Mr. R. Smithrose to move for the production of a paper alluded to in the despatch which had been sent from Vienna to this country by lord Stewart, on the 5th of Feb. 1818. This despatch contained the, rea- 1281 soning of prince Metternich and count Stadion, in opposition to the payment of the debt due by Austria to this country, His object was, to show that the English government, by its acts in 1795 and 1797, Considered the advances of money made by this country to Austria to be in the nature of debts, and not of subsidies. Mr. Pitt said that the loans had been solemnly acknowledged by Austria in the face of Europe, and that she never could violate the conditions which she had entered into, without the destruction of her credit. Mr. Pitt also observed, that Austria, beyond any other nation, was bound to be exact in her pecuniary engagements; because, from the nature of her financial system, she was compelled to have recourse to loans. From the correspondence which had been published between lords Grenville and Henley, it was evident that the former noble lord considered the money advanced by this country to Austria was advanced, not as subsidies, but as loans; and that the debt had never been discharged. He had also the authority of the noble marquis himself, to prove that government regarded the claim on the part of this country against Austria as still in existence. In point of fact, the people of this country were not only suffering the loss of 21 millions and a half, but were also paying the interest on the money. Now, when the emperor of Austria contracted the debt with this country, he pledged himself that the finances of England should never be burthened with paying the interest of the loan. Every article of the conventions which had been agreed upon at Vienna in 1795 and 1797 had been violated by the Austrian government. When our government, in 1818, applied to Austria for some ship-timber to be taken in liquidation of part of the debt, the Austrian government not only refused to let us have the timber, but denied the existence of the debt altogether. Under these circumstances, he thought that ministers, instead of opposing the motion, ought, in the present situation of our finances, to be willing to afford every possible information. No country had lost more by the war than England; while on the other hand, none had benefited more by the same circumstance than Austria. Her present resources were almost incalculable. Her government had lately declared, that it had not only been enabled to pay oft' its old debt, but a large part of 1282 its new debt also. The emperor of Austria possessed a larger revenue than any other sovereign in Europe. He was so abundantly supplied with money, that he had been able to make war upon Naples, and had now made a tender of his services to the king of Sardinia. When we saw the emperor enjoying these advantages, did it not become the duty of our government to inquire on what ground he refused to pay the debt which he owed to this country? There was nothing of a political character attached to this subject. It embraced no question of diplomacy, but was merely the assertion of a just demand on the part of England.
The Marquis of Londonderryadmitted, that if government was inclined to compromise the affair with Austria, there might be some ground for the interference of the House. But that was not the case. He should certainly be deceiving the House if he were to represent the debt due 'by Austria as good as assets to the same amount in the hands of this government. It was true that the money advanced to Austria was advanced in the shape of loans; but in consequence of the struggles in which she had been engaged since the loans were advanced, that power had not hitherto been considered capable of satisfying the claims of this country. Every administration which had existed in this country since, had been of opinion that Austria was unable to pay her debts; although he could prove, if he were not unwilling to trespass on the time of the House, that she had wished to do so. He certainly thought that Austria would stand ill in the eyes of the world, if she denied the debt, until she received a quietus from this country. But he was of opinion that it would only prejudice the interests of this country when the period should arrive for an arrangement with Austria, if the House were now to interfere.
§ Mr. Warreobserved, that as matters now stood, even a compromise seemed hopeless, as Austria refused all recognition of the loan: no man could draw any other conclusion from the papers, than that the faith of Austria was not to be depended on.
