Sir Robert Peelsaid, he was sorry to interpose a moment's delay before the Debate on the Reform Bill commenced; but with the consent of the noble Lord opposite, he was going to put a question upon a matter totally unconnected with Reform. He should not put this question now, if it did not involve a point (as it appeared to him) of considerable constitutional importance, the elucidation of which ought not to be postponed. However, in order to avoid, as far as he could, the possibility of a discussion, he should abstain from making any observations except such as were necessary to render the matter intelligible. He referred to that loan, which was called the Russian Loan. The original circumstances under which that loan was entered into, it was unnecessary for him to detail; but it would be remembered by the House, that, in the year 1815, we contracted with the king of the Netherlands, and the emperor of Russia, to pay the interest upon a proportion of that loan, which amounted in the whole to upwards of two millions. An Act of Parliament was accordingly passed, which authorised the Treasury to continue the payment of the interest, conformably to our engagement. In order to ascertain whether we were bound, consistently with law, to continue that payment, it was necessary to understand precisely what was the nature of our engagement. The original amount of the loan was 25,600,000 Dutch guilders, which was rather more than 2,000,000l. sterling; and we had consented to pay the interest of one-third of that sum. But an express engagement was entered into, that 334 we should not be called upon to pay the interest after the possession and sovereignty of the Belgian provinces should be severed from the kingdom of Holland. He apprehended that the possession and sovereignty of those territories had been for a considerable time past so severed. On the 21st of June, in the present year, in the Speech delivered to Parliament, his Majesty recognised the right of the people of Belgium to make their own internal regulations, and to settle the government of their country according to their own views. Therefore, on the 21st of June, his Majesty admitted the de facto separation of the two kingdoms. Now, what he wished to ask the noble Lord was, whether directions had been given for the payment of the interest upon the Dutch loan up to the present day, or to the next time when it would become payable; and, if not, whether he did not consider it important to obtain the sanction of Parliament to the payment, if it was to be continued? On the policy of continuing the payment he said nothing; but, in conformity with the letter and spirit of the law, he conceived that there was no authority in the Treasury to continue it.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that he did not mean, at the present moment, to enter into the discussion of the subject of the loan, but it was necessary for him, in answering the question of the right hon. Gentleman, to say a very few words with respect to the treaty. The treaty, as the right hon. Gentleman had truly stated, stipulated that the money was to be paid by England for Russia, so long as the Netherlands should be united to Holland. But the House would recollect, that it was necessary to refer to other parts of the negotiation, in order to understand the meaning and spirit and the clear object of the treaty. By it the king of the Netherlands and the king of Great Britain were to pay a certain proportion of the interest and principal of the Russian loan to the emperor of Russia, so long as the Netherlands should continue united with Holland. This agreement was made with the emperor to prevent any attempt at the separation of those countries. The whole of the correspondence and negotiations proved, that this was the principle. The question which came before his Majesty's Government for consideration was, whether the circumstances under which the separation had taken place, absolved this country, in honour and justice, and in conformity to the spirit and 335 etter of the treaty, in holding back from Russia the payment of the interest? And what were the circumstances under which the separation took place? Was it our desire to call upon Russia to take steps to prevent the separation? The contrary was quite notorious. And would it, then, be consistent with the honour of this country to have taken advantage of the separation to refuse to Russia the payment of the interest on the loan, when it was clearly in accordance with the wishes of this country that the separation took place, and when we could not impute any blame to Russia on account of that separation? This appeared to his Majesty's Ministers to be the fair view of the question; but, not content with their own judgment, they had referred the matter to the law officers of the Crown, and they were of opinion that we were bound to continue the payment. These were the simple facts of the case. This was the view which his Majesty's Ministers took of it, and they felt that the Treasury should be empowered, as usual, to continue the payment.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, the noble Lord had entirely misunderstood him. He was not considering whether it was consistent with the honour and good faith of the country to continue the payment, but whether it was consistent with the law. He wished to know whether the Exchequer was warranted by the Act of Parliament in issuing the public money; and he entreated the attention of the noble Lord and of the House to the subject, and begged them to consider whether Parliament ought to separate without giving an express sanction to the proceedings of his Majesty's Government.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that although what he had stated as to the views of his Majesty's Government referred to equity, and not to strict law, yet, when he stated that the law officers of the Crown had been required to give their opinions, and that, as the Act of Parliament which had been referred to them quoted the words of the treaty, he considered, therefore, that the law officers of the Crown had declared, that we were still bound by the treaty, and consequently he was of opinion that he had fully answered the question of the right hon. Gentleman. He had also stated the grounds upon which it appeared to his Majesty's Government that it was bound by law, and consequently justified in making the payment.
