Lords Sitting of 6 February 1817

SUM DUE FROM FRANCE—FRENCH LOAN.
Lord Hollandbefore going to the order of the day, was desirous of asking a question of the noble earl opposite. It was a fact well known, and had been mentioned in all the public journals, that soon after the restoration of Louis 18th to the throne of France, the chamber of deputies had voted the sum of 12,000,000 francs (500,000 l. sterling) for the payment of the debt due from his majesty to the British government. He wished to know whether that sum had been received by this government: if so, it of course ought to be carried to account and to appear in some of the official statements of the revenue. A sum of this amount, or even a much smaller sum, was of importance in the present state of the public distress, and he was therefore anxious to know whether it had been received.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he did not at the present moment recollect the circumstance of the vote to which the noble lord alluded. There were sums due to individuals from the French government,

227
which were under the consideration of a commission appointed for that purpose, in order to be put in a course of liquidation, according to the terms of the treaties of 1814 and 1815, but he was not aware of any sum having been received by this government from the government of France, except a part of the contribution, as stipulated by the treaties, and the sums for the maintenance of the British army in France.
Lord Hollandobserved, that the latter part of what had been said by the noble earl was sufficiently satisfactory to him, that no such sum as he alluded to had been received by this government. The fact, however, of its having been voted by the chamber of deputies, was matter of notoriety: it had been mentioned in the Journals of this country, and in all the newspapers of Europe. He did not wish to be understood as desiring that the payment of a debt should be inconveniently pressed upon the French government; he was only anxious to ascertain the fact whether it had been received. The application of the money voted by the chamber of deputies was of course a question between them and the French government with which we had nothing to do. The chamber if they dared to do it, might institute an inquiry respecting this sum, but it was of importance to know that it had not been received here.
The Earl of Lauderdaleshortly referred to this question, upon which he observed that the vote of the chamber of deputies was matter of perfect notoriety; and then observed that there was another question, respecting which he wished to obtain some information from his majesty's ministers; he alluded to the french loan. He wished to know whether they had in any way sanctioned or guaranteed the loan from British capitalists to the French government? He could not, however, for a moment suppose that they would guarantee a transaction of that nature. The more important question to which he wished to have an explicit answer was, whether the ministers had not felt it their duty to give notice to the capitalists concerned in the loan, that they would not at any future period, in case the French government failed in their engagements, interfere to obtain for them the payment of what should be due to them? He conceived it to be essentially important that his majesty's ministers should have given that express notice to the capitalists
228
concerned in that transaction, because after the pernicious example afforded by the article in the late treaty with France, for the payment of sums due to British individuals, not the reduced amount that would have been due to them under the existing law of France, but the amount that would have been due to them if no reduction had been made, there could be no doubt that other individuals lending money to the French government would look forward to the same interference in their favour, if that government should fail in its engagements. Nothing could be more injurious to the interests of this country than the existence of such an understanding. The law interfered to prevent a poor artizan or mechanic from leaving the country, and transferring his industry elsewhere, and persons who attempted to export machinery, were, he believed, subjected to the punishment of death. Was it, then, to be endured, that the law which thus affected the poor mechanic, or the export of machinery, should be powerless with regard to the rich capitalist, and that he should be encouraged to export the money of the country, the great machinery upon which all our manufactures depended—the main nerve of ail our resources? He could conceive nothing more pernicious to the best interests of the country, than that there should be this encouragement given to capitalists to withdraw the capital, who, with the immediate temptation of high interest, had the ultimate prospect of indemnity, if the payments of the French government failed.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he had no hesitation in stating, that his majesty's ministers had not sanctioned or guaranteed the French loan, nor had they committed themselves either directly or indirectly upon the subject. It was merely a private transaction, at the option and the risk of the individuals concerned, against which there was no law whatever, and with which the government had no concern. This subject, however, having been started, he felt it necessary to correct a misunderstanding which had prevailed upon it, both on the part of the public press and in other quarters. It was not a loan to be raised in London. The French government being in want of money for current expenditure, or for whatever object, applied to certain capitalists in Paris, in London, in Amsterdam, at Vienna, and Frankfort; and the fact was,

