HC Deb 27 July 1831 vol 5 cc396-404
Sir Robert Peel

had wished to take that opportunity to put a question to his noble friend, relative to the Convention to raze and demolish certain of the fortresses which had been established for the protection of the Netherlands since 1814, but that was now unnecessary, his noble friend having thought proper to communicate the Protocol to the House. Another question, however, that he wished to ask, was this: The Convention which determined, that certain fortresses should be razed had been settled by the four Powers, England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia: and to this Convention for razing the fortresses France was not a party. If he understood the matter correctly, however, the whole of the fortresses were not to be demolished, and it was not yet determined which of them should be, that being left to a future decision. The question, then, he wished to ask was, by whom was it to be decided which of these fortresses should be demolished? Was it to be decided by the same parties who had signed the Convention? and as France had not been a party to that Convention, was she to have no concern in deciding which of the fortresses should be demolished? He did not wish to provoke a premature discussion on this important subject. Of late, indeed, foreign politics had not occupied much of the attention of the House—not that he was contented, not that he did not foresee much cause for future apprehension in the present state of foreign affairs, but the attention of the House had been absorbed by other things, and he had been extremely unwilling, seeing the situation of his noble friend, to call for any explanation, or provoke a premature discussion that might diminish the chances of maintaining peace. He should still have preserved silence, had it not been for the Speech from the Throne lately made in another country. That Speech referred to two countries with which the interest and prosperity of this kingdom were closely connected—Portugal and Holland—which made it necessary to ask for some explanations. He said, he did not wish to provoke premature discussion, but only to obtain such explanations as would enable the House of Commons to understand in what manner the interest of England might be affected by these events. The part of the French King's Speech which referred to one of these subjects, was this—"The fortresses erected to threaten France, and not to protect Belgium, will be demolished." It was said there, that these fortresses were erected to facilitate aggression on France. The Speech supposed what he was bound to say was not correct. Those fortresses were not raised to threaten France; they were raised to defend Belgium, and the neighbouring countries against France. He must object, therefore, to the language which had been used, and must, at the same time, remark, that the manner in which the destruction of these fortresses had been announced by France, was a departure from the ordinary courtesies in practice among nations; and the more so, as it appeared they were not to be dismantled immediately, but were, on the contrary, to be made the subject of ulterior negotiations, to which it would appear, that France was not to be a party. He would not, however, enlarge on this point, because he was anxious to avoid provoking discussions which might prove inconvenient to the Government; and he would, therefore, at once pass to that other portion of the French King's Speech on which he begged to put a question to the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In that speech he found the following words:—"To obtain reparation, demanded in vain, our ships of war have appeared before the Tagus. I have just received the news that they have forced the entrance. The satisfaction, hitherto refused, has been offered to us. The Portuguese men-of-war are in our power, and the tri-coloured flag flies under the walls of Lisbon." By that passage, the French King announced to his subjects, that the fleet of Portugal, the most ancient and the most faithful of the allies of England, had fallen into the power of its enemies, and that the tri-coloured flag floated victorious in her capital. That passage announced that there was war between France and Portugal. It announced that the victorious fleet of France had forced the defences of the Tagus, and that the capital of Portugal was at the mercy of the conqueror. Under any other circumstances, it might not, perhaps, be necessary to require any explanation of the events which preceded this state of affairs in Portugal; but it was impossible to put altogether out of sight those treaties which bound this country to the defence and protection of her most ancient ally, and the peculiar nature of the obligations which those treaties imposed on this country, to defend Portugal against all unjust attacks. He did not mean to go the absurd length of contending that England was bound by those treaties to defend Portugal, either by the employment of a military force, or even by remonstrances, when she decidedly persisted in wrong doing; but he thought it must be admitted by all who had read the treaties, that they were bound to assist Portugal in repelling unjust aggression. It was, therefore, very material to that House, to know what were the real facts of the case. The question, therefore, which he wished to put to his noble friend was, whether there existed, on the part of France, such just and urgent ground of offence as had entitled her to force the passage of the Tagus, or whether the casus fœderis had arrived, whether the cause of complaint, was such that the aggression of France could not be avoided, and that had or had not arisen—which imposed upon us the obligation of succouring our ally?—He hoped he had said nothing which could promote premature discussion; it had been his anxious wish to avoid it. He should, therefore, confine himself to the two questions—which to avoid misapprehension, he would now repeat. The first was, whether, in the negotiations which were, as it was now understood, to precede the demolition of a portion of the fortresses, France was to be called in by the four great Powers as a party to such negotiations? The next was, whether the noble Lord was disposed to make the House acquainted, through the means of any documents or correspondence which had passed on the subject, with the peculiar state of circumstances which had led to the attack of the French on Portugal, and brought about the events which enabled the French King to announce, that the tri-coloured flag floated in the Tagus?

