§ On the motion, that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next,
§ Mr. Whitbreadobserved, that feeling as he did, from a consideration of all the circumstances, from a consideration of the alleged parties, from a consideration of the supposed conditions, that the paper which had that day been published in a partial manner, in the Times, purporting to be a Treaty between the Allied Powers, signed at Vienna on the 25th March, could be no other than a forgery; he nevertheless could not refrain from asking the noble lord the question. If it should turn out not to be so, this most extraordinary fact would appear—that it was actually signed at the time when the noble lord declared in that House, that the question of peace or war was wholly undecided!
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he certainly felt it his duty to avoid, if possible entering into an argument on subjects which could not with propriety be yet brought before the House. But with respect to the question of the hon. gentleman, if he conceived that it was his duty to offer an advice to the Crown on the subject to which it related, and intended to bring that subject before the House in a regular way, he (lord Castlereagh) should consider that circumstance as a justification for his giving an answer to the question.
§ Mr. Whitbread.— Then the inference from what has fallen just now from the noble lord is, that the Treaty which has appeared in one of the papers of this day is a genuine Treaty?
Lord Castlereagh.—Does the hon. gentleman mean to say, that it is his intention to call the attention of the House to it? If so, I have no hesitation in admitting that a Treaty was signed at Vienna on the 25th of March; and that the newspaper alluded to by the hon. gentleman, with some inaccuracies, contains the substance of that Treaty. The Treaty, however, is not yet ratified by all of the Allied Powers, and therefore not in a state to be submitted to Parliament. But if the hon. gentleman thinks proper to call the attention of Parliament to it in a regular way, I shall cer- 772 tainly consider it my duty to be prepared to meet him in any discussion on the subject.
§ Mr. WhitbreadThe noble lord has said that the Treaty is not yet ratified by all the Allied Powers; but we find now that the substance of it is true. The noble lord has told us that there are inaccuracies; but then he has not told us what the nature of these inaccuracies are; whether they are all inaccuracies of language. I shall pause till I see what these inaccuracies are; because I cannot conceive how any person, if the Treaty which we have seen is accurate in substance, could possibly put his hand to it. I would ask those who expect that we should abstain from all argument on the present occasion, to read that Treaty.
Lord Castlereagh.—I think that I have shown a sufficient disposition to candour in my conduct towards the hon. gentleman this evening, however much he may be indisposed to give me, or those who act with me, credit for candour on any occasion. I have told the hon. gentleman that if he can show that any practical purpose can possibly be answered by it, I shall be prepared to answer his question. But when I have given him this answer, upon what principle does he conceive himself entitled, contrary to all the rules of Parliament, to enter into a premature discussion, or endeavour to throw out calumnies not supported by argument, against any proceedings of which he disapproves?—I certainly consider such a mode of proceeding a gross violation of propriety.
§ Mr. Whitbread.—The noble lord has thought proper to call me to order, in a speech which is itself extremely disorderly. I contend, that I have a perfect right to deliver my sentiments on this subject, on the question of the adjournment of the House. I have a right to express my approbation or disapprobation of the Treaty, on the avowal of it by the noble lord, and to oppose the adjournment of the House, if I think proper. The noble lord has accused me of making use of the language of calumny. It is impossible to speak of the proceedings of the Congress in terms of calumny. I might, if I thought proper, move, that the House should sit to-morrow. But as the noble lord has avowed the Treaty, I am rather disposed to put the question—That the supplies be withheld, which by our former votes we expressed our resolution to confide to the Crown. I wish farther to ask the noble 773 lord, whether the Treaty has not been ratified by England, if it has not been ratified by all the other allied Powers? Because the duke of Wellington, if the Treaty has not been ratified by England, must have acted on his own authority. We ought to know the instructions which have been given to the duke of Wellington—or whether he has acted without any instructions at all. The noble lord has acknowledged, that the Treaty which we have seen is substantially correct, and he has also owned that it contains inaccuracies. What sort of inaccuracies are they? Are they inaccuracies of language? ["Substantial inaccuracies," said lord Castlereagh, across the table.] No; it seems they were inaccuracies of another kind. Will the noble lord give us the Treaty, or tell us whether it has been ratified by Great Britain? Will he put me and the House in a condition of knowing how much we are to except from, or add to, this Treaty, which we have seen in an article from Vienna in one of the papers? I conceive, Sir, that my conduct has not appeared to you as disorderly, from your not interrupting me. I conceive that I have a right to move, that the House should not adjourn even till Monday next, till the House should come to a knowledge of this document.
