Sitting of 11 February 1808

DROITS OF ADMIRALTY.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid he would not take up the time of the house by any prefatory remarks to the motion which he was about to submit; for that motion being the ground of a parliamentary proceeding, he conceived that it would be consented to without opposition. He should therefore content himself with simply moving, " That there be laid before the house an account of all captures made at sea by the naval forces of this country, which were claimed to remain, and which did remain, at the disposal of the Crown since the year 1792, specifying each capture and its amount, with the particular appropriation of the proceeds thereof."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdoubted whether the specification of every individual capture could be obtained. At any rate, such a specification would require considerable time to prepare. He entered into an explanation of the right of his majesty to these Droits, which resolved itself
450
into two distinct parts: the right of the crown, and the right as lord high admiral. If any complaint were made with respect to the mode in which the fund had been appropriated by the crown, that might form the ground of parliamentary enquiry and reprehension; but with regard to the fund itself, the right of the crown to the appropriation of it was unquestionable. A considerable proportion of this fund had been granted to captors under various circumstances; many grants had been made for the public service; and, it being completely under his majesty's controul, grants had also been occasionally made for the benefit of the younger branches of the royal family. None of these appropriations could be characterized as misapplications. The hon. baronet had an undoubted right to know what was the gross amount of that fund, and what part remained undisposed. If, on the production of those accounts, the hon. baronet should require an account of the mode in which the fund had been appropriated, the house would doubtless expect some strong allegations before they would consent to his request. For these reasons, and to facilitate the attainment of the hon. baronet's object, he submitted to him the propriety of confining his motion to the total amount of the captures from the period mentioned. by him, and of that part of the proceeds of those captures which remained undisposed of at the present time.
Sir F. Burdetthad no objection to follow the line chalked out by the right hon. gent.; for the great object he had in view at this time was to have the amount before the house. He had not, indeed, as yet stated any facts of misapplication; yet he apprehended the house would not endure that so large a sum should be at the disposal of the crown, without any inquiry, even although it should be admitted that the crown had the legal right, of which, however, considerable doubts were entertained.
Sir C. Poleexpressed his approbation of the motion of the hon. baronet, for all his reflections on the subject convinced him that the admiralty court ought to be upon a new footing.
The Advocate Generalobserved, that the admiralty court had nothing to do with the subject of this motion. Before the house proceeded any further in it, it was proper that it should know what grounds could be made out for an inquiry. The captured property came to the king in a

451
double capacity. That which was seized before the declaration of war, and the issuing of letters of marque and reprisals, belonged to him jure corona. That which was captured afterwards was his as lord high admiral, whose rights accrued to the crown when the office was put into commission. But it was the custom to give up what part belonged to him in this capacity, or, after the issuing of reprisals, to the captors. Another species of property was that which was captured in port, or by such as were not licensed captors. This was properly the Droits of Admiralty, and belonging to the king in virtue of the office of high admiral. In 1795, when the French made an irruption into Holland, encouragement was held out to the inhabitants to remove to a neutral country, and if they did this, the property detained here on that occasion was to be restored to them. But as they had not done this, it was condemned to the crown as taken before reprisals. The Spanish property seized before reprisals in 1796; was also condemned as the Droits of the Admiralty. On the breaking out of the war in May, 1803, hostilities were not commenced against Holland till the 16th of June following; Dutch property, however, was detained in the mean time, and afterwards condemned as prize to the crown. Spanish, Prussian, and Danish property was condemned under similar circumstances, the captors having no claim; and in case of a convention to restore it at the end of the war, the crown would be bound to do so. But no convention of that sort existed, and consequently the property remained at the disposal of the crown. Then how was it applied? A moiety, or perhaps two-thirds was granted as a reward to the captors— a circumstance that must be pleasing to the hon. baronet (Pole) who was so anxious for the interests of the naval service. Another part had been applied to the relief of the public exigencies of the state, to the extent of two millions—one having been granted seine time ago, and another lately. Part had been applied to the relief of those who had suffered from the breaking out of the war. The Spanish government had sequestrated property belonging to this country, which, by a stipulation in the treaty of Amiens, they had engaged to restore. This was not done, and some of the captured property belonging to the crown, was applied to the relief of the sufferers. Another part had been granted to captors who had not
452
been allowed to act under the ordinary discretionary powers; and another to those who had suffered from the insolvency of captors. These had been the different modes in which this property had been disposed of. But he did not by any means wish to keep out of view, that a very small part of it had, out of his majesty's grace and liberality, been conferred on the younger branches of his family. Was he the only father in the kingdom who was not to be allowed to make grants out of funds, appertaining to him by law, to his own children? If any thought so, he was not ashamed to say that he differed from them. The house would dispose of the motion as it pleased, but no instance of misapplication had been stated; no grounds of inquiry had been laid. The house was competent, certainly, to go into such an inquiry, but in his opinion no reason had been assigned for the exercise of its right on the present occasion.
Mr. Lushingtonperfectly agreed with the last speaker, that this motion had no reference to the Admiralty Court. He also agreed with him in the greater part of what he said relative to the right of the crown to this property; but differed from him materially as to the constant propriety of the application. One instance of misapplication he would state to the house. An hon. baronet (sir Popham) whom he saw in his place, had, in the year 1787, obtained leave of absence on half pay from the naval service, in which he was then a lieutenant. He went to Ostend, and there procured a ship, the Etrusco, bearing the Imperial flag, in which he freighted a cargo for the East Indies. He there exchanged his vessel for an American ship, and carried a cargo to Canton in China; having taken in a fresh cargo there, of which a French supercargo at Canton had a share, he sailed first for Ireland, and from that to Dungeness, where he landed goods, or, in plain English, smuggled them. Lieut. Bowen of the Brilliant frigate, Capt. Robinson, seized the ship in Ostend Roads, after a person had escaped on shore with part of the goods. This vessel was brought to judgment in the Admiralty Court. During the proceedings, the hon. baronet claimed his share of the cargo and freight; but when it became necessary to serve a process of the court upon him, he was not to be found, and, in short, had absconded. The ship was condemned; but for all the trouble, the inconvenience,, and loss of time coca-

