has proposed an adjournment longer than, that which it is the practice of parliament to adopt at this period of the session. Having thus recommended a deviation from the ancient usages of the House, I certainly did conceive that it was incumbent on the noble lord to prove to us the propriety of that deviation. I did expect that the noble lord would state explicitly the reasons which induced him to propose a departure from the practice to which parliament has hitherto conformed in this respect. The noble lord has however, contented himself with a general declaration, that the course of the public business had been such as to justify the proceeding. Now, Sir, admitting that the present favourable aspect of public business is a good reason for adjourning, I deny that it has any influence on the question of the

303
duration of our adjournment. For can the noble lord, or can any other man foresee that ere the period arrive to which the noble lord proposes we should adjourn, some occurrence of high public moment may not take place—such as may demand the exercise of the deliberative wisdom of parliament? The noble lord has therefore mis-stated the tendency of his own arguments. They are very good as they go to recommend an adjournment—they are fallacious as they relate to an adjournment of a prolonged nature. As the noble lord, therefore, has not chosen to give me the benefit of stating distinctly the grounds on which he proposes the unusual prolongation of our adjournment, I must endeavour, in the best way I am able, to discuss the subject without that benefit. The noble lord states, indeed, that it is in the power of the crown to re-assemble parliament in 14 days; and, consequently, that by no adjournment of parliament could the executive government be inconvenienced or embarrassed. But, Sir, I have studied the British constitution to little purpose,—I very incorrectly understand the character of the two Houses of Parliament of this country, if they are merely to be considered as a board of legislation, assembled for the purpose of enacting laws and imposing taxes; and not as the constitutional counsellors of the crown, invested with the right of examining into the exercise of all the privileges and prerogatives which the constitution places in the hands of majesty, and of interposing their advice to the crown in all cases in which such interposition may seem wise and necessary. The argument of the noble lord is, simply, that because there is no public business before us, and because the crown may reassemble us at a short notice, no reasonable objection can be urged against the adjournment which he proposes. I contend, however, that as the constitutional counsellors of the crown—not as incumbrances, but as aids to the exercise of the royal powers (and at the present eventful moment aids of more than ordinary value), we are called upon not to place ourselves in a situation which will prevent us from offering our advice and assistance to the crown, in the prosecution of the arduous affairs of the state. But, according to the noble lord, we ought to abandon our functions—we ought to relinquish our influence on the affairs of the state at the moment when the affairs of the state become most mighty importance. Sir,
304
it is impossible for me to attempt to anticipate the circumstances which may call for the interposition of the advice of parliament to the crown at a period earlier than that to which the noble lord would have us adjourn. We are now in a great and awful crisis of the affairs of Europe. The most extraordinary, the most stupendous events may be every day expected. Sir, before the 1st of March Europe may be re-constituted—new principles may prevail—a new system may be established. During the whole course of the events which may occur in this interval—events so much under the direction of a confederacy of which England is a leading member—are we to deprive the crown of the counsel, and (if I may use the expression) relieve it from the control, of the two Houses of Parliament? The noble lord cannot presume to say that the interference of parliament, in the way which I have described—that its interference in the conduct of any negociations in which the country may be engaged, would be improper or inexpedient—he cannot presume to say this without arraigning the constitution itself; and yet the noble lord's proposition amounts to a declaration, that parliament is useful for the purposes of enacting laws and imposing taxes, but that for the much higher office of observing the progress of a confederacy, of which this country forms so important a part, and of advising the crown on the great questions of peace and war, its existence is inconvenient and embarrassing. The noble lord did not even state that we were engaged in negociations. In a very proper manner he declined touching on that point in the answers which he this evening gave to the questions put to him by my hon. and learned friend. We are, therefore, called upon to abandon our functions, because there may be some danger of our embarrassing the executive government; although nothing is explicitly stated on the subject.—So far, however, as I am able, Sir, to ascertain the general complexion of affairs in Europe, it seems to me that the state of those affairs is precisely the reason why our adjournment should be short;—not that we may have it in our power to continue jealously to watch the crown; but that we may retain the opportunity of exercising our vigilance with respect to those important events with which every moment is pregnant, and of offering our advice to the executive power in cases in which we may

305
deem such a step necessary. We are not at liberty, consistently with our duty, to abandon the crown or its ministers at such a moment. But the noble lord seems to think this difficulty removed, because it is in the power of the crown to re-assemble us in a short period; as if it were not our duty to offer to the crown such advice as we may think beneficial to the country, instead of leaving it to the crown to call upon us for our advice at its own discretion! The proposition would have, been more plausible, had the noble lord been able to shew that the slightest disposition had been manifested throughout the session, on the part of the House, or of any member of it, to impede the operations of government. But what are the facts? Never has there been a session since the existence of parliament, in which the government have received a more unanimous and a more zealous support than during the present session. Never has there been a session, during the last half century; in which such complete confidence has been placed in government by both