Sir Robert Peeldid not wish to appear 336 captious; but really the matter seemed to him so clear, and at the same time so important, that he thought it better to state fully his views at once, than afterwards to turn round upon his Majesty's Ministers, and make an accusation against them:—The Convention said "It is understood and agreed between the high contracting parties, that the said payments on the part of their Majesties the king of the Netherlands, and the king of Great Britain, shall cease and determine, should the possession and sovereignty of the Belgic provinces at any time pass or be severed from the dominions of his Majesty the King of the Netherlands, previous to the complete liquidation of the same." The Act of Parliament said, that the payments should continue only so long as the engagements entered into in the Convention were continued. Now, the sovereignty of the Belgian provinces had passed away from the king of Holland more than six months ago, and the debt had not been liquidated. Whatever honour or policy, therefore, might dictate, he doubted that the Exchequer had authority to continue those payments.
The Attorney Generalsupposed, that many Gentlemen in the House conceived, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that as soon as the possession and sovereignty of Belgium passed from the king of Holland, the payments were to be at an end; and he had no hesitation in avowing, that he had entertained the same impression originally, and had mentioned it to an hon. Gentleman, a Member of that House, and to the King's Advocate, who was also consulted. The House would feel, that it would be extremely inconvenient to enter into a legal argument at that time; but he would say, that not only was his first impression removed by more mature deliberation, but though he had entered into the consideration personally desirous of finding the Crown relieved from the liability, yet, after looking at the course which the negotiations had taken, in order to ascertain the due construction of the treaty, and after giving the subject the most attentive consideration, he and his hon. and learned friends had formed the unanimous opinion, that neither in law nor equity, nor still less in honour, was there the slightest doubt that both parties meant the passing away of the possession and sovereignty of Belgium from Holland by some external force; that a separation by any internal cause or mutual agreement was never contemplated; and 337 that, consequently, the obligations of the treaty continued in full force. The obligations of the treaty continuing in force, so, he thought, did the Act of Parliament, which was founded on, and recited it, as the right hon. Baronet had stated. He should be able to defend his view of the subject when an opportunity regularly offered.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyanconceived, from the wording of the Convention, and of the Act of Parliament, as they had been read to the House by his right hon. friend, and in which it was expressly stated, that in the event of any separation between Belgium and Holland, this country was no longer liable to the interest of the loan; he was most fully of opinion, that the Treasury was not authorized to continue the payment after the separation.
§ Sir Edward Sugdensaid, it appeared that the first impression of the Attorney General was that which any man, with ears to hear, and understanding to comprehend, must at once see to be the true construction of the Act; but that at last he came to an opinion founded solely upon the equity of the case and the honour of the Crown—["No, no" from the Attorney General.] He certainly understood the result of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations to be, that his new impression was formed as well with a view to the equity of the case, as to the honour of the Crown. It was not equity or honour that was now the proper subject for the consideration of the House. If it had been intended that the Convention should continue, it would have been so expressed. If the honour of the Crown was pledged beyond the Convention, he was sure the House and the country would wish, that the honour of the Crown should become the bond of law. But any man who heard the Convention read, must see that it admitted of no two conclusions; and, which made the case still stronger, it had been found necessary to frame an Act of Parliament for the purpose, which embodied the words of the Convention. How was it possible that a Minister of the Crown should issue the money of the public to perform an engagement to which the country was in no degree liable? It was said, that a separation from internal causes was not meant—but why, if that were the case, did not the Convention state it?
