Mr. J. C. Herriessaid that, feeling the great importance of the subject which he was about to submit to the attention of the House, he was sorry that it had not fallen into abler hands than his own. He hoped, however, that the clearness of the case, as well as the amount of public money involved in it, would induce the House to bestow upon his statement, and the motion which he should found upon it, the attention which its importance demanded, but to which he knew he himself was so little entitled. The first point to which he should allude, was the application of a considerable sum of the public money, not only without the authority of Parliament, but, in his judgment, directly contrary to the provisions and directions of an Act of Parliament. At the close of the period when they were last assembled in that house, the attention of his right hon. friend the member for Tamworth 904 was drawn to the fact of an apparent misapplication of a sum of the public money without the authority of Parliament. There passed at that time, upon a question put across the table of the House, such an explanation as had placed the subject at the present moment in a more advanced state than, without such an explanation, it could have been. That circumstance would enable him materially to abridge the observations which he should feel it his duty to submit to the House on the present occasion. It would also tend, he thought, materially to diminish the time which he should have to bestow upon the subject, by clearing up and settling at once some important points which he should otherwise have had to prove. There were some principal circumstances —as matters of fact—that were on both sides agreed upon, and which, upon a question of this kind, was of material advantage. The House must be aware that he was about to propose to them to declare an opinion upon this question: that, an engagement having been contracted on the part of this country to pay a foreign loan in another country, with a certain condition annexed to that engagement, and that condition having been notoriously fulfilled or discharged, that the periodical payments of the loan had nevertheless continued to be made, to all appearance—indeed, as he should conceive, to the absolute conviction of every man acquainted with the treaties upon which it was founded—in manifest contravention of the stipulations which had been entered into. But for the admissions to which he had alluded, there might have been some doubts with respect to many of the facts involved in the ease. For instance, it might sometimes be a matter of doubt when a Stale was or was not in a state of independence. Upon that point, however, he should, on the present occasion, have no argument to make—no difficulty to encounter. It was admitted by the right hon. Gentlemen on the other side, of whose conduct he was about to complain, that the act of separation between Belgium and Holland had taken place. It was also admitted—for, after what had passed on a former occasion, he felt himself justified in saying so—that, subsequently to that separation, money had been paid by this country in satisfaction of the Russian loan in Holland. Upon that, he believed, there was no dispute. The point in dispute between him and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite was this: was it, or was it not lawful, on the port of the 905 Ministers of the Crown, after the separation of the Belgic provinces from Holland had occurred, to continue to make the payments to which he had alluded? It was indispensable for him, in order to put the House in possession of the state of the case as he viewed it, and in order to enable the members to come to a correct judgment upon the motion which he should have the honour to submit to them, that he should go into some minute detail. To that detail, notwithstanding the dulness of it, he prayed the attention of the House, because it was necessary to exhibit the true state of the transaction at the period to which he was about to allude. It was necessary that he should trace the origin and trace the progress of the engagement in question, in order that he might clearly state to the House upon what grounds it was he had come to the decision—a decision of which he could not divest his mind—that to continue the payment of the loan to which he had alluded, was an act, on the part of the Government, utterly without the sanction—nay, as he conceived, in absolute defiance of—a specific enactment of the Legislature. The origin of the transaction was this, and he begged the particular attention of the House to it:—The engagement, on the part of England, to pay the debt due by Russia to Holland, was not in discharge of any debt or engagement from England to Russia, but in discharge of an obligation of England to Holland. In order to elucidate the point, he (Mr. Herries) had called, on a former occasion, for two conventions, on which the debt was founded. It was to the first of those conventions that he begged, in the first place, to call the attention of the House. It contained much which had no relation to the subject which he was then discussing, but he should only trouble the House by directing its attention to that part of it upon which the whole of the transaction was founded, and from which every obligation which we had with respect to the loan undoubtedly sprung. The convention to which he was then alluding, was that of the 13th of August, 1814. To that convention was appended an additional article, and that additional article was the foundation of our engagement to pay the Russian loan. The preamble to the article was in these terms:—'In order the better to provide for the defence and incorporation of the Belgic provinces with Holland, his Britannic Majesty shall take upon himself, and engage to defray, the following charges:—1st. the payment of 1,000,000l. 906 sterling to Sweden, in satisfaction of certain claims mentioned in the convention; 2ndly. to advance 2,000,000l. sterling, to be applied, in concert with the prince sovereign of the Netherlands, and in aid of an equal sum to be furnished by him towards augmenting and improving the defences of 'the Low Countries; and, 3rdly. to bear, equally with Holland such further charges 'as may be agreed upon between the high contracting parties and their allies, towards the final and satisfactory settlement of the Low Countries, in union with Holland, and under the dominion of the House of Orange, not exceeding in the whole the sum of 3,000,000l., to be defrayed by Great Britain.' The indefinite obligation mentioned in that article, to pay certain sums in union with Holland, was better expressed by the French, who made use of the terms, "conjointement et toujours en portions égales,' conjointly and always in equal shares. But the indefinite engagement to which he alluded, and the substance of which was, as he had just stated, for the King of this country to pay certain sums for Holland, and with Holland, as Holland might require, for the purpose of securing to that country the incorporation of the Belgic provinces, was reduced to a specific and more binding engagement in the subsequent treaty. The framers of that treaty took care that there should be no mistake. They were at evident pains to make it clearly understood that it was in fulfilment of the first that the second was made. To that second treaty, in which the king of Holland expressed his obligation to the emperor of Russia, and the other allied powers, for the manner in which the Belgic provinces had been secured to him, in order to carry it into effect England stepped in, and agreed to become a party in pursuance of the engagements made by her with the king of the Netherlands in the previous treaty of the 13th of August, 1814. This undertaking, then, and all which related to it, had its origin in the obligations of the king of the Netherlands to the other European Powers, and, in consideration of it, certain colonies were ceded by Holland to this country. But whatever construction might be put upon the general tenour of this treaty, which it was not then of importance to refer to, it was clear, that, from the commencement to the end, the undertaking, on the part of this country, was all on account of, and in the interest of the king of the Netherlands, and in order to maintain the incorporation of the Belgic 907 provinces with his dominions. He had dwelt at some length upon that part of the subject, in order to impress upon the minds of those who, perhaps, might only have cursorily read the treaties, that there could, upon the face of those recorded documents, be no ground for mistake. He was also anxious that the House should be in possession of the terms of the two treaties, because upon them would turn the whole of his observations. He had referred to the origin of the transaction to show the manner in which it had arisen, upon what principle it was established, and to what definite point it was brought by the last treaty. In all the provisions of that treaty, as well, indeed, as in the first, the House would find that, with respect both to principal and interest, England agreed to discharge the loan in equal shares with Holland. That was the foundation upon which the first engagement was made, and it would have been most extraordinary, indeed it would have been wild, if, upon such an occasion, we had undertaken to make payments which Holland did not undertake to make in equal parts with us. If the facts were as he had stated them—and he thought they could not be denied—then Ministers had acted upon the conventions to which he had alluded, in a very illegal way, because England was only to pay her share of the loan conjointly with her partner, Holland. England was bound to pay, in common with Holland, and only in common with Holland; and in no case whatever was it provided, that this country was to make any payments independent of that power. In order always to be consistent with that policy, and in order to mark, in the strongest manner, the object and purpose of the last specific engagement, in order to limit it strictly, and to leave no doubt as to the construction to be put upon it, a clause was introduced, the most befitting that could have been introduced, for the state of things to which he had alluded. It declared, that "it was thereby 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, as aforesaid, shall cease and determine, should the possession and sovereignty (which God forbid) 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." That was perfectly right, perfectly consistent with the 908 principle of the treaty, and with the origin of the transaction. It might have been said, it might even then be said, that, if there were no such clause as that which he had just read, it would have been lawful for the Government of this country to have continued to have paid the loan to Russia after the separation of the Belgic provinces from Holland. But the statesmen of the day did not choose to leave a doubt upon the question. They said, "This treaty shall not only be executive, but prohibitive." They made assurance doubly sure; they strictly prohibited any further payment in case certain circumstances should arise. That case anticipated by the framers of the treaty had arrived, and, therefore, in conformity with the terms of the clause to which he had alluded, payment should have ceased. On the one side it had ceased—Holland, since her separation from Belgium, had ceased to pay, because she says the case has arisen which was contemplated by the framers of the treaty by which she was to be released from the engagement; England, however, continued to pay, notwithstanding the prohibition he had just read, and in spite of the full release he conceived she had. These were admitted facts, and therefore, although he was prepared to prove them, it was not necessary that he should occupy the time of the House by doing so; it was a point conceded that the Government of England, taking a different view of the question from that of Holland—upon what ground he knew not—had continued to make payments to Russia, in spite of the prohibition clearly and distinctly set forth in the treaty, and in spite of the fact that their co-partner in the engagement had felt himself entirely absolved from further payment. He (Mr. Herries) must state, that when the attention of the House was first drawn to this subject in the last sitting of Parliament, and when the noble Lord opposite had, upon that occasion, fairly and freely admitted that the facts which he had just stated had occurred, the continuance of Government to pay the loan appeared to him to be so obviously and flagrantly at variance, not only with the spirit, but with the precise words of the treaty, that he really anticipated, before they again assembled, that any motion such as that which he was about to submit would have been rendered unnecessary by some previous act on the part of the Government, admitting the fact of there being some other ground than any which had yet appeared before Parliament, and that they 909 had taken a new view of the case, and had therefore determined to continue to discharge the loan. But by their inaction upon the subject, Ministers had brought him to the conviction that their only defence could be grounded upon the assertion that there was no meaning in the words "shall cease and determine, in case of the separation of Belgium from Holland." To common understandings the meaning of these plain and decisive words was obvious enough. Ministers, he supposed, had some arbitrary reading of their own, by which they chose to translate them; at all events he could conceive no other grounds upon which they could possibly have continued their payments after the separation of the two countries had taken place. But, upon further investigation, it seemed that Ministers had not even that ground upon which to justify their conduct. It certainly was possible, to suppose that they had entertained a doubt upon the subject—that there was some difference of opinion between them as to the construction to be put upon the treaties. But that supposition could have no place in their answer that evening, because the House had the authority of the Lords of the Treasury themselves, to whom the execution of this treaty was confided by the House of Commons, for saying that the words of the Convention had not been misconstrued. It was admitted, that Parliament gave directions for the payment of the money in a particular manner, and gave specific directions as to the mode in which the Act should be performed, as was the case with most of the money paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The Lords of the Treasury were directed and authorized by their warrant to pay certain sums in certain particular cases, and these were generally stated with a great degree of strictness. He contended that this was the true interpretation of the present case. He was sure that no one would say, that, because an Act of Parliament was not considered sufficiently extensive, that therefore, the Lords of the Treasury were to be permitted to enlarge it. In all questions of this sort Parliament alone had the power to enlarge the provisions of an Act of their own. On a former occasion he called for an account of the monies advanced under the first treaty with Holland. That return was made by the Treasury in an able and satisfactory manner. Great pains had obviously been bestowed upon it; it was highly creditable to those by whom it was drawn up; it was perfectly correct. In 910 1828, the Treasury had also been called upon by the Finance Committee to make a return, not only of the sums that had been advanced under the head of the "Russian Loan," but also to stale to the Committee the condition upon which that loan was continued to be paid. That return was made, containing, of course, all the expenditure which had occurred under the head specified, together with a brief statement of the conditions upon which we were to continue to pay; and it concluded with these words, 'The payments are to cease should the Belgic provinces be separated from the dominion of the king of the Netherlands previous to the liquidation of the debt,' Notwithstanding that recorded understanding of the Lords of the Treasury with respect to the loan, and the conditions under which it was paid—notwithstanding the terms of the convention itself—notwithstanding, he would not call it the limitation, but the prohibition, of the clause in the second treaty—notwithstanding the occurrence of the fact, which, upon the face of the documents to which he had alluded rendered it, to all common understandings, imperative on the Government not to make further payments—notwithstanding that our associate in the transaction, knowing well the justice of the case, and understanding well the engagement under winch he was bound, had refused to continue to make his payments—notwithstanding all these circumstances, the Government of this country had, during the last three times of payment, continued to pay England's share of the debt. Three times the Dutch government had refused to pay—three times the English Government had continued to pay. It was not for him on that occasion to enter into any argument upon the point; or at what particular time the separation of Belgium from Holland might be technically said to have taken place. Suffice it for him to say, that he had so worded his resolution as to make it apply to any payment that might have been made at any time after the separation had taken place. He had given his most cool and deliberate attention to the subject, and he felt convinced, on a review of all the facts he had recapitulated, that there was not the smallest iota of claim on the part of Russia for the continuance of the payment of the debt by England. We were in this situation—we had made two treaties with Holland for the purpose of liquidating this loan, and accompanied with certain conditions, which conditions apply to the 911 case so strongly that the treaty was at an end unless they were fulfilled, We were only to pay these sums of money jointly with Holland, and for the benefit of that Power. England was not, in her separate capacity a debtor to Russia—Russia had no right to make any claim on us for the liquidation of the debt. We certainly were bound to Russia to make payment upon a particular basis; and one of the ground-works of that basis was, that Holland should continue to make joint payments with us. He would ask, whether, if Russia exempted Holland from the payment of this loan, England would be called upon to pay? The payments had reference only to certain objects. The treaty was made with a view to secure the government of the Belgian provinces to the king of the Netherlands. It was considered that we should do much for the attainment of that object by the adoption of this course. If we were absolved from one part of the treaty, we were absolved from the whole; and if we were held by one part, we were held by the whole. He wished to shew that it was not possible that we could be considered the debtors of Russia in any other respect than as being conjointly bound with Holland in this loan. The conduct, however, that had been pursued would go to show that it was a debt from this country to Russia, not with the concurrence of Holland, but a debt from England alone. Holland refused to pay her portion, on the ground that the loan was contracted to continue her in undivided possession of the Belgic provinces, and that she no longer had the sovereignty of that country; and it was impossible, when the principal was exonerated that the surbordinate party should be held bound by his engagement. After much reflection, he confessed he had not been able to arrive at any decent conjecture as to what the nature of the defence to be set up by Ministers would be. Speaking honestly, he really was not able even to guess at the grounds of objection which might be made by Government to the Motion, which, in conformity with the simple facts which he had stated, it was his intention to submit to the House. He could not suppose that any circumstance previous to the date of the treaties would be urged as a ground for putting a construction upon them contrary to that which he had stated as their most obvious and palpable meaning. Neither could he suppose that any other negotiations would be pleaded as giving a colouring to the treaties 912 which would warrant Ministers in taking a course directly at variance with the obvious meaning of their words. He could not suppose that either of these grounds would be advanced, because, after what had been said on a former occasion, it would have been the duty of Ministers, if the whole of the circumstances under which they had acted were not known to the House, to have come down and explained them. Neither could he believe, although he had heard it stated, that Ministers would seek to defend themselves upon the ground that, inasmuch as that this country had been participant in, or had, in some degree, contributed to the independence of the Belgic provinces, that therefore she was not released from her obligation to discharge her share of the debt due to Russia. He could not suppose that such a ground of defence would be set up, because, at first sight, it was obviously untenable. Parliament had confided powers, or rather given directions, to the Lords of the Treasury to do so and so, under certain conditions. Those conditions were imperative, and Parliament certainly did not give the Lords of the Treasury power to dispense with them, and to act in direct contradiction of them. The Government in no case could act upon its own judgment as to what was right, so as to dispense with the authority of Parliament, in the application of any portion of the public money; and such a proceeding came most ungraciously from those hon. Gentlemen who had been so loud in recommending a most watchful care over the national purse. In continuing these payments under such circumstances, they had been guilty of one of the most flagrant outrages on their own avowed principles, that could possibly take place in any department of the public service. If no justification could be founded upon any thing that had occurred before or after the passing of the Act of Parliament, by which it could be shown that the Lords of the Treasury were authorised to pay England's share of Holland's debt to Russia, the House could, of necessity, come to but one conclusion; and he confessed that he approached with wonder the only real ground of defence which it appeared to him it would be possible for Ministers to set up—namely, that they had read the treaty differently, that they had read the Act of Parliament differently from the rest of mankind, or, at least, that the words of the treaty and the words of the Act of Parliament had not, in their minds, the same 913 import that they had in his. If the words of the treaty, or the words of the Act of Parliament, had been loose or ambiguous, he might have thought that such a solution of the difficulty would have been easy and admissible. But those words were so precise, so very specific, so very cautious, that he was at a loss to conceive how it would be possible for Ministers ever to explain their conduct. He had thus stated, tediously he feared, but still, he hoped, distinctly, all the facts of the case. The question was one of such immense importance in its principle and in its consequences, that in the statement which he had made he had endeavoured to throw out every thing which could tend to diminish its clearness, or to divert the attention of the House from the main facts upon which it would have to express its opinion. He had not treated it as a party question, neither had he alluded to the differences of opinion which existed between political parties, nor indulged in any of the taunts which were but too frequent when those who had lately been in office arraigned the conduct of those who were their successors. Undoubtedly he had neglected a very good opportunity of reminding the right hon. Gentlemen opposite of professions made before they had assumed the situation which they then held. He might have drawn a comparison between what they had promised and what they had performed, but he had purposely abstained from making any allusions to their apparent inconsistency. He felt that the subject itself was one which required to be discussed altogether in a different tone and temper. He felt that it was of the utmost importance that every man should dismiss from his mind every party prejudice, and that he should be able to decide upon the question in reference alone to the authority of Parliament—the constitutional privileges of Parliament, and the proper disposal of the public money. Taken in that point of view, the division of that night would be of immense importance, because the question upon which it would take place, involved principles of the highest order, not only in the direction of international affairs, but in the administration of civil government. If the House rejected his Motion, they would sanction the disposal of upwards of 5,000,000l. of the public money without the direction or authority of Parliament. To all those who thought this constitutional principle of importance that all directions for the expenditure of the public money by Parliament should be implicitly obeyed, and 914 to all those who believed that the assumption of the least discretion on the observance of that high principle was fraught with danger to the liberty of the subject, he strongly recommended to vote for the Motion with which he should presently conclude; all those, on the other hand, who thought that expediency would at any time justify any Minister to dispense with the express authority of an Act of Parliament would, of course, vote against him. Finally, as he felt convinced, that Great Britain was not called upon by the treaty, or authorised by the Act of Parliament, to continue the payment, he hoped that all who were in favour of retrenchment and economy, as well as those who looked upon the Government as bound by treaties, would vote with him in the Resolutions which he would then beg leave to propose. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following Resolutions:—
"That, by the Act 55th George 3rd, for carrying into effect a Convention between his Majesty and the king of the Netherlands and the emperor of Russia, power is given to the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury to issue such sums of money as shall be required for the payment of the interest or principal of a certain portion of a Russian loan in Holland, to be borne (in pursuance of that Convention) by his Majesty as and when the same shall be payable, conformably to the tenor of his Majesty's engagement, as specified in the said Convention.