Houses of Parliament; speaking, as I admit nay, as I contend, they did, the sense of every man in the country. After this unlimited confidence—after the votes of subsidies—after the increase of our force by the interference with the militia system (and I would have voted for that increase had it been much greater)—after these and other unequivocal marks of confidence and support by the House at large, and on the part of those who in ordinary times are in the habit of differing from the individuals who are now in his Majesty's councils, I do think that the noble lord's proposition comes with a peculiarly bad grace, though I should nevertheless have objected to it on general grounds alone. For my own part, Sir, I take as warm an interest in the support of government on this occasion as any man. I repose with as much confidence in the zeal of those powers who are in alliance with Great Britain. I never doubted but that as soon as a legitimate struggle should be made by the continental states to regain their independence, are the cause would be the cause of England, and that it would be the duty of England to assist them to the extent of her means. I always thought that the assertion of these principles was the peculiar duty of that description of men, who had ever defended the cause of national independence and public liberty; of those who first introduced the wise
306
principle of a balance of power in Europe, and who, for fifty years maintained it against all the arguments derived from our insular situation, and from the consequently maritime character of our power. More particularly was I impressed with this sentiment, when I saw the cause of national independence, and the equilibrium of power, espoused throughout Europe, with a truly popular and national spirit. Under such circumstances, I felt peculiarly disposed, in common with many others, not only to support his Majesty's government in the adoption of any measures which they might think the situation of affairs required, but scrupulously to abstain from all discussion and enquiry that might embarrass them, at a moment when freedom of action appeared so desirable to the public cause [Sir James seemed here to be much affected by indisposition. After a short pause, he resumed.] Sir, I feel that I am very unfit at present to do justice to the ideas which I came prepared to offer to the consideration of the House. I appeal, as an additional instance of the utility of keeping parliament assembled at such a moment as the present; to the very circumstances of the questions that I put to the noble lord the other day, and the answers that I received I am not disposed to deny that the answers with which the noble lord favoured me on that occasion, have relieved me from some of the most difficult and invidious parts of my present task. The facility of thus giving an explanation of the course of public affairs, is an advantage also to government, which the noble lord on that occasion owed to the circumstance of our being yet assembled. If the suspicions and apprehensions which induced me to put to the noble lord the questions to which I allude had been confined to my own breast, it would have been presumptuous in me to have obtruded myself on the attention of the House; but they were not my feelings alone—they were the feelings of many persons of great consideration—they were the feelings of persons who are animated with a true zeal for the interests and for the honour of the House of Orange. For what was the first appearance of the transactions to which those questions referred?—We had read an account of an insurrection having taken place at Amsterdam on the 15th of November. On the 16th, a body of respectable individuals, serving themselves the provisional Government, declared their regulation to invite his

307
royal highness the Prince of Orange over to Holland. In consequence of this invitation, the Prince of Orange left this country; and it was natural to suppose, that before his departure he would have concerted with his Majesty's ministers the measures which it might be expedient to adopt on his arrival. In Holland he, however, arrived; and on the very next day he issued a proclamation, announcing, that, against his better judgment, he was induced by the wishes of the people to assume the higher title of "Sovereign Prince of the Netherlands." Sir, it is very natural that Englishmen should contemplate these occurrences with no small degree of interest. It is very natural that Englishmen should regret that the independence of an old and faithful ally—an independence guaranteed by this country by treaty in 1788—should be regarded with so much levity; and that the ancient Dutch Republic should be subverted in a tumultuary manner by a few gentlemen (the inhabitants of two towns only) and in the presence of a foreign force. Had not the Dutch a right to expect that we should be alarmed by these events? What should we think of our friends in other countries who should hear of similar occurrences in this island with indifference? More especially were they calculated to inspire us with regret and suspicion, when it was so natural to believe that the projected changes must have been known to the British government, even if they had not been concerted with them. From this apprehension the noble lord completely relieved those by whom it was entertained. The noble lord declared in the face of the House and of Europe (and it is a declaration to which I am bound to yield implicit credit), that his Majesty's government knew nothing of the Prince of Orange's plans, nor of the intention to subvert the old republican form of government in Holland. After this declaration on the part of the noble lord, the case is undoubtedly relieved from one of its greatest difficulties. We are no longer alarmed with the supposition that the revolution in Holland was the suggestion of the government of this country. Whatever, therefore, may be my sentiments with respect to the changes which have taken place, I am absolutely precluded from calling for an opinion from parliament on the subject. The declaration of the noble lord was, that they were effected by a spontaneous movement on the part of the people. The case is certainly
308