229
that the money was to be raised in these different places, probably great part of it in Paris, and he believed very little in London. One great and highly respectable house in London had been applied to, and the principal of that house was at the present moment at Paris, negociating with the other parties who were to be connected with the loan. The gentleman he had alluded to, might very probably lend his credit to a considerable extent, or might induce others to embark in it, but he (lord Liverpool) had reason to believe that but a small portion of the money wanted would be raised in London, and that the greater part of it would be raised in Paris itself. All this was merely a private transaction on the part of the individuals concerned, which they engaged in at their own risk, and with which the government here had no concern whatever. There was no law against advancing money to a power in amity with his majesty, and the capitalists had a right to dispose of their property as they pleased. This kind of transaction, indeed, was not at all novel; he recollected two of the same nature with the United States of America, and with Portugal; and he believed there had had been others. The fact was, however, that, generally speaking, the security of our own funds was preferred to that of other states, and the sum that would be drawn from this country on account of the French loan, would have no sensible effect upon the money market here.
The Earl of Lauderdaleobserved, that he did not accuse his majesty's ministers of giving any sanction or guarantee to this transaction; but notwithstanding this, the noble earl had merely given an answer to that point which was not called for, and had left unnoticed the only material point, namely, whether his majesty's ministers had expressly given notice through the bank of England to the monied interest, that the improvident article in the late treaty with France with regard to British claimants, should not be drawn into precedent, and that there should be in future no interference on the part of the British government to secure to these parties the amount of their claims, if the French government should fail in the payment. If such a notice had not been given, he contended that all the pernicious effects of that article remained in their full force, and that British capitalists would naturally draw the inference from
230
the terms of that article, that they would be protected in their claims upon France by the interference of this government, a conclusion which necessarily tended to do away the insecurity that might otherwise attach to such speculations, and thus encourage the sending British capital out of the country, to the great and evident detriment of the public interests. As to the statement, that the greater part of the money was not to be raised here, it appeared to him utterly fallacious. He knew there was no greater house in the world than that of Mr. Baring, and he could easily conceive the reason why that house should be applied to with a view of raising money in London; but that Mr. Baring should be applied to for the purpose of raising money at Paris, was what he could not at all understand, and it seemed to him an absurdity. The real fact was, that the greater part of the money must be raised in London; there was not sufficient disposable capital in the other places mentioned by the 'noble earl to furnish the requisite sum. Under these circumstance, therefore, it was peculiarly important that there should be an understanding under which the capital of the country might be withdrawn to other states, particularly at a crisis like the present, when the exigencies of the country were so importunately pressing.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, the noble earl had talked of the usual mode of communication to the monied interest through the bank of England, and had applied it to an altogether unusual transaction. The fact was, that with regard to a loan to the British government, the usual mode of communicating with the capitalists was through the governor and deputy-governor of the bank of England: but there was no usual mode of making to them mere communications. Waving, however, this objection, he wished to state, that the individuals concerned in the loan had been made to understand (it did not now signify how), that his majesty's government would have no concern, either directly or indirectly, with the transaction, nor would they at all interfere. As to the argument, however, of the noble lord, that they ought to have engaged that there should be no future interference, under any circumstances, in their favour, how was it possible for any ministers to engage for their successors, or for any future government? All they could do was as they had done, to pledge themselves, it was

