Lords Sitting of 19 May 1815

TREATIES WITH ALLIES—OVERTURE FROM FRANCE.
Earl Greysaid, that as no objection had been made to the production of the overture which had been made by the present Government of France to this country, he wished to know whether it would be laid before the House, and on what day?
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, it would be laid before the House on Monday. He should at the same time observe, that he believed it was nearly word for word the same as that which had been printed in the French papers as a circular overture to the different Powers of Europe.
Earl Greysaid, that he remembered having seen such a document in the public papers, though he did not exactly recollect its substance, but it was certainly necessary that the House should have it in an authentic shape before it; and also that more time should be afforded the House for the consideration of it than was now proposed to be given. Neither would any time be sufficient to enable them to decide on the question which was to be submitted to them, in the present very defective state of their information. Not only was this country engaged to the several Treaties of which, in substance, they were in possession, but in the Treaty of the 25th of March, there was an article by which the Allies agreed to maintain the arrangements which should have been signed and contracted at the Congress of
[270
Vienna: now, before the House decided that it was expedient to support those engagements by a war, and by subsidies to our Allies, it was surely necessary that their lordships should be informed of the nature of them. Of those engagements, however, they were at that time entirely ignorant, excepting only those which had been made as to Genoa. But as to the partition of Saxony, which, if it possibly could be made more important, was rendered more important by the circumstances of the present time, no information whatever was before the House, nor as to any of the other arrangements which had been made at the Congress, although the House was to be called on to say that it was just and expedient that the country should undertake a war, one of the foundations of which was to be the maintenance of those arrangements. There was another article in the Treaty of the 25th of March, which stipulated, that it should be proposed to the King of France, now at Ghent, to accede to that Treaty, and to state what degree of assistance he should be able to render to the common cause of the alliance. Now, it was proper that the House should be in possession, not only of the invitation which had been made to Louis 18, but also of his answer, and the extent of means which he possessed of co-operating with the Allies. The propriety of our entering into an alliance with Louis 18, it was not then the time to discuss; but that the House should be in possession of the state of our engagements with that monarch there could be no doubt. There was another point, on which, though not connected with the Treaties, he wished to receive some explanation. A declaration had been published, purporting to be the proclamation of the duke of Wellington, which he had no doubt would be found to he a forgery emanating from some person or other, as it was totally inconsistent with the declaration attached to the Treaty of the 25th of March. He however wished that the noble earl opposite would state that it was a forgery, and also whether he was possessed of any information as to the person from whom that forgery issued.
The Earl of Liverpoolhad not the least hesitation in assuring the noble earl, that he had never seen nor heard of that proclamation before he had observed it in an evening paper, in which it was copied from a French paper of the 13th. He could also say, that it was highly impro-