453
sioned in the prosecution of the business, capt. Robinson did not receive one shilling. Yet afterwards, in consequence of a treasury warrant, signed by the marquis of Blandford and Mr. Long, founded upon a report for that purpose, reluctantly signed, as he understood, by the right, hon. gent. (the Advocate-General) 25,000 l. was restored to the hon. baronet; being the amount of his claim, and that too without deducting from it any of the expences of the process. It was some time, indeed, before the right hon. gent. (the Advocate-General) could be induced to give a recommendation to this effect, and his scruples were highly to his credit. These circumstances formed part of the Records of the Admiralty Court, but he had only seen the papers that morning. Here, then, was an application of a large sum as a reward for a violation of the laws of the country. He was glad, therefore, that a disposition appeared to examine this subject, but he thought the business would be very imperfectly done unless the house attended to the application of the money, which was, perhaps, the most material point of the whole.
Sir Home Pophamobserved, that having been thus personally attacked, he could not but Air a few observations in his own vindication. Although, if the hon. gent. who had thrown out such aspersions as had never been used in that house, had given him any previous intimation of his intention to bring forward circumstances in which he was particularly concerned, he would have been better prepared to meet his statement. He would, however, now advert to a plain and well known fact. The house would recollect he went to the East Indies at a period of profound peace, and had been there employed in the service of the East India Company. If the hon. gent. would consult the records of the India House, he would find that lord Cornwallis, the Governor General, and the Council, had recommended him strongly to the Court of Directors, and said that he had deserved that the directors should apply to the Admiralty to promote him. He had besides received acknowledgments and presents for his services. If, from his anxiety to be actively employed, and to gain experience in his profession, he had in a moment of irritation gone out to India under a neutral flag (which perhaps he now regretted), he had only followed the example of many other naval officers, and he could not help thinking it stranger, that
454
after the lapse of more than 20 years, he should thus be singled out for peculiar animadversion. He trusted he might be allowed to say, that his exertions in India must have been of a very extraordinary nature to induce the Governor-General in Council to recommend him at home as he had done. By the term 'extraordinary,' he meant only that those services had been of a description which were deemed deserving of marked approbation. He trusted also, that in no action of his, had he had any sort of connection with smugglers, as stated by the hon. gent. or that he had even violated the laws of the country, without having at the same time done something, which more than compensated for the injury sustained.
Mr. Sheridanfully agreed with the hon. captain, that after the attack which had been made upon him, the matter ought not to rest there. It was due both to the house and himself, that the matter should be investigated. He also agreed, that his hon. friend behind him might have given some notice of his intention; but then it was to be observed, that he had only read the papers that morning, and had stated the facts upon an occasion which had suddenly arisen. But if it was necessary to have this affair inquired into, upon the statement of his hon. friend, it was much more so after the defence of the hon. captain. The hon. captain stated, that he had done as many other officers had done, sailed under a neutral flag, in a moment of irritation, for the purpose of obtaining professional knowledge and experience. He had heard of other officers who had done so, but then they had engaged in the wars of foreign powers; how the hon. captain could increase his professional knowledge by landing teas at Dungeness—
The Chancellor of the Exchequercalled the right hon. gent. to order; it was impossible for him to sit still and hear an attack upon any member under such circumstances; it was not consonant to the rules of justice which ought to be observed to every man, that a conversation arising collaterally should be brought forward, and carried on by remarks uttered in the tone and manner used by the right hon. gent. To what purpose was this done? Was there a motion before the house, the event of which would be to censure or acquit the hon. captain? He appealed to the right hon. gent.'s own candour on the subject; for he was sure that

455
he was the last man who, on cool reflection, would persevere in any unfair or illiberal line of conduct.
The Speakerexpressed his opinion, that by abstaining from any further remarks on this part of the debate, the house would best consult its own dignity.
Mr. Sheridanthough he did not complain of the right hon. gent. for having interrupted him, must contend that he was strictly in order. The learned gent. opposite having asserted that there was not a single instance of misappropriation of the fund under discussion, his hon. friend who was in possession of a flagrant instance of misappropriation, and who knew that the hon. knight was in his place to defend himself, had stated that instance. Having heard the hon. captain's answer, in which he did not deny the accusation, an accusation founded not loosely, but on recorded facts, it appeared to him, and he was justified in arguing that the subject ought to be most narrowly investigated. With regard to the subject more immediately before the house, if the Droits were originally his majesty's undoubted right, still in progress of many wars, they might have amounted to such a sum, that it would be necessary to revise the right, and to say whether or not it was sate to trust the disposal of so much money out of the controul of parliament. He should add only a few words on that part of the question which related to the application of the money arising from these Droits. He had no hesitation in saying, that he not only did not censure, but he cordially concurred in, and approved of that part of the application this day avowed by his majesty's Judge Advocate, namely, his majesty's gracious gifts to the younger branches of his illustrious family. So far was he from objecting to these acts of his majesty's paternal generosity, that he lamented that his majesty's royal munificence had been confined to the younger branches of his august family. Had the heir apparent participated in it, he believed the house and the country would have not merely been satisfied, but gratified; for never must it be forgotten, that the prince had an unliquidated claim, which, greatly to his honour, feeling for the public burthen and the difficulty of the times, had been, by his royal highness's express desire, suspended, but not abandoned; he meant the arrears of the Duchy of Cornwall: that debt still remained indisputably due, either from the
456
sovereign or the public; and, towards the discharge of that debt, he could not conceive an application of the funds now under discussion, more grateful to the people, than in part directing them towards that object. His majesty's munificence towards the younger branches of his august family, was an act of bounty, in the latter case it would be an act, not of bounty merely, but of justice.
The Advocate Generalsaid, that this property was not property condemned to the crown, but came by a forfeiture, which on good grounds might justly be remitted. The ground on which he recommended the grant to the hon. captain, was this. He had gone to Ostend, and from that sailed under a foreign flag to India. If he was restrained as a British subject from doing so by the law of his country, unquestionably this was a violation of it. But it was perfectly well known to the Indian government, that he was there, and it was the policy at that time to encourage exportation from India in foreign vessels. Whatever offence had been committed, was against the East India Company, and as they had by implication remitted it, he thought himself justified in recommending the remission of the forfeiture.
Mr. Tierneycalled the right hon. gent. to order, as he was entering upon a defence of the hon. captain, instead of confining himself to the facts fur his own justification.— Some discussion arose here about the question under discussion, whether it was the original motion or the amendment suggested by the chancellor of the exchequer, and in some measure assented to.
Lord Folkestonesaid, he thought the debate should proceed on the original motion; for he was sure the hon. baronet who made it, wished to have a full and complete account of those Droits, and also of the application of the money arising from them. The original motion would, in his opinion, effect this; but he did not think the amendment would, and therefore he thought the original motion should be persisted in.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that in making the motion, he certainly wished for the fullest discovery as to the Droits, and also the application of the money arising from them: it was matter of very great importance, and which he, as a member of parliament, thought he had a right to demand. From the candid and liberal manner in which the the right hon. the

