Sitting of 6 April 1815

PRINCE REGENT'S MESSAGE RELATING TO THE EVENTS IN FRANCE.
Lord Castlereaghpresented the following Message from his royal highness the Prince Regent:
"GEORGE, P. R.
"The Prince Regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, thinks it right to inform the House of Commons, that the events which have recently occurred in France, in direct contravention of the engagements concluded with the allied Powers at Paris in the course of the last year, and which threaten consequences highly dangerous to the tranquillity and independence of Europe, have induced his Royal Highness to give directions for the augmentation of his Majesty's land and sea forces.
"The Prince Regent has likewise deemed it incumbent upon him to lose no time in entering into communications with his Majesty's allies for the purpose of forming such a concert as may most effectually provide for the general and permanent security of Europe.
"And his Royal Highness confidently relies on the support of the House of Commons in all measures which may be necessary for the accomplishment of this important object."
The Message was ordered to be taken into consideration to-morrow.—After some time had elapsed,
Mr. Whitbreadrose and observed, that had he been present at the time the Message was presented (which, by the way, was brought forward at a much more early period than public business was usually expected), he should have objected to the motion fixing the consideration of it for to-morrow. Upon a question of such magnitude and importance, more time ought, in his opinion, to be afforded, in order to prepare the House for its consideration, especially where the object of the Message was not clearly expressed,—where, in fact, it was couched in such equivocal, such indefinite terms, that it was difficult to understand the
[350
views of those with whom it originated. Besides, as the debate upon such a subject was likely to be long, while the subject itself naturally called for some previous examination, he should rather have thought that it would be more convenient and proper to appoint Monday than tomorrow. On these grounds he should to-morrow move a postponement of the discussion until Monday. But preliminary to that discussion, he had two questions to put to the noble lord: fusty Whether it was true, as had been promulgated from a sort of half authority, that a secret understanding had been entered into, or a secret article concluded, between all the parties to the Treaty of Paris (excepting France, of course), pledging those powers to maintain the House of Bourbon upon the throne of France? and secondly, Whether the noble lord would think it consistent with his duty to communicate the terms of the treaty proposed at Chatillon, upon which the allies were then willing to conclude peace with France? If the noble lord should not be disposed to accede to this communication, it would be for the House to decide whether it would not be expedient to demand such communication, which he (Mr. W.) thought highly material to the due consideration of the subject referred to in the Regent's Message.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that as to the first observation of the hon. gentleman, he did not present his Royal Highness's Message till half past four o'clock, which, from his previous intimation, he could not deem as too early an hour for the introduction of such a subject. Then, as to the day fixed for the consideration of the Message, he was rather surprised at the hon. gentleman's observation, because it would be recollected that, on a former day, he distinctly stated his purpose of proposing such an arrangement in describing the coarse of business for the week, and with a view to this arrangement he moved the postponement of the American question from this day to Tuesday, in order, as the Message was meant to be considered on Friday, that the House might not be occupied by debate on two successive days. But, independently of this consideration, it would be quite inconsistent with the usual practice of Parliament to postpone the consideration of a Message from the Throne: an early consideration was, indeed, due in deference to the Throne, and was there-

351]
fore never delayed. With respect to the hon. gentleman's questions: first, No secret article, understanding, or engagement of the nature alluded to by the hon. gentleman had ever existed between the allies; and as to the second question, he apprehended that the House would not be disposed to delay the consideration of the Prince Regent's Message, or to postpone the expression of its opinion upon the present exigency, until all the papers connected with the negociations at Chatillon should be laid on the table, and until the hon. gentleman should have an opportunity of considering these papers. Upon these grounds, he trusted the House would not feel it necessary to revise its decision for taking the Message into consideration to-morrow.