Viscount Palmerston

admitted, that nothing could be more cautiously worded, or better fitted to guard against any premature discussion, than the speech of his right hon. friend, and he hoped, from the disposition which had been displayed, that his right hon. friend would think it sufficient if he gave plain and distinct answers to the questions which had been put to him, without entering into any detailed explanations. He had laid on the Table of the House the Protocol by which it was agreed by the four Powers of Austria, England, Russia, and Prussia, that as soon as the king of Belgium should be recognised by all the Powers who are parties to the conference of London, they would open negotiations with the king of Belgium, for the purpose of considering what part of the frontier fortresses could be demolished, as it was plain that, from the altered state of circumstances, these fortresses could not be kept up for those purposes which were originally proposed by the Treaty of 1814. His right hon. friend wished to know whether France was to be a party to these negotiations when it became necessary that they should take place. His answer to this was, that those negotiations were to be carried on between the four Powers of Austria, England, Prussia, and Russia; and it was obvious, from the very nature of things, that France could not be called on to be a party to those arrangements. His right hon. friend had stated truly, that the House of Commons had shown great forbearance, and a marked confidence in the Government, in abstaining from exciting any premature discussions in the course of the pending negotiations; and he could assure his right hon. friend, that the course thus adopted by that House had contributed most essentially to the accomplishment of the objects they all had in view—namely, the preservation of the peace of Europe, and the settlement of the affairs of the kingdom of Belgium in such a manner as was consistent with the interests of our Allies, and the honour and security of England. He was not aware that he could say much more in answer to his right hon. friend's questions with respect to Belgium. It was obvious that the diminished resources of that country, both military and pecuniary, rendered it impossible that its government could continue to support a line of fortresses to the same extent as when it was united to the kingdom of Holland. His right hon. friend's next question applied to the capture of the Portuguese fleet in the Tagus, and to the floating of the tri-coloured flags under the walls of Lisbon. His right hon. friend had taken occasion to utter his regret that the government of France had made use of such expressions in the Speech delivered by the king; but it surely could not be expected, that he should now pronounce any opinions with respect to a Speech for which the Government of this country was in no way responsible. This much he would say, that his Majesty's Government was fully aware of the necessity imposed on it, of affording its powerful and efficient aid to Portugal, on all occasions such as his right hon. friend had described; and he could assure him, that if the Ministers had been of opinion, or brought to believe, that Portugal had, according to the true spirit and meaning of the two countries, a right to have demanded on this occasion the assistance of this country, that assistance would not have been withheld from her because the present Government of Portugal had not yet been recognized by this country. They had felt, indeed, from the first, that the fact of the Government not being recognized did not diminish in the least the obligations imposed by the treaties: and it was in full consideration of the validity of that obligation that the Government had, but a short time since, applied for and enforced that satisfaction which they thought to be justly due to reiterated and well-founded complaints. His right hon. friend had asked for the production of the correspondence which had taken place on the subject of the late events, and for the documents which would explain the full extent of the grievances which had led to the capture of the Portuguese vessels, and the entrance of the French into the Tagus, as announced in the Speech of the King of the French. He felt, that he could not, in compliance with his duty, then consent to give the information required; but whenever the time came for its production, he hoped to be able to defend the course adopted by the Government, and to explain it to the full satisfaction of his right hon. friend and the House. At the present moment, he did not think it would be expedient to produce the information which his right hon. friend asked for, not so much with reference to the interests of this country, as to transactions at present depending between others, and negotiations which might be prejudiced by premature disclosures or discussions.