new; it is complex in its nature; and merely as a matter passing in a neighbouring state, one may exercise one's individual judgment, and pass one's individual opinion upon it, but no further. I will not; therefore, press the consideration of this subject.—I will not say any thing of what may, perhaps, be justly considered the obligation of the treaty by which we formerly guaranteed to the Dutch the possession of their liberties. As a question of public law, it might be discussed, whether, when a country is relieved from the yoke of a conqueror, treaties made with that country prior to its subjugation do not revive. I think they do. But I do not hold that they are binding against the community. Against a seditious party—against a foreign party—our treaty, guaranteeing to the Dutch their republican form of government, would, in my opinion, undoubtedly resume its operation; but not against that body which is fairly entitled to be called the community. Sir, I give his Majesty's ministers full credit for having scrupulously abstained from any interference with the internal affairs of Holland. I give them full credit for the delicacy which they have exhibited towards the national independence of that country. The principle on which they have acted has been plainly this—that they did not think themselves at liberty to express any opinion on the measures, or to take any part in the proceedings of the people of Holland, on Dutch territory, and affecting only Holland itself. Sir, I respect this principle. I hail its acknowledgment by the British government. Recollecting, as I do, the evils which followed its rejection 20 years ago, I am overjoyed to see it now adopted and asserted. It is impossible for me to question the soundness—the sacredness of the principle on which the British government has declared that it will not interfere with the internal affairs of Holland. It may, nevertheless, be permitted me to express my extreme regret at the course which has been pursued in that country. I do lament that a constitution, under which Holland was once so free and so flourishing, has been rejected amidst the acclamations of the people, and in the presence of a foreign force. Sir, I hope I shall not be called a republican, because I feel concern at these events. I hope I shall not be considered less attached to the ancient and venerable constitution of England, because I lament that the ancient and venerable constitution

309
of Holland has been overthrown. I cannot conceive that that form of government which had shewn itself capable of resisting Philip the 2d—of repelling Louis the 14th—of driving Louis the 15th from the gates of Amsterdam, can be so radically bad, as to be insusceptible of correction. I am not for subverting any government. I wish every government to be amended, and consequently none to be destroyed. Sir, I have high authority for my opinion, that the new authority and titles of the Prince of Orange will not be permanently beneficial to his Royal Highness's House.—We are told by sir William Temple, that in the year 1675, soon after the invasion of Holland by Louis the 14th, it was proposed to the Great William by the people of Guelderland, that he should assume the title of sovereign duke of Guelderland. William was strongly advised to acquiesce in this proposition by all the young and the giddy of his court, and by one individual who was neither young nor giddy—one of the greatest statesmen that ever lived—the confidant and disciple of De Witt—the Pensionary Fagel, whose family, during every reverse of fortune, have continued to adhere to the House of Orange with the most steady and exemplary fidelity—but notwithstanding this advice, the Great William refused to accept the proffered dignity. Some people had at that period ascribed his refusal to fear—others attributed it to affectation. But sir W. Temple, who knew that great prince, declared that it arose from a nobler motive; and that William was inspired with an ambition to become great by serving, and not by the servitude of, his country; and that he did not consider it so honourable to be the sovereign prince of a mean and enslaved state, as the stadtholder of a great and free one. It is also mentioned by sir William Temple, that, in the conversation, which the lords, deputed by this country to induce William to ascend the English throne, had with that prince, being apprehensive that he would dislike the popular constitution of England, and imagine that it subjected the country to internal distractions, and rendered it less disposed and able to cope with a foreign foe, they represented to him that such was not the case; but sir William Temple states that their fears were groundless; for that the prince expressed his conviction, that in a free country tranquillity was better insured than under a despotism; and that no efforts
310
were calculated to be so effectual against an external enemy, as those which were generated by the enthusiastic spirit of liberty and independence. Sir, there is a circumstance which shews very clearly the opinion, on the events in Holland, of an individual of great importance at the present crisis. In the bulletin issued by the Crown Prince of Sweden on the 30th November, it is declared that the restoration of the stadtholder to his dignity will be attended with the worst consequences to France. It is therefore evident, that on the 30th November, in full possession of all that had taken place in Holland, this great and illustrious individual, to the excellence of whose plans, and to the activity of whose exertions, the deliverance of Europe is greatly attributable, and who has served the country of his duty as brilliantly as he formerly served the country of his birth—did not think that by the act of two or three towns, the whole population of Holland were committed to a radical change in their form of government. It is true, his royal, highness the Prince of Orange has declared, that he will not accept the dignity pressed upon him, but "under the guarantee of a wise constitution, which shall secure the freedom of his people against all possible future abuses." Sir, I applaud this declaration. It is worthy of a descendant of William the 1st and William the 3d, to the countrymen of De Witt and Fagel. Nor, perhaps, is it unbecoming even a private member of this House to rise here, and to claim for the people of Holland the benefit of a due observance of this declaration. Sir, under the circumstances of the support which this country has afforded to Holland, to enable the inhabitants to expel their enemies—if the liberties of the Dutch should not be secured, the councils of England will be irretrievably disgraced; we shall be accused of deserting the cause of national independence, and, under the mask of friendship, of riveting the chains of a brave people. But I will not cherish any suspicions of that nature. The Houses of Nassau and Brunswick are distinguished by every circumstance which can give dignity to great and illustrious families; and, above all, by their having been selected by Providence as the guardians of the civil and religious liberties of their respective countries.
