Lords Sitting of 16 August 1831

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Marquis of SALISBURY, from Owners and Occupiers of Land at Hitchin, in Hertfordshire, praying for the extension of the Elective Franchise to Occupiers of Land. By the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, from Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Supply of the county of Edinburgh, against Distillation from Molasses. By a NOBLE LORD, from Owners and Occupiers of Land in Norfolk, with the same prayer. By the Earl of GOSFORD, from Merchants and Ship Owners of Belfast in favour of the Belfast Harbour Bill.

BELGIC NEGOTIATIONS.
The Earl of Orfordrose to put some questions to the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Administration, respecting the negotia-
76
tions which had lately taken place relative to the settlement of the affairs of Holland and Belgium. From the events which had recently occurred, and the documents which had been published, and the great anxiety which had been excited in the public mind, it was highly expedient, that Ministers should give some explicit and distinct explanation on the subject. The questions which he particularly wished to put to the noble Earl, related, 1st, to the present occupation of the Belgic territory by the French; and 2dly, relative to the fortresses on the French and Belgic frontiers, some of which at least it appeared to be proposed to destroy. He wished to know for what purpose the French troops had entered Belgium, and upon what conditions, and how long they were to remain in that country? And in the next place, he wished to know, whether the noble Earl was prepared to lay on the Table, a list of such of the fortresses as it was intended to demolish. In adverting to these topics, he might refer to what had been stated before, that France had entered the Belgic territory, because the armistice between Holland and Belgium, which had been established under the sanction and guarantee of the five Powers, had been broken by the king of Holland. But, from events which had lately occurred, and documents which had lately been published, it would appear, that, according to the understanding of the king of Holland, no such armistice had been established or had ever been in existence. He might refer to documents which had recently been published, as a proof that the king of Holland did not recognise any armistice, except one which he himself was entitled to put an end to, without any reference to the five Powers. It appeared that the king of Holland had addressed a letter to the Conference, in which he stated, that he intended to support the negotiations with Belgium par moyens militaires. A letter, making use of the same expression, had been addressed to the Ambassadors at the Hague, and it was surprising that there should exist such a difference between the interpretation which the king of Holland put on this expression, and that which was put on it by the five Powers in their answer of the 5th of August. The noble Duke had, on a former occasion, interpreted this as meaning, that the king of Holland would interfere by military means. But the letter of the 2nd

77
August contained a corollary, which took away all pretence for the allegation, that the king of Holland had given no notice of his intention to attack Belgium; for, in that letter, Count Verstolk de Soleen spoke of it as a thing resolved on. He said, "Thence it must be evident, that the king's determination to throw his army into the scale simultaneously with the negotiations at London, for the purpose of obtaining fair terms of separation—an end too precisely marked, and too distinctly avowed, to be subject to the least doubt—ought not to inspire any disquietude." With these letters, and that interpretation before them, it was strange that the Ministers of the Powers engaged in the Conferences, should have written the answer of the 5th of August to the minister of the king of Holland, which answer contained these expressions:—"By the letter which your Excellency did us the honour to present to us on the 1st of August, you had the goodness to inform us, that it was the intention of the King, your august master, to support, by military measures, the negotiations which his plenipotentiaries are commissioned to open at London. We should have supposed, that these measures would be adopted only in the interior of the territory of Holland, if public report did not inform us, that they had been extended beyond its frontiers; that hostilities have been resumed against the Belgians by the King's orders; and that the armistice concluded at Antwerp has just been denounced." Now it certainly was strange, that the Ministers of the five Powers at the Conferences, should have put such an interpretation as this on the communications of the king of Holland. The real state of these transactions might be described in a few words. On the 12th of January, the Powers of the Conference agreed on a Protocol, by which it was provided, that peace should be established between Holland and Belgium on certain terms, and that, in the mean time, an armistice should be concluded between the contending parties, and that no king of Belgium should be recognised, unless he agreed to adopt the basis of the terms proposed by the Conference. But no distinct and explicit armistice followed upon this; on the contrary, hostilities had been threatened, and even force employed. This was curious—and it was no less curious, that no Protocol was communicated to the
78
ministers of the king of Holland till the Eighteen Articles had been laid before him. A change had, however, taken place in the views of the Powers engaged in the Conferences, and the Eighteen Articles were different from the Protocol. Such was the state of affairs when Prince Leopold was chosen king of Belgium. Here he might have accepted the Eighteen Articles; but then, when he went to Belgium, he had to swear to preserve the integrity of the Belgic territory, including certain places on the Scheldt. He wished to ask the noble Earl, whether, when the French entered Belgium to assist King Leopold, it was done under the authority of the Protocol, or of the Eighteen Articles, or under the Constitution sworn to by Leopold when he went to Belgium—all of them differing from each other? The French had, it was true, declared, that their troops should be withdrawn on the return of the Dutch troops to Holland, but then the French minister had declared, in a speech in the Chambers, that it was not the intention to withdraw them on the return of the Dutch troops, but that they were to remain till some other French objects should be accomplished. The king of Holland, however, had always insisted on his right to take the matter into his own hands, and that right had never been distinctly denied. Then, with respect to the fortresses, it was important to look at the speeches of the French minister, M. Casimir Perier, delivered in the French Chamber; for these speeches were not like speeches delivered in that and the other House of Parliament. The speeches of the French ministers were usually written out, and in some measure might be considered as authentic documents. But the French minister, in the speech to which he alluded, had said, that Leopold was not to be recognised by France as king of Belgium, until the honour of France should be completely vindicated, and all vestiges of the humiliating terms imposed on France in 1815, by the erection of these fortresses, should be done away. This language evidently implied, that all the fortresses were to be demolished. Considering, that these fortresses were erected at the expense of Great Britain and Holland, and that they were intended particularly for the defence of Holland, it was clear that no alteration should be made in the state of these fortresses, unless Holland was made a con-