The Attorney Generalsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, must surely either not have heard what he 338 said, or he must have misunderstood him altogether; because he had declared, in the most distinct and positive manner, that the law officers of the Crown, had no doubt whatever as to the legal responsibilities which the treaty in question imposed upon the Government; and when it should become necessary to explain the grounds upon which this opinion was formed, he had not the smallest doubt whatever, that the House would give their approbation to the course which the Ministers had pursued.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that he did not wish to prolong the discussion; but he could not help remarking, that there were two points on which the Attorney General had not satisfied him in the answer which he had given to the observations of the right hon. Baronet. The hon. and learned Member had certainly reverted to the opinions which he and the other law officers of the Crown had come to on the subject of this treaty. Now, what he wished to know was, whether that opinion was formed as to the obligation which was imposed on the Crown to continue to fulfil the stipulations of the treaty, and to issue the necessary sums for payment out of the Treasury, or whether the law officers of the Crown were of opinion that the Exchequer had the power to issue money without an order for that particular purpose from Parliament? With the first the House had nothing to do; but, in the second case, they had every thing to do with the payment—for if the Exchequer possessed that right, then there was no use whatever in passing Acts of Parliament for the application of the public money. The next point upon which he felt altogether unsatisfied by the reply of the hon. and learned Member was, the remark which was made that two parties to the treaty had agreed that the engagement continued to be binding. Now, it happened that the treaty was tripartite—between England, Holland, and Russia; and each of those States bore an equal proportion of the debt; and he should, therefore, like very much to know from the hon. and learned Member, if the third party was equally consenting to the course which had been adopted by the other two parties with those parties themselves.
The Attorney Generaldid not see how it was possible to explain the circumstances, without entering into a discussion of the whole subject; a proceeding altogether irrelevant and out of order at the present moment. All he could do at that time was 339 merely to repeat his first observation, that there had been no notice whatever given of the intention of the right hon. Baronet on the other side to make any inquiries upon the subject of this loan; and having been called upon to give an opinion upon the construction of a treaty of considerable importance, he must say, that he was not, at that moment, prepared to say whether it was, or whether it was not, obligatory upon all these parties. But whenever the right hon. Gentleman opposite felt disposed to bring the question regularly before the House, he should be ready to meet it; till then he could not say whether his Majesty had ordered the issue of the money out of the Exchequer, or whether the Government had taken it upon themselves to pay it, for he could not, at that time, discuss the particular views which were entertained by Ministers on this head, and which had led them to act as they had done—a course of conduct which the right hon. Gentleman opposite would ever find them ready to defend.
Mr. Goulburnmerely rose to apologise to the hon. and learned Attorney General for having asked him a question upon a subject on which he certainly seemed to be considerably well informed, without, having given him notice. He certainly did think that he was entitled to ask the hon. and learned Member for an explanation of some parts of the speech which he had made in defence of the conduct of Ministers, and particularly on the two points which he had selected for explanation. He was sorry to have taken the hon. and learned Member unawares, but certainly, if that hon. Member was so taken, there were, or ought to be, other Gentlemen on the opposite bench who were well able to answer the questions on which he sought to be informed. The hon. and learned Attorney General had said, that two of the contracting parties in the treaty considered it as binding under the present circumstances—now, what he again would ask, as he really wished to be informed on the subject, was, what was the opinion of the third subscribing party? He thought also some explanation was due from the Gentlemen on the opposite side who were more immediately connected with the Exchequer.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that the Act stated in precise terms the power which the Treasury had with respect to the payment of the money, and it also clearly granted a power to his Majesty to comply with the engagements entered into with the subscribing 340 parties to the treaty. If, therefore, the engagement continued to be legally binding, the money was consequently still payable, and the same Act which empowered the King to form this binding engagement also empowered the Treasury to pay the money. Both these provisions formed part of the stipulations of the existing treaty. As to the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman had made, with respect to the consent of all the three parties to the treaty to view it as binding, all he had to say was, that undoubtedly, if two of those parties were willing to look upon it in that light, they were not to consider the other party as refusing if no such intimation was afforded them.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellhoped, he should not be told, that the House of Commons was not the fit guardian of the public purse, or that, because it was unreformed, it was not a fit judge of the necessity for expenditure, and of the propriety of meeting that necessity. It was right, that the public should know—or if they did not know, it was his duty to inform them—that an unreformed House of Commons had exercised as much vigilance over the expenditure of the public money as their successors, the reformed House of Commons, could ever do; and he thought the public owed no small debt of obligation to the right hon. Baronet for having introduced the subject of the present discussion, because it was his opinion that the Government had committed a flagrant breach of the law; and he could find no other expression in which to clothe his thoughts upon the subject. It might be very right in an equitable point of view, looking at the question as an abstract matter of honour and equity, that the Government should pay the money; but even if the honour of the country