"That, by one of the articles of the said Convention, recited in the said Act, it is expressly provided, that the said payments on the part of the king of the Netherlands, and of his Majesty as aforesaid, should 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.
"That the application of the public money for the purpose of effecting any payments on the part of Great Britain, on account of the Russian loan in Holland, after the possession and sovereignty of the Belgic Provinces had passed from the dominions of the king of the Netherlands, is contrary to the provisions of the Act 55 George 3rd, c. 115, and is unwarranted by any authority of Parliament."
§ Lord Althorpwas free to admit that the greater portion of the right hon. Gentleman's statement was not an exaggeration of 915 the facts of the case, but he had to complain of the irrelevance of the topics on which he had touched towards the conclusion of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman professed that he was chiefly induced to bring forward this Motion on the ground of public economy. A question of public economy was one which very properly commanded a ready hearing in that House, at least from himself and his colleagues, but it would be unjust to the real merits of the case under consideration to represent it as one merely involving the interests of the public purse, without regard to public honour. The question for the House to determine was, not whether a certain saving might possibly be effected in the public expenditure, but whether the faith of the Crown—that is, the honour of the country—was pledged to pay the sums referred to in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. This was the real question before the House, and he hoped, therefore, that it would be borne in mind by hon. Members, and that they would not persuade themselves, that in voting for the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, they were voting merely to effect a reduction in the public expenditure. The question really was—was the public faith pledged by the Treaty of 1815, to the payment of certain sums to the emperor of Russia? He was ready to admit, that if they confined their views to the mere letter of the Act, framed with a view to carry the provisions of the Treaty of 1815, the inferences of the right hon. Gentleman were not unwarranted, but he maintained, that if they impartially examined the treaty itself, they would arrive at the conclusion that we were bound by it to make good the payments complained of by the right hon. Gentleman. The treaty—he felt he was not assuming too much in saying so—was the document which should be their guide in the present investigation, the Act being merely a formal legislative sanction of its provisions. At the first blush it was his own opinion, that we were not bound to continue the payments under the circumstances of separation dwelt upon by the right hon. Gentleman; but a careful examination of the spirit and provisions of that treaty convinced him that the honour of the country was pledged to the payments, and that on no other consideration than that it was so pledged should we have interfered as we had done in the affairs of Holland and Belgium. That was not the time for considering whether the treaty was originally a wise one or otherwise; the simple question, 916 he repeated, was, whether, by its provisions, was the honour of the Crown pledged to the payment of a portion of a certain loan made between the king of the Netherlands and the emperor of Russia. The right hon. Gentleman maintained that we were not bound to make good the terms of that loan; because as its payment was contingent upon the non-separation of Belgium and Holland, the fact of a severance having taken place between the states, made null the original compact. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's inference would be found in the spirit in which the treaty was entered into, and in a consideration of the object contemplated by the provision which made the integrity of the contract contingent upon the union of Holland and Belgium under one monarch. That consideration would show, that the separation contemplated by the framers of the treaty was one made by external force, and had nothing to say to any separation wholly internal in its source and result. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the sole object of the treaty was to secure the union of the Dutch and Belgic provinces under the king of the Netherlands, and that Holland only derived benefit from its provisions. This was but partially true. Was it no benefit to Russia to be released from a debt? And was it not the evident object of the British Government, in pledging this country to a moiety of the debt contracted in Holland by Russia, to give Russia an interest in preserving the integrity of the kingdom of the Netherlands? It was to effect this object—that is, he repeated, to give Russia an interest in preventing the severance of Holland and Belgium—that this country concluded the treaty, and to that treaty we were in equity still pledged. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to consider the argument founded on the equity view of the case as nugatory. To that he could only say, that as between one upright man in private life and another, so he thought it should be between two nations. If a gentleman pledged himself to the payment of a debt, to which there was also a third party, he thought it would be highly dishonourable in that gentleman to take advantage of the circumstance of that third party having refused to fulfil his engagement, as a legal reason for also refusing to fulfil his engagement. If the conditions on which a debt was contracted were altered or broken by circumstances over which the creditor had no control, did it follow that the moral obligation of the debt was also broken? And as between 917 man and man, so it ought to obtain between nations; what would be dishonourable in the one, would be dishonourable in the other; and what was morally binding on the one was morally binding on the other. So much for the principle involved in the present question. As that question referred to the official department—the King's Exchequer—over which he immediately presided, he felt he was the member of the Government directly responsible for the entire proceeding. He did not shrink from his responsibility, and would merely state the steps which he had taken, in order to show, that if the Treasury acted contrary to law, they did not do so intentionally, and that he did his best to ascertain what the law was before he incurred the responsibility of issuing a Treasury order for the payment of the sums under consideration. When the question of the Russian loan first came under his official notice, he referred it to the law officers of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether, under the circumstances of the case, this country was bound to continue the payment of the monies paid, agreeably to treaty, to Russia on the head of its loan to Holland. And the answer of the law officers was, that we were bound to continue these payments by the treaty, of which the Act of Parliament was a mere formal legislative sanction. In consequence of the opinion of the law officers agreeing as it did with his own, a legal Treasury check was issued for the payment, and the money was paid. It was but right to observe, that the noble Auditor of the Exchequer did, when the matter was first submitted to his consideration, express a doubt whether we were bound to continue these payments. But when the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and the grounds on which it was formed, were submitted to Lord Grenville, he expressed his concurrence with the propriety of these opinions, and consequently with the course pursued by the Treasury. It was true that in some cases the Auditor of the Exchequer was bound to obey the Treasury when it took upon itself the responsibility; but in the present instance the grounds of the whole proceeding were explained to Lord Grenville, and the result was, a conviction produced in his mind of their justness. These were the steps which he (Lord Althorp) had pursued with respect to the subject matter of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and for which he felt himself responsible. He did not, as he had said, shrink from his just responsibility; if he 918 was wrong, he was the responsible member of the Government. With respect to the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman, he had only to say, that as the two first were merely declaratory of fact, he would merely, so far as they were concerned, move the previous question; but as the third Resolution was a direct censure on Ministers, he would meet it with a direct negative.
§ Mr. Pollocksaid, the noble Lord maintained his high character for honour and manliness, in taking upon himself the responsibility of the payment in question, but, nevertheless the facts of the case, which appeared to lie in a very narrow compass, were contrary to the noble Lord's decision. The treaty was made to consolidate the two countries of Holland and Belgium, and it contained these expressions, "In order the better to provide for the defence and incorporation of the Belgian provinces with Holland," &c. which clearly shewed that the object contemplated was as he had stated it. It further appeared by the treaty, that the allied powers having claims upon Holland for the benefit done to her, gave them up in favour of the emperor of Russia, and upon that arrangement this convention was entered into for the payment of those monies, upon the condition that the payments should cease and determine whenever the Belgium provinces should pass away and be severed from the king of Holland. That contingency had actually occurred, and the king of Holland had in consequence ceased to pay his proportion of the loan. Who impeached his good faith in consequence? Did any man say, that the king of Holland was bound to continue his payments when Belgium was wholly severed from his dominions, and another sovereign on its throne? He must contend that the treaty referred simply to a separation between Holland and Belgium, and made no sort of allusion whatsoever to the species of the separation, or the causes of that separation, against which they wished to provide. If the king of the Netherlands was not bound to pay, why should this country pay? The noble Lord said, the only cause of separation contemplated by the treaty was external force. Where did he find that gloss or comment? If the objection of the disseverment was good for Holland, it was good for us; and was there a man in the House who would dare to say it was not good for the king of Holland? But then, said the noble Lord, would they take advantage of their own act in promoting 919 the separation to escape their pecuniary engagement? But the fact was, the disseverance had taken place before. In November the Belgian Chamber declared Belgium independent. Holland had also agreed to the separation, when the Prince of Orange published a manifesto declaring Belgium free, and offering himself as its head; but the people of that country answered his manifesto by declaring that they were independent without him, and would choose another sovereign. This country, therefore, was no party to the separation, as the States-general of Belgium declared their independence on the 10th of November, and this country had not interfered between the two countries up to that time. But this was another answer to the argument of the noble Lord. If this country was a party to the severance, equally so was the emperor of Russia. And if so, what right had he to demand this payment? He would ask, too, what would have been the consequences if this country had not interfered at all (as it only did interfere to prevent the flames of war being kindled in a corner of Europe)? Surely they would not have been bound at all, unless, indeed, they were to accept the construction of the noble Lord as to foreign violence, and take for granted that the meaning of the treaty was something which it did not express, and which was not to be found within it. He wondered where the noble Lord made it out; and even if he could conclusively make it out, still the noble Lord should have come down to the House to state the true circumstances which had arisen, and for which the treaty had not provided. The truth was, the noble Lord could not justify his conduct by either the act of Parliament or the treaty, and he ought to have come down and explained what the circumstances were which enabled him to give an interpretation of the treaty which its letter or tenor could not warrant. It was plain that his wishes were contrary to the spirit of both treaty and act, and his defence was a mere quod voluit, non dixit lex, which not even his transparent candour could redeem.
§ The Solicitor Generalwould not enter into a lengthened history of the treaties referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, nor into an examination of the principles of retrenchment now involved in them, but would rest his objection to the present motion on the principle admitted by all jurists and lawyers—that the municipal law of one state did not bind another state, 920 though a party to a common treaty. Whatever, for example, may be the municipal law of Holland, we were not bound by it, only so far as it corresponded with the received usage of the law of nations; the question thus referring itself to one of international law. Without their indulging in the fanciful doctrine of the lex gentium, he would assume that every nation was interested in preserving unsullied its public honour or faith, so that, if he should show that the public faith of this country was pledged to the fulfilment of the treaty of 1815, in its entire spirit, it would follow, that, by every principle of the law of nations, Ministers were not only justified in, but bound to act as they had done with respect to the debt due by Holland to Russia. They must have recourse to the law of nations, or, in other words, public faith and a fair and practical consideration of what was right, in strict equity between two parties to a contract. The state of the two countries, also, at the time must be taken into consideration. In 1814, when the first treaty was made, this country was in the possession of all the Dutch colonies, but, by the Treaty of 1815, we unconditionally ceded to Holland all these colonies, excepting only the Cape of Good Hope, Berbice, Demarara, and Essequibo; and considering it politically advantageous to retain these, England consented to grant a payment of money to Holland as a compensation. And it was stated, that this should be the subject of a new treaty. To those there were certain supernumerary articles which should be taken with the treaty. By that supplementary treaty, England engaged to leave 3,000,000l. of money at the absolute disposal of Holland, and no qualification was made as to the mode of payment. The obligation of payment was enforced, but the mode of payment was not stated. But, in the Treaty of 1815, it was originally intended that Holland and Russia should be the parties; for what said the preamble? 'His majesty the king of the Netherlands being desirous, upon the final re-union of the Belgic provinces with Holland, to render to the Allied Powers, who were parties to the treaty concluded at Chaumont on the 1st of March, 1814 a suitable return for the heavy expense incurred by them in delivering the said territories from the power of the enemy; and the said powers having, in consideration of arrangements made with each other, mutually agreed to waive their several pretensions under this head 921 in favour of his majesty the emperor of all the Russias, his said majesty the king of the Netherlands has thereupon resolved to proceed immediately to execute with his imperial majesty a convention to the following effect, to which his Britannic Majesty agrees to be a party in pursuance of engagements taken by his said Majesty with the king of the Netherlands, in a convention signed at London on the 13th day of August, 1814.' The great Powers, it appeared, considered they had a demand upon Holland for the sacrifices made by them during the war; but Russia, through the house of Hope, was at the time indebted to Holland in the sum of 50,000,000 of florins. So strong was the obligation imposed on the contracting parties by this treaty, that even war was not to put an end to that obligation or suspend it. War, he repeated, which was the highest prerogative of sovereign power, was not to put an end to the treaty, and he inferred, of course, that no other combination of circumstances could suspend the treaty. They were bound to look at the interest of the three parties, and the treaty was so drawn, that even war between two of them was not to put an end to the obligation. The parties themselves, then, were most anxious to preserve the treaty. He would then come to the clause which said, 'that the 'said payments on the part of their majesties the king of the Netherlands and the King of Great Britain aforesaid shall cease and determine, should the sovereignty (which God forbid) 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 terms of this clause showed that the three Powers deprecated the passing away or the severance of those provinces from the sovereignty of the king of the Netherlands—the very terms, "which God forbid," showed this beyond all doubt. Now, he contended, that in equity and justice, it would be extremely unfair for any one of the parties who had so contracted to pay, to take advantage of a circumstance which they all greatly deprecated, to justify the not executing her own engagements. It was said, that the treaty was confirmed by an Act of Parliament, and that the Ministers ought to have gone by that; but what had the emperor of Russia to do with our Acts of Parliament? He might refer us to an ukase, or the king of Holland might refer us to an art of the States-general, 922 but neither of them would think an Act of Parliament binding. Another principle that had influenced his judgment was, that a party could not take advantage of an act of his own to throw off a pecuniary obligation. Now, what had England done? Had she not interfered between the two countries; had she not assisted to accomplish the separation? It was foolish to shut their eyes to the fact, that Russia might interfere—that family relations and various other circumstances might have induced her to interpose and endeavour to prevent the separation—and what had prevented her interference but the interposition of this country? England had been accessary to the separation, and it was not in good faith to say that a separation which had been, in a manner caused by herself, should be now taken advantage of to avoid a pecuniary payment. In his deliberate opinion, he saw no reason whatever to exonerate this country from the obligations of the treaty. Had we commenced war with either Holland or Russia, still we should have been bound to continue the payments, and, therefore, war between any other parties could not exonerate us. Finally, he must say he had heard no argument, and he knew of none, which could be urged to justify the withholding of the payments.