Lord Castlereagh.—The hon. gentleman may bring forward his motion as early as he thinks it his duty to do so. I have no right to complain of him for this; but what I complain of, is his attempt to enter into that sort of unsupported observation which cannot be said to be a fair examination of the subject, and which can lead to no practical good. The hon. gentleman has asked me, whether the Treaty has been ratified on the part of Great Britain? I have no hesitation in returning for answer to the hon. gentleman, that his royal highness the Prince Regent, with an explanation of one of the articles, did intend to ratify this Treaty with the Allied Powers.
§ Mr. Whitbread.—I wish, Sir, to put this question in a shape that the House may take it into consideration without delay; because, by adopting a different line of conduct, we may find, when we wish to express our disapprobation, that it is too late, when we are already involved in an unfortunate and calamitous war. Does the noble lord intend to involve the country in a war first, and then ask the House to strengthen the hands of Government? Our situation will be very different between one alternative and the other. I am sure 774 the House will not consent to vote any supplies on the principle of this Treaty; but I am not sure, when we are once engaged in war, even under this foolish Treaty, that we shall not be disposed to grant them.
§ Lord Archibald Hamiltonasked, whether any discussion now could be productive of greater harm than what had been done by the appearance of such documents as the public had lately seen? What would be the use of the information promised by the noble lord, when the country was already involved in war? No discussion could be so injurious to the noble lord as the belief entertained by the public, that his conduct was such as it appeared to have been from these documents, which had created a disagreeable impression against him throughout the whole country.
Mr. Ponsonby.—I am not sure, from what fell from the noble lord, whether this subject is soon to be brought forward in such a shape as will afford us an opportunity of discussing it; for if I am silent upon the present occasion, it is from the circumstance of the subject not yet being before us in such a shape that we can take parliamentary notice of it. Is it the intention of the noble lord to bring the Treaty soon before us in a shape that we can take parliamentary notice of it? If such is not his intention, I must proceed to some other course. I do not choose to trust myself at this moment with the expression of the sentiments which arose in my mind when I read this instrument. I certainly did not think it was genuine. But if the noble lord will not bring the business before us in a shape that will enable us to discuss it in a parliamentary-way, we must proceed to its discussion out of the parliamentary way. There is not a man in the House who has read that paper, who will not say that the House of Commons will abandon its duty, if it does not take the earliest opportunity of offering its advice to the Crown on this subject.
Lord Castlereagh.—It is not out of the course of parliamentary usage, to bring forward a motion for the discussion of this Treaty, in the shape in which the right hon. gentleman finds it; and Parliament may, if it thinks proper, give its advice to the Crown, on the supposition of the Crown being on the point of entering into any engagement which it may consider injurious to the interests of the country. What I mean to say is this, that it would be improper in me to bring the document 775 before Parliament in the unratified shape in which it is, and when it is not binding on those Powers who are the parties to it. This would be taking the sense of Parliament on a step which could not come properly before it, in relief of our own responsibility. His Majesty's ministers, however, take a more correct and constitutional line. We have obtained the sanction of Parliament for the adoption of precautionary measures, but no sanction for any other measures: and for these we rest on our own responsibility. But it will be allowed that it is always competent to the ministers of the Crown to advise war if they think proper, subject to their own responsibility. His Majesty's ministers would be acting in a most unconstitutional, and not only in an unconstitutional, but a pusillanimous manner, if they endeavoured to extort from Parliament in an imperfect state of information, a sanction for those measures which they might ultimately adopt. But if any honourable member conceives that advice ought to be given to the Crown, not to act in a manner which he conceives is likely to compromise the country, and lead to measures injurious to our own interest and the general interest of Europe, it is certainly competent to such hon. gentleman to raise the question in the House, and to bring it under discussion. But it is not competent to his Majesty's ministers to take the initiative of bringing it before Parliament, and of taking the sense of Parliament on imperfect information.
§ Mr. Whitbread.—The noble lord has used a new word, which he seems to have borrowed from Congress; for I do not recollect to have ever heard the word 'initiative' made use of in this House before. If he will not take the initiative, as he is pleased to call it, in this measure; in the choice of difficulties to which we are reduced from that circumstance, knowing, as we do, the deep plunge made by his Majesty's Government towards war, without the question being regularly before it, the House must pause before it grants any further supply for what are called defensive preparations, when it knows that the Government will convert those measures of defence into measures of offence—and into a war which will be prosecuted not only in the most disgraceful, but the most hopeless manner. My duty calls on me to propose an adjournment of the House, till the noble lord is able to come before us with the terms of this Treaty; and I hope Parliament will 776 not be guilty of such indiscretion, as to suffer the noble lord to proceed until he has plunged the country into a situation without remedy—when he will come before us with the whole weight of his responsibility, and which responsibility, I hope, the House will make him feel is not a mere parliamentary term, but a word of real weight; and that after talking of it, and vapouring about it for years, the time is now come when we shall turn the name into the thing, and make him feel what it really is. Under these circumstances, my proper course is, in a constitutional and parliamentary manner, to prevent the supplies from being granted, till I know the situation in which the country is.