457
chancellor of the exchequer had expressed himself, in introducing his amendment, he felt extremely inclined to accede to it; but from the unexpected turn which the debate had taken, and the disclosure of so extravagant and flagrant a misapplication of a certain part of the money arising from the proceeds, his opinion was greatly altered, and he thought his duty required that he should persist in his motion as it had been originally introduced.
The Advocate Generalproceeded to state, that the hon. captain, when in India, was known to persons in the highest offices there to be a British subject; that he was very much countenanced by them, and in consequence of the services he had rendered the East India Company, by taking the soundings of Prince of Wales's Island, and other parts in those seas, he had received such recommendations to the Court of Directors, as had procured him some very valuable presents from them. From India he had, however, sailed to China, and. at Canton had taken in a cargo of tea without any licence from the India Company, which rendered the transaction a breach of the law, and as such the cargo was liable to forfeiture; but it was not a Droit of the Admiralty; it was not what had fallen to the king as a capture in time of war, but was merely what became vested in his majesty as a forfeiture, in consequence of the cargo being illegal, for want of a licence from the East India Company. With this cargo of tea, the hon. baronet was proceeding to Ostend, in the ship Etrusco, when she was met with and seized by his majesty's ship the Brilliant; and the ship and part of the cargo were condemned, for the benefit of the captors; but this part of the cargo, which was the property of the hon. captain, became vested in the king as a forfeit; and under all the circumstances of the case, it became a question whether it was a fit forfeiture for the crown to take advantage of. On a mature and deliberate consideration of the case, he was of opinion that it was not; and therefore he advised the remission of it, which accordingly took place. As he had before stated, this fund was given to the king for his sole use; and he had out of it made several grants for public and national purposes. He had also granted several sums out of it for the use and benefit of the younger branches of the royal family; and he thought his majesty had most undoubted right to do this, unless should be expected that he
458
should be the only father of a family in this country who was not at liberty to shew pecuniary favours to his offspring. There might be those who thought otherwise; but he was not ashamed to say, that he differed entirely with them on that head. He begged pardon for so long a trespass on the time of the house; but thought it necessary to state these circumstances, as it had been said, that he felt a reluctance to sign the warrant of remission.
Mr. Lushington,in explanation, said, that he had heard it was with reluctance that the right hon. gent. who spoke last had signed the warrant for the restitution of the property of the hon. captain, and he had stated it as a fact which he thought highly honourable to the character of the right hon. and learned gent. With respect to what had been said by the hon. captain, as to his having brought forward this subject thus suddenly, without having given him any intimation of it, the fact was, that he had heard of this transaction some time ago, and finding the motion which had been made was to come on that evening, he had purposely gone to the Admiralty to look into the records of this transaction; that this had taken up so much time, he was not able to get down to the house till the motion was made, and then, not knowing the hon. capt. by sight, he had even asked one or two of his friends if he was in the house, who told him that he was. Had the hon. captain been absent, it was his intention to have stated the transaction without mentioning names, and have left that to some future occasion. As the right hon. and learned gent. had however expressly stated, that no misapplication of the money arising from this fund had taken place, he thought it his duty to mention it in the way he had done, as he thought it a most glaring and flagrant misapplication, and what ought to be more particularly enquired into.
Mr. Brandsaid, he thought this motion was intended to come at a very important fact, viz. the amount of the proceeds arising from these Droits; and, as such, he would vote in favour of it: the amendment being, in his opinion, a colourable pretence for weakening and curtailing the effect of it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose for the purpose of proposing his amendment; but
The Speakertold him he could not speak to the whole motion, having spoken be-

459
fore, and must therefore confine himself to explanation.
Mr. Huskissonthen rose, and moved an amendment to the following purport, "That there be laid before this house, an Account of the nett proceeds paid into the Registry of the Court of Admiralty, or to the Receiver General of Droits, of all property condemned to his majesty as Droits, either in right of his crown or in right of the office of lord high admiral, since the 1st of Jan. 1793, and of the balance now remaining therein."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,in explanation, said, that so far from the amendment being a colourable pretence to weaken or curtail the effect of the original motion, it would have the direct contrary tendency; for the hon. baronet's intention would be more fully answered by it, than by the original motion. The hon. baronet wanted to obtain the fullest discovery of the amount of droits, and this the amendment would procure most effectually; and it would be only to wait a few days, and then he might, when he was in possession of the amount of this fund, move for an account of the application of it. He had before stated, that this fund, whether wisely or unwisely, was not then the question, had been left to the sole disposal of the crown. If, however, that house or any member of it was of opinion that this fund amounted to such an enormous sum as ought not to be vested in any one without the controul of parliament, and wished to bring the subject under the consideration of the house, such member had a right to move for such accounts as would be necessary to bring the question properly before the house. If the question arose out of the amount of the sums of which this fund consisted, then it was necessary to know what those sums were, and when that was once given, the next question would naturally arise, as to its application. As to the instance which had been mentioned of the hon. captain behind him, part of the cargo, which was his own property, became forfeited to the crown from a breach of the law in a case which the East India Company might have licenced, and in consequence of the services which the hon. baronet had rendered the crown and his country, also from his services while he was in India, it had been thought fit, under all the circumstances of the case, to remit the forfeiture; but the remission of a forfeit was nothing like a grant of droits, and therefore he thought
460
not at all applicable to the present debate.
Mr. Adamsaid, he wished as much as any one that this question should come to a full and complete issue, and this could only be attained by procuring an ample and perfect account of the amount of those droits; and it was his opinion that the motion made by the hon. baronet could not attain that object. He thought at the same time that the amendment was capable of effecting it; but still he thought that was in itself defective, inasmuch as it did not go to the application of the money arising from those droits. Would that be proper at the present moment? He thought not, but that it would come with better effect after the house had obtained the amount of the fund in question. He was of opinion that the transaction which had been mentioned by his hon. friend near him ought to be inquired into, but not in this way. The, droits of the Admiralty had been left at the sole disposal of the king; and in 1795, his majesty gave for public purposes the money arising from several Dutch prizes, which amounted to a million; and the house by their acceptance, had sanctioned the right of the king's disposing of those droits which way he thought proper. Still, however, this fund appeared to be too great to be possessed by any one without being subjected to the controul of parliament, especially if it could be shewn that there had been any instances of a misapplication of the money arising from it. He hoped, therefore, the hon. baronet might be induced to withdraw his motion, and let the amendment be adopted, which in his mind would more completely answer the purposes he wished to attain.
Sir C. Poledisapproved of both the original motion and the amendment, and proposed a motion of his own, by which the gross proceeds and net proceeds were required to be stated in distinct columns, &c. Alluding to the delay in the distribution of prize-money, he instanced an officer who had received, only last May, his share of prize-money, for a vessel captured twenty years ago.— The house then divided, when there appeared for the Original Motion 57. For the Amendment 82. Majority for the Amendment 25.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, J.

Baring, A.

Agar, E. F.

Bouverie, E.

Anstruther, sir J.

Bradshaw, A. C.

Baring, T.

Brand, T

461

Byng, George

Miller, sir T.

Calcraft, John

Mills, C

Calcraft, sir G.

Mills, W.

Cavendish, lord G.

Moore, P.

Cavendish, Wm.

Newport, sir J.

Cavendish, G. H. C.

Orde, W.

Cocks, E. C.

Ossulston, lord

Combe, H. C.

Petty, lord H.

Creevey, T.

Pole,sir C.M.

Cutbert, J. R.

Ponsonby, F.

Eden, W. F.

Pousonby, G.

Folkestone, viscount.

Prittie, F.A.

Grattan, H.

Pym, F.

Greenbill, R.

Russell, lord W.

Harvey, E.

Shakespeare, A.

Hibbert,G.

Sharpe, R.

Horner, F.

Shelly, T.

Hurst, R.

Sheridan, R.B.

Ingleby, sir W.

Tierney, G.

Lamb, W.

Ward, J.W.

Lloyd, J. R.

Wardel, W.L.

Longman, G.

Whirbread, S.

Lyttleton, W. H.

Windham, W.

Macdonald, J.

Tellers.

Markham, J.

Burdett, sir Francis

Martin, H

Lushington, S.

