HC Deb 06 February 1832 vol 9 cc1281-4
Lord Althorp

moved the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Committee of Supply.

Sir Richard Vyvyan

said, that before the report was brought up, he felt it necessary to refer for a moment to the discussion which had taken place between himself and the noble Viscount, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on Friday last, relative to a motion which he (Sir Richard Vyvyan) had stated it to be his intention to bring forward respecting the affairs of Belgium, and which he then postponed to the Tuesday following. It would be recollected that, in the conversation which then took place, he contended that it was wholly without precedent in the history of the country, that a treaty to which six Powers were contracting parties, which had received the signatures of the Plenipotentiaries of each of those Powers, but which had been ratified by three of them only, should be laid upon the Table of this House by a Minister of the Crown as a complete and binding instrument. The noble Viscount had then remarked, that he was mistaken, and had quoted the Treaty of Vienna as a precedent. The noble Viscount stated, that when that treaty was presented to Parliament, in the year 1815, it was ratified only by seven out of the eight Powers of which the Congress was composed. The reason, however, why the king of Spain refused to ratify the treaty was, that his Plenipotentiary had not signed it. That was the only precedent which the noble Lord had stated to the House in support of his own conduct. But, so far from that being a precedent in favour, he thought that it was a precedent against the noble Viscount's proceedings. The treaty of Vienna, which the Plenipotentiary of Spain did not sign, was not a treaty in which Spain was concerned. He believed, then, that he was perfectly correct in what he had stated the other night—that there was no precedent for the step which Ministers had taken in advising his Majesty to cause to be presented to his Parliament a treaty which, although ratified by himself, had not been ratified by three other Powers which were parties to it. The House, he felt, was placed in an awkward situation, by having a treaty laid on the Table which was an imperfect instrument. When he had first given notice of his Motion relative to the affairs of Belgium it was generally understood that the treaty relating to the settlement was to be ratified on the 15th of January; that ratification was afterwards postponed until the 31st of the same month, and had not yet even taken place, It appeared to him therefore, impossible to enter upon the discussion of a treaty which was yet incomplete, particularly as another Protocol had been issued, which still left hopes that the ratification might he expected. He begged leave, therefore, again to postpone his motion, which stood for to-morrow, until the 28th of February, with an express understanding, however, if the treaty was not then fully ratified, that he should feel it necessary to postpone his motion still further. The course that he intended to take would be to propose a vote of censure on his Majesty's Government, but he should be unwilling to propose that, till the treaty was complete.

Viscount Palmerston

had only one remark to make upon the statement which had just fallen from the hon. Baronet. When he quoted the Treaty of Vienna as a precedent, on Friday, he believed he stated that there might be a doubt, whether in all respects it could be considered as similar to that which now related to Belgium. He conceived, however, that there were infinitely stronger grounds of objection to the manner in which the Treaty of Vienna came before that House than there could possibly be to the treaty upon which the hon. Baronet's Motion so much depended. In the Treaty of Vienna, not only had the Spanish government not ratified, but, although Spain was recited in the preamble as one of the contracting parties, her Plenipotentiary had not even attached his signature, and the treaty was laid before this House, signed by the Plenipotentiaries of the other powers only. In the present case, the Plenipotentiaries of all the powers had signed. He conceived, then, that the Treaty of Vienna was not only a precedent, but a much stronger case than the present. But, however that might be, the House would remember that on Friday last he had stated, that if there had been no precedent, it would have been indispensably necessary for Ministers to have made one. He repeated that he thought the treaty in its present state binding upon this country. He could not conceive it to be the less binding on the powers who had ratified because it had not been ratified by the three other powers who were parties to it. At all events, he maintained that the King of this country having been advised by his Ministers to ratify the treaty, it was the duty of those Ministers to lose no time in submitting it to Parliament; and the fact of the other powers not having ratified did not appear to him to be any reason why the treaty should not be presented to that House. The hon. Baronet had called the transaction incomplete. He begged to state that, as far as this country was concerned, it was not incomplete. All he should further say was, that the Ministers having laid the treaty before Parliament, they were prepared to defend it, and to vindicate their own conduct in the transaction, whenever it might suit the hon. Baronet, or any other Member, to call upon the House for an expression of its opinion upon the subject.

Mr. Croker

begged to ask the noble Lord, whether, by his interpretation of the law of nations, a treaty entered into by six contracting parties, and ratified by three only, was binding upon those which had ratified?

Viscount Palmerston

To that question I answer distinctly, yes. I conceive that a treaty concluded between five parties on the one hand, and one party on the other, is equally binding on such of the five as may have ratified, whether the others have done so or not.