Mr. Baringsaid, that the subject was one of the utmost importance, for small as the sum really paid which had brought on the question now before the House might appear, still it was of consequence in the present financial state of the country; and besides that, the principle on which it was paid involved the payment of a much larger sum; though that might not been thought so much of at the period when this treaty was entered into, when tens and twenties of millions were thrown away so profusely. In those spendthrift times the amount of such a sum as this was not thought a matter worth discussing, but now when the Parliament and the Government were become more economical, and when if they were not so voluntarily, they would be forced to be so by the country, every sixpence in the public expenditure was a matter of importance. At the same time he must say, that whether the sum in question was 5,000,000l. or 50,000,000l., if we were bound in honour to pay it; if the honour of the country were involved in it, no man of honesty would, for a moment, doubt the justice and the necessity of making the payment. The first, thing, therefore, which 923 they had to look to was, whether, in fact, they were engaged, in justice or honour, to continue this payment. And here he must observe, with great deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that he had added very little, if anything, to the plain common sense and manly view of the case taken by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, on this, as he did on every occasion, gave a fair, straightforward, and candid account of his opinion on the subject. It was not necessary for him to follow the argument of the hon. and learned Solicitor General on the question, because he did not look upon it at all as a mere question of law, but as a question of fact; and if it had been sent to the Court of King's Bench for the discussion he should have thought it would have been very properly treated if it had been remitted by the Judges of that Court to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as a matter more fit for his decision than for the opinion of lawyers. As, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman had led the opinion of Ministers on this subject, it might be as well to notice one or two of his arguments. In the first place, they were all agreed as to the nature of the engagement. The question then was, were we legally bound, and if not legally, were we bound in honour and equity to adhere to the contract we had entered into? Were there such circumstances in the case, which though they did not bind us in law, yet were of a nature that imposed an obligation which an honest man would consider as binding on him in equity. If there was no legal obligation on us, but only an obligation in equity and honour, arising out of all the circumstances, then he must say, that the course which Ministers ought to have adopted was to come to Parliament, and lay the case before it. His own opinion was, that all obligation on our part had ceased with the separation of the two counties. If the case for which hon. Gentlemen on the other side had contended could be made out—and there were circumstances in favour of Russia which ought to induce us to continue the payments—then, he repeated, the course Ministers ought to have adopted was, to come to Parliament, and to lay those circumstances before it. The hon. and learned Gentleman the (Solicitor General) had said, that the emperor of Russia would not look to Acts of Parliament, but to the treaty. There he begged to differ from him, for the very terms of the treaty itself would induce him 924 to refer to what Parliament might do. The minister of the king of the Netherlands, who signed that treaty, engaged on the part of his master, that he would take upon himself the payment of one-half of the debt in question, but the Minister of the King of England only engaged that his Sovereign would recommend to his Parliament to enable him to take upon himself the payment of the other half. Now, the case against Ministers was, that they acted, in directing the continuance of this payment as if they had to deal only with an ukase, and not with an act of Parliament, for they made no application on the subject. If the payment had been promised to the king of the Netherlands instead of the emperor of Russia on certain contingencies, and those conditions no longer exsisted, he could easily imagine that the circumstances of the case of Holland would justify a continuance of the payment by the authority of Parliament for Holland, because she had given up some of her foreign colonies for a compensation in having Belgium united to her, and had now lost that compensation by the separation of Belgium. But nothing of this kind existed with respect to Russia. She had lost nothing, but in her case the contingency had happened on which the payment was to cease and determine. He admitted, of course, that we were as much bound to keep faith with Russia as with any other power, but the case must be fairly established that she had a legal or an honourable claim on us before the people of this country should be called upon to part with a shilling of their money on her account. The hon. and learned Gentleman had read the words of that part of the clause which named the contingency on which the payments were to cease. Nothing, he thought, could be more decisive against the hon. and learned Gentleman's own case than those words, "The said payments shall cease and determine should the possession and sovereignty (which God forbid) of the Belgic provinces pass or be severed from the dominion of his majesty the king of the Netherlands." Had that contingency taken place or not? If he went to a lawyer, he would say no, as they had heard that night; but if he went to the Minister, he should be told, yes; but there were circumstances in the case which ought to induce us to continue this payment, though not legally bound to do so. To put the question in a plain light, ho would ask, if any Member of that House at the foot of the hustings was applied to 925 by his constituents requesting him to inform them on what ground it was he had consented to pay away 5,000,000l. of the public money to Russia, would the answer or explanation which they had heard to-night be considered satisfactory by any man of common sense, who looked at the treaty, and who understood the language? He was sure it would not, for he was convinced that no other construction would be put upon the treaty through the country than that which he had put upon it; but it seemed that the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) had found something in it, which ordinary and vulgar understandings could never make out. The noble Lord (Althorp) had admitted the whole case as far as the occurrence of the contingency on which the payment was to cease, but his (Lord Althorp's) argument was, that there were circumstances in the case which justified the continuance of the payments. If so, he again repeated, the noble Lord ought to have come to Parliament before he directed the payment. It was impossible for stronger words to have been selected than those used in that part of the clause—"If the possession and sovereignty should pass or be severed from." It was well understood by the parties to the treaty that there were many circumstances which might divide the two countries. They might be separated by internal discord or civil war, but the passing of the possession and sovereignty was the contingency mentioned by the treaty. The very circumstance of going to war not being admitted as putting an end to the payment, made the case still stronger for the view which he took of it. Indeed, it was impossible that the parties to such a treaty should not have considered all the contingencies which were possible in such a case, and thus fixed upon one which persons acquainted with the condition and the feelings of the two countries, thus brought under one sovereign would not think very improbable. Any one who knew the state of Belgium at that time must have seen that its union with Holland was a great experiment, the result of which was by no means certain. The union of two people, with feelings hostile on so many important points, could not be considered as one fixed and permanent. It was not possible, therefore, that, skilful Diplomatists and well-informed politicians could have overlooked such a contingency as had happened. How then, he would ask, could it for a moment be supposed that the parties to the treaty, 926 in naming a contingency by no means improbable—on which contingency the great object of the treaty, namely, this payment was to cease—how could it be supposed that it was not the intention of all parties that it should cease when that contingency happened? But then the hon. and learned Gentleman had contended that the government of this country had itself assisted in promoting the passing and severing of these provinces from the possession and sovereignty of the king of the Netherlands. He would say, that if that were really the case, it would be a strong ground for the impeachment of Ministers who had so acted. He was sure that a stronger ground of impeachment could not exist than such a charge as that Ministers had been so acting. The inference which the hon. and learned Member drew from this assumption was, that we ought not to take advantage of our own acts. Such an argument might do very well in Lincoln's-inn, but he was sure it would not be admitted in Downing-street. The noble Lord (Lord Althorp) would, he was sure, be ashamed to act upon any such reasoning, for there could be no greater political crime than that which it implied. If there were any two points on which our interference would be justified, they were the Tagus and the Scheldt. He would not, however, enter upon that subject then, or allude to the influence which France had now acquired in the Netherlands, for he admitted that there were great difficulties attending it. All he had to do with the argument used by the hon. and learned Gentleman was, to say that it made the case of the Government worse. What subterfuge in law could do away with the effect of these plain words, "The said payments shall cease and determine should the possession and sovereignty (which God forbid) of the Belgic provinces pass or be severed from the dominion of his Majesty the king of the Netherlands?" It must, therefore, be evident that the contracting parties fully intended that the payments by Great Britain and Holland were to cease whenever the sovereignty of the latter over the provinces of the Netherlands should pass. He had heard no case made out to support the view taken of this case by Ministers, and therefore should feel it his duty to support the Motion. At the same time he must say, that he should be ashamed of himself if he allowed his opinion on such a case as this to be biased by any feelings of party. He assured hon. Gentlemen opposite that he had no such 927 feeling on this occasion. He looked upon the question, first as a question of good faith on our part, and if any case were made out to show that in good faith we were bound to pay this sum, or that in point of honour, though not in law, we ought to continue to pay what we had stipulated, he would not support the Motion; but, even in that case, he must say, that Ministers should bring the subject before Parliament, for certainly the Members of that House ought to show to their constituents that they would not sanction any application of the public money unless a good and sufficient cause could be made out for the payment of it. Without taking up the time of the House further, he must say, that unless a stronger case were made out than he had yet heard, he must support the Motion. If the House allowed a case of this kind to pass without interfering in it, there would be an end of that salutary control which it ought to exercise over the application of the public money. It would be permitting this Government to do that which the Government of 1814 had not done—to pay this money without the sanction of Parliament. He hoped that in the decision on this question every hon. Member would exercise his own common sense, without any reference to party considerations. He could not know what arguments might be urged on this question by the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, but he must say, that he had yet heard nothing which could warrant him in resisting the Motion before him. At the same time he should have no objection to its being so shaped, or put into any other form which would make it less censurable. If, however, Government should persist in defending the case and resting on its own responsibility, he must support the Motion. In conclusion, he must remind hon. Gentlemen of the possibility of their being again sent to their constituents before the end of the year, and he would, therefore, again ask, how could any one of them justify a vote of the public money without having a good case made out for the application of it? If the whole question should, as he contended it ought to be brought before Parliament, and the continuance of the payment be sanctioned, he was sure that a succeeding Parliament, however strongly disposed to economy, would feel bound in honour to go on with the payments; but certain he was that another Parliament would not sanction the application of any sum of public money without legislative authority.
§ Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he must express his surprise that the hon. Member who had just sat down, and who said he was disposed to view this case on its own merits both as a legal and equitable claim on the part of Russia, yet should have felt it necessary, in the course of his argument, to make appeals to the opinion of constituents at future elections respecting the continuation of the payments. If the hon. Gentleman was really disposed to argue the question solely as one of justice or of equity, he would have avoided using arguments for the purpose of awaking certain feelings elsewhere. The hon. Member had said, that if the case involved 50,000,000l. instead of 5,000,000l., we ought to pay it, if it were a question of good faith, or if any good case were made out for the payment of the money, but on the score of good faith, which he thought ought to be observed in debate as well as in treaties, he could not see why the hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to mix up with his arguments those appeals which he had made to feelings of parties out of the House. Such a course might serve to catch a few votes, but it left the argument on the case just where it found it, and he, therefore, would proceed to state the case as it came under the view of Government. Before the Treasury made any payments whatever upon account of this loan, after the separation of Belgium from Holland, they had obtained the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. Notwithstanding which, about October last the Treasury first became acquainted with the fact, that a doubt was entertained in the Auditor's office, whether the next payments could be legally sanctioned by him, and in the commencement of January that noble Lord transmitted a letter to the Lords of the Treasury, requesting the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on a case which he enclosed in it, and asking for special directions on the subject, before he should make any further payments on account of this loan. The letter of the noble Lord, which was dated the 3rd of January, was as follows:—
"Auditor's-office, Exchequer-office,"January 3, 1832.My Lords—Some doubts having occurred in this office respecting the legality of any issue which might henceforth be directed by your Lordships to be made from the Exchequer for any fresh payment of dividends on the Russian loan by virtue of the Act 55 George 3rd, c. 115, I think it my duty herewith to enclose a statement which has been there prepared of the grounds of those doubts, such as 929 they have been laid before me, and I humbly request that your Lordships will be pleased to obtain from the opinion of his Majesty's law servants whether, under the circumstances there stated, I shall legally be justified in executing, as far as depends upon me, any such direction; and that your Lordships will also be pleased, in a case so highly important to the public faith and to the interests of the State, to give me such special directions as you may judge fit for my conduct in any part of this business, in which it shall really appear that any legal discretion rests with me.The Treasury, on the receipt of this letter, at once intimated to his Lordship, in reply, that steps would be immediately taken to obtain for him the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in the case which he had submitted for their consideration. Some delay, however, necessarily occurred in obtaining that opinion, owing to the circumstance of the law officers of the Crown being at the time absent at the Special Commission in Bristol. Immediately on their return to town, the case transmitted to the Treasury was submitted to them, and their opinion taken upon it. That opinion was given upon the 23rd of January, and upon the same day it was communicated by the Lords of the Treasury to Lord Grenville. Thus, without giving him any special directions on the subject, the Treasury communicated to his Lordship the information which he had demanded. The Treasury, without directly or indirectly intimating any opinion to his Lordship as to what course he should pursue, transmitted to him the opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon the case which he had himself proposed for their consideration. It was upon the 23rd of January, as he had just stated, that the Treasury received the second opinion of the law officers of the Crown on this subject, in reference to the case transmitted by Lord Grenville. It was sent that day to his Lordship, and by return of post the following letter, which had been only put into his (Mr. Rice's) hands a few hours before his coming into the House, was received from his Lordship:—
"I have the honour, &c. "GRENVILLE." "Exchequer, January 25, 1832.Sir—I have had the honour to receive your letter of yesterday's date with its enclosure, and I request that you will lay before the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury my respectful thanks for the information which they have been pleased to supply to me on this important matter.The Statute, 55 George 3rd, c. 115, is the document on which the question must turn, 930 as far as relates to my conduct. That is the authority to which I am bound to conform myself. But I am fully satisfied that its true construction depends (as his Majesty's law servants have stated) on that of the treaty which it recites, and for the execution of which it was made. Where, then, must that construction be determined? The officers of the Exchequer cannot interpret the King's engagements with his allies, or pronounce how they are affected by subsequent events and negotiations. We have here no knowledge of the facts, no cognizance of the principles which govern such decisions. All that is officially known to me on the subject is, that the legal and political authorities to whom the consideration of these high matters properly belongs, have advised his Majesty to consider himself as still bound, in maintenance of the national good faith, to continue their payments; and as far as my humble judgment extends, I trust I cannot err in determining, under these circumstances, to discharge my own more limited duty, in obeying, as before, their Lordships' orders in this behalf.The first letter from his Lordship, calling for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and for special directions from the Treasury, and which he (Mr. Rice) had already read to the House, it would be in the recollection of hon. Members, bore date the 3rd of January, 1832. On the receipt of that letter, a Treasury minute was made, which it would not be necessary for him, he supposed, to state more specifically to the House, than that the purport of it was, that steps should be immediately taken to procure for his Lordship the information which he required. Accordingly, as he had already mentioned, the opinion of the law officers of the Crown was taken as soon as possible upon the case enclosed in his Lordship's letter. It was a material fact, which the House should bear in mind, that the case which had been laid before the law officers of the Crown in this instance consisted of Lord Grenville's letter, and the case which was enclosed in that letter for their consideration. Surely, therefore, throughout this transaction the Government, at all events, deserved credit for plain, fair, above-board dealing, and for an anxiety to discharge its duty to the public and the Exchequer. That opinion was communicated, as he had already stated, to his Lordship, and his Lordship, on the receipt of it, and without receiving any special directions whatever from the Treasury as to the course which he should pursue, wrote that letter to the Treasury which he had just 931 read to the House. [An Hon. Member, in the neighbourhood of Sir Charles Wetherell, asked for the opinion given by the law officers of the Crown.—Mr. Spring Rice, supposing that the query came from the hon. member for Boroughbridge, replied by asking whether the hon. and learned Member was the individual to call for that opinion?—Sir Charles Wetherell said, he did not ask for the opinion, but that the demand had preceded from some hon. Member behind him.] He was glad that it was a misconception on his part; indeed he had so often heard that hon. and learned Gentleman contend, that confidential opinions given by the law officers of the Crown, in cases submitted to them by the Government, were not documents that ought to be laid before the House of Commons, that he was satisfied that if any motion of the kind were made, he might count on the assistance of the hon. and learned Gentleman in resisting it; but it was not possible that any such question as that could be raised in this instance. His hon. and learned friends, who had given the opinion in question, were present in that House living witnesses to explain their opinion to the House, and to defend it. He had contented himself by making a plain statement of facts, and he would let that statement speak for itself. He would maintain, that there were several papers on the Table of that House, and strong ones, too, exhibiting instances in which the Treasury had interposed by special directions, wherever it appeared to the Government that the public service demanded such an interference. The material difference in this case was, that the Treasury gave no special directions whatever, but merely afforded to the noble Lord, the Auditor of the Exchequer, that information which he called for. That noble Lord himself admitted that, in determining the course which he should follow on this subject, he was bound to look, not only to the Statute, but also to the construction of the treaty; and if that noble Lord had the power to exercise such a discretion in shaping his course, how much more was it in the power of the House of Commons to exercise a similar discretion? He called on Members to look at the true construction and spirit of the treaty, and, if they were of opinion that good faith called for the payment of this money, they would resist the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
"GRENVILLE." "Thomas Spring Rice, Esq."