Mr. Whitbreadexpressed himself particularly glad to hear that no such secret article or understanding existed, as that to which he referred. But as to the treaty proposed at Chatillon, he thought it material that the House should have some information upon that subject, before it entered into the consideration of the Regent's Message. It was a mistake to suppose that he required the production of all the papers connected with the negotiations at Chatillon. A short extract would be quite sufficient, describing the terms upon which the allies were at that time willing to conclude peace with France; and without such a communication he could not think the House prepared to discuss the subject of the Message. The delay of a single day with a view to obtain and to consider such an important fact, he could not suppose in any degree disrespectful to his Royal. Highness, or inconsistent with the deference which that House owed to a communication from the Throne. The House had, indeed, been led to expect, from the intimation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Message would have been brought down on Wednesday, and thus one intervening day would have been allowed for its consideration, before the House would be called upon to decide; but the noble lord from his superior knowledge of tactics thought proper to postpone the presentation of the Message until this day, thus precluding the possibility of due consideration. The hon. gentleman disclaimed any intention of disrespect to his Royal Highness in thus pressing for some delay; adding, that although, he had no hope of persuading the House to change the order
[352
upon this subject for Monday, he had little doubt that, from the length to which such debates usually extended, it would become necessary for convenience, to adjourn the discussion from to-morrow to Monday.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that when the House came to the discussion he would give such explanation respecting the propositions at Chatillon as was proper, or as had any connexion with the subject of the Prince Regent's Message. With respect to the presentation of this Message, it was to be considered that the Lords did not meet, until Wednesday, and that some previous intimation was due to that House, as to the intention to make a communication of this nature, which was usually presented to both Houses at the same time. Now as to questions generally, he felt it necessary to observe, that it would be well if gentlemen proposing to put any questions, would either previously apprize ministers of their intention, or else that those gentlemen should wait until the ministers were in their, places.
Mr. Whitbread.What then were we to do, when the noble lord was at Vienna?
Mr. Ponsonbybegan by declaring, that he was not at all aware, that the Prince Regent's Message would have been presented so early, or he should have been in his place sooner. But he hoped that the House would, upon the subject of that Message, allow him to trespass on its indulgence for a few moments, although, there was no motion under, consideration. The Message, he observed, was composed of two parts:—first, his Royal Highness told the House that be was preparing to augment our forces by sea and land, in consequence of the recent events in France; and, secondly, his Royal Highness stated, that he would act in concert with our-allies. In thus proceeding, his Royal Highness had, in his opinion, been advised to do that which was wise and proper; for it was wise in his Royal Highness to have the country in a slate of adequate preparation for any emergency, and proper to preserve an intimate communication and concert with his allies. But beyond those two points he did not wish to express any opinion, nor did he think the House ripe at present to give any farther decision. As to the use to, be made of the force which his Royal Highness was preparing, that would remain for consideration; but upon the two points to which he had referred, he however others

353]
might differ from him, was ready to say that his Royal Highness had been rightly advised. Beyond those points, however, he was not prepared to go. He would not enter into any premature discussion. He was neither prepared to say that his Royal Highness and his allies should plunge into a slate of war, nor that security was to be found in a state of peace. He need not say that his wish was that the latter should be found attainable, but he felt it impossible at present to offer any opinion upon those points. He could, however, readily say, that his disposition was to rote for a suitable Address in answer to the Prince Regent's Message, provided that Address contained nothing to pledge his future conduct. From the full declaration of his opinion, when adequately informed, he should never be found to shrink; but he would never declare premature opinions, or engage in premature discussions. Therefore, he would abstain from such opinions and discussions in this instance. He would be glad to vote for the Address of to-morrow, and he hoped that but a short discussion would take place upon it. In his judgment, it was decidedly wise to consider and provide against any new difficulties or dangers likely to arise out of the present state and prospects of France; and therefore he highly approved of the preparation which the Regent's Message announced; but as to the use which Government might ultimately make of that preparation he should not hold himself bound to support it by any vote which he was at present disposed to give. He therefore wished the Address of to-morrow might be so drawn up as to meet his views. The right hon. gentleman concluded with expressing his anxious hope that it might not be found inconsistent with the safety of Europe to preserve a state of peace, and to avoid the calamities of war.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that without anticipating the discussion of to-morrow, he could assure the right hon. gentleman that it was not proposed by the Address in contemplation to pledge his opinion, or that of the House, as to the future conduct of his Majesty's government. With respect to that conduct, or the use that might be made of the force in preparation, and whether the ultimate end should be war or peace, must depend upon the issue of circumstances to be determined on their own merits.

