§ Earl Grey, adverting to the allusion in the first article of the Treaty of Vienna, to certain stipulations which had been previously entered into, observed, that unless their lordships were in possession of those stipulations, it would be impossible for them to enter fully into the consideration of the Treaty itself.
The Earl of Liverpoolreplied, that the stipulations alluded to formed part of those prior proceedings of the Congress which in due time would be submitted to the consideration of Parliament.
§ Earl Greysaid, there was another point with respect to which he was desirous of having some explanation. He had received information of so extraordinary a nature, that had it not come from good, from indisputable authority, he should be inclined to think that it was not true. He had been informed that some time 818 ago the Russian Government had negociated a loan in Holland, to the amount of ten millions, for which the Russian Government alone was liable. At the Congress of Vienna, however, an arrangement had been made, as he had been informed, by which it was agreed that Russia should pay only one half of this sum—that a quarter of it was to be paid by Holland, and the other quarter by Great Britain. Now, if this was correct, the British Government and nation had been pledged to the payment of a sum of no less than two millions and a half without any previous communication to Parliament, or any communication to Parliament, having as yet been made on the subject. This was a most extraordinary step in the Executive Government, to engage the faith of the country for a sum, the payment of which must lay so heavy an additional burthen on the people, without any intimation to Parliament on the subject either before or after the engagement had been entered into. He wished the noble lord to explain how this stood, and to state whether such an engagement had been really entered into under the circumstances which he had stated.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he was ready to admit, that as no taxes could be raised in this country without the consent and aid of Parliament, no obligations could be contracted of the nature to which, the noble earl had referred, except subject to the condition, that Parliament would adopt the obligation, and take the requisite steps for its fulfilment. Further than that, he did not feel himself justified in giving any explanation at this moment; but such a stipulation, if it had been entered into, must come in its regular course before Parliament, by which alone the means of payment could be furnished.
§ Earl Greysaid, he knew perfectly that no taxes could be raised in this country without the consent and aid of Parliament, and that in that sense every such engagement must be subject to the condition, that Parliament would enable the Executive to fulfil it. But in the mean time Parliament, by the proceeding to which he had adverted, was put in this predicament, that they must either exact the money and impose the burthen on the nation, or they must violate the national faith pledged by the Executive Government. It was on this account that, before such an engagement was formed, Parliament ought to have been consulted, 819 and he therefore wished the noble earl to state, whether it was true that such an engagement had been entered into without any communication having before or since been made to Parliament.
The Earl of Liverpoolcould only repeat what he had before said, that no such engagement could be formed, except subject to the opinion and control of Parliament; and he did not feel himself warranted in giving any further explanation at present.
§ Earl Greyremarked, that he must consequently understand that the noble earl did not deny but that such an engagement had been entered into on the part of this country without any intimation to Parliament.
The Earl of Darnleyadverted to the statement of the noble earl (Liverpool), in moving a late Address to the Prince Regent, that Parliament was pledged to nothing by agreeing to that Address, but to a consent that the country should be placed in a state of preparation. He understood, however, that at the time of moving that Address, the noble earl had in his possession the Treaty concluded between the Allies at Vienna, pledging themselves to renew the war. The noble earl ought to have communicated that circumstance to the House when he moved the Address.
The Earl of Liverpool, in reply, stated, that by the Address of the 7th of April Parliament had pledged itself only to a concurrence in placing the country in a state of preparation, and nothing further. He had no hesitation in avowing that on the day previous to the vote of that Address, his Majesty's Government were in possession of the Treaty. There were circumstances, however, which rendered it improper for his Majesty's ministers to mention it on that occasion. He would state one. He had himself, in moving the Address on the 7th of April, observed that it was not the policy of his Majesty's Government to urge the Continental Powers into any measures beyond their own sense of necessity. The Treaty adverted to by the noble earl was signed at Vienna on the 25th of March, at which period, although the present ruler of France had reached Paris, yet the Allied Powers were not in possession of that fact, or that the King of France had quitted it. Under those circumstances it was not considered just towards our Allies to deem the Treaty a conclusive engagement on 820 their part, until they became apprized of the facts of which they were ignorant at the time of their framing it.
The Earl of Darnleystill thought their lordships ought to have been informed of the existence of this Treaty, before they were called upon to vote the Address. He wished to know if the Treaty was now to be deemed conclusive?
The Earl of Liverpoolreplied, that his observations referred to circumstances at a former period, not at the present. Now the Treaty was unquestionably concluded, and directions had been given to our minister to ratify it, subject to an explanation.