Lord Castlereagh.—The hon. gentleman will never find me disposed to shrink from any responsibility which I have incurred. With respect to the course of the hon. member, I must say that it certainly does not consist in arming the executive government with those powers which are necessary for it in the present arduous situation of affairs. If the hon. gentleman is not disposed to concur in those measures which his Majesty's Government have thought advisable in the present situation of the country, it is not on the subject of supply that he ought to raise the question—he ought to raise it on its own merits. If the hon. gentleman is determined to persist in this course, it is a proof that he shrinks from the merits of the question, a [Hear! Hear! from the Opposition.] I repeat it again—it is a proof of his shrinking from the merits of the question— while I, on the contrary, have this night afforded him every facility for bringing the question forward in a regular manner. Every person must be convinced that the Treaty cannot be laid before the House in its present state by his Majesty's ministers, without their acting in a manner inconsistent with the duty which they owe to their country; and I consider, therefore, the measure which the hon. gentleman has chosen to pursue, with the view of obstructing his Majosty's Government, as only granting with a bad grace what must at last be granted, and rendering that strength which the House have committed to the Crown inadequate to its object. If the hon. gentleman is sincere in the intention which he has announced of impeaching me; and if he wishes at the same time to strengthen the Executive, let him bring the question forward on its own merits; but let him not make this a pretext for 777 weakening the arms of the Executive Government in the arduous crisis in which the country is at present placed.
§ Mr. Whitbreadadded, that when the supplies were granted, both the noble lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that there was an alternative of peace or war; but it was now found that there was no alternative; and if any farther support were given, it must be for offensive operations of the most desperate nature. The ministers who could be parties to such a treaty as this, he would no longer consent to entrust with the supplies of the country. He denied that the noble lord had given him any facilities; but the House must go to the discussion of the question, trusting to be informed by the noble lord what difference there was between the real and the unauthenticated copy of the Treaty. It was not to the noble lord that he should go for advice how to conduct himself in Parliament, at the time when he should wish the House of Commons to pass on the noble lord that sentence which his conduct had justified.
Lord Castlereaghdeclared, that he had no wish to protract this conversation; but with respect to that species of taunt which had been so often thrown out against himself and the rest of his Majesty's ministers, he should only say, that whenever there was not a notice of censure against him entered on the books of that House, he should feel perfectly satisfied that, in the hon. member's mind, there was no chance of making such a motion with the least possibility of success. He would put it to the House whether they ought to listen to such opinions as had been that night stated.
§ Sir John Newport.—I had a right when I dissented from ray hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) on a late occasion, to consider that there was still an alternative left—that war was not then determined on;—but I now find out that I am duped by the noble lord, and that to the noble lord I ought not to have given credence; for the question which he told me was pending, was actually determined. The noble lord tells us now, that the Treaty, with some substantial inaccuracies, is correct. He now says, that we ought not to refuse the supplies which were given for an alternative, but which alternative did not exist. I cannot very well conceive what the noble lord means by using the words "not shrinking from responsibility," because he is certainly shrinking from responsi- 778 bility if he does not give in this document. When will the noble lord give it to us? When it will be too late for us to save the country from destruction—from a renewal of a war which has sunk our finances to the state in which they now are—which has ground to the dust every class of the community. Then the noble lord will give it when it is too late. As to the boasted responsibility of the noble lord at such a period, it would be nothing worth. What compensation would it be then to the country, even if we were to follow the noble lord to the block? Before war is determined on, the House ought to have an opportunity of interposing their advice. The course of my hon. friend is perfectly regular and constitutional. When Parliament has not sufficient documents to enable it to form a judgment, it is the only legal mode of preventing an abuse of power. When one sees ministers treating in a double sense, with the public—when we see ourselves on the point of a renewal of the calamities which were brought on us by the war of 1793, and involved again by the very same acts which were then practised; a war which has reduced every man's income to a third of its value, and then are told of the responsibility of ministers, it is impossible to preserve our tempers. Sir, I scorn such a responsibility. My hon. friend, whom the noble lord has thought fit to advise, has sat in this House infinitely longer than the noble lord himself; and he has done the duty of the country, unpaid, unsalaried, und unstipended, and the love and gratitude of his country will follow him wherever he goes.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he should not have troubled the House any further, if particular pains had not been taken to misrepresent what he had said. The noble lord repeated what he had said, as to the course that was open to the hon. gentleman, of giving advice to the Crown; and added, that he would peremptorily deny that any thing like delusion had been practised by his Majesty's ministers on a former occasion. They gave no opinion to the House on the degree of probability as to war of peace; but they had said, that the case-was of such a nature as rendered it necessary for them to come to Parliament on their own responsibility. He would also deny that even now there was no alternative. The principle on which ministers placed the alternative was, that they would be mainly influenced by what they found 779 to be the sentiments of the Powers with whom we were in alliance. We ought not to consider that an instrument under one set of circumstances, necessarily involved the same conclusions under another. At the proper time he would readily state all that would be necessary for his justification.