Mr. Humehoped the House would bear with him for a few moments, while he attempted 932 to justify to his constituents and the country the vote which he conscientiously felt himself bound to give on the question now before it. The question seemed to him a very plain one. Was there a treaty, and if so, what were its conditions? The conditions were few, and stated with sufficient perspicuity. They were, in fact, but two—one, that the parties were bound to pay the money, even although a war should break out between them; and the other, that if the union between Holland and Belgium ceased, then the payments were to cease also. This point of the continuance of the payment, in the event of war, was one of the strongest arguments possible against the construction put upon the treaty by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and by the hon. Member who spoke last, because it showed plainly that all the conditions on which the payments could take place had been foreseen and provided for, and, therefore, there were no proceedings nor no conferences to be consulted with respect to the true construction of the terms of the treaty. He thought, therefore, that the time must come when the payments must cease, and that the Government had really no discretion left with respect to the course they were to pursue towards Russia and the parties interested. He could have understood the propriety of the Government making some concessions, and consenting to some sacrifices, for the purpose of avoiding a war; but that was not the case here. It was the separation of the two countries which was to regulate their decision; and he repeated they had no alternative but to avail themselves of their situation to get rid of the burthen which the treaty imposed on them He could not understand the propriety of the argument of the hon. Member—that the smallness of the sum made any difference. The sum was five millions and a half, and it was the bounden duty of the Government to relieve the country from its payment. He had been anxious, indeed, that the question, important as he considered it in every point of view, should not be brought before the House incidentally, as on the present occasion, but that time should be given the Minister to look at the propriety of retracing their steps. Why, indeed, had they not considered it themselves in the first instance, instead of consulting the law officers of the Crown? The law officers of the Crown, indeed! Why it was a question so plain and so easily seen through, that none but a law officer 933 of the Crown could misunderstand it. Why did not the Ministers trust to their own good sense, rather than consult those who habitually mystified the plainest questions? He admired the candour with which the noble Lord (Althorp) had admitted, that if they had erred, it was through bad advice. He understood the noble Lord to say, that, doubts having arisen as to the construction of the Act, they took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and a pretty broken reed they had leant upon. He must again say, he regretted that the Ministers had not trusted to their own good sense. He would call on the House, however, to be cautious how they gave their consent to the course which had been pursued, by supporting in any manner the principle laid down; and he hoped the noble Lord would see the propriety of admitting the error that had been committed, and at once tell them he was ready to undo what had been done. He had listened with attention to the speech of the learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General), and he must say, that not one word he uttered had the least reference to the Act of Parliament, which was the only thing with which the House had any thing to do. One, and not the least of the matters to be deprecated in the proceedings of the Government was, that, with all the doubts they entertained of the propriety of their course, they had commenced paying on the 5th of June, 20,000l. which was followed by another payment of 80,000l., although Parliament was sitting at the time, and, therefore, it certainly ought to have been consulted, if it was intended that the House of Commons was to retain its due and proper control over the public expenditure, or the disposal of the national resources. He maintained that the Ministers, under such circumstances, ought to have obtained the sanction of Parliament before they continued such payments under the altered circumstances of the case. If the country was to go on making these payments, which must be continued for forty or fifty years, there was not a man in Europe who would not say, that England was paying this money as a tribute to the great Power of the North, in order that Russia might not interfere with her arrangements; and he would say, if this opinion was allowed to go forth, if would be most prejudicial, as well as disgraceful. On that point, as well as others, he regretted what had been done. His duty to his constituents required him 934 to pursue but one course. The principle involved in the question, and all the circumstances attending it, compelled him to vote against the Government, and he implored every hon. Member in that House, who had a due regard to the exercise of a proper control over the public expenditure, to consider well before he sanctioned the course which had in this instance been pursued.
§ The Attorney-GeneralAfter the speech of his hon. friend, and the small reliance he was disposed to place on those "broken reeds," the lawyers could scarcely hope to convert him from the legal opinion he had so strongly expressed. Yet it was fitting that he should offer a few observations with regard to both the points—the one, in some degree, technical, but in truth of high importance, the second involving the merits of the question at issue, which now challenges the attention of the House. In the first place, he wished to remove that erroneous position which appeared to have been taken—that the Act of Parliament was a mere warrant to the Treasury to pay money. It was an Act framed for the purpose of giving effect to the Convention made between his Majesty and the king of the Netherlands, and the emperor of Russia. Such was the object—such the title and preamble—of the Act of the 55th of George 3rd. It recited that Convention, including the words on which the argument in support of the Motion had been founded. But whatever was the fair meaning of the treaty, that the Act enabled his Majesty to perform. This view had been adopted by the distinguished and noble Statesman (Lord Grenville), whose name had often occurred in the debate, whose answer distinctly said, that the Act did confer this power—that, he would issue the money, therefore, according to the terms and spirit of the treaty, and that he would take its construction from the Government; "from the political and judicial authority," said his Lordship. And though the hon. Member (Mr. Baring) might, to a certain extent, be right in his opinion, that this was no question for lawyers, he must admit that the Crown lawyers were bound to give their opinion, when required. He possibly would admit further, that if that opinion were such as to coincide with the sentiments entertained by the political authorities, neither the one nor the other was less likely to be correct by reason of that coincidence. Now, in construing treaties, and especially such treaties as created pecuniary obligations, he would 935 make no appeal to the sense of honour which was said to find its sanctuary in the breast of kings, even though it should be banished from all the earth besides, but he would contend, that the instruments which involve the peace of the world, and decide the fate of nations, ought to receive an interpretation at least equally liberal as those which regulate the interests of men in society. In private transactions the rule is clear, and the principle cannot be impugned. "So construe the words that bind you, as you believe the other contracting party understood them." No estimate could be formed of what must have been the mutual understanding between the contracting parties, without reference to the state of Europe when the treaty was framed. England and Holland were engaged in beating down the power of Napoleon: the assistance of Russia was invaluable for this purpose; she obtained a loan of money in Holland, to be expended in the common cause. Not only were her efforts indispensable to the success of their arms, but her continuing co-operation must protect emancipated Holland against the future aggression of France. To secure it, England shared with her the liability to repay the loan to Russia, receiving as an equivalent not only the guaranteed settlement of Europe, but the rich colonies of Holland in the East. True, the payment is not to continue in case of Belgium being separated from Holland. He acknowledged the extensive meaning of the word, and that the French word "soustraire à I'autorité" had as wide an import. But the relative situation of the contracting parties proved that an amicable internal separation, without forcible interference, from France—much more if brought about with the consent of England herself—could never have been designed to relieve the latter from her engagement; and what the intention of the parties made highly probable, these negotiations rendered indisputable. These negotiations, it ought to be understood, had been, along with the treaty to which they imparted its character, laid before his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor-General and himself, in consultation with the King's Advocate, Mr. Herbert Jenner, whom no one would suspect of being influenced by any political views. The unhesitating opinion of all three was in favour of the continuing obligations of the treaty. A little before the recess, when an important question had been proposed to him, he undertook to satisfy every hon. Gentleman, who perused the Conferences 936 and negotiations, that a right construction had been given to the treaty itself. It had not at that moment occurred to him that reasons of public convenience might prevent the Government from producing these negotiations, without which the question was plainly argued under great disadvantage. But he then was met by the plausible remark, that if the treaty was binding only in honour, and not by its provisions, in the events of recent occurrences, Ministers ought to have come to Parliament for fresh powers to carry it into effect. Gentlemen opposite had then professed themselves perfectly willing to grant the means that might be necessary. He owned himself, therefore, greatly surprised, when he heard the right hon. Mover, not even hinting at such an alternative, complain that the erroneous view taken of the treaty had deprived the country of a large sum of money, which it was clearly not bound to part with. For his own part, he had no disposition to accept the alternative, as he conceived that between nations no obligation could exist by treaty, but what fairly resulted from the due interpretation and application of its language. He could well understand an individual declining to stand upon his strict legal rights, and sacrificing his own private interest to a delicate feeling: but he did not understand one man gratifying those nice sensibilities at the expense of another: he did not see how a trustee or a steward could be justified in so acting for the principal who trusts or employs him. And the Government stood in the relation of a guardian or trustee to the country. Except in so far as treaty might bind, the country was free from all engagement. The supposed necessity of entering into a new treaty, assumed that the old one was not obligatory. On the part of the country, then, the Government would have been bound to resist a merely honorary claim, and the country, appealed to for that purpose, would be justified in withholding powers to enforce an agreement to which it was no party, either by itself or its agent. Had the Crown been advised to inform Parliament that a former Minister had left a treaty imperfect, and to request a vote of public money to meet the omitted stipulation, the House of Commons would have been justified in answering—"We will comply with no such unreasonable demand; we have enough to do with our money in paying our acknowledged debts: we know we may pay if we think proper, though not bound to do so; but the 937 question is, whether we must pay, for otherwise we should throw away resources intrusted to us for other purposes by our constituents." If, however, the proposition contended for was, that a doubt had arisen whether the treaty was applicable to the case or not, and that Government ought to have resorted to the House of Commons for an opinion upon that point, he asserted the directly contrary opinion. The adversary's answer would have been still more decisive and scornful. He thought he heard the language that would be justly used—"The Crown is bound by the treaty: Parliament has empowered the Crown to execute the treaty: the Crown which has the prerogative of making treaties, has the duty of executing, and, of course, that of construing them: act upon your responsibility, and seek not to shelter yourselves under the opinion of a majority in the House of Commons." The undeniable justice of this answer was made apparent by that night's debate, for the hon. member for Middlesex had treated the matter as a question of economy, and the hon. member for Thetford had reminded the House that a stern scrutiny would be made at the hustings of the disposal of this money. Many a Member, he was sure, would honestly pronounce a verdict against himself, if the case were his own, who would find it difficult, with the prospect of a speedy visit to his constituents, to decide a doubtful point of law against their interests. His Majesty's Government was bound, then, to assume that undivided responsibility, and act with firmness upon their own views; and their sole duty was to continue the treaty according to its true meaning. Whether they had done wisely in submitting it to lawyers or not, to lend their aid in discovering what that was, they could not, consistently with the principles of the Constitution, hand over the task to the House of Commons, or any other body. He had not been prepared to hear the argument deduced by his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor-General, from the nature of the separation between Holland and Belgium treated with levity. It was of the essence of the controversy. No greater outrage upon good faith could be imagined, than for a country bound to pay till severance, to bring about that severance, and then refuse to pay. But, then, exclaimed the hon. member for Thetford, you, the Ministers, ought to be impeached, if you did bring it about. Perhaps so, if the Ministers of England had inflamed the animosity of the Belgian people against 938 their government, and incited to the acts of violence that had disgraced Brussels, or in any way fomented the insurrection which made the severance unavoidable. But all these events had occurred in rapid succession, before the Ministers were in power, and even under the control of no English Minister. Still, the separation which they rendered desirable was afterwards approved and sanctioned by our Government, and dishonour would attach to the country, which, under that pretence, should fly from its word. Another excuse for non-payment of our debt was founded on the word "conjointement." England and Holland jointly undertook to pay; and it had been urged that Holland by not paying could relieve England from its liability. A most convenient morality! As if a great nation, bound by its own acts, and responsible for its own conduct, could screen itself from an unambiguous duty under the bad faith of its joint contractor. He repeated that, as the Crown was invested with the power of performing treaties, the people would not wish to be trusted with the interpretation of them, or, at a moment of want and suffering, to be tempted by such subtle reasonings to invalidate the contracts imposed upon them by the legitimate authority of the State. He would venture to predict with confidence, that England would rue the day on which it should depart from that principle of honour and good faith which caused it to respect itself, and ensured the respect of every other nation.
§ Sir James Scarlettwas not prepared to hear, without remonstrating against it as an unconstitutional doctrine, that the King had a power vested in him, not only to make a treaty or convention, but, as his hon. and learned friend the Attorney General had said, to put upon such treaty that construction which was convenient for the executive to give to it. Much less could he acquiesce in the monstrous proposition that Parliament had nothing to do with the construction put upon it further than to follow it implicitly. Did his hon. and learned friend mean to contend, that if a treaty entered into by the King contained pecuniary obligations as this did, that it could be carried into execution without the authority of Parliament? If so, the House of Commons had no effective control over the public purse, and the Crown, the Ministers, and the law officers, might tax the public at their pleasure, to carry into effect treaties made with foreign countries, If the Government asserted they 939 had a right to demand the acquiescence of that House, because of documents which they exclusively had in their possession, why did they not, as they were bound to do, produce those documents for the information of the House and the country? The Act of Parliament only went so far as to sanction the payment of a certain sum of money, according to the treaty. The question really was, what did the treaty stipulate for? Why, in effect, for the payment of so much money "until the dominion of Belgium should pass away, or be severed from Holland." The French phrase, sera soustrait, could not be more happily translated, and it was clear this phrase could never be turned or twisted so as to be forced to imply that the dominion should be severed by arms or by force. The article of the treaty to which the Act of Parliament referred, sanctioning this payment, could not possibly bear the construction attempted to be put on it by the legal officers of the Crown. Where words were of an ambiguous or doubtful nature, then it might be perhaps convenient to go to the context and general clauses of a convention, to enable us safely to arrive at the proper construction which ought to be put upon them; but this was a case so very much the reverse—a case in which the terms of the convention was so clear, definite, and decisive—that he was only surprised that legal ingenuity itself could have raised a doubt upon the meaning of the words. He confessed he should be as well satisfied if they were referred to the judgment of any six country gentlemen—to say, upon their consciences, what was intended by that clause in the Convention—as if they had been referred to the most expert lawyers or civilians of the day.