231
impossible for them to engage as to what might be negociated in any future treaty by any future government, under the circumstances in which that government might be placed. There was, however, this to be said with regard to the article in the treaties of 1814 and 1815, that in the security given to British creditors on the French government, that it was not awarded of itself, but was made the object of a special stipulation, in which a sum was given up by this country, and therefore that it did not afford that unqualified precedent contended for.
Lord Hollandobserved that the noble earl who usually stated arguments very fairly, had not dealt so fairly with his noble friend, with regard to the usual communication through the bank of England to the monied interest. What his noble friend had contended, and he thought most justly, was, that an express notice should have been given to the capitalists, that this government would not at all interfere in their favour, if the French government should not make good its engagements. The noble earl said, that his majesty's ministers could not bind their Successors, that they could not bind future governments: be it so, but then what followed? undoubtedly, that there ought to be a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, declaring the improvidence of the article in the treaties in favour of British creditors on the French government, and that it should not be drawn into precedent. He disclaimed, in strong terms, the idle opinion, that monied men should be restrained from employing their capital where and how they thought most conducive to their interests. He deprecated any misconstruction of his sentiments into the most distant censure of the contributors to the French loan. Such censure would be as opposite to his opinions as his wishes. Neither law nor government had any right to interfere with the disposal of capital, which after all, would and ought to go where the interests of those who possessed it required. He should say of the contributors, if utter strangers, that they acted irreproachably, fairly, and honourably; much more so of Mr. Baring, with whose excellent understanding, and pure and honest principles in public and private life, he was well acquainted. On no man on earth would he be more unwilling to cast a reflection for many reasons, and among them this, that no man could deserve it less. No, it was fair in him, or
232
any man, to concur in the loan; it was not fair in government, or even in parliament, to allow an unnatural encouragement of their own creating and sanctioning, to exist without a disclaimer—he meant the article in the treaty which protected, at the expense of the public purse, the interests of private British creditors. It operated as an inducement to place capital in a similar way at this period of distress, when the transference of large sums from England was a great evil, and when perhaps but for that very inducement of our own creating, there would be few motives for trusting to the stability of French credit or French governments. It was base to censure men for being swayed by such encouragements, but it was foolish to allow such encouragements to exist.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, that as communications were admitted by the noble earl to have been made by the ministers to the parties concerned in this loan, and as he presumed these communications must have been official, he gave notice of his intention to move on Monday, that these communications be laid upon the table.—The lords, on the motion of the noble earl, were then ordered to be summoned for Monday.

VOTE OF THANKS TO THE MARQUESS OF HASTINGS—NEPAUL WAR.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that in proposing to their lordships to give a vote of thanks to the marquess of Hastings, and to the army which had been engaged in the late campaign in the Nepaul territory, he should not call for any opinion on the justice or necessity of that war. The vote he should move was one in which he had no doubt of their lordships concurrence, as it would merely express their approbation of the plan of the campaign, and of the operations which had led to its successful termination. In reference to what had been said by a noble lord the other evening, as to difference of opinion respecting the prosecution of the war, he must observe, that the statement was founded in error. That noble lord was completely wrong in supposing that any protest had been made by certain members of the council in India against the war. With respect to the justice and necessity of commencing hostilities, there certainly was no difference of opinion in India; and it also had been the opinion of the government of this country, that in order to check the encroachments and aggressions

233
of the Nepaul power, no other remedy remained but an appeal to the sword. A series of encroachments had taken place, which no government valuing its character could have overlooked. These aggressions, which it was necessary to check, inflicted an evil, not only on the British dominions in India, but on those of our allies. He begged leave to repeat, that neither by what he had now said, nor by the vote which he should move, did he wish to call for any opinion from their lordships on the transactions to which he had alluded; but be had thought it necessary to address these few observations to their lordships, lest the statement which had fallen from a noble lord on a former night should have produced an erroneous impression. With regard to the particular objects to which he had to call their lordships attention, it was not by the force of the enemy, or the value of the country subdued, that the merit of the victory achieved by our troops was to be estimated; but the contest took place under circumstances which called for a very considerable degree of ability and military talent in those who had to carry it on. All the operations were executed in mountainous districts; and long and judicious preparations were necessary to insure a probability of success. The contest, though short, was severe, and in none could exercise of military skill and judgment be more requisite. He would not trouble their lordships with any details of the operations. The accounts were before the public, and to them he should refer for the truth of the character he had given to this campaign. With regard to the conduct of the governor-general, he should observe, that he had no alternative but to act as he had done. He concluded by moving, "That the thanks of the House be given to general the marquess of Hastings, for his judicious arrangements in the plan and direction of the military operations against Nepaul, by which the war was brought to a successful issue, and peace established upon just and honourable terms."
After a few words from earl Grosvenor, the motion was agreed to; as was a vote of thanks to major-general sir David Ochterlony, and the officers and troops under his command.