PILLORY PUNISHMENT ABOLITION BILL.
Mr. M. A. Taylorrose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the Abolition of the punishment of the Pillory. He did not conceive it necessary, in introducing this motion, to enter into any discussion of the origin of crimes and punishments. The authors who had written upon this subject were already in, the hands of most of the members of that House; it would be sufficient for him, therefore, to make a few general observations upon the legitimate objects of punishments, as the ground upon which his motion was founded. The first end of punishment was the reformation of the offender; and the next was, when the crime committed was of so deep a die as not to admit of a hope of amendment, to punish the criminal by death; and at the same time, by the severity of his punishment, to afford an example to deter others from the commission of similar offences. With this view of the subject, he was at a loss to imagine under what head to class the punishment of pillory. It could not be called a reforming punishment, because it rather tended to deaden the sense of shame than to have any other effect. Besides, it appeared to him as contrary to law, because the culprit was left to meet the fury of the populace. It was not attended with any good to the spectator, because it only gave rise to the assemblage of a tumultuous rabble, who either contravened the sentence of the Court by exalting the criminal, or violated the law by an outrageous attack upon him. It was therefore evidently a punishment of a very unequal nature. As illustrative of this remark, he begged to cite a few cases. In the year 1759, doctor Shebbeare was sentenced to be pillored for a libel of a political description—and in what manner was that punishment executed? Why, when he arrived at the pillory he mounted it in full dress, attended by a servant in livery, who held an umbrella over his head and the under-sheriff, who participated in the popular feeling, instead of calling upon him, as usual, to place his head in the pillory, was satisfied to let him simply rest ins hands on the machine, and in that way he underwent his sentence. Then again, in the case of Daniel Isaac Eaton, who two years back was pillored for a religious libel, this man, instead of being regarded, as might have been expected, with indignation, was treated with, respect, and viewed

355]
with silent pity. There were other cases, however, in which a different course was pursued. He alluded particularly to the case of four men who were pillored in four different parts of the metropolis, for conspiring to take a man's life away upon a charge of robbery, for the sake of the reward. He did not mean to say, that if the law directed such offenders to be punished by death, that they did not deserve it; but unless the law did direct such a sentence, he thought they ought not to be exposed to the risk of that fate—one of these men was actually killed, while the other three escaped with difficulty. This was a species of violence which, he thought, ought to be avoided. There was another case, where the caprice of the public on such occasions was strongly demonstrated. Two men were pillored at Brentford, one for compromising a Dui Tam action, and the other for a crime of a detestable nature, not less atrocious; and yet such was the indignation felt towards the informer, that he was nearly killed, while his companion in suffering escaped unhurt. The punishment, he insisted, was unequal: to a man in the higher walks of life, it was worse than death: it drove him from society, and would not suffer him to return to respectability; while, to a more hardened offender, it could not be an object of much terror, and it could not affect his family or his prospects in the same degree. To show the severity with which legal punishments pressed upon persons in the higher walks of life, he adverted to the case of Dr. Dodd, who had been justly sentenced to die for forgery; a crime, with respect to which the law could permit no variation in the sentence. Before he received sentence of death, Dr. Dodd addressed the Court, and set forth the circumstances of his former life. He stated, that many who had been among his hearers had become better men from hearing him in the pulpit, that he had thus been the means of rescuing others from vice, and he added these words, "Condescend to reflect, my lord, if these considerations aggravate my offence, how much they must imbitter my punishment." The hon. gentleman concluded with, saying, that it was grating to his feelings to leave such a punishment as that of the pillory in the hands of a court, who might treat the admirable author of Junius, if he were discovered, in the same manner as the most atrocious criminal. The punishment of the pillory was the remnant of a barbarous
[356
age, and the cruel instrument of Star-chamber authority. He then moved and obtained leave to bring in a bill "to abolish the punishment of the pillory."

FOREIGN WINE BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that in consequence of a communication which he had had from the Portuguese ambassador, respecting a representation to his Court, calculated to obviate the necessity of this measure, he should press it no farther. Therefore the right hon. gentleman moved the third reading of the Bill this day six months. Agreed to.

