Lords Sitting of 25 April 1823

NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN.
Lord Hollandsaid, he would take the present opportunity of settling a trifling difference which existed between the noble earl opposite and himself. In Feb. 1816, he had asked the noble earl, whether there was any treaty, or any stipulation in any treaty, between this country and the other powers of Europe, to prevent the union of the crowns of France and Spain on one head! The noble earl had then answered, that there was no such treaty, nor any treaty or article of a political nature which was not before parliament. In the additional papers laid before parliament, there was a despatch from Mr. Canning, dated 31st March, to sir C. Stuart, to this effect:—"The article, of which I enclose a copy, is contained in the treaty between his majesty and the king of Spain, of 1814, but has never been published. It was originally a secret article, but his majesty having declined agreeing to it as such (from the opinion that it ought to be communicated to his majesty's allies), its title was changed from that of a secret to a separate article. It formed part of the treaty communicated to the court of France, in 1814, by the duke of Wellington, then his majesty's ambassador at Paris; but it was omitted in the copy of the treaty laid before parliament, at the express desire of the French government." So that this was not a secret article, but a separate article, which was not to be made public—rather a nice distinction! but see what the article was:—"His Catholic majesty engages not to enter into any treaty or engagement with France of the nature of that known under the denomination of the Family Compact, nor any other which may affect the independence of Spain, which may be injurious to the interests of his Britannic majesty, or way be contrary
1290
to the strict alliance which is stipulated by the present treaty." Now, if this were meant as an answer to his question it was no answer whatever: for if the intervening lives should drop, there was nothing in that article to prevent Ferdinand from succeeding to the crown of France. The words, "known under the denomination of the Family Compact," were strangely indefinite, and might be evaded with facility. The Strictest union might be established of a similar nature to the Family Compact, and the influence of France fully established in Spain; and yet they might call it nothing but a treaty between France and Spain. The noble earl's memory had certainly not served him correctly as to the question which he had put to him; and in this he was confirmed by a reference to the irregular reports of what passed in that House.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, it might be easily conceived he had not had the advantage of referring to the records alluded to by the noble lord, nor had he any precise recollection of the question and answer in 1816, but he believed that the answer to which the noble lord alluded, had no reference to any question relative to the crowns of France and Spain. With regard to this separate article, it was deemed expedient at the time, in compliance with the wish of the French government, not to make it public. With respect to the term Family Compact, the meaning of it was perfectly understood; but it was certainly the bearing of all the treaties, that the crowns of France Lind Spain should not be united upon one head.
Lord Hollandasked, what was to prevent the king of Spain from succeeding, in case of certain events, by virtue of legitimate hereditary right, to the throne of France?
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that the treaties distinctly recognized by other powers, and assented to by the legislatures both of France and Spain at the time, would prevent that event from taking place.
Lord Hollandsaid, the treaties were now nullified, and of no effect, and as to the recognition in France and Spain, it should be recollected that Louis 14th had expressly stated that he could not bind his successors.
The Earl of Liverpoolcontended, that if such a doctrine were to prevail, no treaty whatever could be binding except

1291
during the life of the sovereign who agreed to it. The contrary however was well known to be the law of nations. The treaty which operated to prevent the crowns of France and Spain from being united upon one head, had been distinctly recognized by the then legislative bodies of France and Spain, by an act registered in the parliament of Paris, and by the Spanish Cortes.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
The Earl of Liverpoolrose to call the attention of the House to the state of the appeals before it. He said, he intended to propose the appointment of a committee to consider the subject, and he therefore recommended to noble lords to abstain at present from the proposal of any remedy, in order that they might come to the committee without any bias on their minds. When the measure was first proposed in 1813, for hearing appeals during the whole morning three days in the week in that House—and which had been rigidly adhered to—it was expected that when the then existing arrear of appeals was got rid of, the number would be so kept down, that one day in the week would suffice for hearing them, and that his noble and learned friend on the woolsack might then be enabled to devote the other two days to the business of the Court of Chancery. So far, however, from this being the case, the number of appeals had actually increased since that period, the number lodged being 570, considerably more than the number heard and decided. Under these circumstances, it became absolutely necessary to consider of some other measure, not only with a view to facilitate the administration of justice in that House, but also to prevent the delay of justice in other courts, arising from the present mode of bearing appeals. The noble earl concluded by moving for the appointment of a committee to consider of the best means of facilitating the administration of justice in that House with regard to appeals and writs of error.
The Earl of Roseberryexpressed his thanks to the noble earl for the measure he had brought forward.
Lord Cawdorreferred to the papers laid before the House, respecting the administration of justice in Wales, and wished to know whether it was intended to found any measure upon them? He thought the subject might with propriety be referred to the said committee.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he had no intention at present of proposing any measure with reference to the subject alluded to by the noble lord. He thought it would be better not to embarrass the question, by referring to the committee the subject suggested by the noble lord.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.