The present representatives of those Houses cannot, betray their trust without forfeiting the honours which they have

311
inherited from their ancestors. But at least it may be said, that if the recent events in Holland had passed without observation in this country, if no protest had been entered, against the principle of lightly abolishing the popular government of a country, and that country an old and a faithful ally; we might have been justly accused of an indifference to liberty and friendship. God forbid, Sir, that a single word which has dropped from my lips this evening should have the effect of damping the zeal of the natives of Holland against their foreign oppressors, or of diminishing the sympathy with which their brave and noble efforts are regarded in this country. I have no difficulty in declaring, that no circumstances in the internal situation of a country can justify an indifference on the part of its inhabitants to the defence of that country against a foreign enemy. The worst measures of domestic government can never be a sufficient excuse for such an indifference. The man who maintains a contrary doctrine is a detestable citizen. It was with great pleasure that, at the opening of the present session, I heard from a young and eloquent friend of mine, whom I sincerely congratulate on the honourable appointment which he has lately obtained (Mr. Charles Grant), the doctrine that in all countries there was an instinctive patriotism which impelled the inhabitants to defend the home of their fathers against all foreign attack. Sir, this is a beautiful ordination of Providence. It is one of the great sweeteners of the evils of natural society. If there be a philosophy which would extinguish or impair this feeling, I abandon it to the contempt which it deserves. But in addition to this instinctive patriotism, there is also a moral patriotism—a love for a country because it is a country which deserves love; an attachment to a government because it is a government which deserves attachment—this is a description of patriotism which can be preserved only with the preservation of liberty. And if there be any levelling philosophy which would destroy this higher, kind of patriotism, it merits as deep a detestation as the other; and most unnatural would it be to maintain its doctrines in an English House of Commons—Thus, Sir, have I stated the scruples and difficulties (part of them certainly relieved by the recent replies of the noble lord to my inquiries, which I entertain with respect to the late changes in Holland. I have expressed my opinion on the
312
nature of those changes. I could have wished that they had been effected by the legal representatives of the people, or, if that was impracticable, by the actual representatives of the people—or if not so, at least by the clear; concurrence of the whole people, acting under their natural leaders, whose authority it is much more important to maintain during a revolution, than at any other period in the history of a country. I should have been glad also, if the whole affair had been conducted; more gravely, and with more evident proofs that it met with the entire approbation of the people. As it is, I trust his royal highness the Prince of Orange will adhere to the terms of his noble declaration, and secure to his subjects the liberties they so well deserve. I rejoice that his Royal Highness has not spoken lightly of that which, under the name of civil liberty, it has been the fashion to oppose, political liberty. I rejoice that he holds out a constitution to the Dutch. I trust that it will be a constitution composed of sufficient vigour on the part of the executive government, connected with some representation of the sovereignty of the people; that it will secure equal laws, and the pure and impartial administration of justice. On this last subject, it is, indeed, very satisfactory to know that the purity of the administration of justice of Holland has survived all the storms which the various revolutions of that country have occupied; and that the impartiality of the judges, and the integrity of the lawyers of Holland, continue to be most honourably distinguished. Sir, there is another subject on which I wish to say a few words. I cannot ask the noble lord any question upon it, because it relates to that which may be an operation of the war. I am, therefore, obliged to argue upon it as a rumour—as a case stated, Sir, that it is the intention of the allied powers to treat the Helvetic body hostilely—not to consider that body as entitled to the right of neutrality, but to force their way through Switzerland to France. Now, Sir, I cannot ask the noble lord if this is actually the fact; because, if he were to answer in the affirmative, it would be to divulge to the world that France is to be attacked on that side. But on this question of a long adjournment, I am at liberty to discuss this as a possible case. I therefore submit, with great deference, my opinion, that if I am rightly informed with respect to this in-

313
tention of the allies, such an act would be a violation of one of the free principles of public law. The Helvetic body is bound to France, only by a convention to furnish France with a certain number of men. By this convention, concluded in 1804, Switzerland engaged to furnish 16,000 troops to France.