§ The Marquis of Chandos rose to ask the noble Lord opposite a very important question; that question was, whether it was known to his Majesty's Government that the French Army under General Gerard had been ordered to march into Belgium; and, if so, whether that proceeding had received the sanction of his Majesty's Government?
§ Viscount Palmerstonsaid, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, he had to inform him, that the Government had received a despatch from Lord Granville, informing it, that the French government had communicated to the Ministers of all the Powers, parties to the Conference of London, that the king of the French had received information, that the king of Holland had broken the armistice, and had entered Belgium with his troops; he had therefore ordered the French force on the frontiers to enter Belgium, to assist the Belgians, and maintain the neutrality and independence of Belgium.
Colonel Davieshoped, that it would not be necessary for the French army to occupy the fortresses of Belgium. If it were necessary that they should be garrisoned, he hoped it would be by the troops of Belgium only.
The Marquis of Chandossaid, he understood that an application had been made by King Leopold to the French government; and he wished, therefore, to ask, whether King Leopold had made any application to this country for assistance?
§ Viscount Palmerstonreplied, that the moment the king of Belgium was informed, that the king of the Netherlands [several voices, "the king of Holland;" but the noble Lord repeated], that the king of the Netherlands intended to violate the armistice, he communicated that fact to the different Courts, parties to the Negotiations, and the communication had been made to this Government as well as to that of France.
§ Lord Stormont asked, whether the French troops had marched into Belgium with the sanction of his Majesty's Government; and if so, whether that sanction 887 were given before or after their march?
§ Viscount Palmerstoncould only repeat the statement which he had already made. When the intelligence was received at Paris, that the armistice would be violated, the French government had given orders to defend Belgium, and had communicated those orders to the governments of the Allied Powers. This information from his Majesty's Representative at Paris had reached the Government this morning.
§ Lord Stormontthought his question had not been answered, and wished to ask, whether it was by a previous agreement that such a proceeding was sanctioned?
§ Viscount Palmerstonreplied, there could be no previous agreement for an event which was not foreseen. The five Powers, parties to the Conference at London, had entered into an engagement to maintain the neutrality and independence of Belgium, and in pursuance of this engagement the French government had acted.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that his noble friend had used an expression, which, if it had been used inadvertently, he was sure his noble friend would be glad of an opportunity to correct. His noble friend had said, that the king of the Netherlands had "violated" the armistice—a word which would imply, that he had departed from the engagement which he had contracted. Now, as he understood the matter, the king of the Netherlands had a right to terminate the armistice, on giving notice of his intention to do so; and that such termination could in no way be deemed a violation of the armistice. In another part of his noble friend's speech he had observed, that this armistice had been "broken" by the king of the Netherlands. If these were merely inaccurate expressions, his noble friend would now have an opportunity of correcting them.
§ Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that he was much obliged to his right hon. friend for giving him an opportunity of correcting any inadvertence into which his right hon. friend might suppose him to have fallen. He thought, however, that his right hon. friend misapprehended the present state of the transaction. A local armistice had been concluded between the Dutch Commander of the citadel of Antwerp, and the Belgian Commander of the town of Antwerp, which armistice was subject to be put an end to by three days' notice. But subsequently 888 to that, was the general armistice, which had taken place under the sanction of the five great Powers; and it was that armistice to which he (Viscount Palmerston) had alluded in his former observations to the House. That armistice had been broken by the king of the Netherlands, without any notice whatever. Up to the moment at which he was speaking, no communication had been made to his Majesty's Government on the subject by the Plenipotentiary of the king of the Netherlands.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he had risen for the sole purpose of giving his noble friend, if necessary, an opportunity of correcting his statement. He now found that he (Sir Robert Peel) was in error. He had conceived, that by the rejection, on the part of Belgium, of the terms which had been offered by the other Powers, the obligation on the king of Holland to preserve the armistice had been removed.
§ Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that such was not the understanding of the five Great Powers.
§ Lord Eliotbegged to call the attention of the noble Lord and of the House, to the answer of the king of Holland, dated on the 12th of last July, to the letter from the Conference at London. After referring to the declaration of the five Courts in the 12th and 19th Protocols, that the sovereign of Belgium must accept, without reserve, the arrangements laid down in Protocols 11 and 12, the paper in question proceeded:—"In consequence of this declaration, which by the King's acceptance of the basis of the separation of the 12th Protocol, has become an engagement with him; his Majesty, in case a Prince should be called to the sovereignty of Belgium, and take possession of it, without first accepting the said arrangements, could not but consider such Prince, as by this fact alone, placed in a state of hostility with him, and his enemy." Might that not be considered as a notification that the armistice should no longer be binding, after a certain event which had now taken place. There was one point also, on which he wished for information from the noble Lord. The noble Lord had said, that the five great Powers, had guaranteed the integrity and neutrality of the Belgic state. What he wished to know was, whether that guarantee was an absolute one, or whether it was contingent on the acceptance by Belgium of the propositions made 889 to it by the 12th Protocol—propositions which the Belgians had hitherto rejected, though the king of Holland had accepted them.