79
senting party. It might be said, that it would be desirable, as a matter of economy for Belgium, that some of these fortresses should be demolished; but the French minister said, that Leopold was not to be recognised until the whole of them were demolished; and it might be implied, that the French ministry meant to make the demolition of these fortresses a condition of the withdrawing of the French forces from Belgium. In fine, then, he asked the noble Earl, for what specific purpose the French troops had entered Belgium, and in what event, and on what conditions, they were to be withdrawn from the Belgic territory, and whether the whole of the frontier fortresses were to be demolished; and if not, whether the noble Earl would consent to lay on the Table, a list of such of the fortresses as were to be demolished?
Earl Grey,before he proceeded to reply to the question of the noble Earl, must again protest against the practice of raising premature debates on subjects which were not yet ripe for discussion, and which could not be discussed without great inconvenience and even danger; and against asking premature questions, to which no answer could at present be given. But he had also to complain of the unprecedented, and he might say the uncourteous, manner in which the noble Earl had, on the present occasion, brought this subject before the House. As a Minister of the Crown, he was bound to answer any question which it was proper to put to him; but it was usual, as a matter of courtesy, to give the Ministers previous notice when questions were to be put to them, and to state the nature of these questions; or, if it was intended to bring forward a motion, it was the usual course, as a matter of courtesy, to give notice of the motion, and to state the nature of it. This the noble Earl had thought proper entirely to neglect, and to put questions to him without any previous communication whatever; and, under the pretence of asking questions, he had entered into a statement of the proceedings and views of the Powers at the Conferences, which statement was completely erroneous. He did not mean, however, to follow the noble Earl through that statement, but would confine himself strictly to the questions which he had asked. In the first place, the noble Earl asked for what purpose
80
the French troops had entered Belgium? To this the answer was, that the purpose, as had been distinctly stated in these documents, was, to support the king of the Belgians against the Dutch troops, which had entered Belgium in violation of the armistice. The noble Earl said, that no such armistice had been established; but he (Earl Grey) said, that it was established under the guarantee of the five Powers, any one of whom had a right to enforce its observance against either of the parties which should violate it. The noble Earl asked, whether the French troops would be withdrawn when the Dutch troops should retire within their own frontiers? That was obviously a question to which he could return no positive answer, nor could he pledge himself as to whether they would then return or not. But, if the noble Earl had asked what this country had a right to expect upon that head, and what had been stipulated by solemn engagement, then he might have answered, that this country had a right, on every ground, to expect, that the French troops would be withdrawn from Belgium, when the Dutch troops should have retired within their own frontiers. Now, as to the speeches to which the noble Earl had alluded, how could the noble Earl expect any explanation from Ministers here as to speeches, the matter of which rested on no official authority whatever? Put this case. Suppose a speech were published in a newspaper, said to have been spoken by a French minister, in a French Chamber, he would ask the noble Earl, on what ground a Minister could ask for explanations of a publication possessing no official authority or authenticity? Or, suppose such a speech to be published in a newspaper here, as that made by a Minister, upon what ground could a French minister ask for explanations with respect to such a publication? Nothing could more strongly show the impropriety of the explanation called for by the noble Earl, than the bare statement of these suppositions. The noble Earl had alluded to a supposed distinction between the authenticity of the speech of a French minister, when published in a newspaper, and the speeches made in either House of Parliament here. But as to the point of official authenticity or authority, he knew no distinction between them. Then, in the third place, the noble Earl asked, whether the whole of the fortresses were to be