EXCHEQUER BILLS REGULATION BILL.
Mr. Huskissonmoved the third reading of the bill for regulating the issuing and payment of Exchequer Bills. The bill was read a third time, after which,
Mr. Horner,adverting to the circumstance of the creation of a new place, that of paymaster of exchequer bills by this bill, and the establishment of new modes of contracting for the circulation of exchequer bills, said, he did not mean to object to either in that stage of the bill, but felt it his duty to call the attention of the house to one clause in the bill, which appeared to him of much more serious consequence. The clause he alluded to was that which exempted persons who might contract under the bill, for the circulation of exchequer bills, from the operation of the 22d of the king, which disqualified all contractors from seats in that house. He therefore should move to have that clause left out of the bill.
Mr. Huskisson shewedthat the clause alluded to, had been copied verbatim from the annual bill, authorising the issue of exchequer bills upon the land and malt taxes. The clause extended only to protect the directors of the bank, with which corporation alone it was proposed to make arrangements for the circulation of exchequer bills. No new office was created by the bill, that of paymaster of exchequer bills having been in existence under the former bills. The object of the bill was to make permanent regulations for the
462
issue and payment of exchequer bills, and to correct the inconsistencies, which in, many instances existed between the provisions of the old bills and the modern practice respecting exchequer bills Besides, the 22d of the king could not be construed to extend to persons who were not contractors for procuring something for the public service, but merely agents for circulating exchequer bills; otherwise every holder of an exchequer bill would be disqualified for a seat in that house.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the clause objected to was a verbatim copy a the clause inserted in every bill, since the first adoption of exchequer bills; and that it merely meant to protect the bank, as agents for the lending of money upon exchequer bills. No objection to this clause had ever been made before; no actual abuse of it had ever yet been imputed, during 60 years; and therefore he saw no ground for the present apprehensions. Ministers would not probably bring into that house the brokers employed to circulate exchequer bills.
Mr. Sheridansaid, the enormous extent to which those bills were issued of late years, was a ground of apprehension, from the increased power this would give to ministers. He stated that, to many of the public offices, viz. to the Treasurer of the Navy, instead of cash, the sums to be disbursed for the payment of seamens wages, naval expenditures, &c. were sent down in exchequer bills, with directions that they should be converted into money by the regular treasury broker, Mr. Goldsmid. Mr. Goldsmid's profits, by this species of brokerage, were enormous in the course of the year; and though he might have no objection to see a man of his respectable character a member of that house, yet he did not wish to have the field opened for others. He considered the clause as a virtual violation of the letter and spirit of the 22d of the King, which excluded from the house all public contractors. Ministers avowed, that this clause was merely to protect the Bank from the operation of that statute. They were already protected by another law; it was, therefore, superfluous.
Mr. Rosedefended the clause as being precisely the same as had been always adopted in bills of this nature. The idea of influence such as rendered men incapable of sitting in the house of commons on account of contracts, could not apply to the purchasers of exchequer bills, unless

463
they were what might be called brokers of them.
Lord H. Pettyopposed the clause, and said that the house should be jealous of all possible encroachments upon its purity and constitutional independence; and in compliance with the spirit of that act which excluded from parliament all public contractors, ministers were called on in proof of their sincerity, not to insist on retaining a nugatory clause for a purpose already provided for by another law.
Mr. Adamwas of the same opinion. He gave a history of the act of 1782 by which contractors were disabled from sitting in parliament. The part of the bill which made exceptions in favour of the directors of the bank and other public bodies, Was adopted on his suggestion. He thought the clause in question an unnecessary act of power, which would create jealousy in the public, and produce no good whatever, for the bill would be complete wihout it; and therefore he recommended it to be left out.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeradmitted, that he saw at present no strong reason for retaining the clause, nor was he aware, until this night, that it was liable to any, strong objections. However, he was willing to adjourn the further proceedings until to-morrow. He should, in the mean time, re-consider the subject, and if he saw no sufficient reason for retaining the clause, he should not then oppose its expunction.—The third reading was accordingly postponed.

DISPUTE WITH AMERICA.
Lord Grenvillerose, pursuant to notice, to move for certain papers, which would tend to throw some light on the nature of the relations, as they now existed, between this country and America, and on the terms and tendency of the treaty which, in Dec. 1806, was concluded. between the two nations. It had fallen to his lot to be engaged more than once in discussions with the ministers of the united states, and, he had bestowed on what regarded the connection and mutual interests of the two states, all the attention, labour, and diligence, of which he was master, and which the high importance of the subject so seriously imposed on him. Indeed, the cultivating and maintaining of a good understanding with America, an understanding that included and promoted the reciprocal interests of the two countries, was, in his mind, the most material and important consideration that could possibly engage the attention of the British government and parliament, next to the care of conciliating and uniting, in one bond of union, all descriptions of his majesty's subjects in these kingdoms. He had of late taken occasion, more than once, to express this opinion, and he now wished to repeat it in the most serious and solemn manner. This disposition powerfully animated his views and his conduct, whenever any thing occurred that threatened to embarrass or interrupt the friendly intercourse and connection of the two countries. In
432
the year 1794, in consequence of events to which the war that broke out in the preceding year gave rise, he had to discuss and adjust some differences which then occurred with the united states. It was his good fortune to have to deal in that transaction with a man (Mr. Jay), whose talents and disposition eminently qualified him for the office he had undertaken. Never in the course of his public life had he met with a person on whose probity, candour, and sincerity, he could so confidently rely. Mr. Jay felt the value and the necessity of a close and amicable connection between the two nations, and he laboured most impartially duly to weigh, and to ascertain the real interests of both. These unquestionably were qualifications indispensably necessary to a negotiator; and no negotiation could be fairly carried on except in a mutual spirit of justice and impartiality. He trusted, that such was the spirit which actuated the negotiation at that time, and which brought it to a successful termination: sure he was, that Mr. Jay acted on these principles; yet when he returned to his own country, he was accused, very unjustly indeed, of having sacrificed her interests, or yielded too far in favour of those of England. Mr. Jay had long since retired from public life; but he felt happy in having this opportunity of paying a due tribute of praise to his character. Under the influence of this disposition were the late discussions with America carried on, and brought to what was expected to be a happy termination, when circumstances arose, that might put to hazard the final issue of that negotiation. He had much to complain of the false light in which ignorance or malice had endeavoured to represent it. His noble friends who conducted that negotiation, with talents of which he could not now speak as he ought, because they were present, had been reproached as having made unwarrantable and dangerous concessions to America—concessions which had been causelessly and mischievously held out to the public as the bane of the interests of Great Britain; yet, while these reproaches were vented against the administration at home, no sooner had the treaty reached America, than the government of the united states were accused of having yielded too much to the British plenipotentiaries. Even the speech by which the session was opened, contained assertions respecting this treaty, which were not correct. It

