HC Deb 10 April 1815 vol 30 cc467-72
Mr. Whitbread

, adverting to the papers which had been laid on the table in return to the Address of the House of March the 20th, for information relative to the progress of the Congress at Vienna, observed, that the communications which had been made were most meagre and insufficient. He could not but suppose that it was impossible but that in the course of the proceedings of Congress other transfers and annexations must have taken place, besides that of Genoa. Indeed, the noble lord had himself spoken, the other night, of the transfer of a part of Saxony, and had talked of the transfer of the whole of it, in a letter published in the Morning Chronicle of that day—a letter which, whether with reference to the tone assumed by the noble lord as the punisher of kings, whether with reference to the facility with which he spoke of the destruction of the independence of Saxony, whether with reference to the moderation with which he characterised the conduct of the Emperor of Russia, whether with reference to the utter contempt with which he treated the rights of all nations, or, whether with reference to the quality of the composition, itself, was matchless. As a diplomatic production it absolutely stood without competition. "None but itself could be its parallel." He should be glad to know whether the ingenious paper to which he had alluded was authentic?

Lord Castlereagh

observed, that really the nature of the hon. gentleman's questions, their number, and his mode of proposing them, were without parallel in the history of Parliament. This was not the time for justifying the transactions in which he had been recently engaged, but as for the letter which had been mentioned by the hon. gentleman, although inasmuch as it was garbled and was a translation of a translation, it was necessarily imperfect, yet he had no hesitation in saying that the general reasoning which it contained proceeded from him, and that notwithstanding the hon. gentleman's remarks, he was perfectly prepared to defend the soundness of the principle of that part of it which related to Saxony. With respect to the nature of the returns which had been made to the Address of the House, unquestionably they did not extend to subjects which subsequent negociations must determine. He had before apologized to the House for having been led by the hon. gentleman's breach of the rules which ought to be observed on these occasions, to commit a breach of them himself, by communicating to Parliament information on the point of Genoa, before the arrangements which had been discussed were actually carried into effect. But the hon. gentleman had taken advantage of garbled documents, to throw on the Government of this country, and on all the Sovereigns of Europe, so much unfounded calumny, that he (lord Castlereagh) was actually driven out of the ordinary path of parliamentary proceeding, for the purpose of defending the good faith of all the parties concerned. He trusted, however, that the abuse of the general rule Would not henceforward be considered as the rule itself, and that the hon. gentleman would not suppose that because he had induced him to pervert the course in one instance, that he would do so in another. He had laid before the House the information respecting Genoa, simply to protect the interests of the country from the injury which the hon. gentleman was doing to them by his accusations; but he was not therefore to be tempted to go incidentally and collaterally into other questions not yet in a state of determination.

Mr. Whitbread

defended himself from the charge of perverting the rules of Parliament, in order to throw calumnies on the different Governments of Europe. What he had complained of, in the present instance, was, the inadequacy of the return which had been made to the Address of the House, and in support of that complaint he had stated that it was impossible for him to suppose that no annexations had taken place save that of Genoa, which latter the noble lord had confessed in the papers that (as it seemed against his will) he had laid on the table of the House. As to Saxony, he should be satisfied if he could hope that the noble lord would, at some time, give them information which should let them peep behind the scenes, and see what all the noble plenipotentiaries (the noble lord among the rest) had really been doing. The noble lord had talked against throwing suspicions on the conduct of the Allied Powers. Why, what was the noble lord himself about, when in the letter which had that day been published, and which he had acknowledged to be his, he spoke of "the alarming and dangerous pretensions of Russia"? At the same time, however, the noble lord, it appeared by that letter, thought it perfectly consistent with political morality to give up the whole of Saxony to Prussia. [Lord Castlereagh. "Quite the reverse."] Really it was impossible, writing or speaking, distinctly to understand the noble lord's meaning. If the noble lord were permitted to withhold information from the House on these important subjects, in what situation did they stand? The noble lord was absent from the country on confidence. He had no instructions. He was to be governed by his own discretion. He was omnipotent. "He would not allow the machine to stand still while waiting for an impulse from his own Government." Let the House look at the letter of that day, and see how the noble lord expressed himself. "I attach importance to such and such a principle:" "I conceive the King of Saxony to have placed himself by his acts in a situation to be fairly sacrificed to the tranquillity of Europe:" "I shall not regret making an example of one of the German States:" "I can have no hesitation to the principle of the proposed arrangement:" "I have no objection to confide Saxony to the provisional administration of his Prussian Majesty," &c. &c.; and yet after all this assumption, and after the lapse of many months, the noble lord returns re infecta as far as regarded that House, having no communication to make to it. He waits until a member of parliament, having in vain interrogated him, embodies his questions in a motion, to which motion he accedes, and he then complains of perverting the ordinary course of Parliamentary proceeding. The noble lord, he presumed, would have Parliament do nothing but vote money. He expected a continuance of the confidence of the public after the letter which had that day appeared, which it seemed was a translation of a translation. He should like to know in what language it was originally composed. [Lord Castlereagh—"In English."] In English! He thought the noble lord must himself have been the translator, for really it was very like his style—it might be put by the side of the Genoese communications. The noble lord declared that he would not be diverted from his course, neither would he (Mr. W.) be diverted from his course. As the noble lord would use the privileges of the House for defence, so he (Mr. W.) would use them for offence against those who appeared to him to misconduct themselves in public situations; and this the more especially when a motion was about to be made for the Speaker's leaving the chair, for the purpose of enabling the House, in a committee of supply, to vote twenty millions of Army Extraordinaries, including large sums to Foreign Powers. It was no abuse of the privilege of Parliament, to inquire into public affairs. The noble lord said, "wait till the papers are before the House." Did he mean to give them? It happened fortunately enough that the veil which the noble lord was anxious to keep over certain transactions, was some how or other removed. This was instanced in the publication of the letter of that day. Another celebrated instance was the publication, by the American Government, of the negociations which were at that time pending with Great Britain, to which publication was probably owing the termination of the war with the United States. There would, indeed, be little control over the exercise of the power of congregated monarchs, were it not for the voice of public opinion; and highly, therefore, to be desired were all communications by which the public were informed with respect to the proceedings of governments. The noble lord, and prince Talleyrand, and prince Hardenberg, and the other princes, seemed to treat each other much more fairly than they did the world. There had now been an attack and a counter-attack between him and the noble lord. The noble lord might do as he pleased; for himself he should pursue, undeviatingly, the course which he had hitherto prescribed to himself.