Sir R. Peel

was glad to hear what his noble friend had stated with regard to those barriers, which had been most erroneously called fortresses intended to menace France, and not to protect Belgium. He again declared, that he was anxious not to excite any unnecessary discussion; but as that might be the last time any such opportunity would be afforded him, he could not allow it to pass without expressing a hope that the king of Holland would not be excluded from those future negotiations to which the noble Lord had referred. It should not be forgotten, that although the fortresses were supported for the defence and protection of Belgium, they were intended still more for the defence and protection of Holland—a country in the safety and independence of which England had the deepest interest, the integrity of which country must be always, with England, an object of the most anxious solicitude. He begged, indeed, to call the attention of the noble Lord to the peculiar claim which Holland possessed to be consulted with respect to the disposal of the fortresses. The noble Lord must recollect the Convention between this country and the prince sovereign of the Netherlands, signed in August 1814, by which it was agreed, that two millions of money, received as indemnity for claims on France, should be applied to the repair of these fortresses, for the defence of Holland, and for the exclusive support of British interests. The noble Lord must recollect, too, the terms on which this large sum was thus disposed of. He must remember, that in consideration of the sum applied to the erection of the fortresses, Holland consented to cede to England, in perpetuity, the colonies of the Cape of Good Hope, Demerara, Berbice, and Essequibo. Now if Holland, in the course of the negotiations, was to be held as in no way interested in the fate of these fortresses, he would beg to ask, what recompense had she received for surrendering these colonies, which England held as a consideration and a satisfaction for the money she consented to advance, in order that these fortresses might be placed in a proper state of defence.

Viscount Palmerston

admitted the statements of the right hon. Baronet, and assured him, that the Government had not been forgetful of what was due to the claims of the king of Holland, nor unmindful of the value of the independence of Holland with relation to the interests of England, and of the necessity of continuing to cultivate and maintain those relations of amity and mutual good-will which had so long prevailed between them, to their mutual honour and advantage. He admitted, that the right hon. Baronet had correctly stated the nature of the Convention, but he had forgotten one important part of it; namely, that this country, in return for the cession of the colonies, paid a million of money on account of the surrender of Guadeloupe, and that England charged itself with the payment of a part of that Dutch and Russian Loan which had been already adverted to by the hon. member for Thetford (Mr. Baring). It would appear, therefore, that Holland had already received an equivalent.

Lord Eliot

reminded the noble Lord, that the expense of the peace establishment of the fortresses was very small, and that it could not be said Belgium would be called on to support all, for many of them were within the Dutch frontier. The reason given, therefore, for the demolition of the fortresses was not altogether sufficient; and he hoped, before any negotiations were opened on the subject, or guarantee exacted for the securing of the integrity of Belgium, that the questions respecting her debt would be finally disposed of. He begged to ask the noble Lord, whether it was in consequence of any representations on the part of the Belgians, with respect to the expense of supporting the fortresses, that the Conference had been held at which it was resolved to dismantle them.

Viscount Palmerston

said, it occurred at a very early period, indeed shortly after he came into office, to the Plenipotentiaries of the Powers assembled to consider the state of affairs in Belgium, that it would be necessary to have recourse to some new measures with respect to these frontier fortresses, which had been erected to protect the kingdom of the Netherlands. It was unnecessary for him to say, that in the arrangements then proposed, these Powers had no other object than to take care, if possible, that fortresses erected for one purpose should not be applied to one directly contrary, and that the barriers raised for the protection of Belgium should not only become useless, but, from the operation of circumstances, be perhaps made to promote objects totally different from those intended by the Powers which constructed them. This was the view taken of the subject by the Allied Powers, parties to the Conference; and he had only to add, that, as far as he knew anything of the arrangements connected with the original construction of these fortresses, they were not intended to menace France, but were raised altogether with the view of defending the Netherlands.

Sir John Doyle

condemned the course which the Government had pursued towards Portugal, and observed, that although he had been a supporter of Ministers, he considered their conduct to have been very apathetic in reference to the late events, and that he must, although in opposition to their wishes, persist in demanding some early information on the subject of our relations with the government of Lisbon.

Colonel Evans

had seen the fortresses, and could declare, that it would require 40,000 men to garrison them, and a still larger army to defend them. The resources of Belgium were not equal to defend these places against a powerful enemy. The French had passed these fortresses, in 1815, without being arrested by them a single hour.

Mr. Baring

said, that the loan to which he referred, had, he believed, nothing to do with the cession of the Colonies; and as the circumstances under which England promised to take on itself a part of the payment were at an end by the dissolution of the connection between Holland and Belgium, he thought the obligation to discharge any portion of the payments was also at an end.

Viscount Palmerston

said, the object of the Government at that moment was, not to discover how they might form new obligations, but rather how they were to fulfil the obligations of treaties and debts already contracted.

The Papers to be printed.