—She has furnished troops to France, and to other countries, for three centuries. If my intelligence be not incorrect, there is no other existing treaty between France and Switzerland than that which I have just mentioned. Sir, that cannot be called an infringement of neutrality. In 1809, during the war between France and Austria, the Swiss government (furnishing thirteen thousand troops to France) was anxious to take the precaution of inducing Austria distinctly to recognise the neutrality of Switzerland, which Austria accordingly did; and abstained from any complaint of the conduct of Switzerland, receiving the ministers of that country at her court. I have never understood that a mere supply of limited succour to one country, under a convention concluded before the breaking out of a war between that country and another, gives to the last the right of making war on the power by which the succour is so afforded. It is not so stated by the best writers on the law of nations. Indeed, Sir, we have recent and remarkable instances that such has not been the usage of nations. We have the instance of the succour granted by Holland to the empress queen, in the war of the Austrian succession;—we have also the instance of the succour granted by Holland to this country in the rebellion of 1745. In neither of these cases was the neutrality of Holland deemed to be violated. With regard to Switzerland itself, there have been several instances in which that country exercised an option with respect to its assistance; refusing troops to some states, and granting them to others; and yet I do not understand that her neutrality was ever considered to be violated in consequence. In the debate which took place in this House in 1805, on rupture with Spain (in which the greatest talents were displayed; in which, on the side of the House was a right hon. gentleman no longer a member of that House; and on the other, my late and revered friend Dr. Lawrence, than whom a man of more profound knowledge of public law never existed); the principle to which I have adverted was successfully maintained in the
314
discussion of the treaty of Ildefonso. I am aware, Sir, it may be asserted, that the occupation of Switzerland by the allies will be highly advantageous to their cause, and will facilitate the attainment of their object. This may be very true; but if it be allowed to supersede the right of Switzerland to maintain her neutrality, there is an end of all public security. If Switzerland is not to be considered neutral, because she covers a large frontier of France, which it would be convenient to approach, farewell to the rights of nations. In my opinion, looking at the conduct of Switzerland for the last 14 years, such an act as the occupation of that country by the allied powers would be a most odious act of warfare. Switzerland has made constant efforts to maintain her neutrality; "to preserve herself for better times." The national character and spirit of the Swiss entitle them to forbearance. One of the deputies sent from Switzerland to the head-quarters of the allied armies is the celebrated Aloys Reding, the patriot who so heroically resisted the French in 1792. I trust, when he presents himself to the allied sovereigns, that they will recollect this circumstance; that they will recollect that when the whole continent was prostrate at the feet of France, Aloys Reding, at the head of a small but gallant band, braved the conqueror of the world—that he fought and bled on the field of Morgarten—that he set the first example of that glorious resistance to foreign oppression which so many nations have since happily followed—and that it is this hero who now implores them to spare the remains of his gallant countrymen. Sir, I trust that the observations which I have made on this subject will prove totally useless. The expression appears to create some surprise, but it is just; for what can better prove the propriety of having made the observation which I have offered to the consideration of the House, than that they should prove to be the rule on which the great powers of the continent will determine to act? If they forego their attack on Switzerland, it will be because they will be convinced of the truth and justice of the arguments by which that attack has been opposed; I hope that I shall not be misunderstood to wish to dissuade the Swiss from taking part in the confederation against France. It is impossible for me, Sir, to put myself into the situation of being able to judge for Switzerland this respect. I cannot sufficiently divest

315
myself of my feelings as an Englishman to be fully aware of the feelings which the inhabitants of a neutral nation may have on the subject. But if I really had to decide for Switzerland, nothing would so strongly indispose me to espouse the cause of the allies, as their claiming and threatening to enforce a right to pass through Switzerland in the pursuit of their ultimate object. What would be the language used by the allies to the Swiss on such an occasion? "We call upon you to join us in maintaining the independence of Europe; and the first step that we require you to take is, to sacrifice the independence of Switzerland." Sir, it gave me great pleasure to hear the noble lord state, in reply to my hon. and learned friend, that of which, indeed, I did not entertain much doubt, that the Proclamation attributed to the allied powers is an authentic document. After what I have said, it must be totally unnecessary for me to trouble the House with my opinion upon it. It is, indeed, one of the most wise, magnanimous, and enlightened state papers that was ever issued. From the bottom of my heart I adopt every sentiment and every syllable which it contains; and if, after the promulgation of such a document, it shall be still found necessary to carry on the war, I am sure that no true Englishman will refuse his most zealous and hearty support in its prosecution. On the principles of that manifesto, as they appeared to my mind on the first day that I read it, Great Britain ought to make common cause with the powers from whom it proceeded. From that cause there ought to be no retreat. The confederates in such a cause ought never to forget the obligations they owe each other; they should pursue no separate interest; their sole object ought to be the independence of Europe. The mention of the word 'peace' on any other terms should be considered detestable. On us it would be incumbent to make every effort in war and every sacrifice in negociation. Whenever that latter period may arrive, we ought to bring forward our acquisitions during the war in the cause of Europe, and consider them only as those of one member of the confederacy, to be used for the good of all, although it had so happened that they had been obtained by ourselves. Thus ought we to conduct ourselves towards all the nations to whom we have pledged our faith, and more especially to those who have bravely taken
316