Sir Francis Vincentsaid, he considered the treaty as binding upon the country, because we still retained the Dutch colonies, which was the original inducement for us to enter into the convention. Further he would say, that he never heard of a contract made between several persons, and which allowed one of them to annul his own act without the consent of the others. Toillustrate his opinion he would suppose that this country had become involved in war with the king of the Netherlands, and, by means of a British army, Belgium had been severed from Holland; he conceived, even in that case, we should not in good faith have been exonerated from the payment of the money. According to existing circumstances we had really been parties to the separation of the two countries, for Belgium could not be said 940 to be really independent, until that independence was acknowledged by the five powers who had interfered, and this country was one of the most active of the five. It had further been asserted, that, from the known dislike existing between the two countries, a separation must have been made, contemplated by internal means, but this assertion was a severe reflection upon these diplomatists who professed by the union to contribute to the permanent tranquillity of Europe. He considered there were no grounds for such a reflection, and he thought he was fully borne out in saying, that the only severance contemplated was by external force. When he looked at the date of the treaty, which was the 10th day of May 1815, just previous to the battle of Waterloo, and during the period called the hundred days, when the Belgic provinces were in momentary apprehension of being overrun by the French armies. He had, therefore, come to the conclusion that Ministers, in the course they had pursued, had acted according to the dictates of honour, justice, and equity, and he was determined to support them.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that it was highly desirable, on occasions like the present, that the law officers of the Crown should be very cautious what opinion they pronounced on questions which the House might be called on to decide, in the exercise of a high and important duty. He made this observation because he was free to confess that, notwithstanding what had been quoted as the opinion of high authorities on the point of law, he did not, as a lawyer, perceive that any legal ground had been yet offered by any hon. and learned Member, upon which the conduct of the Government in this instance could be defended with success. The stipulation to pay this money was either absolute or limited. Looking to the treaty, he found the limitation clearly expressed in the terms that "this sum shall be payable by this country until the dominion of Belgium shall have passed away, or be severed from Holland." The time then had arrived, when, happily for us, the country was relieved by the express condition of this treaty from all pretext, much less necessity, for paying to Russia this money. Common honesty forbade the continuance of this payment after the period arrived when that dominion had passed away; and he should consider himself guilty of a robbery if he took from the pockets of the people a single shilling to make good any such payment by our Government. He had heard something hinted with reference 941 to the prerogative of the Crown to form conventions and enter into treaties; and that it was also within the King's privilege to accompany such conventions or treaties with pecuniary stipulation for payments to certain of the contracting parties. He was surprised to hear such an allusion made in that House—though it had been done, he confessed, very cautiously and covertly—for they must be sensible that the assumption was falsified by the Act, which spoke trumpet-tongued, being framed upon, and in accordance with, a previous resolution of the Commons, with whom alone must rest the provision for the payment of money, under any treaty or convention. Under these circumstances, he felt if he sanctioned the payment, on this account, of a single farthing, he should be guilty of an act of spoliation upon the public purse.
§ Mr. G. Sinclairsaid, he had listened to the debate with the utmost attention, in the hope of discovering some sufficient reason to enable him to vote against the resolutions proposed, but he felt bound to say without entering into legal subtleties, but considering the case in a plain and commonsense view that he thought the treaty was no longer binding upon the country. That treaty, it appeared contained, a provision by which we were to pay a certain sum of money until a certain event took place. The simple question, therefore, was, had that event taken place, and no man could entertain a doubt that it had. Belgium and Holland were severed, which it was the object of the treaty to unite; it was not just, therefore, to the people of this country to continue the payments. If there were any further documents which could throw more light upon all the bearings and circumstances of the treaty, he should be happy to see and attend to their contents. It was possible that if such documents were in existence those who had access to them might find the complexion of the case altered; but he formed his opinion from the case before him, and from that he felt bound, although reluctantly to support the resolutions, proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Robinsonwould be quite ashamed of himself if he were to suffer anything he had heard offered in argument by the Members of his Majesty's Government that night to dissuade him from supporting the resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman near him. He felt the terms of the treaty were capable of no other construction than that put upon them by the right hon. Gentleman who had moved the resolutions. The 942 Act of Parliament gave effect to the Convention, so far as the payment was concerned; and if the Ministers had any doubt upon the beating of it on the treaty according to the altered circumstances of the case, it was their duty to consult those only who were parties to the Act. He would never admit, that the Representatives of the people were bound by the doctrine of the law officers, in the interpretation of one of their own acts, upon a question which related to a convention with foreign powers, and which involved no point of the law, and which would force upon the country the payment of a large sum of money for many years yet to come. If anything could add to the weakness of the case as stated by the law officers, it was the conduct of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, who had attempted to bolster up their case by throwing a part of the responsibility of the Act upon the noble Lord (Grenville), but had entirely failed in that attempt; for that noble Lord in his first letter, thought his authority for the payment of the money had ceased, and in his second did not use a single expression to shew that his opinion was changed, or that he was not paying the money out of the Exchequer only according to other people's opinion, and under constraint. By their conduct with respect to these payments, Ministers had placed the country in an awkward situation with regard to the emperor of Russia; for in answer to all reasons for withholding future payments, he would point to what had been already done. This the Ministers had brought upon the public by evading an application to Parliament. These were shortly the reasons which induced him to give the resolutions his support.
§ Doctor Lushingtonsaid, that however much he deplored the consequences that had followed from what was called "the settlement of Europe," the only thing with regard to the question before the House was, for hon. Members to consider whether existing circumstances imposed upon this country the necessity of continuing the payments stipulated in the Convention. Unless it could be demonstrated, to the conviction of every honest and upright man, that the conditions contemplated by the treaty was actually, and to the letter, fulfilled, they were not released from the obligation it imposed; and although they might lament, still they were bound to support the burden the observance of treaties might entail upon them. Indeed, in proportion 943 as it was their interest to be relieved from the weight which pressed on them, ought the House to endeavour to come to the consideration of this question, not merely unprejudiced in their minds, but perfectly free from anything like a disposition to convert circumstances which had since occurred, into a release from the moral force of a voluntary obligation. It was a mistaken view of this question to look at Holland and Great Britain as the only contracting parties to this treaty; and he was surprised to hear the hon. member for Cockermouth not only treat the subject in this manner, but urge that the fact of Holland's disclaiming the obligation was a strong reason for our coming to the same conclusion. It appeared to him that Russia was a very material party to the treaty. The question, then, was, whether our obligations with respect to her were diminished? The principle of construing such a treaty was perfectly well known, not only to lawyers, but to every gentleman who paid the slightest attention to these subjects to be this; that we were bound not to look to the specific wording of a single article, but to its context. There was another legitimate mode of looking at a treaty; which was, to recur, not only to the wording of the treaty itself, but to the circumstances in which the contracting parties were placed at the period at which they entered into it. He knew nothing of any documents, or of any other instruments, by which to judge of that situation, beyond what was found in the treaty itself. At that particular political emergency, it was resolved by all the great European Powers, with the exception of France, to establish a system which would consolidate the peace that had just then been made; and one principle of which was, to restrain the power of France, by attaching Belgium to Holland. England and Russia joined in the attainment of that end by means of this Convention; and it might be truly said, that a severance of Belgium from Holland, with the consent of England, was never contemplated by any of the parties to the treaty. He entirely agreed with his hon. friend in his statement as to the mode in which this obligation upon us was created; but he wholly differed from him in his conclusion; for, in his judgment, it was clear that the obligation never could cease. It never could have been in the contemplation of the high contracting parties, that a separation of Belgium from Holland was to terminate the obligation of these parties to observe this treaty, 944 because neither of them could have contemplated that event. The object of the treaty was to induce Russia to take an interest in the continuance of the union which existed between Holland and Belgium. It was, in short, to make it the interest of Russia to prevent the severance of Belgium from Holland, and to endeavour, by every possible means, to make it also the interest of Russia to promote the permanency of that union, and to maintain the Netherlands as an independent State. When Russia entered into this treaty, such were the views contemplated by that power, according to the honest meaning, intention, views, and interests which were entertained at the time by the British Government on the same subject. Russia became a party to the treaty according to its genuine import, as he had described it, and which was known to be conformable to the real object and spirit of the British Government. Now, it was contended, that notwithstanding such were the terms of the treaty, we were clearly released from the obligation which it originally imposed upon us, by the occurrence of a contingency which seems to be there alluded to as that which alone could extinguish the binding force of the obligation upon us. All the hon. Gentlemen who had argued in support of the other side of the question, had contented themselves by quoting a single and isolated case connected with this question. The view which he had taken of the case would be demonstrated by reference to the fifth article of the treaty itself, when it was fully considered. 'It is hereby 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, as aforesaid, shall cease and determine, should the possession and sovereignty (which God forbid) 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. It is 'also understood and agreed between the high contracting parties, that the payments on the part of their Majesties the king of the Netherlands and the king of Great Britain, as aforesaid, shall not be interrupted in the event (which God forbid) of a war breaking out between any of the three high contracting parties; the government of his Majesty the emperor of all the Russias being actually bound to its creditors by a similar agreement.'* But it was
*Parl, Debates, vol. xxxi. p. 716.945 said, such general terms as these were to be found in all treaties, and therefore they were of little importance. Undoubtedly they were; but for what purpose were they inserted? Always to meet the possible occurrence of the case of a war intervening between any of the contracting parties. In this case, they were predicated of any war which might lead to the disunion of Belgium from the kingdom of the Netherlands, and which disunion, it must be apparent from the expression, "which God forbid," is one of those events which the contracting parties were particularly desirous should never occur. He had demonstrated that it must have been as much the desire of Russia as of England, that the separation of Belgium from Holland should not take place; and that it was, at the time of making the treaty, the very last measure which either England or Russia would wish or contemplate. If, then, this was the feeling and the understanding of the parties at the time, he again asserted that it never was intended by the parties not to adhere to the terms of the contract in the event of a separation being effected between Belgium and Holland, without the intervention, and, if he might say so, the express suggestion of the parties to the treaty. The case of severance, then, which had arisen was never anticipated by the parties. For a single moment it would be worth while to consider how the emperor of Russia would meet the case if we were to avail ourselves of the separation which had taken place between Belgium and Holland to escape from our liability. He would naturally say, "When I entered into that treaty, I expected to receive from the hands of the British Government the money stipulated to be paid to me. It is not a question now whether or no the treaty was a politic one. The only fact I can depend upon is this, that it was the intention of the British Government at the time to pay the money." He might well say again to England, were she to attempt to avoid the obligation the treaty imposed on her, "When I received from your bands this compact, in return for all the services I rendered in what was called the cause of Europe—when I lavished the resources of my country to aid that cause, I believed that you would continue that payment until an event had happened, contemplated by all of us with fear, horror, and disgust—a war to be produced alone by your intervention." Would he not naturally add, "Will you turn round upon me—make 946 yourselves the cause of the failure of this treaty—and then avail yourselves of your own guilty act? Shall you be at liberty to use an argument so irreconcileable with all good faith?" Would this country be at liberty to reply, "True it is, we were tied down by the same treaty with yourself—a treaty which existed in the minds of the parties when it was entered into, as a compact binding on us until a, certain circumstance should occur, which, at the period of that treaty was by both of us considered as the most improbable and unfortunate event that could happen—but now we have changed our policy, and have determined that this very separation of the provinces of Belgium and Holland shall take place, which once we so much deprecated; and we therefore claim to be released from the obligation of that treaty." He should like to know how the able Diplomatists, and the ingenious Gentlemen opposite would shape an answer to that argument—how would their argument look when compared with the words of the treaty—"should the possession of the Belgic provinces at any time pass or be severed from." In fairness the House ought to consider the words of the treaty in the same spirit in which it was made. But hon. Gentlemen said, look at the letter only of the document, and not at its spirit and meaning; and the construction of the parties, as explained by the circumstances, and understood by every honest man. He remembered nothing similar to this attempt on the part of those hon. Gentlemen, except a circumstance which happened in his early days. It was a transaction between the government of India and one of the native princes. A stipulation was made, by which the prince was to pay a certain sum of money, or else his property was to be taken possession of by the Company's government. To the great disgrace of this country, the government of India at that time, by marching an army into the territory of the prince, effectually prevented the money from being paid up; and then turned round upon the prince, and said, "You have not fulfilled your obligations, and therefore your sovereignty is at an end." This, certainly, was a very strong case; but the principle was the same which it was now attempted to be set up to justify the non-observance of a treaty, on the part of Great Britain, which she had entered into, bonâ fide, with Russia. The plain intent and meaning of the compact was, that it should be carried into effect according to 947 its genuine spirit: and so long as the obligations created under it continued to exist, so long it must be performed. He repeated that the circumstances which had so recently occurred in the Netherlands, were not in the contemplation of the contracting parties when the treaty was made; and, not having been so, they could not, in the judgment, of honest men, be allowed to operate as a discharge of either party from the obligations of that treaty.
§ Sir Edward Sugdenwas of opinion, that there was not a single debateable point in the present question. It was his most full and deliberate opinion, that the Government had no power whatever to pay a shilling of the money, under the circumstances that a separation had de facto taken place between Belgium and Holland. The Attorney General had this night stood up for the rights and privileges of the Crown in a manner that no crown-lawyer had ever dared to do before. The words in the act of Parliament (and never were there clearer words in an act of Parliament) gave a right to the proper officer to pay certain sums of money while a particular case existed. That case no longer existed. What, then, became of the right? But the argument of the Attorney General was simply this—it is the prerogative of the Crown to make a treaty, to construe that treaty, and to execute that treaty, and the representatives of the people have no right on the part of their constituents, to ask how and for what reason they are to pay large sums of money under it, even though they have reason to believe that there has been a violation of an Act of Parliament. He never knew a more gross violation of an Act of Parliament than was here disclosed, and he never knew a more dangerous doctrine than that which the Attorney-General had laid down. It came with an extraordinary bad grace from those who professed to be such decided Reformers. They now broached the most arbitrary doctrines when no Reform Bill was before the House, but to-morrow, when that Bill came under discussion, doctrines of a most opposite description would be laid down. He wished to learn the legal argument in this case; but, although he used his best attention, he could not hear any thing of the kind. The Attorney General said, in arguing the question, "I have had access to information which is not before the House; you, therefore can form no opinion upon it: but still there can be no doubt of the fairness of the deduction which I have drawn from that information," Surely the 948 House would not be satisfied with such a declaration as that. It was a remarkable fact, that all the hon. Members who rose to oppose the motion founded their argument on a different basis. The noble Lord rested on the Act of Parliament; the next hon. Member relied on the severance of Belgium from Holland by the instrumentality of England; while the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General quoted certain papers in their defence. That House, he must say, would want Reform indeed, if it allowed itself to be misled from the path of duty by such contradictory statements. The terms of the treaty were, that the payment should continue until Belgium had passed away from Holland. The phrase was "passed away." Could there be found in language a more comprehensive phrase? He would ask of all Englishmen, had not Belgium "passed away" from Holland? He would ask, had it not been severed from Holland? Was there, he demanded, a single solitary qualification in the case to justify them in saying, that, under the treaty, this payment ought to be continued? There was not one. If Ministers had come down fairly to Parliament, and stated that the spirit of the treaty demanded their interference—if they had declared that unforeseen circumstances rendered it necessary that a more extensive latitude should be given to the operation of the treaty, he would have been the last man to oppose the application, although the money thus supplied might have been swept into the coffers of Russia to assist in the accomplishment of those objects to which the Gazette of Moscow had alluded. But he never would consent that an Act of Parliament should be thus grossly violated. If, on this occasion, hon. Members so far forgot their duty to their constituents as to vote against the resolutions, they would thereby establish the precedent that Ministers could apply the public money, without the consent of that House, in furtherance, perhaps, of objects that might be detrimental to the public interests. The House would then be compelled to accede to treaties having pecuniary obligations attached to them, which it seemed the House was not to be the judge of. It was simply to be called on to pay the money when it might be required, without knowing the reasons for the payment. Such encroachments on the public purse, if tolerated, would go far to prevent their interfering effectually hereafter, wherever necessity should require it.