433
said the treaty had not taken effect by the refusal of the president to ratify it. Now, the president had not refused to ratify it; but deferred the ratification, as far as the ratification depended upon him, because the treaty contained certain articles, which, though they were agreed upon between the respective plenipotentiaries, were not however signed by them, because some further explanation upon the points they contained, was to be previously had with the American government. As to the concessions that were said to be made to America, in essential points, and which were reprobated as the bane of the interests of England, no assertion could be more unfounded. It was no doubt difficult to say, what were or were not the points which might be conceded, in balancing the interests of the two countries. Since America was declared an independent state in 1782, many points had arisen in discussions, which had never before been brought .into agitation, Most of them might easily be adjusted by taking for rule, the mutual advantages resulting from an amicable convention between the two countries: but in points that could be fairly considered as essential, never had he, nor those with whom he was connected, consented to make any concession. He considered as essential, what was connected with the preservation of the naval power and pre-eminence of this country, and sooner would he see England perish in a contest for the assertion of her maritime rights, than that she should yield a tittle of them: for these rights once given up, what contest would she be afterwards able to carry on? They were connected not only with her power, but with her very existence as an independent nation; and therefore no man could ever think of sacrificing them. This was his firm resolution, and nothing could bring him to depart from it. No dangerous concessions had therefore been made to America in the late treaty; and when the two governments came coolly to consider its nature and tendency, they would discover that it equally consulted the interests of both countries; and that, he would repeat, was the only basis upon which any treaty could be solidly and permanently built.—The noble lord then entered into a minute examination of the difficulties that resulted to both countries from the practice of searching merchantmen. From a thousand circumstances, it must be obvious that it was attended with more diffi-
434
culties between American and British officers, than between the officers of any other nation: but a spirit of candour, moderation, and mutual regard, which he could not too forcibly inculcate, would tend to compose every difference upon that head. As to the right of searching national ships of war, it had never been assumed, and should not be practised. The noble lord again implored the house seriously to appreciate the value of an uninterrupted amity and intercourse with America, and expressed his anxious expectation that the mind of the Americans would become cooler and more considerate, and that this country would meet them with correspending sentiments. his lordship concluded with moving for copies or extracts of the Dispatches which passed between his majesty's government and the government of the United States, respecting the Treaty signed by the plenipotentiaries of both governments.
Lord Hawkesburymost perfectly coincided in opinion with the noble baron, that an impartial regard to the interests of the two countries was an essential basis of this, or any other negotiation; and under that impression he trusted that he and his colleagues were disposed to act. No man could be more impressed than he was with the necessity of cultivating a good understanding with America, and making her feel how indispensable was such a connexion to the reciprocal interests of the two countries. After having acquainted the noble baron that he did not intend to oppose his motion, he did not expect he would have gone so largely into the question: but he should not imitate his example, as he would now, and as he had on former occasions, abstain from agitating any question respecting America; as our relations With the united states must soon come, in all their bearings, under the consideration of the house.—After a short conversation the motion was agreed to.

MEDIATION OF RUSSIA AND AUSTRIA.
Earl Greysaid, he had to apologise to their lordships, for postponing that part of the motion of which he had given notice, which related to the Expedition to Constantinople. He found himself obliged to do this from having been unable to examine the dates of certain papers, which it was necessary to investigate. With respect to the other points of his motion, he thought it of great importance that the house should be put in possesion of some additional information relative to the Me-

435
diation offered by Russia and Austria. At a crisis like the present, it was of great importance to know, whether ministers had taken advantage of any opportunity that offered for pacific negociation, with a disposition favourable to the attainment of peace. With respect to the qualities of a mediator, he did not think it was necessary that a mediating power should be totally unconnected with both the belligerents: it was scarcely possible in human affairs to meet with perfect impartiality, at the same time he admitted that where there was a close connection between the power offering to mediate and one of the belligerents, that the other belligerent was justified in refusing a mediation under such circumstances. With respect to Russia, much had been said about the treaty of Tilsit: he did not believe that at the time of concluding that treaty, there was any dereliction of our interest on the part of Russia, but that that measure was the offspring of necessity. His noble friend (lord Hutchinson) had stated on a former evening the vast losses sustained by the Russian army; and, after hearing that statement, could there be a doubt of the necessity under which Russia must find herself of making peace? It had been said, that there was a secret article in the Treaty of Tilsit, in which Russia pledged herself that the Danish fleet should be at the disposal of France; but he did not believe the existence of any such article. Was it possible to suppose that Russia, even prostrate as she was at the feet of France, would have agreed to an article which would have rendered France mistress of the Baltic, and placed the Russian empire completely in her power? He did not believe that Russia was really hostile to this country until the event of the expedition to Copenhagen; a measure which he feared we should repent to the latest hour of our existence. The Russian offer of mediation, limited as it was in point of time with respect to our acceptance of it, and communicated as it was, might be considered grating to the feelings of this country; but from the statement of his noble friend (lord Hutchinson) on a former evening, it was proved that the emperor did riot wish to limit the time of our acceptance. If, however, he was not disposed, under all the circumstances, to find much fault with the rejection of the Russian mediation, he saw much to blame in the rejection of the Austrian offer of mediation. He thought the answer to prince Starhem-
436
berg was petulant, and did not evince any disposition on the part of ministers favourable to peace. Whatever were the objections to the mediation of Russia, they did not apply to that of Austria. The note of Prince de Starhemberg on this subject was dated the 25th of April, and nothing appeared about it in the Papers before the house until the 20th Oct. During this long interval, he had conceived that there would be some further correspondence on the subject; he had been, however, informed by the noble secretary of state, that in point of fact there were no official notes: there had been some conversations, which, however, were not in a shape to be laid before parliament. It was important, however, that their lordships should be in possession of all the information that could be had, and it should be recollected that we had at that time two ministers at Vienna, one of whom was there on a special mission. He therefore intended to move for copies, or extracts, of Dispatches which passed between his majesty's government and the Austrian minister, and from the British minister at Vienna. —The next point on which he wished for further information related to the note of baron Budberg, of the 30th of June. In that note, some charges affecting the honour and character of this country were preferred, charges which it was the duty, of his majesty's minister at the court of Russia to repel. These charges were afterwards repeated in the note of count Romanzow, and more specifically set forth in the Russian Declaration. They were contained under three heads: the refusal to lend any military assistance to Russia, the refusal to facilitate the negociation of a loan in this country, and the vexations suffered by the commerce of Russia. Of these three heads of accusation the last only was repelled in his majesty's Declaration. The two first were passed over in that perfect silence, which implied an acquiescence in the truth of the charges. The first was by far the most serious, and upon that he must claim their lordships indulgence for some time. The refusal to make any military diversion in favour of the continent, was one of the chief accusations against that administration, of which he had the honour to form a part. It was a charge which had been pressed against them by their opponents in all possible shapes. This calumny had been industriously circulated among the public, and much relied upon in another place; but