§ Viscount Palmerstonsaid, the passage which the noble Lord had read, from the answer of the king of the Netherlands to the communication from the Conference at London, was correctly quoted. It was well known, that there had been two Conferences, at which two series of articles had been agreed to; that the first of those series of articles had been accepted by one of the parties to whom they referred, and rejected by the other; and that the second of those series of articles had been accepted by the party who had rejected the first series, and had been rejected by the party who had accepted the first series. Such being the state of things, the five great Powers had invited the parties to send Plenipotentiaries to London. That invitation, the king of the Netherlands accepted; he sent a Plenipotentiary to London, but at the same time, he gave orders to his troops to enter Belgium—a fact which the Plenipotentiary who came to London, had no instructions to communicate to the English Government.
§ Lord Eliotagain asked, if the guarantees of the five Powers was absolute, or if it was contingent on the acceptance by Belgium of the articles in the 12th Protocol?
§ Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the articles which Belgium accepted, contained several of the propositions which had been accepted by Holland in the first instance.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that it appeared to him, that the king of Holland had been most unfairly used. After what had now passed, he appealed to the House, whether he was not fully justified in persevering to bring the subject under the consideration of Parliament?
§ Viscount Palmerstonobserved, that no man was more ready than he was to communicate, at a proper time, the most ample information on the subject to the House; and that no man was more ready than he was, at a proper time, to enter into a full defence of the part which his Majesty's Government had taken in the transactions in question; but he submitted it to the consideration of the hon. Baronet, whether, after the information, open to all, which had reached this country within the last day or two—whether, while events of the greatest importance were 890 pending—whether while a decision, which must of necessity be taken out of that House upon the subject, was yet pending, it was fair to call upon his Majesty's Government to enter upon an explanation and defence of their conduct, with reference to a long course of transactions; which explanation and defence it might be impossible sufficiently to develope, without a statement of circumstances at the present moment calculated to occasion considerable embarrassment to negotiations not yet terminated.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyancould assure the noble Lord, that he had no intention to do any thing that was calculated to embarrass his Majesty's Government; but it must have been known to them, that the acceptance of the Crown of Belgium by Prince Leopold, without the king of Holland's having been previously satisfied, would be a ground of war. He would not press his Motion on that day; but he really trusted, that on an early day an ample discussion of the whole subject would be entered into. If, contrary to all usage, the House was called upon to meet at twelve o'clock on a Saturday, for the purpose of expediting a bill which was passing through Parliament with greater celerity than that which any constitution had ever before been changed by any legislative assembly, surely one night might be spared in the next week, for a debate of so much importance as that to which he adverted. His impression was, that the conduct which had been pursued by his Majesty's Government, was highly detrimental to this country. His object was, to put the country into such a position, as might enable it, at a future period, to act with greater effect. He begged to ask the noble Lord, whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government, to send the fleet, now in the Channel, to the coast of Holland? The whole question appeared to him to be now brought to an issue. France had already resorted to war. If he found, that it was not the wish of the House that he should persevere in his Motion, he would not do so; but in that case he washed his hands of all the consequences which might ensue. He did not wish it to be supposed, that the people of England were in favour of sending a fleet, to Holland, where, probably, the mistake of Navarino might again occur. No Government had ever been treated with so much moderation and forbearance in Parliament, 891 as the Administration which had succeeded that most illustrious ornament of his country, Mr. Canning. No Ministers had ever been more fairly treated by their political opponents, than the Duke of Wellington and Lord Grey. But a crisis had now arrived. Negotiation was over, war was about to commence, and an inquiry by that House into the circumstances which had led to this state of things could not, therefore, be considered premature.
§ Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that no man could be more disposed than he was, to acknowledge the forbearance which had been shown towards the Governments to which the hon. Baronet had alluded. In the opinion expressed by the hon. Baronet, he, of course, must join, with reference at least, to the course which the House had pursued towards the late Government. He was persuaded, however, that neither the House nor the hon. Baronet, upon consideration, would think that he ought to answer the question put to him by the hon. Baronet, as to what were the intentions of Government, with respect to the employment of the naval force of this country. His Majesty's Ministers would be, of course, responsible for whatever measures they might take; but the time to put them on their defence was, after those measures were taken, and not before. He should therefore, decline to answer the question of the hon. Baronet; and he felt convinced that the House would be of opinion, that he was pursuing a proper course in declining. The hon. Baronet had taken it for granted that all negotiations were at an end, and that they were now on the eve of a war; but he begged the House not to adopt the same opinion. It had been the object of the most constant labour of his Majesty's Government, since last November, when they first entered office, to preserve peace. From that period to the present moment, they had been engaged in the most difficult and complicated negotiations, which had the preservation of peace for their object—the preservation of peace, in the first place, between Belgium and Holland, on honourable and satisfactory grounds to both parties, with a view to secure thereby the benefits of peace to Europe in general. They were still labouring indefatigably for the accomplishment of that object; and he could assure the hon. Baronet and the House, that nothing which had hitherto happened, led him to think that that object might not be obtained.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that he had thought himself bound to bring forward his Motion to-day, but since he had heard the statement just made by the noble Lord, he had resolved to postpone his motion till another opportunity.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamobjected to the postponement of the hon. Baronet's Motion. It was ridiculous to do that under the idea that there was no war, when the French had actually passed the Belgian frontier. When such an important matter was allowed to pass by so quietly, he almost doubted whether he was in a British House of Commons. This was a case which demanded investigation much more than the invasion of Spain by France in the time of Louis 18th, and he remembered that that subject was discussed in the House, notwithstanding that negotiations were pending at the time.
§ The conversation dropped.