81
demolished, or whether he (Earl Grey) would lay on the Table a list of such of them as were to be destroyed? The only answer he could give to that was, that with respect to the fortresses, nothing had as yet been determined on. All that had been determined on was, that in consequence of the alteration of circumstances which had taken place, certain of these might be, and should be demolished, and that negotiations should be set on foot, in order to determine which of them should be demolished. As to any of the other matters touched upon in the noble Earl's speech, he would then say nothing, but should be well prepared to enter on the discussion, when the proper time and opportunity should arrive.
The Earl of Orforddid not mean to speak of the speeches of the French ministers as authentic official documents, but he must maintain, that, from the practice of writing out the speeches delivered in the French Chambers, and handing them out for publication in this corrected state, a greater degree of authenticity did attach to them than to the speeches delivered in Parliament.
The Marquis of Londonderrywas glad that the noble Earl had given new assurances and pledges that the French troops were to be withdrawn from Belgium the moment when the Dutch troops should have withdrawn within their own territory. The noble Earl had pledged himself, that the French troops should remain no longer in Belgium than until the Dutch troops should be withdrawn, and therefore he would not pass any judgment on the Ministers at present with reference to the entry of the French into Belgium. But considering the excited state of the public mind in regard to these transactions, and the series of extraordinary blunders which these Conferences had exhibited, he thought that the noble Earl behind him did right in calling their Lordships' attention, and the attention of the country, to the curious contradictions between the statements of the Ministers here, and the statements of the French Ministers, in their speeches in the Chambers. But the noble Earl had given assurances that the French troops would withdraw when the Dutch should have withdrawn; and there were those in that House who would take care that he should be responsible for those assurances. He would not at present say anything more on the question, but
82
when the proper time arrived, he would take care that the subject should be fully discussed.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas not surprised that some of their Lordships had thought proper to call the attention of their Lordships and the country to these transactions, for some of them were rather strange, and seemed fit subjects for explanation, as far as explanation could be given consistently with the public interests. But, at the same time, he must observe, that there was nothing in what Ministers might say in the Parliament here, nor in what the French Ministers might say in the Chamber of Deputies, that had anything like official authority or authenticity, as far as concerned foreign relations, or which could properly be made the subject of international explanations. Ministers were bound only by their signatures attached to official documents, and not by loose and vague statements, which, as to any official engagement, signified nothing, No reliance whatever in these cases was to be placed on anything but official documents, regularly signed; and although the noble Lords near him, and the public, might feel considerable anxiety as to the statements of the French Ministers, yet they ought not to have considered Ministers here as in the least responsible for anything that might appear in such statements or speeches.
Earl Greysaid, the noble Duke had anticipated the observations which he (Earl Grey) had been about to make. He, as a Minister of the Crown, was to be judged by official documents, and not by any vague and unauthenticated statements and speeches. He was responsible, as a Minister and a man of honour, for what he stated in that House; and under that responsibility he had stated what this country had a right to expect according to the engagements entered into with other Powers, and he was no further pledged, as to the introduction of the French troops into Belgium, or as to the purpose for which they entered, or as to when or upon what conditions they should be withdrawn. As to the observations of the noble Marquis, he should only say, that if the noble Marquis wished to excite animosities between nations, and to interrupt the general peace, he could adopt no better course than that which he was pursuing.
The Marquis of Londonderrydenied that

83
he had any desire to interrupt the general peace. He spoke of the conduct of the noble Earl from his signature to a Protocol, the terms of which had been contradicted by a speech of the French Minister. He repeated, that there were contradictions between them; and notwithstanding the cheers and yells which attended the noble Earl's speeches, he would say, that the time consumed in calling for explanations had not been misspent. He insisted that he had a right to ask questions of the noble Earl; and if he refused to answer them, he had a right to make a motion, and would make a motion, in order to procure the proper information. He hoped that the questions asked on his side of the House demanded respect.