437
he trusted before he sat down he should satisfy their lordships that it was wholly unfounded. His lordship here went into a detail of the military operations upon the continent during the time the late administration were in power, and maintained that at no time was the course of events such, as to justify them in sending a large army to the continent. There were only three points at which a diversion, or co-operation, could be effected. It must have been attempted either in France, Holland, or within the Baltic. What would 25 or 30,000 men, the most which could have been spared by this country, effect against the population of France? It would be to send them to certain captivity or destruction, for within three days, three times their number might be collected against them. Was it in Holland that this diversion was to be attempted? Independant of the difficulty of establishing magazines, there were other obstacles to the effecting a descent in that country. The season rendered access to the coast almost impossible, and there was no strong place under cover of which the army could take post. Was it within the Baltic that this diversion was to take place? He would put it to the noble lord (Mulgrave,) both in his military and nautical capacity, to declare, whether, after the Russians had been driven across the Vistula, any descent could have been attempted with the smallest chance of success, on the coast of Denmark. Stralsund was the only place where a landing could have been safely effected, and Swedish Pomerania was observed by a French army, too powerful for any force that this country or Sweden could have collected in that quarter. Where, then, was this military assistance to be given? Did the noble lords opposite suppose, that the landing of 20 or 30,000 men at Memel could have changed the fortune of the war? His noble friend behind him (lord Hutchinson) could bear testimony that it would not. The Russians were so deficient in arrangements, that they were often in want of provisions. They had neglected to establish magazines; and the accession of such a force, instead of being an advantage, would have only added to their embarrassments. He trusted that he had fully replied to this charge; the next, respecting the refusal to facilitate a loan, would be more easily disposed of Russia, it was true, had proposed to make a loan of six millions in this country; but it was found upon consulting with some of the first Mer-
438
chants, that it would be impossible, unless the repayment was guaranteed by the British government. Russia offered a species of security, to be sure; namely, that the duties levied in that country, upon the importation of British goods, should be made payable here as an export duty; but this being a duty of a precarious and uncertain nature, was not accepted. The lenders would accept of nothing short of a guarantee of the government; and that, for many reasons, could not be granted. The negociation, therefore, fell to the ground.—The only charge remaining was, the injury sustained by the Russian commerce. It was true, a number of Russian vessels bound to the ports of France had been detained; but they were afterwards released, and ample compensation made to those who suffered by their detention. They were released in consequence of a representation from the Russian minister, that though France and Russia were at war, there was no interruption to the commercial relations between the two countries. In proof of this he mentioned, that the Russian consuls remained at all the French ports, in the full exercise of their functions. To this representation ministers listened, and the detained ships were released, and an assurance given, upon an understanding that they should convey no contraband of war, that they should meet with no interruption for the future. The noble lord expressed his hopes, that he had in some measure satisfied their lordships as to the injustice of some of the charges preferred against him and his colleagues, and the propriety of their refusing to accede to the proposals which made the subject of another; and concluded with moving for the several Papers to which he had referred in the course of his speech.
Lord Hawkesburyfelt it necessary for him to make some observations on the speech which the noble lord had just delivered. That speech was principally divided into two heads: first, respecting the Russian mediation, and the conduct of the present ministers upon the subject; secondly, the noble lord had thought it necessary to go at considerate length into an apology or defence of the late ministers front the charges which had been made against them by persons in this country, and by the Russian Declaration, which charged the government of this country with neglecting to co-operate with their allies on the continent. As to the first point, namely, the Russian mediation, he

439
must state that his majesty's present ministers never disguised or concealed the desire they had to conclude a peace with France, if such a peace could be concluded on fair and honourable terms, and should extend to his majesty's allies, as well as to his own territories. If they had thought such a peace could have been obtained through the Russian mediation, they would have gladly embraced it; but it was well known that Russia had, at the treaty of Tilsit, entered into secret articles, which they could not doubt were directed against the interests of this country, or perhaps against the existence of some of the powers who were allies of his majesty. The Russian minister the baron de Budberg himself did not deny that there were secret articles prejudicial to this country. He would not, however, state what those articles were, but only said, 'that, upon his honour, the shutting of the Russian ports against the English trade was not one.' Under these circumstances, his majesty's ministers thought it necessary to ask what was the basis, on which it was proposed to make peace,. and what were these secret articles in the treaty of Tilsit? They thought that if either the basis was inadmissible, or that these secret articles went directly to the prejudice of his majesty, or his allies, in such case it would be idle and dangerous to carry on a mock negociation for peace, which could not produce any beneficial effect, but which would prove delusive to the hopes, and prejudicial to the interests of this country. If an honourable peace could be made, his majesty's ministers would be glad to conclude it, but if the thing was impossible, they thought it dangerous to hold out false hopes to the country. No peace could be honourable to this country which would surrender its allies to the enemy; and as the secret articles of the treaty must be supposed to be directed either against his majesty, or his allies, it appeared to his majesty's ministers, that it was absolutely necessary that they should have some information on that subject before they could consent to have the country lulled into the idea that they were to expect peace.—As to the second point in the speech of the noble lord, the apology that he thought it necessary to make for the late ministers from the charges in the Russian Declaration, which appeared to him to be countenanced by his majesty's present ministers; he should first observe, that there was no public document or offi-
440
cial paper to be found, in which his majesty's ministers had countenanced or supported those charges. If, however, he was called upon to pronounce an opinion, it would be hypocritical in him to deny, that he thought the late ministers acted in many points from a very different view of the subject from that which was entertained by the present ministers. There were many points in which he agreed with what had been stated by the noble lord, and some in which he differed. He agreed with him in thinking that the late ministers could not have prevented the quarrel between France and Prussia, nor that defeat which was so disastrous to the Prussian nation; but although it was out of their power to give any effectual succour to Prussia, yet in the next campaign, which ended so unfortunately, but which began so fortunately—[Here lord Grey asked across the house, when or where it was fortunate?] He meant when the power of Russia had been brought into the field to support Prussia, then the cause of the continent appeared to be by no means in so desperate a state as the late ministers seemed to consider it. If it were allowed that the French succeeded principally by superiority of numbers, then it might be supposed that a great part of that superiority might have been taken off by proper co-operation, especially as it was allowed that Sweden was ready to co-operate with its whole strength. He agreed with the noble lord also in the principle he laid down, that he would not grant a larger loan to any foreign power than he would a subsidy, as it might be expected that such loan would fall ultimately upon this country, and that a, larger sum would be asked in the way of loan than would be demanded as a subsidy. He thought the sum of six millions was too great to give to the emperor of Russia, either as subsidy or loan; but it did not follow that because that sum was too large, ministers should have drily refused him and not given any thing. It was natural for the power who asked assistance to name the highest sum, but it did not follow that if that was too great, no assistance at all should be given. Although he should have objected to 6 millions, yet, when he considered that it was a campaign upon which the last stake of Europe was depending, he should not have objected to three millions, either as a subsidy, or, if it was more gratifying to the pride of Russia, as a loan. He thought,