PRINCE REGENT'S MESSAGE RELATING TO THE EVENTS IN FRANCE.
The Earl of Liverpoolpresented a Message from his royal highness the Prince Regent, relative to the proceedings adopted by his Majesty's Government, in consequence of the events that have recently taken place in France. [For a copy of the Message, see the proceedings of the Commons of this day.] The Message having been read, it was ordered, on the motion of the earl of Liverpool, to be taken into consideration to-morrow.
Earl Greyasked, what part of the engagements entered into with the allied Powers at Paris had been violated, and were referred to in the Message as having been violated?
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the events which had recently occurred had, as he should explain to-morrow, violated all the engagements concluded at the time alluded to, as well the Treaty concluded at Paris on the 31st of May, as that concluded at Fontainbleau on the 11th of April.
Earl Greysaid, that no communication had been made to the House of the Treaty of Fontainbleau. Some articles certainly had been communicated, but they were not such of the articles as could be conceived to have been violated by the recent occurrences. If, therefore, it was complained that any of the articles of the

345]
Treaty of Fontainbleau had been violated, it was necessary that they should be produced before the House could come to any opinion on the subject. No one lamented more sincerely than he did the necessity which had called for a communication from the Crown; and no one, he could assure the House, was more sensible than he was of the danger threatened by the events alluded to in the Message. Those events were most ruinous, and placed the country in a situation in which the greatest precautions were necessary; and looking at the two points contained in the Message simply and by themselves, they would meet with his approbation. As he understood the terms of the Address, in consequence of the recent events in France, the Prince Regent had been advised to augment his forces by sea and land. No one, he thought, could doubt that such a step was most advisable under all the circumstances of the present crisis. It was stated, in the next place, that his Royal Highness had taken measures to produce the most intimate concert with his allies, the object of which was to be the permanent security of Europe. A good object, undoubtedly, and the means, too, were such as could alone produce such an end. Of these two measures mentioned in the Message, very different opinions might be expressed, according to the views taken of them. He approved of them on a defensive principle merely, and as the means of preserving peace, supposing peace might be preserved, consistently with good faith to our Allies. If that good faith could be preserved while we remained at peace; a war, he thought, should not be resorted to. That, however, was not the time to press that opinion upon their lordships: he should leave that point for the discussion of to-morrow, and he would consent to leave it for discussion at some future time, when they might be in possession of all the necessary information, provided the Address did not pledge the House to any opinion, that the two steps which had been taken, (viz. the augmentation of forces, and the taking measures to produce concert in the alliance) were proper, with a view to a declaration of war against the present ruler of France. With this inclination to a pacific policy, he was most unwilling that the House should be pressed to give any opinion as to the propriety of war or peace. Those who might be inclined to an opposite policy had, he thought, still stronger
[346
reasons for avoiding such an expression of opinion on the part of the House; but his Majesty's ministers, of all men, should be the most desirous not to come to any premature declaration, and to avoid provoking discussion, in which conflicting opinions might be expressed, which could not fail to be detrimental to whatever line of policy it might be found expedient to pursue. Before any opinion was given on this subject, it was most material that they should have information, which it was impossible they could now possess. The time had been too short, the accounts too contradictory, the narrators too deeply interested, to enable their lordships to form a correct idea of the internal state of France. Before they expressed an opinion which might place the nation in a state of war, it was most important to be acquainted with the feeling of our Allies on the subject. Now, there had been no opportunity for us to receive accounts from Vienna, of a date subsequent to the time when intelligence was first received of the events which had put the present ruler of France in possession of the supreme authority in the capital of that country. He should not at that time express his feelings respecting the paper which purported to be a Declaration of the allied Powers, lest he might throw an obstacle, by premature discussion, in the way of any explanation which might hereafter be given of this document. But it was impossible that the feelings of the Allies, under the present circumstances, could have been yet ascertained; and it was most necessary that they should be ascertained, before a question of such importance as that of peace or war should be decided upon. The measures which were communicated in the Message, left that question entirely open; and if the Address went to approve simply of those measures, and no farther, he should not oppose it. If, however, contrary to his just expectations, and his ardent wishes, the Address which was to be proposed, should commit their lordships to a declaration of hostilities, if the Allies were found willing to consent to such a course, he should feel it his duty to dissent from it. He had thought it right to trespass thus far upon their lordships' attention, wishing to come to an early understanding on the subject, and not with any view to premature discussion; and he earnestly hoped that it would be unnecessary for him to offer any opposition to the Address.
