Lords Sitting of 24 April 1815

APPEAL CAUSES.
Lord Redesdale,in
[792
pursuance of his notice, moved, that it should be a standing order of their lord ships, that appeals from the three several parts of the United Kingdom should be taken in regular succession—first one from Scotland, then one from Ireland, and lastly one from England.—Ordered to betaken into consideration that day se'nnight.
The Earl of Lauderdale,in order to enable their lordships to form a better judgment of the proposed change of arrangement on this subject, moved for a statement of all the appeals that had been brought before them, distinguishing the Scotch, the Irish, and the English.
The Lord Chancellorsuggested limiting the retrospective effect of the motion to two years.
The Earl of Lauderdaleagreed to limit it to three years, and for that period the motion was agreed to.

TREATY BETWEEN THE ALLIES SIGNED AT VIENNA.
Earl Stanhopewished to ask the noble lord opposite, two questions. He had scarcely ever felt more concern than since their lordships last meetings having read in the public prints a paper purporting to be a Treaty signed by the four great Allied Powers at Vienna, on the 25th of March. The first question he would ask the noble lord was, whether he would object to produce this Treaty? If so, he thought their, lordships should insist on its production. There was a clause in the Treaty which he had, heard was not correctly published. He believed it was not; for if such a clause was really in the Treaty, it was not a treaty for making war, but for introducing a system of universal massacre. He meant the clause by which the Allied Powers bound themselves to bring to justice all those individuals who took part with the person who was at present the ruler of France. He wished to ask the noble earl if there really was any such clause in the treaty? If not, he considered it essential to the honour of the country that the negative should be known. The clause was exceptionable, not only in point of justice, humanity, and expediency, but also in point of law. He denied the right of kings, or the representatives of kings, to make such a treaty with such a clause in it. It totally altered the situation of the army and navy, and all officers employed in both services. When they enrolled themselves, it was to meet the enemy

793]
fairly, and die in the field of honour, but not to be exposed to the fate of being murdered by being hanged in cold blood. He objected to the clause in point of law on another ground. One of the most wise and most humane of our statutes was that of the 11th of Henry 7, by which it was enacted, that it was not only not high treason, but not even criminal to adhere to any king de facto, whether he was king de jure or not. He, therefore, on this ground, denied our right to agree to such a clause. His third objection to the clause on the ground of its being illegal was, that if any commander-in-chief, civil authority, king, or emperor, were to put to death a person for supporting the cause of an existing sovereign, such act would, by the law of England, be deemed murder; and he, therefore, denied the right of the Executive Government to make a treaty Comprehending such a clause. Another objection to it was, that it was contrary to the rules of war recognised among civilized nations. And his fifth and last reason against the clause was, that it was illegal, because it was contrary to the law of God. He hoped that the noble earl would consent to produce the Treaty, or at least that, for the honour of the country, he would inform their lordships whether it did or did not contain such a clause as he had described.
The Earl of Liverpoolreplied, that he had no difficulty in stating to the noble earl, that a treaty had been signed at Vienna on the 25th of March, by the four great Allied Powers. Nor had he any difficulty in stating, that the copy which had been published in the newspapers was not correct, and on that point particularly to which the noble earl had adverted; there were no words in the real Treaty, such as the noble earl had described, or which would bear a similar interpretation. Their lordships were aware that it was not usual for the Executive Government to lay before Parliament any treaty which had not been ratified. When this Treaty should be ratified, it would be his duty, or that of some of his noble colleagues, to receive his royal highness the Prince Regent's commands to lay it on the table of the House. If, however, the noble earl chose to move for the substance of the Treaty, he would not object to its production.
Earl Stanhopeobserved, that a motion for a copy of the Treaty had been acceded to in the other House, and he
[794
hoped the noble earl would not be stiffer than his noble colleague. He would therefore, move for a copy of the Treaty.
The Earl of Liverpoolrepeated, that a copy of the Treaty could not be laid on the table of the House until its ratification. He begged the noble lord would confine himself to moving for the substance of it, which for his purpose would be precisely the same thing.
Earl Stanhopeexclaimed, that he did not care whether it was copy or substance, provided it was correct.
An Address, therefore, to his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying for the substance of the Treaty, was agreed to.