§ Mr. Whitbread.—I wish to say one word more. A single ray of light has broken in upon us from the speech of the noble lord. The noble lord says, that when he sees no notice on the book, he shall always conclude that I have no grounds for censure. I may have sufficient grounds for censure; but I have also had sufficient experience not to adopt such a measure, knowing as I do the extent of the influence of the Crown.
§ Mr. Methuenwas proud to declare, without any particular partiality for Ministers, that this was a time when every man ought to join heart and hand in their support. He firmly believed that the noble lord enjoyed the entire confidence of the country; and he also believed that that confidence would not in any degree be shaken by the conduct of the gentlemen opposite.
§ Sir James Mackintoshsaid, he could not follow the hon. gentleman who spoke last, in bestowing his approbation alike under any circumstances without any exception, and without any guard. Here he begged to be understood as differing from him. He agreed in the position, that all hearts and hands should be united on an occasion like the present; but then our hearts and hands ought to be guided by reason and conscience. The noble lord himself had advanced what was little less than treason to the constitution, when he talked of the responsibility of ministers. The House of Commons were a great council to give advice, and they were not to be precluded from the exercise of that right under any idea of the ministers responsibility. But the noble lord's mode of arguing had a tendency to destroy all free and deliberate discussion. What would be the consequence? How could any member bring forward a motion on the subject? The noble lord would move an Address to lay a copy of the Convention before the House. Now what was the Convention? According to the noble lord, the one we had seen contained substantial inaccuracies. This document appeared so doubtful in its meaning as to require an explanation on the part of the Crown of Great Britain, to 780 take away its dangerous qualities. Now what was it that the noble lord proposed? He proposed nothing less than to take away all equality of discussion—to subject his opponents to bring forward a motion on grounds which might not be correct; and to give himself an opportunity of taking us by surprise, and obtaining the House's approbation of that Convention, on a statement made by him in the course of debate; which approbation might afterwards influence their future judgment. He begged to ask the noble lord, if the matter was to be fairly discussed, whether it would not be much more desirable that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the Treaty in a correct state. The noble lord might lay it informally upon the table, as he had done the papers relating to Genoa and Sweden. The Treaty of Chaumont had also been laid in substance before the House, although it had not been ratified, and the same course might now be pursued. This was the fair and only way of meeting the question, unless the noble lord meant to obtain the approbation of the House by stratagem. If, as the noble lord bad said, the genuine Treaty had been so misrepresented, was it not the more necessary that a correct statement of its contents should be furnished? He therefore put it sincerely and respectfully to the noble lord, whether, even for his own sake, it would not be advisable to produce an accurate statement of the substance of the Treaty?
§ Mr. Methuendenied that he had given any abstract applause to the conduct of lord Castlereagh—in this instance it received his full approbation. He thought he might fairly accuse the other side of the House with giving abstract and systematic opposition to every measure of Government, under whatever circumstances it might be adopted.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that for the reasons he had before stated, he should decline laying the substance of the Treaty before the House, unless a distinct motion were made upon the subject; and then he could state his opinion, and adopt such conduct as he might deem expedient.
§ Lord Miltonbegged to know on what day the Treaty in question had been received by Government.
Mr. Bennetinquired whether that part 781 of the published copy were contained in the authentic document, in which the Allies were made to declare that they would "bring to justice all such persons as shall have joined, or may hereafter join, the party of Napoleon?" He wished to know whether that provision had been ratified by the British Government?
Lord Castlereaghhad no objection to state, that that part was decidedly incorrect—substantially inaccurate.
§ Lord Miltonasked, whether this Treaty was in the hands of ministers before the 7th of April, the day on which the noble lord had obtained the Address?