The Hon. J. W. Wardsaid, that the hon. mover was entitled to the thanks of the country, for agitating this question. A vast sum of money was owing to us from a foreign state. In the present embarrassed state of our finances, when re- 1283 trenchment on the one hand and taxation on the other had been carried to their utmost limits, it was the duty of the House to inquire what chance we had of recovering it. A small part of such an enormous debt, if repaid, would afford considerable relief, and still greater satisfaction to the people of England. He could not, however, press for the production of the dispatch to which he referred. The noble secretary of state had assured them that it would be prejudicial to the progress of the negociation; and he could easily conceive in what manner. Suppose, for instance, the Austrian government to have insisted upon certain principles, from which there might be still some hope that they might recede, how much more difficult that retractation would be rendered after they had been published in the face of all Europe. He felt it difficult to understand on what points the negociation could turn. If Austria denied the obligation, never was there a more scandalous breach of faith. If she stood upon the plea of inability, the question no doubt assumed a different aspect. The finances of all despotic governments, more especially those of Austria, were enveloped in an obscurity which no eye could penetrate. The grand principles by which they seemed to be governed were concealment and irresponsibility. But though the nature of the case did not admit of complete proof, there were circumstances that made one suspect that Austria was by no means so little able to discharge her obligations as she would pretend; not, indeed, to pay so vast a sum in one year, or in two, or in three; but to put it in a train of gradual liquidation. Austria was a country of great natural resources, which were continually rising up, in spite of that ancient and. venerable system of mal-administration that was so dear to the princes and statesmen of the imperial House. It was true, that during the early part of the struggle with France, her efforts had been very great; but it was equally true, that for some years before the fall of Napoleon, she had enjoyed complete repose under the shadow of his protection— years, to us, of the heaviest expense, and most exhausting exertion. The two last wars in which she had been engaged were but short; and at the peace, by which England gained immense glory, but was content to forego selfish objects, the emperor, who had gained no glory at 1284 all, was compensated by more solid advantages. Never was labourer of the eleventh hour so richly repaid. He was placed not only on an equal footing with those that had borne the toil and heat of the day, but on a far superior one. He might, indeed, justly say, that the sacrifices he had made on the side of feeling and character, were such as entitled him to a liberal equivalent on that of interest. He had violated the most solemn public engagements—he had broken asunder the closest domestic ties—he had degraded his grandson—he had made his daughter a widow, by condemning his son-in-law to perpetual exile—a punishment due, perhaps, to the guilty ambition of that great disturber of mankind—just from Russia—just from Prussia—just from England—but from Austria, altogether cruel, perfidious, and wicked. For these deeds, his imperial majesty had received Dalmatia, the Tyrol, Saltzburgh, all Lombardy, and all the Venetian States—some of the finest and richest provinces—some of the noblest and most famous cities in all Europe; and from these he had never ceased to draw money to the capital of what was ironically called his paternal government, by every art and every severity of fiscal exaction. Were we then to believe that the emperor had not a single florin in his treasury, to repay to the suffering people of England money advanced, in-order to save him from being hurled from his throne by the victorious armies of republican France? He was convinced that if the negociation were conducted with vigor, and in that high and temperate tone which, under such circumstances, England had a right to assume, it could not fail of success. He did not rely upon the gratitude or good faith of the imperial ministers; they had disclaimed both. But the friendship of England was too important to be risked for a comparatively trifling object. No doubt Austria was a valuable ally to England, but the advantages were not; equal on both sides. England could maintain her power and pre-eminence, not only without but in spite of Austria; but Austrian ascendancy was entirely the work of England. If Austria were left to herself, she must quickly yield to her enemies, foreign and domestic. No country was more hated at home and abroad, —by her neighbours and her dependents. She was hated by the great powers, to whom she was a rival—and by the small 1285 ones, to whom she was an oppressor— but, most of all, by those provinces which she had acquired by fraud and violence, and which she governed by the same means by which she had obtained them. She was hated by Russia—hated by Prussia—hated by the smaller German States—hated in Poland—hated in Italy— hated even in her ancient hereditary dominion of the Tyrol; whose loyal and valiant struggle in her behalf had formed one of the most splendid chapters in the history of the late war, but which she had alienated by cruelty and injustice— and where, never again, would a drop of blood be shed, or an arm voluntarily raised in her cause. If Austria persevered in an act of insolent barefaced injustice towards her only firm and powerful friends, it was because she flattered herself that they might be duped with impunity. That it was the duty of ministers to prevent; and, in the confidence that they would not neglect that duty, he gave them his vote.
§ Mr. Jamessupported the motion, contending that the emperor of Austria could have no keeper of his conscience, otherwise he never could have denied the existence of this just debt.