441
then, the late ministers were wrong in not giving, at least, that pecuniary assistance which the circumstances required, and which our allies had a right to expect. He thought also, that, although he did not charge them with any positive breach of promise or violation of any express assurance of co-operation, yet that they had by their expressions held out a hope, and induced a belief in the allies that it was their intention to co-operate. Those hopes and expectations had been deceived, and the continent were now taught to look upon this country as a nation that goaded others, but which avoided partaking in the dangers and losses of a continental war. He thought it would have been better to have run the risk of a loss of troops, than to lose our national honour, and be considered a country which would involve others in dangers, which we ourselves would decline. He also thought that the late ministers had been wrong in talking of co-operations, when they made no preparations for that purpose. So far from having a proper number of transports ready, they actually discharged in the month of March many transports, which had before been in the service of government. After a variety of observations on the other parts of the speech of the noble lord, his lordship concluded with expressing a readiness to grant many of the papers moved for; but there were some which he thought it would be improper to produce.
Earl Moiraconceived that his majesty's present ministers had no right to ask Russia to communicate the secret articles of the treaty she had been forced to sign at Tilsit. If the emperor of Russia signed secret articles, he had pledged his honour that they should be secret, and we could not reasonably expect him to violate that pledge. At the same moment, however, and in the same breath, that we denied the power of Russia to be a fair guarantee between us and France, and rejected that mediation, we solicited it as between us and Denmark, and thought that,, in that case, her. guarantee Was quite sufficient. If the late ministers, however, did not send an army to the assistance of Russia, it was because no army which this country could send had the smallest chance of turning the fate of the last unfortunate campaign. The greatest force that was ever spoken of as possible to attempt a diversion with, was 30,000 British troops and 15,000 Swedes. This force, collected at Stralsund, could have had but very little
442
effect on the campaign. It would not have prevented the defeat of the Russians, and if the event of the battle had even turned out the other way, and that the French had been defeated, still that force would have been too small to throw in the rear of such an immense army on its retreat. It was impossible that this force could have acted upon the flank of the enemy, for they were covered by great rivers, the Oder and the Vistula. In such an expedition, our risk would not be merely an army, but it would be the army of G. Britain. This certainly should not be risked, unless there was a probability of gaining some most important advantage. The fact was, that the late ministers were convinced upon the fullest consideration, that the troops which they could send were not likely to produce any important effect, and that there was only one chance remaining for Europe. To that one chance they paid the utmost attention. That chance was that Austria might be brought to move, and that if the Austrian army marched down to the Lower Elbe, behind the communications of the French army, in that case Europe would have had a fair chance of its deliverance. If that chance had occurred, the circumstances would have arrived in which the late ministers would have been prepared to co-operate with a military force. Combined with the Austrians, every thing might be hoped for; but if merely combined with the Swedes, the danger that our army would run was much greater than any chance they could have of altering the fate of the campaign. It appeared from all accounts, that the French army had a superiority over the Russians of at least 60,000 men; and when it was considered in how different a manner the two armies were commanded, it could not be supposed that any reinforcement we could have sent would have out-balanced this disproportion in numbers. He utterly denied that the Russians had ever any prospect of success, although their soldiers gained immortal honour at Eylau. it was a military policy in all countries to endeavour to keep the people in good humour by giving very favourable accounts of their military successes; but the fact was, that in the battle of Pultusk, (which they claimed as a victory,) they were defeated with the loss of 80 pieces of cannon, and the Russian army would have been utterly annihilated, if the badness of the roads had not prevented a division of the

443
the French army from coming up in time.
Lord Hutchinsonhoped the house would allow him to state some matters which, from the situation he had held, were within his own personal knowledge. The Russian army never had any chance of succeeding in the campaign, or even in the battle of Eylau, where they fought so bravely. The French had certainly the victory. They remained for ten days in the field of battle, and immediately after made themselves masters of the magazines at Elbing, and returned to their cantonments, where they effectually covered the blockade of several strong towns, which afterwards surrendered to them. At that time the king of Prussia retired from Konigsberg to Memel, and not thinking himself quite safe there, had even engaged a house at Riga. On the 23d of Feb. he wrote to ministers, mentioning that a French general had arrived at Memel to propose a separate peace; and if the count de Zastrow supported the idea of a separate peace, it was not because he was less attached than any other man to the cause of Prussia and the continent, but because he knew the situation of Russia and Prussia, and was convinced that they had no chance by continuing the contest. In the beginning of April he had had a long conversation with the emperor of Russia, who afterwards referred him to one of his ministers, who told him, that as soon as the Russian guards came up they would be superior in number to the French, and were determined to attack them. The Russians neither knew the force that opposed them, nor how much their own numbers in the field were inferior to their armies upon paper.—The noble lord was then proceeding to state the nature of different dispatches between him and the present ministers, when
Earl Bathurstrose to order. He thought it was completely out of order for any noble lord to state, at his own pleasure, all the conversations between kings and emperors, which, from his official situation, he might have heard, or to divulge the confidential communications which took place between him and his government; and if it was competent for any one individual to do so, it was equally competent for any other individual in his majesty's service.
The Duke of Norfolksaid, that whether the noble lord acted right or not in entering into these details, they were completely relevant to the question under dis-
444
cussion, and therefore that he could not be said to be out of order.
Lord Grenvillewished to know whether their lordships would submit to the doctrine, that it was quite regular, as had been done in another place, to read partial extracts from correspondence, where, by stopping short in the middle of a sentence, the meaning was altogether perverted, and that they should be debarred from the privilege of rectifying the false impressions to which this conduct had given rise? And he would ask, whether it was for those who had themselves set the example of publishing garbled extracts from official papers, which of all others ought to be considered as the most secret and confidential, to complain of his noble friend, particularly when it was recollected that he deemed it absolutely necessary to the justification of his own character, which had been most wantonly and falsely aspersed?
The Lord Chancellorreminded the noble lord that it was a great breach of order in that house to refer or allude to any thing which had passed in another house of parliament. And if a breach of order had been committed and permitted in another place; that was surely no reason why a similar breach of order should be tolerated by their lordships. He was clearly of opinion, that it was disorderly in any person who had been employed in a public capacity to read a part, or to disclose the contents of a public dispatch, without the leave of his majesty, to whom that dispatch was supposed to belong; and he thought that they had already gone a very dangerous length in allowing a minute of a conversation, supposed to have passed between an accredited minister and a foreign sovereign, without his majesty's permission to that effect.
Earl Greycontended that his noble friend was not reading a dispatch, and much less a partial and garbled extract from such dispatch, when he had, in his opinion, been most improperly called to order by a noble earl. He had been merely giving an account of his public conduct, in perfect consistency with his duty, and, as he conceived, within the rules of order by which discussions in that house were regulated. He was happy, however, to hear from so high an authority as the noble lord upon the woolsack, an admission of the impropriety and indecency of reading extracts from dispatches, which he asserted to be the pro-

