§ On the report of the Committee of Supply being brought up,
§ Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that since the noble lord opposite had laid the substance of the Treaty of the 25th March, and the Memorandum, attached to it before the House, he had perused it attentively. He should take the liberty of asking in what sense that part of our explanatory Declaration was to be understood which said that a common effort was to be made against the power of Napoleon Buonaparté, but not to impose a government on France. Was he to understand that war was to be made on Napoleon Buonaparté, and that no peace was to be concluded with him as long as he remained in possession of the supreme authority in France?
Lord Castlereaghanswered, that the object was to destroy the power of Buonaparté, but the Treaty was only binding on the Allies so long as they chose to make it so. Of course they might agree to treat of peace, if they should hereafter think it prudent to do so.
§ Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that nothing could be plainer than his question, and nothing more obscure and unsatisfactory than the 842 answer of the noble lord. Was he to understand that it was impossible for war to be avoided on the part of the country, with Napoleon Buonaparté exercising the power and government of France?
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that the engagement entered into between the Ailed Powers might be dissolved; but that its object, at the time it was formed, certainly was to destroy the power of Buonaparté, and to make no peace with him.
§ Mr. Whitbreadfelt himself as much as ever at a loss with the answer of the noble lord. When the Address was moved, it was stated that there was an alternative of war or peace; and even down to the present time, except from an occasional loose or unguarded expression which dropped from one or other of the friends of the noble lord, nothing had ever been slated to the House to induce them to think that, there was not still an alternative. He believed it to be understood by those present in the House, who had no suspicion of any delusion, that there was a possible alternative in the existing state of things of war or peace with France. Now how could this be reconciled with the Treaty and explanation on the table?
Lord Castlereagh.—I think I answered the hon. member's question before. There is a possibility of resorting to the alternative mentioned, because the contracting parties may recede from their engagements; but, as to the probability of such an event, I will leave the hon. gentleman to form his own opinion from the appearance of things.
§ Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he had rendered his question as plain as possible, and the noble lord as usual had given a reply as equivocal as he possibly could. Those who thought that no peace should be made with Buonaparté would interpret his answer, as stating that war was unavoidable. Those who inclined to the other side of the question would infer from it, that an alternative still remained. His own interpretation was, that the Allies, when they concluded the Treaty, intended to go to war with Buonaparté, and that if they had not yet carried that plan into execution, it was in consequence of some other circumstances which had arisen since, and which the noble lord hoped might be got over, that war should ensue. He wished the House to be well informed on this subject before another message should come down, and that the noble lord should willingly do that which the House would be 843 obliged to do without his assistance. If it was not conceived too early, he would tomorrow, but certainly on some day of the present week, take the sense of Parliament on the most important question—of peace or war.
Lord Castlereaghassured the hon. gentleman, that if he wished to take the sense of the House, he had only to make a motion, and that he should be prepared to meet him.
§ Mr. Tierneyinquired of the noble lord, whether his Majesty's ministers had entered into an engagement to relieve Russia of a part of the debt she had contracted with Holland, to the amount of two millions and a half, and what equivalent this country was to receive?
Lord Castlereagh, under the present circumstances, could not give an answer satisfactory to the House. With respect to Holland, and the arrangements regarding her colonies, it would be premature to enter into any details.
§ Mr. Tierneyhad not put his question with any reference to a war which might be approaching. Neither did he interfere with the arrangements made with respect to the Dutch colonies. He only asked an explanation of a transaction that had taken place, and whether this country had been subjected to an incumbrance of 2,500,000l. Would the House endure that such a sum should be consigned to the treasury of Russia without any other answer than that returned by the noble lord?
§ Mr. Tierneywished to know whether any obligation had been entered into which the noble lord thought binding on this country?
Lord Castlereaghassured the hon. gentleman that no engagement had been entered into in which the interests of the country had not been consulted.
§ Mr. Whitbreadgave notice that on Friday next he should make a motion on the state of the country relative to peace or war.
Mr. Ponsonby, on casting his eye over the Treaty of the 25th of March, had been struck by a paragraph not forming any part of it, but added at the close of it, by which it appeared that the Treaty had been received in this country on the 5th of April and the answer dispatched on the 8th, and that authority and instructions had been given to lord Clancarty at 844 Vienna, to sign a subsidiary engagement consequent upon the said Treaty. He wished to know what was the nature of those instructions, and the amount of the subsidies which he had been empowered to promise, as it was impossible that his lordship should have been left entirely at liberty to pledge this country to any amount he pleased.
Lord Castlereaghcomplained of this system of interrogation, which tended to put the House by anticipation in possession of all the subjects of negociation before they were settled or ratified. What had been or would be done, could not be executed without the consent of Parliament. The right hon. gentleman might well suppose that lord Clancarty had received instructions; but what those were, and the extent of the subsidiary engagement which he was empowered to sign, were matter of negociation with foreign Powers, and it would be premature and improper to force them into discussion.
Mr. Ponsonbycould see no impropriety either in the question which he had put to the noble lord, or in his giving the explanation he requested. The House would be obliged to make good the subsidies to whatever amount ministers had pledged it; for if would be idle to think that after they had contracted the engagement, it would be found practicable to refuse the supplies. And if the House only knew their amount after the pledge had been given, it would be reduced to the alternative of either breaking the faith of treaties, or else of paying sums which it considered injurious to the country.
Lord Castlereaghcontended, that the doctrine thus broached, and the system pursued, had a tendency to subvert the constitution, by infringing on the prerogatives of the Crown respecting peace and war.
Mr. Ponsonbydenied, that what he had said had any such tendency. The Crown had the power of making peace and declaring war, but no authority, in subsidiary treaties, to pledge Parliament to any amount it thought proper. It had no right to interfere in matters of money.
Lord Castlereaghstated, that the charge made on the Crown, of its pledging the House, was not founded on fact. Foreign Powers themselves never understood more, by our subsidiary engagements, than that the Crown would recommend to Parliament to grant supplies to the amount required.
§ Sir James Mackintoshunderstood the noble lord to have given it as his opinion, that for ministers to state beforehand the amount of a subsidiary treaty, would be a subversion of the constitution. [Hear, hear! and No, no! from the Ministerial side.]