Lord Castlereagh

still maintained, that no public transaction of an important nature ought to be partially discussed on imperfect documents. His return to England afforded no justification whatever for a departure from the ordinary course with respect to communications on public affairs. The Congress which he had recently attended, was not the first that had assembled in Europe. It had happened in former meetings of the same nature, that our negociator had frequently been changed. Under such circumstances would it have been tolerated that, every individual negociator so returning, should be compelled to state to Parliament the progress of transactions not brought to a close? There could be no pretence for such a thing. He was perfectly aware that nothing he could say would have any effect on the hon. gentleman; but he was sure the House of Commons would feel the value of these observations. To the hon. gentleman it was, no doubt, easier to calumniate his Majesty's ministers and the Allies of the country on imperfect documents than on full information; for experience had shown that when he proceeded on the latter, no one had been less fortunate than the hon. gentleman in establishing the charges which he had thought proper to adduce against public men. He was sure, therefore, that he should make no impression on the mind of the hon. gentleman; and he abandoned the hope of preserving the confidence which it was now evident had been given to him by the hon. gentleman, only because he felt that at the moment when it was given, he (lord C.) was unassailable. Having thus given his confidence, the hon. gentleman turned round, and made his previous candour the ground for a more virulent assault. Without meaning any personal disrespect to the hon. gentle- man, or any thing unparliamentary, he would say, that contemplating the mode in which the hon. gentleman had lately thought proper to attack him and the other members of his Majesty's Government, he must be content to sacrifice the confidence which the hon. gentleman had reposed in him, and to be guided solely by his sense of public duty. He was perfectly prepared to defend his own conduct, and that of the other members of the Congress, in a parliamentary and legitimate manner; but not by deviating into that course which the hon. gentleman, with a due regard to his own honour, ought to quit, and not to continue to lower the character of his country by unfounded and dangerous representations, which, circulating in Europe, were most prejudicial to that moral influence in which the power of Great Britain on the Continent so essentially resided.

Mr. Whitbread

would make no farther reply to the noble lord than to say, that in giving up the confidence which the noble lord said that, he (Mr. W.) reposed in him, the noble lord had given up that which he never possessed. Once more reverting to the subject in which the conversation which had just taken place had originated, he observed, that the Address requested "an account of the progress made at the Congress now sitting at Vienna." Of this progress no return had been made.—Why not?

Lord Castlereagh

asked, how it was possible to make any circumstantial return on the subject?

Mr. Whitbread.

—Why, then, did the noble lord second my motion for the Address?

Lord Castlereagh

observed, that by the words of the Address the discretion of the Crown was to be exercised on the information to be communicated. All the information had been given which could diplomatically and constitutionally be afforded.

Mr. Whitbread

begged the noble lord would dissever the two terms, for they had nothing to do with one another.

Here the conversation dropped.