445
petty of his majesty, and he hoped that the animadversions of the noble lord upon this novel and dangerous practice, would operate as a useful lesson to those by whom it had been introduced. With all due deference, however, to the opinion of learned and noble lord, he submitted it to the house, whether, after so foul a use (for foul he must call it) as had been made of the letters of his noble friend, was not to be permitted to state the facts as they really stood in his own vindication, and whether, after his conduct and character had been arraigned, he was not to be suffered to wipe off the aspersions which had been cast upon him by declaring the truth, and the whole truth of the case. He must suppose, however, from what had just fallen from the noble lord upon the woolsack, that had an attempt been made to do a thing so irregular, and fraught with so much danger, as to read, in his hearing, extracts from any public and official communications unauthorized and uncalled upon, he would immediately have interrupted the person by whom the attempt was made. He would not allude to any thing that had passed in another place, but it was rather surprising, that the noble lord upon the woolsack, with these rigorous sentiments respecting duty and order, did not on this very evening admonish the noble secretary of state of his irregularity, in reading a part of a public dispatch, to which their lordships' attention had been called in the course of his speech. At any rate, after the reproof which had now been administered, he hoped that the noble secretary would kiss the rod with meekness, and receive the chastisement with humble submission.
Lord Hawkesburysaid, that it certainly was highly irregular to refer to any thing which had passed in another place, and he conceived it to be very improper for any noble lord, who had been employed in a public capacity, to disclose the secrets of his mission; particularly without any previous communication with those to whom his dispatches were addressed. He knew of no charge or imputation that had been brought against the noble lord, and therefore he considered such a disclosure, in the present instance, to say the least of it, altogether unnecessary.
Lord Grenvilleinsisted that his noble friend had said nothing which was not necessary for his own vindication from a charge which was brought against him in the Morning Post, and which was there
446
imputed to his majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs.
Lord Mulgravereminded the noble lord, that if the Morning Post contained any thing improper, there was an authority in another place quite competent to set it to rights.
Lord Hutchinsoncontinued: As soon as he found that the Russians were not likely to advance, he was decidedly of opinion, that we ought not to send a single man to the continent. He gave every degree of credit to the bravery of the Russian troops, but the French had every kind of advantage over them; and in no mission on which he might be sent would he ever deceive the country, by representing things in a different point of view from that in which he saw them. In the month of June, Buonaparte, a greater master of the art of military movements than any man who perhaps ever existed, had assembled a corps of 40,000 men upon the Elbe, upon which, in case of sustaining any misfortune, he could have fallen back, so that though at that time there had been 30,000 English and Swedes at Stralsund, they might have met with some disaster, but could have done no good.
Lord Grenvillehad looked forward with considerable anxiety to this night's discussion, to which he trusted for the vindication of his own character, and that. of his colleagues, from several charges which had been brought against their conduct while in administration. His anxiety had been much relieved by the candid admission of the noble secretary of state, who in the course of his speech had deserted several of the articles of charge which had been thrown out on other occasions, but which he was happy to find were now done away. If any person had ever been so silly and so little of a statesman as to suppose that any provision could have been made for the rupture between Prussia and France, their opinion would probably be corrected by the admission of the noble secretary on this evening, that no such provision was to be expected. In addition to what his noble friend (earl Grey) had said on this subject, he had only one particular to subjoin, viz, that the Prussian minister was recalled from this country, where he had been invited to stay, as an organ of amicable communication, in the middle of August, and so rapid were the decisions of the court of Berlin, that

447
he was apprized of the change of system on his arrival at Hamburgh. In the Russian Declaration it had been stated, that this government had not acted upon assurances which had been given of sending a military force to the continent, in order to create a diversion in favour of the allies. The noble secretary had admitted in his speech that no such assurances had ever been given; but he considered his majesty's Declaration as extremely defective, in not replying to the allegation of our not acting upon those assurances, by the assertion, the truth of which the noble secretary had admitted in debate, and which was necessary to the exculpation of the present ministers, their predecessors, and the country. He had been a good deal surprised to find no Note upon this subject in the Correspondence which had taken place between his majesty's ambassador and the ministers of the emperor of Russia. He was satisfied with the assurance of the noble secretary, that no opportunity had occurred of presenting such a note; still however, this circumstance rendered it more necessary that the calumny should be refuted in the counter-declaration. But, instead of this, ministers had left the cause of the country to shift for itself, because they could not do justice to the country without likewise doing justice to their predecessors. There was another charge from which he had been relieved—not, indeed, by the admission of the noble secretary, but by something still more eloquent—his silence. His noble friend had called upon ministers when they talked of diversions, to specify the time, place, and mode, in which those diversions ought to have been made; but the noble secretary could neither name a moment for such an attempt, nor put his finger upon a point of land to which an expedition could have been sent, with advantage. So that this point, like the others, when it was touched, crumbled into dust. But, said the noble secretary. if we could not make diversions we should at least have made preparations. If a case did not occur, a case might occur. To this he thought it no bad answer for a statesman to say, that in fact no such case ever had occurred. He confessed, that from the first opening of the campaign, neither he nor his colleagues were sanguine in their hopes of success, and while they were endeavouring to counteract the fatal delusion, in which the country from long habits was too prone to indulge, he had
448
not forgotten the pains which were taken to represent them as gloomy, spiritless, and apprehensive, because they would not condescend, by an empty shew of preparation, to court a reputation for vigour. There was only one case, in which he thought that great and ample sacrifices ought to have been made, in the event of procuring the co-operation of Austria.—But the noble lord had said, that pecuniary aid might have been afforded; that the late ministers refused even to sanction a Russian loan in this country of six millions. To this he would answer, that under the state of affairs on the continent, when facilities of raising money were required of this country, the money could not be obtained here without the guarantee of government; and, taught by the experience of a former guarantee for an Austrian loan, it behoved the late government to act with some caution before she gave another guarantee for such a sum as 6 millions, which might ultimately fall as a burthen on the people of this country. But, said the noble lord, you might have granted a subsidy of 3 millions, and you would then at least have shewn your zeal to assist Russia, and secured her good opinion, by shewing her, that you felt for her distresses. He would answer, that they were ready to subsidize, if it could have been stewn that any good to be gained by it. Noble lords said, but why did you not at least make a shew of diversion, by collecting a large fleet of transports, and a march of troops to your coasts, in order to excite alarm in the enemy and divide his attention? To this he would answer, that the enemy knew as well as we that we could not be serious in such an enterprize, which served only to delude our ally, and encourage him to continue a fruitless contest. Still, his lordship said, the country was not without resources, and could have gone very great lengths both in military and pecuniary aids, had there been a probability of such aid being in any way useful; and as to an observation made that the late ministry should have advised Russia to make peace with France, he would not transgress the point of order so recently discussed, by stating the contents of dispatches; but if the noble secretary of state would read the Russian dispatches of the last three months, he was confident he would never again come down to that house, and rebuke him on the same ground.—The noble lord next adverted to the disastrous issue of the war,

449
and the final loss of Europe—a consequence which he did not hesitate to impute to a measure from which he was always strongly ,averse, and which, had not the country and the world sustained the calamitous loss of a great statesman now no more, probably might not have happened, namely, the last continental coalition of the powers of Europe in 1805, stirred up by this country to a renewal of the war against France, at a time when they were actually unprepared for such a contest. The utter defeat of Austria was one of the first fruits of that conflict, which was commenced in direct opposition to the opinion and advice of the ablest authority in the German empire, and that defeat had been followed by the complete subjugation of the continent to the power of France. He concluded by expressing his confidence, that the house and the country were now satisfied; and that he should never hear it urged again, that any thing done, or omitted to be, done, by his majesty's late ministers, had any thing to do in the causes that led to the subjugation of Europe.
Lord Mulgravereplied briefly, and contended that a successful diversion might have been effected by a timely supply of troops from this country.— The question was then put, and agreed to without a division.