271]
bable that any proclamation should have been issued by the duke of Wellington in the present state of things. As to the source from which that proclamation could have originated, it was of course impossible that he could speak, as he knew of the existence of it, as he had before said, only from the public prints. As to the other points which had been mentioned by the noble earl, he did not wish then to enter into any discussion of them, but he could state that the communication from the Government of France having been referred to the Allies at Vienna, it was decided that no negociation should be entered into upon it. Such was the fact, and he did not conceive that any farther information could be given. On the other point mentioned by the noble earl, viz. the accession of the King of France to the Treaty of Alliance, the accession of the King of France had certainly not been received in this country, though the Treaty had been submitted to him; and as to the means of the King of France it would not be in his power to submit any information to the House; but certainly it was not on the existence or extent of those means that he should ground the proposition which he had on Tuesday to submit. He therefore thought there was no reason for further delay; whether there had already been too long a delay, was another question. As to the proceedings at the Congress, the noble earl observed, that until they were reduced to the form of a Treaty, he should not be enabled to lay any message on the subject before the House.
Earl Greyremarked, what an extraordinary state the House was placed in. The Treaty of the 25th of March agreed to maintain the arrangements concluded and signed at the Congress of Vienna, and the House was to be called on to support that Treaty, without being in possession of the arrangements on which it was founded—not only to support it, but to give large sums to our Allies, raised from the people of this country. He would, therefore, intreat the House to consider whether the House could enter into the discussion without that information. There was also one of the Treaties which had not been ratified. He wished to know what power it was whose ratification had not been received?
The Earl of Liverpoolanswered, Austria; but certain intelligence had been received, that the Treaty had been ratified
[272
by that power. The noble Earl then stated, that he should not submit any proposition to the House to approve of any part of the arrangements at Congress, which were not laid before them.
The Earl of Darnleyobserved, that the declaration of Louis 18, respecting which he had put a question when it first made its appearance, was in effect the same as that which had been said to have been issued by the duke of Wellington, for that Monarch stated that his Allies would acknowledge him alone as the Sovereign of France. He wished to know, therefore, whether that proclamation of Louis 18 was authentic, and whether there was any objection to lay it before the House?
No answer having been given,
The Marquis of Buckinghamobserved, that the conduct of his Majesty's ministers had in all respects been so irregular, that he was justified in departing from the strict course of order, by making some further observations. The declaration of the 30th of March stipulated to support the arrangements which had been signed and concluded at Vienna—not, it was to be observed, the arrangements which might hereafter be concluded. It did not matter in what shape the noble earl submitted his proposition to the House; they had to look to the Treaty itself, which they were to be called on to approve of, and until the noble earl could "rail the seal from off the bond," the House, by approving of the Treaty, would approve the arrangements of the Congress to which it referred. He thought it was not too much, that the House and the country should ask what those arrangements were. It was not now the time to consider whether the question had been put off too long; he believed it had been put off too long for the strength of the country; but it was imperative on the House to know what they were to bind themselves to support. He should again inquire whether any copy of a declaration of his Most Christian Majesty had been issued at Ghent?
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that his Majesty's Government were not answerable for any declaration issued by any foreign power or state.
Earl Greywished to know, whether there was any reason to doubt the authenticity of that declaration?
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that he could not deny or affirm the authenticity of any thing issued by Louis 18.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, that to bring

273]
the matter to the test, he should move an Address for a copy of any declaration of Louis 18, issued at Ghent, which might have reached this country.
The Marquis of Buckinghamobserved, that Louis 18, in the declaration alluded to, had spoken not only in his own name, but in the name of his Allies.
The House then divided on the motion of earl Darnley.—Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 59: Majority, 31.
The Marquis of Buckinghamsaid, that as it appeared that this country had entered into stipulations to maintain the arrangements at the Congress, in the Treaty which was to be discussed on Tuesday—and as it was impossible to come to that discussion without a knowledge of those arrangements—he should give notice, that on Monday, the only day on which he could make that motion, without delaying the discussion of the Treaty, he should move for the production of the arrangements concluded at the Congress.—The Lords were ordered to be summoned for that day.

ROMAN CATHOLICS OF IRELAND.
The Earl of Donoughmoresaid, that the Petition of his Catholic countrymen, which had been again confided to him, he should then solicit their lordships permission to lay upon the table of that House. Upon its subject matter, which had already, and so often, engaged the attention of Parliament, it was equally unnecessary, and inconsistent with the present stage of the proceeding, that he should offer any observation. He thought it, however, not unfitting that he should apprize their lordships, that the signatures to that Petition were numerous and respectable; not that he should wish to attribute to that consideration any very particular degree of weight. It was not to the rank or number of the petitioners, but the grievances of which they complained, that their lordships attention would necessarily be directed. And where the disfranchisement of a large class of the community without any imputed civil offence, constituted the weighty ground of these renewed complaints, their lordships would not surely pause to count the number of those who might have thought it expedient to raise their voices up, at this particular crisis, against the general grievance. The sense of common exclusion must be considered to unite in pursuit of the same redress, naturally, and as a mat-
[274
ter of course and of necessity, every member of the proscribed cast, of whatever description or degree, and how far soever those amongst them, the most distinguished for rank and property, for talent and discretion, had agreed in sentiment with each other, or may perhaps have differed in opinion, respecting the manner in which these appeals to Parliament had, or ought to have been, framed and conducted.
The Petition having been received and read, the noble lord appointed Thursday se'nnight, the 1st of June, for its consideration; and for which day the House was ordered to be summoned.