Earl Stanhopeagreed, that their lordships ought to be very cautious how they proceeded, when the question might at length come to be, peace or war; war which found every thing before it like the garden of Eden, and left every thing behind it a desolate wilderness. It was, therefore, his intention, when the motion before the House was disposed of, to move for the Declaration of the allied Powers at Vienna, of the 13th of March last, because, contrary to his expectation, it bad not been laid on the table. This Declaration was important, as an indication of the course the Allies meant to pursue, but still more so from the extraordinary proposition on which they founded their Declaration, viz. "that they will be ready to give to the King of France and to the French nation, or to any other Government that shall be attacked, all the assistance requisite to restore public tranquillity, and to make common cause against all those who shall attempt to compromise it." In what sense this was to be understood he knew not; but if it was to be taken according to its natural import in the English language, it was most horrible. The very family on our throne, was seated there by the constitutional power of Parliament, which had deposed the late king James 2. By the constitution of this country, no foreign troops could land in it without the consent of Parliament; yet the Allies engaged, that when the Government of any country was attacked, they would, if called upon, send their troops thither. This Declaration was, therefore, an attack upon the liberties and constitution of the people of this country. Not to mention the case of France—there was existing at present in Spain a government which conducted itself on most extraordinary principles, civil, political, and religious. Were the English troops, under the Declaration in question, to be poured into Spain in the event of any disturbances there, to support the King against the Cortes, the Parliament of Spain, and the people of that country? What had made Ferdinand king of Spain, but the power of the Cortes? His father, who had been king of Spain, was still living; so that unless the supreme power of the people and Cortes was acknowledged, Ferdinand could not be a lawful Sovereign. He was anxious to know, as well as the noble earl, whether the Address would merely express satisfaction at the measures taken by the Prince Regent, or whether it would pledge the
[348
House to support a war? For his own part, he had rattier die in the most horrid torture, than agree to the declaration of war on such principles.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, that a report having gone abroad that there was a secret article in the Treaty of Paris, by which this country became bound to support Louis 18, in case of insurrection, he wished the noble earl opposite to state, whether there was any such article. He put the question, not as believing that there was any such secret article without the knowledge of Parliament, but merely for the purpose of having the rumour contradicted.
The Earl of Liverpoolhad no objection to say, that the rumour of any such secret article was entirely without foundation. He said, he should agree to produce both the Treaty of Fontainbleau and the Declaration of the Allies of the 13th ult. He said, that to-morrow he should explain more fully the sentiments of his Majesty's Government; but be should observe that it was intended to echo the Message in the opinion that the recent events were in violation of the Treaty of Paris. The rest of the Address would merely be an approbation of the measures of armament and those taken for producing concert among the Allies for the purpose of general security. He believed he could not more fully explain the nature of it, unless he communicated to the noble earl (Grey) a copy of the proposed Address.
Lord Grenvillesaid, he should reserve the full expression of his opinions till the night of discussion arrived; but he should even then state his entire approbation of the two measures mentioned in the communication from the Throne. The situation in which this country was placed, was most arduous, and one in which active and vigorous measures were necessary. But whatever might by the course which might be taken, the best hope of Europe was in the intimate concert between the members of the great alliance. These two sentiments were the only sentiments which the Message conveyed—the only sentiments which the Address should express, because the present was not the time for a decision on the ulterior question of peace or war. Neither should he prematurely state his own opinion as to the course which this country should pursue, but await the time when that great and dreadful alternative might be presented for their consideration.
The Message was then ordered to be taken into consideration to-morrow.
Earl Stanhopethen moved for a copy of the Declaration of the Allies of the 13th of March, which was accordingly ordered to be produced.