up arms in the cause. First, Spain and Portugal—then Holland—and lastly, every part of Germany which has joined the common cause. To these countries we are so bound, that we cannot, without the deepest disgrace, listen to any proposition that would shake their independence—not their nominal but their secure and substantial independence. For the attainment of this object, we must willingly relinquish all the fortresses or other acquisitions of territory, and otherwise, which we may have made. There is another consideration, Sir, which we should not forget. It is, so far as we can reasonably do so, to secure the permanent independence of those friendly states, by depriving others of the power of oppressing them. The year preceding that of the partition of Poland was the year in which the balance of power existed in the greatest perfection. Had it not been for the criminal and disgraceful desertion of that system by the French and British governments, a great part of the calamities which have so long agitated Europe would have been avoided. There was only one person at that period among our leading statesmen who evinced a just sense of what Great Britain owed to the preservation of that principle. That person was the first marquis of Lansdowne, who was compelled to resign his situation as secretary of state, in consequence of an expostulation to the French government on the conquest of Corsica. After the peace of Amiens, the balance of power was in its lowest state of depression. What security the allied powers may now seek in order to restore and maintain it, I know not. It is for his Majesty's ministers, and for those of the allied sovereigns, to view all the circumstances of Europe, with a reference to that most desirable object. It will be for us, Sir, when the course which has been pursued shall be brought before us, to give our opinion upon it. That cannot now be done; totally uninformed, as we necessarily are in this House, with respect to the degree of security which we should pursue as the object of war and as the preliminary to peace. Thus, Sir, have I imperfectly submitted to the House, under the pressure of severe indisposition, such ideas as I have been enabled hastily to collect on this important subject. I sensibly feel the disadvantages under which I have laboured in the course of my address to you—disadvantages which I might perhaps have

317
avoided, if I had listened to prudence. I hope, however, that the House will do me the justice to believe, that in feeling what appears to me to be due to the civil liberty of Holland, I entertain no lukewarmness towards its national independence—that, in wishing the confederated powers to exhibit strict justice to a neutral nation, I am nevertheless most anxious for their success on those honourable principles contained in their admirable Manifesto. Sir, I move as an amendment to the noble lord's motion, to substitute for the words "Tuesday, 1st of March," the words "Monday, 24th January."
Colonel St. Paul, in a maiden speech, observed, that when he had understood that the adjournment was to have been opposed, he had expected to have met with some solid objections to that measure; but instead of this he had heard a most feeble opposition, in which it was singular that there was not a word applicable to the question of adjournment. He had much respect for the talents of the hon. member who had opposed the motion before the House; and he had hoped to have received the benefit of them on the questions respecting the East India Company, with which that hon. and learned member must have been conversant; but, instead of this, they had a display of his eloquence on the subject of an adjournment, in which the whole House concurred. The question was one of confidence in the ministry; and from what he had heard that night there were grounds of confidence, and not of distrust, in the advisers of the crown; nor was the hon. member entitled to arrogate to himself more solicitude for the general welfare than any one of those members who concurred in the adjournment. He was happy, however, at the opportunity which this opposition afforded him to express his confidence in his Majesty's ministers. For though the hon. and learned gentleman had placed his opposition on the more delicate footing of the critical juncture of affairs; yet the main point of the question was, whether the House had enough confidence in the ministers to trust them for two months? A more finical opposition to any measure he had never heard in that House; but he trusted they had enough confidence in the ministers, and in the Regent, whose provident and comprehensive mind—[Here calls of order, and laughter, prevented the hon. gentleman from concluding his sentence]—To the heads of the adminis-
318
tration the gratitude of the House was due. To a noble lord in that House (lord Castlereagh) they owed the great measures of which the late occurrences were the glorious results. To the measure of allowing the militia to volunteer into the line, we owed those soldiers who were planting the British standard in the soil of France, and that success in Spain and Portugal which was the main spring of this patriotic war. This measure, so important as to our foreign relations, was equally congenial to the feelings of this country. As to the reason which had been adduced for the continuation of the sittings of parliament, from the changes which were likely to take place in the state of Europe, he would ask, whether, even if the parliament continued sitting during a negociation, the noble lord at the head of the foreign department would think it consistent with his duty to disclose to the House the nature or terms of the treaty, while such a disclosure might unhinge and overthrow the treaty itself? Such conduct would be both weak and wicked. The hon. member concluded by saying, that he should not have trespassed thus long on the House, but that he had been sorry to see the unanimity which had prevailed in the House during the whole of the session disturbed; and because he wished to bear witness to the gratification he had received, as well from this unanimity, as from the manly avowal of opinion on the part of the member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), and the member for Liverpool (Mr. Canning).