§ The Attorney-Generaldenied that there was any discrepancy whatever between his statement and that of his right hon. friend the Secretary of the Treasury, and utterly disclaimed any desire to keep the documents secret on which he had founded his opinion.
Lord John Russellsaid, as the question appeared to involve a charge against the Ministry of which he formed a part, of applying the public money without parliamentary authority, he must admit a very important principle was attached to its consideration. Great pains, had been taken not only to hold this up in a strong light, but also to introduce this subject as a question of economy. He could not view it in either of these characters. It was not a question of economy or of dispensing with an Act of Parliament, but the question before them was, whether they should violate the national faith, He, for one, would not consent, for the sum of 5,000,000l. to barter the honour and faith of England. Gentlemen opposite had relied on the express letters and words of the treaty. Was this, then, a question that depended merely on the terms of the treaty? Was nothing else to be considered? Were they, in their consideration, to be bounded by the terms alone? Were they to look no further? Those who were selected to consider the subject, thought that they were not to be so bounded. Lord Grenville was decidedly of opinion, that it was not a question of the letter, but of the spirit of the treaty; for, that noble Lord said, in his Letter which had been read by his right hon. friend. 'All that is officially known to me on this subject is, that the legal and political authorities to whom the consideration of these high matters properly belongs, have advised his Majesty to consider himself as still bound, in maintenance of the national good faith, to continue their payments; and, as far as my humble judgment extends, I trust I cannot err in determining, under these circumstances, to discharge my own more limited duty, in obeying, as before, their Lordships' orders in this behalf.' And the noble Lord said this, because it was a question which more particularly belonged to the high legal and political authorities of the country. It was a question of the interpretation of a treaty, and it was not to be taken according to the mere letter, while Lord Grenville meant, of course, to allow the Auditor of the Exchequer to draw the money. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Pollock) who spoke early in the Debate, 950 admitted that this was not a question as to the mere letter of the treaty, but according to the spirit of it. But, as was said by his noble friend (Lord Althorp), there were other considerations than the mere words to be taken into consideration before this House could come to a satisfactory determination—there were circumstances peculiar to this treaty which ought not to be lost sight of. It had been argued on the other side that they were to allow to Russia certain sums of money on certain considerations, and the chief of them were, that the Belgian provinces which had been united to Holland should continue to belong to that Power, but, if they became an independent State, that the payment of this money should cease. But this was not the view of the contracting Power, for the first words of the preamble of the second treaty of the 19th of May, 1815, were these—'His Majesty, the king of the Netherlands, being desirous, upon the final re-union of the Belgian provinces with Holland, to render to the Allied Powers who were parties to the Treaty concluded at Chaumont on the 1st of March, 1814, a suitable return for the heavy expense incurred by them in delivering the said territories from the power of the enemy; and the said Powers having, in consideration of arrangements made with each other, mutually agreed to waive their several pretensions under this head in favour of his Majesty the emperor of all the Russias, &c.'* Thus it appeared that the sum of money to be paid to Russia was partly in consideration of the deliverance of Europe from the hands of the ruler of France; and he would ask, whether the insurrection at Brussels ought to be a sufficient reason to induce us to abandon the engagement which we had entered into jointly with Holland for the payment of this loan. It was, then, on the general interpretation of the treaty, taking into consideration all its bearings, and all the circumstances connected with it, that they were to decide, and not on the interpretation of a single phrase. If they refused to act under this Treaty, would not Russia have a right to say, "It is true there is a separation between Holland and Belgium, but that separation was effected against my wish—I have taken no part in procuring it—I have not yet ratified it; and will you, on the ground of such a separation, which I deny to exist, refuse to pay me the sum which by
* Hansard's Parl. Deb., vol. xxxi, p. 714.951 treaty you owe me?" The course taken by the hon. Gentlemen to-night was, he conceived, most extraordinary. They came down with a direct vote of censure upon Ministers, without calling for papers, without any allusion to the circumstances which had occurred in 1830 and 1831, and on which they must be aware that the interpretation of the Treaty might in a very great degree depend. He never knew such a vote of censure proposed against any Administration, without preliminary inquiry, without previous investigation. If they were supposed to be unfit for the situation which they held—let the question be fairly put and tried upon its own merits. The whole intention of this Motion evidently was, to censure Ministers without previous discussion or inquiry. The proposition was brought forward under the pretence of economy and retrenchment, by those who never had attempted to carry economy and retrenchment into effect. And this course they pursued because they were hostile to the Government, which was engaged in a measure which they could not bear to see carried. His Majesty's Ministers were attached to economy, but they never would, in pursuit of economy, recommend any measure which appeared to them calculated to disparage the public faith. The candour of his noble friend (Lord Althorp) had been spoken of, and he must express a hope that those who had given his noble friend credit for that candour and manly bearing, would not inflict upon his character the disgrace of having disposed of the money of the people of England without a due consideration of her honour and her engagements.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, that when his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that the Government had acted with the concurrence of the noble Lord, the Auditor of the Exchequer, he was sure that he could not intend to convey to the House that meaning which his words were naturally calculated to bear. It was quite impossible that he could mean to say, that the Auditor of the Exchequer had expressed his "concurrence" in the propriety of this payment. He (Mr. Wynn) had requested the Secretary of the Treasury to read his noble relation's letter to the House. He had not himself previously seen it, and he had had no communication with Lord Grenville on the subject. From his knowledge, however, of Lord Grenville's general opinions, he had felt deeply impressed with the extreme improbability that they should agree in the construction of the treaty now 952 contended for by the noble Lord. He, therefore, had begged the letter might be read. The House had now heard it, and he appealed to them, whether it in any respect supported the assertion that had been made. The Secretary to the Treasury had taken great credit for the candour and fairness of the Government, in laying before the law officers Lord Grenville's letter, with the statement of doubts which it enclosed, but without any counter-statement or comment whatever, which might tend to influence their opinion. Hearing this, he was not a little surprised since to learn from the Attorney General, that a case on this very question had previously been submitted to him and his learned colleagues by Government, accompanied, not only by the treaty, but by all the minutes of the conferences, and correspondence which had led to it, and that it was on the latter that their opinion was principally founded. Again, the noble Lord said, that the treaty had been referred to the consideration of the law officers of the Crown, and that it was upon their decision and advice that the Government had acted. When he heard this, he thought, and he was sure the House thought, that merely the treaty had been laid before the law officers of the Crown, who had been called upon to give an opinion on that alone. But the hon. and learned Attorney General had stated, that not only the treaty, but the minutes of all the conferences that were held at the making of it, were submitted to the law advisers of the Government; and it was not on the mere letter of the treaty, but on a consideration of all the circumstances of the case, that these opinions were given. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) spoke of papers necessary for a perfect knowledge of this case not having been demanded; but with whom did the blame of that non-production rest? If Ministers had any explanation to give, why did they not come down and explain their conduct, and why did they not bring down these papers and lay them before the House? Now, when they found, that a great impression had been created by this debate, they asked for time, and the pretence was resorted to, that this was brought forward as a party question. It was, however, no such thing, but the House of Commons was called upon to act as judge in a matter of the highest importance. It was a usual course, when notice was given of a debate on any particular subject, for the Government to 953 send down any papers or documents that might either elucidate the subject, or tend to justify their conduct. It was impossible for persons not in office to be aware of the existence of all the documents that might be necessary to the proper understanding of any case; and it was not very decent for the noble Lord to complain of the want of that information which it rested with himself to produce. Of course, in a case of this nature, his right hon. friend must have depended on the noble Lord and his colleagues to furnish every information which could in the least degree tend to justify their own conduct. The noble Lord knew that this subject was mooted in the House on the l6th of December, and ample opportunity had, therefore, been afforded to prepare all the necessary information; but not a single document had been laid upon the table. The object for which he supported the present motion was, not to criminate his Majesty's Ministers, but that he felt himself bound, sitting as he did in that House, as a judge on the construction of a treaty in which the people of England were deeply concerned, to give a fair and candid opinion on the case. Let him remind the House of the magnitude of the sum in question, and allude to the importance of their decision. Instead of this being merely a party question, between opposite sides, brought forward merely with a view of obtaining a vote of censure on Ministers, the decision was of much more importance. If the House should negative these Resolutions, the payment of this sum annually would be established; because it would be impossible afterwards to recede or refuse the payment. We must continue to pay it, whether Holland continued or not. If it was refused to the emperor of Russia, he would say "the Parliament of Great Britain had determined by a solemn vote, that his money was to be paid to him, notwithstanding the severance of Belgium from Holland, and it was ridiculous to suppose that it could be broken through." It was a question between the emperor of Russia on the one hand, and the people of England on the other; and that House, as the guardian of the public purse, was called upon to give a solemn judgment on the subject. The result of this Motion would be of serious consequence; for if it was rejected, it would then go forth to Europe, that that House considered the conduct of Ministers justifiable, and the engagement to pay the money would be valid; and the payment could never with decency be refused. 954 As to any understanding, or curious construction of treaties, no private engagement, not communicated to Parliament, could bind either the Parliament or the people. This payment was originally sanctioned by Parliament for the purpose of giving Russia a direct interest in maintaining the union and integrity of the newly constituted kingdom of the Netherlands; but from what had fallen from the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, it would appear as if it was now proposed (without any fresh authority from Parliament) to continue it as a reward to the emperor of Russia for his forbearance in not coming forward to prevent that dismemberment of territory which had taken place; was it then to be understood that this payment was to be continued, in order to bribe that monarch to a policy the very reverse of that which it had been the object of the treaty to establish? Was it not too much to ask the House of Commons to consent to the payment of 5,000,000l. sterling, for the purpose of obtaining the sanction of the emperor of Russia to the separation of Belgium from Holland? A subsequent Government might interpret the treaty in a different sense, and withhold the payment unless Russia interfered to prevent that separation. The noble Lord implied that the emperor of Russia had agreed, with some reluctance, to the policy that had been pursued with reference to Belgium and Holland; and from the language of the noble Lord it might be inferred that the continuance of the payment of this money was nothing more or less than a bribe to him for his neutrality. The Parliament was called upon, then, to sanction the payment of large sums of money in older to secure the adherence of Russia to a particular line of policy, which was thought to be a desirable object. The Government was bound to shew, that its policy with respect to Belgium and Holland had been good, on which he had very considerable doubts, not conceiving it calculated to uphold the character or to advance the interests of the country. It was the duty of Ministers to make out a case in their justification, and it was too much for them to state as an excuse, that certain papers ought to have been laid upon the Table. The English Parliament was called on to come to a conclusion upon the evidence already furnished. Were they to understand that a payment of money was contrary to the words of an Act of Parliament, and at the same time to be told they 955 should commit a breach of faith in not paying it, because it was in unison with the spirit of a treaty? Such an excuse would never induce the House to neglect its duty on such an important question. If the House went to a vote upon this subject, he must vote in favour of the Resolution. At the same time, if Ministers had any other information to produce, he should be ready to give it his full consideration, but as they had not offered any, or given an intimation that any such was forthcoming, he should feel it his duty to vote for the Motion. He would make one or two observations with reference to the question of maintaining the union between Belgium and Holland. He knew, that former Governments had made the greatest sacrifices for the sake of preserving this union, and maintaining a power sufficiently strong to support herself against the attacks of her neighbours. That was the inducement to preserve the union between Belgium and Holland. That was the chief object of the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the result of which met with the approbation of the Parliament and the country. He, for one, lamented that the House of Orange which had been twice raised up by Providence to be the instrument of the deliverance of Europe—which had rendered such eminent services in the cause of freedom and the progress of civilization—which had so nobly distinguished itself in the last war—should have its interests separated from those of Great Britain, with which country it had always had so intimate a connexion. He regretted, that the interests of that illustrious house should be sacrificed; and, above all, for a course of policy, the success of which was very doubtful. In the present case, it was clear that Holland had declined to pay her share of the loan, and he thought that, to a certain extent, she was justified in doing so. Indeed, he thought, if the payment was to be continued, Holland could make out as good a case to receive part of it as Russia, since it was originally given as a compensation for the Dutch colonies. By the treaties it was agreed, that, on certain conditions, a sum of money should be paid to the emperor of Russia, but in case these conditions were not completed, the treaty was to be void. He did not think such a claim could now be made, and he was sure, that if any impartial persons were appealed to, they would disallow it without hesitation. Indeed he had, for the first time that night, heard that the emperor of Russia 956 had refused to sanction the proceedings with regard to Belgium, and that he was an unwilling party to the negotiations that were now going on with respect to that subject. He had thought, until he had been better informed by the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, that the five Powers were acting in unison, with a view to settle the question on a firm basis. If, however, that was not the case, the House ought to have been made acquainted with the circumstance at an earlier period. They were now called upon to come to a vote upon this important subject, and, after all the attention he had been able to bestow upon it, he could not refuse his assent to the Resolutions proposed by his right hon. friend; but at the same time he should be happy, in order that they might have any further information which the noble Lord might furnish, considering it necessary to the full understanding of the subject, to adjourn the discussion for a short time.
Lord John Russelldisclaimed the construction put upon what he said with respect to the emperor of Russia, who, in his opinion, would not be influenced by pecuniary considerations.
§ Mr. Huntbegged to tell his Majesty's Ministers, and the House generally, that the result of that night's division would be regarded with the utmost anxiety by the nation. Every Member who had a constituent to boast of would be accountable for his vote, and would have to answer for it. He was an economist, and, seeing the present state of the country he should support the Resolutions which the right hon. Gentleman near him had moved, if it were only on the score of economy; but, independently of that, if he understood rightly, an attempt had been made to interfere with the privileges—nay, with the authority—of that House. That was a thing which he could never sanction. The noble Lord, in vindicating the conduct of the Government, said that the question had been referred to the law officers of the Crown, and that Ministers had only acted in conformity with the written opinion which those legal officers had given. He must say that he agreed with the hon. Member who told the noble Lord that, in doing so, he had referred the question to good authority, but had taken very bad advice. Much had been said about the question having been brought forward in the absence of certain papers. Those papers were in the possession of Ministers, and, if they could have been in the slightest degree 957 available to defend their conduct, it was idle to suppose that they would not have triumphantly produced them. The agitation which prevailed in the country would be sooner settled by questions of this nature than by a great noise made about Reform. The people would see what they had to expect from those who backed Ministers in every proposition they made, however absurd it might be; this was a question to try whether a man was for retrenchment or not. He knew that if the late Government had paid this money, the outcry that would have been raised by those who were now in place, would have roused the whole country. The hon. member for Thetford said truly, that there was not a public Meeting that could not perfectly understand the question. There was no disguising the simple fact that money had been paid without the authority of Parliament, and he should be glad to see the Member who represented a body of constituents uphold that doctrine on the hustings. The vote of the House that night would be an earnest of what they might expect from Reform. For his part, he would not be satisfied with a vote of censure, but would vote that Ministers should pay the amount out of their own pockets.
