§ Mr. Whitbreadobserved, that the right hon. gentleman had not yet given any notice of the day when he meant to move the consideration of the Treaties of Subsidy and Alliance in a Committee of Supply. He hoped he would give ample notice to allow time for any member to move for those papers relating to the negociations at Chatillon, the knowledge of which was become more necessary now than ever. According to the second article of those treaties it was stipulated, that upon the refusal, by the late emperor of France, to accede to certain proposals, certain acts were to be done by the contracting parties. How could they know what these proposals were, without the communication of the papers referred to? There was another and a most extraordinary treaty also, of which no mention had been made, though he wished to know whether it was in existence, and likely to be laid before the House. He alluded to a treaty, signed on the 11th of April, with the late emperor of France, by all the allies, except England; and in furtherance of the stipulations of which treaty, an English officer was now acting, by superintending the removal of Buonaparté from France to the island of Elba. There might be good reasons for not communicating this treaty to the House; but he wished to know whether such a treaty was in existence, and whether the government intended to refuse it or not.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply 651 to the first question of the hon. member, said, that he should certainly give sufficient notice for considering the treaties in a Committee of Supply. With regard to the other treaty he could only say, that he had no doubt all the engagements into which this country had entered would be duly communicated to parliament.
§ Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he had received no reply to his questions. He would repeat them. Was there such a treaty in existence? Was the English minister required to sign it, and did he refuse to do so? Was not a British officer now acting in furtherance of its stipulations by attending Buonapartè to the coast?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, they were questions which he did not think it proper to answer.
§ In reply to another question put by Mr. Wynn to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respecting the prisoners of war, we understood him to reply, that the arrangement with regard to their debts would take place previously to their embarkation.