Mr. Whitbread, I heard with pleasure from the hon. member who has just spoken, who, from his manner of expressing his feelings, must have felt very strongly when silent [a laugh], his satisfaction at my conduct; but when I afterwards heard also his approbation of the conduct of the member for Liverpool, I felt rather surprised that the hon. gentleman was able to chime in with both of us, as there are no two men whose views of political subjects can be more discordant. As to the speech of my hon. and learned friend (sir J. Mackintosh) who has opposed the adjournment, on the accession of whose talents I congratulate the House and the country and than whom, on questions of public law, there is no one more competent to instruct the House; I wonder at the application made of it to any party; and still more at the epithet finical, which the hon. gentleman who spoke last was pleased to bestow

319
on it. Though I agree with my hon. and learned friend in all his general principles, and concur completely in his wish to oppose all long adjournments, I should contradict the opinions which I have declared respecting his Majesty's ministers, if I concurred in opposing this motion of adjournment. If any thing had occurred to diminish my confidence in them, I might be justified in my opposition to the present motion; but instead of any thing having occurred to diminish it, the adoption this night by the noble lord (Castlereagh) of the splendid Declaration, dated at Frankfort, December the 1st, increased that confidence. During this session I have not only withheld my opposition, but even given my support to measures in which, under ordinary circumstances, I could not have concurred—especially on the occasion of the Mutiny Bill; when, an assurance being given to the House by the noble lord opposite (lord Castlereagh), that an adjournment for a period longer than usual would be convenient to public affairs, from a knowledge of this circumstance I concurred in giving to the crown a power for a longer period than it has ever before possessed, and under circumstances which I hope will never again exist. Without remitting any of my jealousy of long discontinuances of parliament, I am willing to confide in those who, I trust, will merit my confidence; and I feel that when I again appear in this House, I shall be entitled to call his Majesty's ministers in a more strict manner to answer for the exercise of the discretion confided in them, than if I withheld in any degree my concurrence in granting it. I concur with my hon. and learned friend in regretting the change of the constitution of Holland—in regretting that by the person now called the Sovereign Prince, at the moment of his restoration, this constitution should be thus completely abrogated; and I hope that ere long his promise will be performed, and that we may see that free constitution established. But on the principles laid down by my hon. and learned friend (sir J. Mackintosh), and believing the declaration of the noble lord (lord Castlereagh), it is impossible that any notice can be taken of this subject in parliament. And as to Switzerland, in the possibility of Great Britain taking part in an aggression on that country, I see no probability that this contingent event, which I trust will never happen, will call for parliamentary interposition before the 1st of March.—It
320
is because I see that the march of the allies is guided by moderate counsels, counsels in direct opposition to those pursued at the beginning of the war, that I repose this confidence in ministers; and I am gratified that the paper which I have mentioned has been circulated before the recess of parliament, so as to have given opportunity to his Majesty's ministers of publicly recognizing it; because the existence of such a declaration must put an end to the absurd follies which have been revived by some, of punishing France—of teaching the French people. These wild, wicked, and mischievous chimeras must now be put down; for the allies have done what I anticipated a magnificent alliance would do:—notwithstanding their victories, they have adhered to their stated object, and have not altered the principles, or, to use their own words, the conditions, on which they will receive peace. Taking this manifesto as my guide, I hope that peace is already achieved; but if peace is not yet conquered, there is not a man in this House, or in the country, who will not concur in the further conquests which may be necessary to procure it. Throwing on his Majesty's ministers the responsibility of the confidence which they demand, and in the spirit of confidence, I concur heartily in the motion of adjournment.