Lord Castlereaghreplied in the affirmative, and added, that he was prepared to contend that there was nothing at all inconsistent between the terms of the Address and of the Treaty.
§ Mr. Tierneywished to know if the noble lord had any objection to the substance of the Treaty being given?
Lord Castlereaghhad no objection to a motion being made to that effect by any hon. member who might think such a measure desirable.
§ Mr. Whitbreadwished the noble lord to state if, in saying he had no objection to such a motion, he desired it should be understood that he would grant the papers if such a motion were made. If he now moved for the substance of the Treaty, would the noble lord grant it?
Lord Castlereaghsaid, no, not now, as it was totally out of the common course of proceeding to give treaties before the ratifications were exchanged. He could not consent to such a motion on the instant. This refusal for the present was due to his colleagues; and while he felt he owed much to them, he could not but feel he owed still more to the representatives of the Allied Sovereigns now in this country.
§ Mr. Whitbreadregretted that the noble lord had not saved the time of the House by earlier making such a statement. Was he now to understand, that if a motion were made on Monday for the substance of the Treaty, it would meet with the compliance of the noble lord? If so, he would of course move for it, and then the subject would be fairly and clearly before the House.
Lord Castlereagk,said that he would enter into no compact. He was surprised that the hon. member should so long have remained in the dark; for the whole course of his (lord Castlereagh's) reasoning was intended to show, that at the proper time 782 he should not think it inconsistent with his duty to lay the substance of the Treaty upon the table. All he would say at present was, that he should be prepared on Monday to give the hon. gentleman a distinct answer.
§ Mr. Whitbreadsaid, there was a great difference between the present language of the noble lord and that which he had before held. He would move for the papers on Monday, to ascertain if the noble lord would give them or not. He wished the question to be answered before the House went into the committee of supply, but he did not wish to plunge unnecessarily into a discussion that might be injurious to the country.
Mr. Ponsonbyremarked, that in former instances the substance of a treaty had been communicated to enable the House to decide on the policy on which it was founded, before a communication could formally be made. Would the noble lord do so on the present occasion? The noble lord, if he had no objection to engage to give them the substance of it on Monday, could enable them to enter upon the discussion of some of the topics connected with it; but he protested against being called upon to give an opinion on a treaty before it was accurately known to them. This the noble lord himself must feel would be most improper, for nothing could be so absurd as to demand an opinion of the House on that which had not been laid before them.
Lord Castlereaghwas sure no one was more disposed than himself to hail the pacific tone which had suddenly broke in upon the House. He was glad to find the wishes of gentlemen opposite were what they now proved to be. It was often practicable to communicate to the House the substance of a document, before the document itself could be produced in an official form. In reply to the inquiry of the right hon. gentleman, as to whether he would be bound to give the substance of the Treaty on Monday, he could only refer him to the answer he had given to the question of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Whitbread), that on that day he could give a distinct answer on this point. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that it would be wrong to call for the sense of the House on a treaty before that treaty could be produced. He had no intention of calling upon the House to pronounce an opinion, or had he supposed the hon. gentleman could do that when he sug- 783 gested to him that he could bring a motion on the subject. He had not expected him to call for an opinion on the Treaty; but he had thought that he knew enough of it to found a proposition on it, which should go to advise the Crown to pursue a line of policy different from that in which that Treaty originated, if he thought it his duty to give the Sovereign such advice. On Monday he would answer the question of the hon. gentleman without discussion, and in the mean time he trusted it would not be considered unbecoming conduct on his part, if he seized the opportunity the intervening time afforded, to possess himself of the sentiments of the representatives of the Allies of the country.
§ Mr. Whitbreadobserved, that as the noble lord had been the God of the Storm, now he was metamorphosed into the Genius of the Calm. From what the noble lord had at first said, no man could have anticipated what had recently fallen from his lips. Now he was perfectly ready to grant every thing that was required—[No, no! from lord Castlereagh]. Yes, he would grant all that was wanted—the substance of the Treaty—[No, no!]. Well, then, the fact would be known on Monday, and he had no disposition to raise a new storm by further contention.
Lord Castlereagh.—I cannot see that there is any matter of difference between us now. The hon. member does not, however, quite approve of my conduct; and I am not sorry for it, because there is nothing that I am so much afraid of as his praise.
§ Mr. Whitbread.—The fear expressed by the noble lord is quite as unfounded as my praise would have been if I had ever bestowed it; for the fact is, that he never received a scintilla of applause from me during the whole course of his political life.
§ The question on the adjournment to Monday was then put and carried.