be implicated in its payment, was it not for the House of Commons to judge of that question of honour? and if it were found to be binding, was it not the peculiar province of the House of Commons to make that honour good, and to sanction the payment of the money? This was a matter of the very highest importance, and one which every Member of that House was deeply interested in. He did not consider the hon. and learned Member opposite to have gone the length of stating it to be his opinion, that the payments which the Government had taken upon itself to make, were due by the letter of the treaty. He, however, did not rightly understand whether the 341 hon. Member meant to say, that the honour of the country was so involved as to render it binding on the Government to continue to fulfil the treaty, or whether he meant to say, that the treaty itself continued to be legally binding, and that the payment was made in conformity to the letter of the treaty: but this he would say, that no one who had read that treaty would venture to make the assertion, that the Government was still bound legally to continue to make the payments. He asserted, that by the letter of that treaty the Government was not bound. When his hon. and learned friend introduced the honour and equity of the country into this discussion, he took into his hands a province not belonging to the law officers of the Crown, and which any law officer of the Crown, who knew his duty would have rejected. If the Law Officers of the Crown had given an opinion upon what affected the honour and equity of the country, then their opinion was not worth the paper on which it was written. He must, therefore, say, that the hon. and learned Member had arrogated to himself the right of forming and delivering an opinion upon a case which, when it was sent to him, he ought to have returned to the place whence it came, unanswered; the more particularly if the opinion which he had formed was, that the country was not legally bound, but bound only in honour, to continue to act under the stipulations of the treaty, as if they had never been infringed upon. The noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would, he hoped, suffer him to request his Lordship to suspend all future issues of money from the Treasury in payment of any further sums under this treaty. He did not know whether the noble Lord would consent to suspend those issues, for he seemed to say, that the payments were in strict conformity to the Act of Parliament; but looking at the treaty as it stood at present, he was of opinion, that every one of the payments which had been made since the treaty was infringed were direct breaches of the law; and he said this, not knowing if the propriety of making those payments had or had not been submitted to the consideration of his Majesty's law officers: but the Government had been so eager to press on the Question of Reform, to the entire exclusion of all other business, that he was very much inclined to believe that the payments were made as a matter of course, without any inquiry or consultation whatever. The hon. and learned Member had said, that 342 his original opinion was the same as that of the right hon. Baronet, and that, on looking at the equity of the case, he had been induced to change that opinion. Now he (Sir Charles Wetherell) was inclined to think, that the original opinion was the best, and that the course which the hon. and learned Member ought to have adopted, when the correspondence which passed between the contracting Powers, previous to the settlement of the treaty, was sent to him to peruse, in order that his judgment might be clearer and his information more correct, was to have returned the correspondence, and to have said to the Ministers, "I am not the proper person to consider what is meant by the protocols, nor to decipher the equity of the case by perusing a correspondence on the subject of this treaty." He ought to have looked over the treaty itself, and that alone; and upon that document ought his legal opinion to have been formed. The hon. and learned Member, in looking over the correspondence, probably found an argument here, and an explanation there, which he was pleased to apply to the treaty, and by which he, probably, explained its meaning to himself. If so, he made the treaty out to be a treaty of omissions; and in doing so, he changed from his character of Attorney General into that of a diplomatist, who is endeavouring to read in a treaty what is not contained there. It might, perhaps, turn out that the honour of the country was involved in the strict observance of this treaty, even under the altered state of the parties concerned; and if so, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lay on the Table of the House the correspondence which passed, and by which a case could be made out, authorising Parliament to add to the treaty, and continue the payments, such a course would not be objectionable; but, in the mean time, he must beg to ask, if it was in the power of the law officers of the Crown to introduce stipulations into a treaty which had no existence there, merely for the purpose of obviating the necessity for applying to Parliament to grant the Government the means of altering the treaty, and of acting up to the intention as well as the strict letter of legal obligation which was imposed upon the country when it was contracted? The law officers of the Crown seemed, however, in this instance to have clothed themselves in a panoply of chivalry, and to have volunteered an opinion as to the honour and equity of making payments, whilst they ought to 343 have stuck to the mere question of law. He could not help again expressing it to be his firm opinion, that in making the payments under this treaty, after the stipulations had been altogether infringed upon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted as illegally as the law officers of the Crown had advised inconsiderately.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that he could only repeat what he had said from the first, that he was not called upon for any opinion upon the equity of the case; and he thought he had stated this so clearly, that no distortion of imagination could have misrepresented or misunderstood him. When he said that the treaty was binding on the contracting parties, he meant to say, that such was the legal construction which the subscribing parties themselves came to.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that the hon. and learned Member had described such to be the construction of the treaty by two of the subscribing parties, but he had not given any reply to the question which he had put to him, with respect to the construction which was put on the treaty by the third subscribing party.