Mr. Abercrombiesaid, that the declaration of his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) had much relieved his mind; for he held it to be of the utmost importance on great occasions, to maintain as an inviolable rule, that we should not interfere in the internal affairs of other states. The change of the constitution in Holland was to be regretted, he thought, on account of the other states on the continent, and might be injurious to the alliance; because the concurrence of many states in the attempts to effect the deliverance of Europe must have been in the hopes of ameliorating their internal condition. As to the reasons which were to induce them to concur in a measure perhaps not sanctioned by the principles, certainly not by the practice, of the constitution, it had been stated, that there were grounds for confidence in ministers. He (Mr. A.) should belie his whole conduct if he had said that they possessed his confidence. The sentiments in the King's, speech did honour to the advisers of the crown, and their acts since had concurred to prove them sincere; the Declaration of the Allies, also, he confessed deserved all

321
the epithets which had been bestowed on it. But these were good only as far as they went; and as he could form no estimate of the future conduct of ministers but from the past, he could not be sure, judging from their general conduct, that they would follow up their professions. If this long and unprecedented adjournment had been thought necessary by ministers, he thought it might have been introduced by a message from the throne; by which means there would have remained on their Journals some reasons for this extraordinary step, and it would have been shewn that confidence in the ministry was the cause of the adjournment; but as the case now stood, if at any future time unanimity prevailed in the House, the same reasons which now sufficed would have weight in favour of a still longer adjournment.—Unless some strong case were made out, why should the parliament be held in a time at which it was most inconvenient for members to attend, consequently when there would be the thinnest attendance? What would be the effect of this measure on the House of Lords? As many of the important Bills must originate in the House of Commons, they would reach the other House at a time when their lordships could not attend, without neglecting more urgent business in other places; and thus the most important measures would necessarily pass that House without consideration. As to the recent and valuable accession to the House (the Irish members), adjournments for such a period would annihilate them completely; for they might as well give up all hopes of re-election as neglect to attend at the assizes in their counties, which took place in May, and which it was well known were unlike the assizes of this country; many measures of the utmost local consequence being there submitted to them. Now, what was the ground of this adjournment which would produce these evils?—Did the ministers suppose the House of Commons would shackle them? Had they no experience of the present parliament?—Yet this was the parliament which had sanctioned a measure (the Mutiny Bill for an extended term} which even the noble lord opposite (lord Castlereagh) was glad to see an objection made to, that it might not pass into a precedent. Why was it, that, without any possible good result, an innovation was resorted to, which would produce the utmost mischief?—We, who expected the establishment of social liberty
322
in the rest of Europe, were to hear such language held to the members, of one of the few free deliberative assemblies of the world—that they were good merely in idea—that they were deserving of no confidence—and that when there was any thing of importance to take place, they were wished away.
Mr. Prothcroeagreed in general with the hon. gentleman who had preceded him (Mr. Abercrombie), and deprecated the inversion of the seasons among the fashionable world, which the parliament was about to countenance, by allotting to a residence in town that part of the year which nature designed for a residence in the country. He gave credit to Mr. Whitbread for the conduct which, as the hon. gentleman expressed it, combined all that was honourable in loyalty with all that was consistent in patriotism. Never (he remarked) had there been a session when so much had been done and so little said. The House had hitherto invigorated the powers of government by an almost unparalleled unanimity; and he hoped that there would be now no disposition to impede their proceedings. They might address the House in the eloquent language which Mr. Burke had used to his constituents: "If we droop, encourage us; if we fall, console us; if we succeed, applaud us; let us pass on, for God's sake, let us pass on."
Mr. P. Grenfellsaid, he was more convinced than when he had entered the House of the propriety of the lengthened adjournment. As to confidence to be reposed in his Majesty's ministers, he thought that if there was a time when it became the ministers to ask, or the House to repose this confidence, it was the present. The late glorious events showed the title of ministers to this confidence; and as far as his individual voice went, they had it.
Sir Samuel Romillysaid, that the adjournment of parliament to so distant a period was not proposed on the ground of confidence in ministers. Indeed, if it had been, still it would not have met his concurrence; for the House had no right to repose such a confidence in ministers as would lead to a virtual abdication of its functions. He should not attempt to follow his hon. friend (sir J. Mackintosh) through the various points of his admirable speech; for which, in common with the House, he felt himself highly indebted to him, and which he was astonished to

323
hear treated in the way in which it had been by an hon. member who had spoken for the first time in that House to-night. If the sound, constitutional, comprehensive principles laid down in that speech had received no answer, it was because they did not admit of being controverted. Much had been said, and with truth, of the unanimity which had prevailed this session. He, for one, was glad of that unanimity, and of the great and glorious events which had been the occasion of it. But it was to be remembered, that all those questions which were like to lead to a difference of opinions, had been purposely postponed till after the recess. Even when parliament sat the usual time, the stress of business was so great towards the end of a session, that sometimes forty or fifty orders were disposed of in an evening. It had often happened that the fatigue of members, occasioned by a close attendance before Christmas, had been the ground of a longer adjournment than usual. But this could not well be urged as the ground of the present motion In fact, no ground had been stated. After urging, in various points of view, the inexpediency of suspending the functions of parliament for so long an interval, sir Samuel Romilly sat down with declaring that he should be ready to divide with his hon. friend, who moved the amendment.
The amendment was then put and negatived; after which the original question was put and carried without a division.
The House then adjourned to Tuesday the 1st day of March, 1814.