§
Sir Robert Peal rose amidst loud cries of "adjourn" from the Treasury Benches. He said, he hoped at least that those Gentlemen who clamoured for adjournment would not accuse him and his friends of wishing to delay the Reform Bill. Seeing the arguments which had been brought forward in opposition to the Motion, he did not suppose the House would consent to an adjournment. The question lay in a very small compass. It was not whether there existed on the part of this country an engagement—an honourable obligation towards another state, but simply whether a department of the Government was justified, by the terms of an Act of Parliament, in continuing a payment to Russia, after the separation of Belgium from Holland? When, therefore, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said that nobody had yet given an opinion as to the binding nature of our engagement to Russia, the answer simply was, that nobody was prepared to express that opinion, because he had not that information which would enable him to form one. When the noble Lord laid the documents on the Table, he might have a different opinion upon the subject from that which he had at present, and far was
958
he from wishing to derive any advantage from a technical construction of a statute; for if an equitable or moral obligation had been contracted, he cared not for the letter of the law, but was prepared to keep strict good faith with Russia. But he would not consent to issue money by virtue of an Act which gave no authority for its payment. There could not be a doubt that the issue was not justified by that Act. If there were secret engagements, had not the time arrived now, after the lapse of fifteen years, when, without inconvenience, they might be laid before Parliament, and the nature of the obligation which they involved publicly declared? If the time had not come, it was decidedly the duty of Ministers to communicate to the House, by a message from the Crown, that such engagements existed, and that it was not consistent with the good of the public service to make them known. Even in the case that in the absence of any engagements, patent or secret, the public interests, on account of recent events, required the continuance of this payment, then, likewise, should Ministers have come down to the House of Commons and declared the fact, and, if they could not disclose all the circumstances, ask for a vote of credit. But certainly they should not have taken that most unwarrantable course of vindicating this issue by pretending an authority which the law did not give. The House of Commons never would support such an erroneous, such a gross construction of an Act of Parliament. The line of defence adopted by the Ministers proved their conviction that they were doing that which was not right. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sheltered himself under the wing of the Solicitor General; the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, crouched under the gown of Lord Grenville, and finding that it could give him no protection, as a last hole wherein to rush, he earths himself in Reform. From thence he invokes the assistance of Reformers, and asks for their vote, not on the merits of the question, but on the ground of their attachment to Reform. Was there ever so childish an appeal? So, because men had agreed with Government on the Reform Bill, they were to surrender the humble privilege of being able to interpret a simple treaty and Act of Parliament. Why, what was the object of Reform? They had been repeatedly told, that it, was to ensure a more strict attention on the part of the House Commons to the public expenditure—to give the Representatives of the people an efficient
959
control over the public money. And were Reformers to be the allies of the noble Lord? Were they to manifest their attachment to Reform, by an utter disregard of the objects of Reform, to promote the means, by a sacrifice of the end of Reform? The noble Lord said, that Ministers were taken by surprise: he denied it. So far back as the 16th of December, he had himself stated his doubts upon the legality of the issue, and recommended Ministers to take it into their serious consideration. No payment was to be made until the 5th of January. Nothing could have been more easy than for the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to have come down, stated his doubts upon the letter of the Act, and demanded a new one, to carry into effect our equitable engagement—if such, indeed, existed. After the warning the noble Lords had received, to say they were taken by surprise, was acting neither according to the manliness nor the candour which had been ascribed to them. The question was, if, under the joint authority of the Convention and an Act of Parliament, the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was justified in paying the money? As he had before observed, he did not know whether there were or were not any secret engagements, but on the words of the treaty he certainly had no authority for the payment. It was contended by Ministers, that, by the spirit of the treaty, if not by the letter, the payment was to continue in every possible case of the separation of Belgium from Holland, excepting one, namely, their severance by external violence. To prove this construction of the treaty, the Solicitor General referred them to the cotemporary speeches of those by whom the treaty had been made. He (Sir Robert Peel) was content to try the spirit of the treaty by this test. On the 26th of May, 1815, Lord Castlereagh stated in that House, that the emperor of Russia was to be relieved from the charge of the Dutch loan, that this country was to bear her share of that charge; 'but,' said Lord Castlereagh, 'only so long as the Netherlands should belong to the House of Orange.'* And again, in reference to the payment of the Russian debt by us, 'it was to be contingent on the preservation of the Low Countries to the House of Orange.'† So that they not only had the terms of the treaty itself, but
* Hansard's Parl. Debates, vol. xxxi—p. 456. † Ibid.
960
the speech of the Minister of the Crown who made it, to prove that his construction of that treaty was the right one. 'But then,' said the Attorney General, 'do not take the construction of the treaty from the English version of it.' The English version is too plain, too decisive, against him; it contemplates but too clearly the separation of the two countries, either by "severing," that is, by force, or by "passing away." 'Look,' said the Attorney General, 'to the version of the treaty in French.' What, then, are the corresponding terms in the French version? Soustraire á la domination—'and these terms apply exclusively,' says the Attorney General, 'to a case of separation effected by external force. He denied this doctrine of the Attorney General. He contended, that those terms, soustraire á la domination, included a separation effected by revolt, as well as a separation effected by foreign armies. He held in his hand a volume lately published by the Dutch government, which contained authentic copies of all the late protocols and diplomatic correspondence relating to the separation of Belgium from Holland. In one of these documents the Dutch minister is speaking of the separation of Limburg and Luxemburg from Holland—a separation about to be effected, not by foreign arms, but by negotiation following on civil contest. What are the terms in French made use of by the Dutch Minister to describe the result of such negotiation? He says the effect of it will be "de les soustraire à0 l' autorité legitime." The words clearly used by this Minister to express separation by consent and treaty are the very words which the Attorney General says can only apply to a separation by foreign arms. All the learned Gentlemen, opposite, however, pledged their reputation as lawyers, that their construction of the treaty was the correct one. They supported their position by arguments involving doctrines so objectionable, that he must attribute the use of them to a complete blindness as to their bearings. The first of these arguments was, that we had been parties to the separation, and were, therefore, not entitled to profit by our own act. To relieve themselves from a blunder, hon. Gentlemen were eager to charge themselves with a crime. The Attorney General said, that the separation of the Netherlands from Holland had been effected by the procurement of England. What! with all our doctrines of non-interference—with all our desire to maintain the power and dignity
961
of the king of the Netherlands—had we, then, been main agents and instruments in diminishing them? And had the Netherlands been actually lost to that sovereign through the procurement of England? He should be sorry if Ministers really had such a defence; but he was ready to deny that they were parties to the separation, in any sense which continued this pecuniary obligation upon the country. So far from our being parties to the separation, the Prime Minister of England had positively denied that we had anything to do with it. On the first day of the Session, Earl Grey was reported to have said, 'The noble Earl had said, that the king of the Netherlands was reduced to narrow limits, and had been deprived of his provinces. But had the present Ministers done this? Was it not done before they came into office? And had not the noble Duke who was at the head of the late Administration openly declared that the two countries were so separated that he looked upon the re-union of them as impossible?'* The present Ministers, then, were in no way responsible for the separation. Were the late Ministers more responsible? So far from it, our original interference was at the express demand of the Court of Holland. If we had been fomenting intrigues in the Netherlands to induce them to declare themselves separated from Holland, we ought not to have profited by our own wrong and injustice; and we should not have been relieved from our obligations. But if treaties entered into at the same time did impose upon us, in certain cases, the duty of meeting our allies and conferring on a difficult state of affairs, it would be monstrous, because we had fulfilled the conditions of those treaties, and done all we could to diminish the evils of separation, that we should be made answerable for that event. The very first protocol of the 4th September begins by setting forth that the king of the Netherlands invites the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Paris, to consult with him on the best means of terminating the struggles which had broken out in his dominions. The very protocol, too, which determines the separation of Holland from Belgium, expressly speaks of it as having been caused by events over which we had no control. In fact, as had been justly observed by an hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pollock), Russia was as much a party to the separation as we were. How then continue
* See ante, p. 32.
962
responsible to Russia? Another argument urged by the other side—most dangerous in its consequences, and still more extraordinary in its principle—was, that in whatever way the severance of the Netherlands from Holland might take place, except by actual foreign attack, our obligations to pay this debt would still continue. Now, suppose the case that France had maintained a powerful party in the Netherlands, and had, by fomenting intrigues, induced Belgium to declare for an alliance and connection with France—there would then have been no necessity for actual aggression upon the part of France, in order to her gaining Belgium from Holland; and yet, "even then," said the Ministers, "our obligations would have continued; for the separation would not have been effected by external violence." Suppose, upon the Belgians electing the Duke de Nemours for their ruler, he had taken possession of the throne of Belgium without marching a single French soldier into that territory—why, even then, according to the doctrine of the Ministers, England would continue bound by her engagements. Is it possible that such a doctrine can be maintained? First, we are to be at an enormous expense in repairing and maintaining fortifications for the express purpose of protecting from France the United Kingdom of Belgium and Holland; and when Belgium shall have been re-annexed to France, we are not only to lose the money expended on the fortifications; but we are to continue payments which we only undertook to pay on the express condition that Belgium should not be re-annexed to France, but continue united with Holland. The whole case, from the beginning to the end, was too clear to admit of any doubt. Look, then, at the Resolutions moved by his right hon. friend. The first and second Resolutions were a mere recital of facts—a quotation from the terms of an Act of Parliament and a convention which no one could dispute. The third Resolution was called a vote of censure by the noble Lord opposite; but, in point of fact, it only implied so much of censure as was necessary to vindicate the authority of this House. He would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, as logicians, to say, whether their logic would permit them to take the course recommended by the noble Lord? They were to admit the two first propositions, and then deny the conclusion drawn from them. Said the noble Lord, "although I admit your major, and do not object to your minor, yet, I must
963
object to the conclusion legitimately to be drawn from them. Nay, I must affirm the reverse." According to the noble Lord, the House was to negative the third Resolution, and so affirm that it is in conformity with the Act of Parliament to continue these payments. He hoped that those Gentlemen who were the warmest advocates of Reform would claim, on this occasion, the privilege of judging for themselves whether or no the authority of Parliament was to he vindicated. The arguments for Reform he had yet heard urged, had not appeared to him extremely cogent; but if the noble Lord opposite carried his amendment—if he could persuade the House to adopt any thing so contrary to the truth—to the plain manifest truth—the conduct of those who voted for him would supply an argument for Reform much more powerful than any which their reason or ingenuity had yet discovered.
§ Viscount Palmerstonconcurred with the opening observations of his right hon. friend who had just sat down, in saying that the question lay in a nut-shell, and that the arguments upon it had been all exhausted previous to his rising. Beyond that point his concurrence did not go; for, instead of thinking that they who supported the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman had made out that sort of triumphant case which his right hon. friend thought had been established, he must assert, that he never heard any question supported by arguments so contradictory, or so little calculated to carry conviction to any unprejudiced mind. The hon. member for Preston (who seemed only the condensation of the inconsistencies of all his friends) included in one sentence two arguments diametrically opposed to each other. At one time it was said, that this was a dry question of law, arising out of the construction of an Act of Parliament. At another it was boldly asserted, that the law had nothing to do with it, but, that the question depended upon the actual nature of our engagements. One hon. Gentleman reminded the House, with something like an agony of economy, that 5,000,000l. of money was depending upon the vote, whilst another disclaimed the use of any such argument. His right hon. friend (Sir Robert Peel) contended, that a subordinate department of the Government had violated the provisions of an Act of Parliament; but in what did that violation consist? The Act said, that these payments should be made so long as they were consistent with the tenor of 964 our engagements. How, then, had the Treasury violated the Act of Parliament, when it was not shewn that the tenor of our engagements did not warrant the issue of the money? His right hon. friend said, he would not pronounce an opinion upon those engagements, because he had not the documents before him upon which to do so, and yet he maintained, that Ministers had not acted according to those engagements. It was said to he unconstitutional for the Crown to assume the power to interpret treaties. As was said by his learned friend, it was the prerogative of the Crown to make treaties, and if they contained provisions like the present, they must receive the sanction of Parliament. But the approbation of Parliament, and the authority of the Crown being given, it was not the duty of Ministers to come down on every occasion in which a question might arise as to the interpretation of the treaty, but in cases of that sort to act upon their own responsibility; these were the amount of the doctrines stated by his learned friend, and he contended they were perfectly constitutional; he affirmed it was not the duty of Ministers to come down and ask the advice of Parliament upon every question that might arise, but they were to act in such cases according to their own discretion, subject, of course, to the animadversions of Parliament. In this case, it was necessary the House should look to the situation in which the Government was placed, and what was the nature of the object to be obtained. The treaty was framed on the principle that it was to form a powerful State in the Netherlands, as a barrier against France; to accomplish which, Belgium and Holland were united in one kingdom, to be ruled by the House of Nassau. It was necessary, to perfect this arrangement, that Russia should become a party to it, as the armies of that Power had so materially assisted in the liberation of those provinces; but in the first instance Russia objected to the plan, and her reluctance was only overcome by the exertions of this country, who was thought then to have a manifest interest in completing the arrangement. It was well known, that Russia had strong claims at that time to the gratitude of Europe; she had made enormous sacrifices to maintain the integrity of all existing monarchies against the military sway of Napoleon. After repelling the invaders from her own territory, she made common cause with Europe, and considered herself entitled to some recompense, because 965 her interests would be injured by the proposed union between the two countries, and the sole recompense she demanded was the present loan—that was, that England should join Holland in securing the payment of that loan, and in the discharge of her previous debt to Holland. Of her own accord (and this was important to the question) the payment of the loan was made contingent on the integrity of the kingdom of the Netherlands—that was, Russia knew that it was a matter of paramount importance to England, that the union of the kingdoms of Belgium and Holland under one monarchy, should be observed inviolably by all other nations; and accordingly Russia, solely with a view to manifest her ardent desire to co-operate with England, declared, in the terms of the treaty, that the loan should cease to be obligatory when a separation between Belgium and Holland had taken place. If it had been the policy of England to declare against the union of these kingdoms, Russia would, in the spirit with which she volunteered this condition of the loan, have equally co-operated with what she conceived to be the predilections of England, and have made the separation the basis of the loan. And, he asked, was this gratuitous generosity on the part of Russia to be now turned against herself by those in whose favour she had volunteered? Even upon the separation argument, on which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt with so much satisfaction, Russia was entitled in a continuance of her payments. It had been said, that if we are parties to the separation of Belgium from Holland, we are guilty of a crime; but he said, that the English Government were not the cause of that separation, but, after it had once taken place, it was the duty of the Government to make the best of the circumstances in which we were placed. They certainly refused to take those steps which were absolutely necessary to secure the possession of Belgium to the king of Holland; that was, having recourse to military measures. And supposing they had adopted those steps, it would have been impossible to have receded, and the inevitable consequence would have been, that a general war would have been kindled throughout Europe. But instead of this, Government, conjointly with the other great Powers, used all their endeavours to preserve peace, and happily they had hitherto succeeded. These were the principles on which they had acted, and on which they proposed to continue to 966 act. They had been parties to the separation of Belgium from Holland, but their object was, to secure peace, instead of risking the plunging Europe in blood. They had not taken upon themselves the heavy responsibility of involving Europe in war, and, above all, on a matter of principle. It would, too, have been a war of opinion, and the consequences must have been most lamentable. This country would have been obliged to go on when she was once engaged, and, although we might possibly restore the system of 1815, it would be our last effort. We had hitherto acted in concert with Russia and the other Powers, and he hoped such a course had been adopted as would place the peace of Europe on a firm basis; the greatest difficulties had been surmounted, and affairs in general were proceeding in a satisfactory train. Were Ministers now to turn round upon Russia, and exclaim, "We have gone along with you eleven months in friendly negotiation to preserve the peace of Europe, and now we have got you to the point, and Belgium is severed from Holland, we will cease to pay you the money you claimed at our hands." He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen wished such a line of policy to be adopted, but he should be sorry to belong to a Government which could conduct the affairs of the nation upon terms so base and degrading. Even on the separation argument, on which the right hon. Gentleman had rung the changes that evening, he contended, that Russia was entitled to a continuation of the payments. Had this separation been proved? Was it a matter of indisputable fact? [laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, but it was not clear to him that the king of Holland had, even as yet, admitted that any separation had taken place. He did not put that forward as a part of his case, but merely to shew the haste with which hon. Gentlemen came to their conclusions. The motion before the House was one of censure of his Majesty's Government. If Ministers deserved it, in God's name let the censure fall upon them—if not, let not hon. Members be entrapped by the fraudulent device, that in voting for the present resolutions they were merely voting for a reduction of the public expenditure. The question before the House simply was this—were the honour and character of England bound to continue the payments of the Russian loan? As a gentleman, and a man of honour—as a servant of the Crown, and as a Member of Parliament, he solemnly declared that he 967 thought that the reputation of England was involved in the negative of the right hon. Gentleman's propositions. If the House should arrive at a contrary conclusion, he could only say, that he should not envy the English Minister who, after that decision, should enter into negotiations with foreign Powers.
§ Mr. Paget moved, that the debate be then adjourned until Tuesday, in order to afford time for such a due investigation as the great importance of the question demanded.
§ Lord Althorphoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion. It was unusual in cases of censure on the conduct of Ministers for the House to adjourn without coming to a decision; and even if it were not the usual practice, he would, now that the debate was brought to a close, beseech hon. Members not to separate without coming to a decision.
Mr. Pagethad no other object in view than the public service, and would not, contrary to the sense of the House, persist in his Motion.
Mr. Herriessaid, he would not detain the House many minutes, but there were one or two points to which he found it necessary to refer. The first was, as to the actual separation of Belgium from Holland. He had supposed it possible that such a plea might be thought of, but he really had not expected to hear it gravely advanced; he was, therefore, astonished at the novel doctrine of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which was in effect that because the king of Holland had not given his consent to the separation of Holland and Belgium, therefore the separation had not taken place. According to the same doctrine Louis Philip was not at present reigning in France, for he had not heard that Henry 5th had given his consent to the "passing away" of that kingdom. The declaration of the noble Lord was moreover in the very teeth of his Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session. The words of that document were, 'The arrangements which I announced to you at the close of the last Session for the separation of Holland and Belgium hag been followed by a treaty between the five Powers' &c. It appeared, then, by the Speech from the Throne that the separation had taken place which the Foreign Secretary assured them was still doubtful. He contended that every payment which had been made since the King's Speech was delivered was a direct 968 violation of the treaty—that these payments were to cease and determine as soon as the separation of Holland and Belgium was completed. At that late hour he would not attempt to recapitulate the arguments that had been urged against the Resolutions which he had proposed, and it was probably unnecessary, for he felt satisfied that hitherto no answer had been given to the facts he had brought forward. He felt convinced it was incumbent on the House either to support the Resolutions he had offered, or at least to adopt some steps on the occasion of a similar effect and tendency.
§ Viscount Palmerstonhad been, he hoped not wilfully, misrepresented by the right hon. Gentleman. He never said, that the king of Holland's consent was what was wanting to constitute a separation of the Belgic and Dutch portion of his dominions, but had only expressed a doubt whether that monarch had ever admitted that a separation had taken place.
The House divided on the previous question, viz. that the Resolution be now put; Ayes 219; Noes 239—Majority for Ministers 20.
The previous question was also put on the Second Resolution, and it passed in the negative without a division.
§ The House again divided on the Third Resolution: Ayes 214; Noes 238—Majority for Ministers 44.
| List of the NOES on the Latter Division. | |
| Adam, C. | Calcraft, G. |
| Althorp, Lord | Callaghan, D. |
| Atherley, A. | Galley, T. |
| Baring, F. | Calvert, N. |
| Barnett, C. J. | Campbell, W. F. |
| Belfast, Lord | Campbell, J. |
| Benett, John | Carter, J. B. |
| Bernal, R. | Cavendish, Lord |
| Blamire, W. | Cavendish, Hn. F. C. |
| Blount, E. | Cavendish, Hn. C. C. |
| Blunt, Sir C. | Chapman, T. R. |
| Bouverie, Hon. D. P. | Chaytor, W. A. C. |
| Bouverie, Hon. P. P. | Chichester, John P. |
| Boyle, Hon. J. | Clive, E. B. |
| Briscoe, J. I. | Cockerell, Sir C. |
| Brougham, J. | Colborne, N. W. R. |
| Brougham, W. | Clifford, Sir A. W. |
| Browne, D. | Cradock, S. |
| Brown, James | Crampton, P. C. |
| Brownlow, C. | Creevey, T. |
| Bulkeley, Sir R. | Currie, J. |
| Bulwer, E. E. L. | Denison, W. J. |
| Burke, Sir John | Denison, J. E. |
| Burton, H. | Denman, Sir T. |
| Buxton, T. F. | Dixon, J. |
| Byng, George | Doyle, Sir J. M. |
| Byng, G. S. | Duncombe, T. S. |
| Byng, Sir J. | Dundas, Hon. T. |
| Dundas, Hon. Sir R. | Lumley, J. P. |
| Dundas, Hon. J. C. | Lushington, S. |
| Easthope, J. | Maberly, W. F. |
| Ebrington, Lord | Macdonald, Sir J. |
| Ellice, E. | Macintosh, J. |
| Ellis, W. | M'Leod, R. |
| Evans, De Lacy | Mangles, J. |
| Evans, W. B. | Marjoribanks, S. |
| Ewart, W. | Marryatt, Sir J. |
| Fazakerley, J. N. | Marshall, W. |
| Fergusson, Sir R. | Milbank, M. |
| Foley, J. H. H. | Mildmay, P. |
| Foley, Hon. T. H. | Milton, Lord |
| Folkes, Sir W. | Moreton, Hon. H. F, |
| Fordwich, Lord | Morrison, J. |
| Fox, C. R. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Franco, Sir R. | Mostyn, Hon. E. |
| French, A. | Nowell, A. |
| Gisborne, T. | Nugent, Lord |
| Godson, R. | O'Connor, Don. |
| Graham, Rt. Hn. Sir J. | Offley, F. C. |
| Graham, Sir S. | O'Neil, Hon. J. |
| Grant, Rt. Hon. C. | Ord, W. |
| Grant, Right Hon. R. | Ossory, Lord |
| Grattan, H. | Paget, T. |
| Handley, W. F. | Palmer, C. F. |
| Harvey, D. W. | Palmerston, Lord |
| Heathcote, Sir G. T. | Payne, Sir R. |
| Heneage, G. F. | Pelham, Hn. C. A. W. |
| Heron, Sir R. | Pendarves, E. W. |
| Heywood, B. | Penleaze, J. S. |
| Hill, Lord G. | Penrhyn, E. |
| Hobhouse, Sir J. C. | Petit, L. H. |
| Hodges, T. L. | Petre, Hon. E. |
| Hodgson, J. | Philips, G. R. |
| Horne, Sir W. | Philips, C. M. |
| Hoskins, K. | Ponsonby, Hon. G. |
| Howard, H. | Ponsonby, Hon. J. |
| Howard, P. | Power, R. |
| Howard, R. | Price, Sir R. |
| Howard, Hon. W. | Ridley, Sir M. W. |
| Howick, Lord | Rider, T. |
| Hudson, T. | Robarts, A. W. |
| Hughes, Colonel | Robinson, Sir J. |
| Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F. | Rooper, J. B. |
| Johnson, J. | Ross, H. |
| Johnstone, Sir J. W. B. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Kemp, T. R. | Russell, F. |
| Kennedy, T. E. | Russell, W. |
| King, Hon. R. | Sandon, Lord |
| King, Bolton | Sanford, A. |
| Knight, R. | Schonswar, G. |
| Knight, H. G. | Sebright, Sir J. |
| Labouchere, H. | Sheil, R. L. |
| Lamb, Hon. G. | Skipwith, Sir G. |
| Langston, J. H. | Smith, J. A. |
| Leader, N. P. | Smith, Hon. R. |
| Lefevre, C. S. | Smith, R. Vernon |
| Leigh, F. C. | Smith, G. R. |
| Lemon, Sir C. | Smith, M. T. |
| Lennard, T. B. | Spencer, Hon. F. |
| Lennox, Lord G. | Stanley, Lord |
| Lennox, Lord W. | Stanley, Rt. Hn. E.G. |
| Lister, B. L. | Stanley, E. J. |
| Littleton, E. J. | Stephenson, H. F. |
| Loch, H. | Stewart, P. M. |
| Loch, J. | Stewart, E. |
| Strickland, G. | Warburton, H. |
| Strutt, E. | Warre, J. A. |
| Stuart, Lord J. | Warrender, Hn. Sir G. |
| Stuart, Lord D. | Wason, R. |
| Talbot, C. R. M. | Waterpark, Lord |
| Tennyson, C. | Wellesley, W. T. |
| Thicknesse, R. | Westenra, H. |
| Thomson, Rt. Hon. P. | Western, C. C. |
| Torrens, R. | Weyland, R. |
| Townley, R, G. | White, S. |
| Townshend, Lord C. | Wilbraham, G. |
| Tracy, Hanbury | Williams, J. |
| Troubridge, Sir E. | Williams, W. A. |
| Trail, G. | Williams, Sir J. |
| Turton, Hon. H. | Willoughby, Sir H. |
| Tynte, C. K. | Wood, C. |
| Tyrrell, C. | Wood, John |
| Uxbridge, Lord | Wood, M. |
| Venables, W. | Wrightson, W. B. |
| Vere, Hope | Wrottesley, Sir J. |
| Vernon, Grenville | Wyse, T. |
| Vernon, G. J. | Walker, C. A. |
| Villiers, T. H. | Wilks, John |
| Villiers, Fred. | |
| Vincent, Sir F. | TELLERS. |
| Waithman, R. | Duncannon, Visc. |
| Walrond, B. | Rice, Hon. T. S. |
| List of the AYES. | |
| A'Court, Captain | Cholmondeley, Ld. H. |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew | Clements, Col. J. M. |
| Alexander, J. Dupre | Clinton, C. J. E. |
| Antrobus, G. C. | Clive, Viscount |
| Arbuthnot, Colonel | Clive, Hon. Robert |
| Arbuthnot, General | Clive, Henry |
| Ashley, Hon. J. A. C. | Cock burn, Hon. Sir G. |
| Ashley, Hon. H. A. C. | Cole, Hon. Arthur |
| Astell, William | Conolly, Colonel |
| Astley, Sir J. D. | Constable, Sir T. C. |
| Atkins, Alderman | Cooke, Sir Henry |
| Baillie, J. Evan | Copeland, Alderman |
| Bankes, William | Corry, Hon. H. |
| Bankes, George | Coote, Sir Charles |
| Bainbridge, E. T. | Courtenay, Hon. T. P. |
| Baring, Alexander | Cripps, Joseph |
| Baring, Henry | Croker, Rt. Hn. J. W. |
| Bateson, Sir Robert | Curteis, Herbert |
| Bayntun, Edward | Curzon Hon. Robert |
| Bradshaw, James | Cust, Hon. P. |
| Bruce, C. L. C. | Cust, Hon. Sir E. |
| Brydges, Sir John | Dalrymple, Sir A. |
| Blair, W, | Dawkins, John |
| Becket, Rt. Hn. Sir J. | Dawson, Rt. Hn. G. |
| Bentinck, Lord G. | Dering, Sir E. |
| Beresford, Colonel | Dick, Quintin |
| Best, Hon. William | Domville, Sir C. |
| Boldero, H. G. | Douro, Marquis of |
| Brogden, James | Drake, Colonel W. |
| Brudenell, Lord | Douglas, W. Keith |
| Buck, Lewis | Dundas, Robt. Adam |
| Buller, James W. | East, James B. |
| Burge, W. | Encombe, Viscount |
| Burrard, George | Estcourt, T. H. B. |
| Capel, John | Estcourt, T. G. B. |
| Cecil, Lord Thomas | Fane, Hon. Henry |
| Chandos, Marquis | Farrand, Robert |
| Ferrand, Walker, | Murray, Rt. Hn. Sir G. |
| Fergusson, R. C. | Neeld, Joseph |
| Fitzroy, Hon. H. | Newark, Viscount. |
| Foley, Edward | Norton, Hon. C. F. |
| Forbes, Sir C. | Nugent, Sir George |
| Forbes, John | O'Connell, Daniel |
| Forester, Hon. Cecil | Ogilvy, Hon. Col. |
| Fox, Sackville L. | Peach, N. W. |
| Freemantle, Sir T. | Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R. |
| Fresh field, William | Peel, W. Yates |
| Goulburn, Rt. Hn. H. | Peel, Colonel J. |
| Gordon, Capt. J. E. | Pelham, J. C. |
| Gordon, Hon. W. | Pemberton, T. |
| Graham, Marquis of | Piggot, G. G. W. |
| Graham, Lord W. | Polhill, Captain F. |
| Grant, Gen. Sir C. | Pollington, Viscount |
| Grant, Colonel | Pollock, F. |
| Grimston, Viscount | Porchester, Lord |
| Guise, Sir W. B. | Perceval, Colonel |
| Hardinge, Hon. Sir H. | Praed, W. M. |
| Hay, Sir John | Pringle, A. |
| Hayes, Sir Edward | Pusey, Philip |
| Herbert, Hon. E. C. H. | Ramsbottom, J. |
| Hill, Sir Rowland | Rickford, W. R. |
| Hodgson. Fred. | Robinson, G. R. |
| Holmes, W. | Rose, Rt. Hn. Sir G. |
| Hope, John T. | Ross, C. |
| Houldsworth, T. | Russell, C. |
| Hulse, Sir Charles | Ruthven, G. S. |
| Hume, Joseph | Rochford, G. |
| Hunt, Henry | Sadler, M. T. |
| Inglis, Sir R. H. | Scarlett, Sir J. |
| Irving, John | Scott, Sir E. |
| Jenkins, R. | Scott, Sir S. |
| Jermyn, Earl | Scott, Henry F. |
| Jones, John | Seymour, H. |
| Jones, Theobald | Sibthorp, Colonel |
| Jollifle, Sir Wm. | Sinclair G. |
| Jolliffe, Colonel | Smith, S. |
| Johnson, H. Hope | Smith, A. |
| Kearsley, J. H. | Somerset, Lord G. |
| Kemmis, T. A. | Stanhope, Captain |
| Kenyon, Hon. L. | Stewart, C. |
| Kerrison, Sir Edward | Stewart, Sir Henry |
| Kilderbee, S. H. | Stormont, Viscount |
| Knight, Lewis | Sugden, Sir E. |
| Knox, Hon. John H. | Taylor, G. W. |
| Lambert, James | Thynne, Lord J. |
| Langton, W. Gore | Thynne, Lord H. |
| Lascelles, Hon. W. S. | Throckmorton, R. |
| Lee, John Lee | Thompson, Ald. |
| Lovaine, Lord | Townshend, Hon. Col. |
| Loughborough, Lord | Trench, Colonel |
| Lowther, Hon. Col. | Trevor, Hon. A. |
| Lowther, J. H. | Tullamore, Lord, |
| Lyon, William | Ure, M. |
| Lyon, David | Valletort, Viscount |
| Mackinnon, W. L. | Vaughan, J. Edwards |
| Mahon, Viscount | Villiers, Viscount |
| Maitland, Viscount | Vyvyan, Sir R. |
| Malcolm, Sir J. | Walsh, Sir J. B. |
| Mandeville, Viscount | Wall, C. B. |
| Mayhew, J. | Watson, Hon. R. |
| Meynell, Capt. H. | Webb, |
| Miles, Philip J. | West, F. R. |
| Miller, W. H. | Welby, J. E. |
| Mullins, F. W. | Wetherall, Sir C. |
| Weyland, John | Wynne, J. |
| Wigram, W. | Wynne, C. G. W. |
| Williams, O. | Yorke, C. |
| Wortley, Hon. J. S. | Young, J. |
| Wrangham, D. | TELLERS. |
| Wyndham, Wadham | Clerk, Sir George |
| Wynn, Hon. C. W. W. | Herries, Hon. J. C. |