Sitting of 26 January 1832

MINUTES.
New Members. CHARLES HANBURY TRACEY, Esq., for Tewkesbury.
New Writ ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HOLMES, for Dunwick in the room of the Earl of Breeknock, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
Petitions presented. By Mr. POLLOCK, from the Faculty of Physic in London to Repeal the Statutes which directly impede the Study of Anatomy, and for new enactments on that subject:—By Mr. WALLACE, from the Landholders of Drogheda, complaining of the amount of Grand Jury Assessments, and praying for an extension of the Franchise in the Irish Reform Bill to 10 l. Leaseholders in Counties:—By Sir JOHN NEWPORT, from Dublin, complaining of the manner in which Ministers Money was collected.

EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Colonel Rochfordpresented a Petition from the Protestant inhabitants of Street, in the county of Westmeath, complaining that in the new system of education proposed by the Government, Protestant children were deprived of the use of Bibles in their schools. The petitioners prayed, that Protestants might be allowed the free use of the Bible in their schools; for, in their opinions, when education was not founded upon the Word of God, it became a curse rather than a blessing, to those who received it. This, he was sure, would be found to be the general opinion of the Protestant people of Ireland, who neither could nor would tolerate spurious attempts at conciliation, at the expense of religion.
Mr. Chapmanhad no doubt that the opinions expressed by the petitioners were those of a numerous party in Ireland, consisting of all those who were opposed to the adoption of plans to ameliorate the condition of that country, as well as those who endeavoured to throw difficulties in the way of all the efforts making by Government to effect conciliatory measures; but he
894
believed a still larger party was in favour of the measures proposed by Government, and, therefore, he exhorted them to persevere.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he also would support the prayer of the petition, if the allegations of the petitioners were true. If it could be shown that the Government regulations had the effect of taking the Bible from the Protestant children, he, for one, would agree that they ought to be altered. But, as he understood, the only effect of the regulation would be, that the acceptance of the Bible as a school-book, was not to be enforced on Catholics.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, the Scriptures were given to the Protestant children in a mutilated state. The result was, that, in reality they were denied the use of the Scriptures. The Protestants, of every sect and creed, were consequently opposed to the plan, and had joined heart and hand in reprobating the new system altogether.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, the most effectual mode of giving education in Ireland, was to educate Protestants and Catholics together. That this mode was desired by many of the clergy, both Catholic and Protestant, he could state, for applications to that effect had been made to him by Protestant clergymen, as well as by Catholic priests. Now, as it was desirable that both parties should be educated together, he thought that the most effectual way would be, to give the children in common such portions of the Scripture as both parties were agreed upon, to the exclusion of those parts on which they differed. The children would be educated together four days in the week; but there were two days, in which the Protestants had to receive religious instruction according to their own form, besides the advantage in the instruction given in the Protestant Sunday-schools. There was, therefore, in his opinion, no reasonable ground of complaint,
Mr. Ruthvensaid, it was lamentable, that instead of the contending parties adopting the conciliatory tone, which they ought to have done to meet the views of Government, to allay agitation, and reconcile conflicting opinions, they had carried on a petty vexatious warfare, from which no good could possibly result. The assertion that the Protestants of all sects were generally averse from the measures relating to education proposed by the Government, were not justified by their opinions on the part of the country with which he was conversant. He knew many members of the Church of

895
England, and Presbyterians, who wished to extinguish party spirit by allowing Government a control over education.
Petition to be printed.

GENERAL FAST—EXCLUSION OF STRAN-GERS.
Mr. Percevalbeing called on to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, rose, and said, I perceive that strangers are in the House.
The Speaker: strangers must withdraw.
The officers of the House proceeded to clear the gallery.
Mr. Hume: I presume I may move the suspension of the Standing Order.
The Speaker: Strangers must withdraw.
The gallery was then cleared, and the House proceeded, with closed doors, to take into consideration Mr. Perceval's Motion for a general fast. The hon. Member is reported to have spoken as follows:—
Mr. Percevalsaid, that he had moved the absence of strangers on three accounts; first, that he might have more freedom of speech himself, and the House be more ready to hear him, than under the eye of strangers; secondly, that no man might suppose that he was looking to approbation of any party out of that House, to compensate for the disapprobation he feared to encounter within; thirdly, that as the Motion had been objected to, as likely to lead to scandal in the debate, he would take away all temptation to blasphemy, or at least prevent any going forth to the country. He closed himself in with his fellow-commoners, face to face, and could speak freely in the presence of baptized men. He rose to address them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, who was exalted King of kings, and Lord of lords. He called on them in the glory of his name. God, too, was present amongst them, and he would witness all that passed. In the name of God, the Highest, he appealed to the House; and as it was written in his Word, that he who rejected one that appeared in the name of God despised him that sent him, he that rejected him (Mr. Perceval) rejected his God, in whose name he appeared. He therefore, implored the House to attend with reverence. He would risk being tedious, in order to be understood. No man could deny, that the state of the nation was truly deplorable Nothing had altered his opinion since he last addressed the House on this subject. The nation trembled on the verge of destruction—no man could calculate on subordination in any society—in every district
896
there were disorders. There was also the frightful collision of the two Houses of Parliament. The houses of the nobles and gentry were entered and pillaged, and one of the great cities of the nation had been plundered and devastated by the mob. Two parties were threatening a conflict so manifest, that, amidst all these things, every body, of considerate mind, should consider their ways, and mend them. Shall we not bow down before that God whose hand is on us, consider our ways, and go down on our knees to supplicate that mercy which is gone from us. The prosperity of a nation, like that of an individual, is of God. He only was the author of all the prosperity which the nation had ever enjoyed; and as obedience to God was the cause of a nation's prosperity, was not our disobedience to God and his ordinances the cause of his wrath and vengeance? He would read from the Holy Book the promise and the denunciations of God's mercy and judgments. That was the Magna Charta of nations—the words which God spoke to Israel. And, bearing in mind the un-changeableness of God, and the mutability of man, this nation seemed to stand in that position towards the Almighty in which Israel formerly stood. It had been the seat of true religion, and had reared up the finest system of civil polity that ever existed; and if they were as Jerusalem was, they must suffer equally, 'Woe unto 'thee, Chorazin; woe unto thee, Bethsaida; for if the mighty works which were done in you, were done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shall be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works which have been done in thee had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon, at the day of judg'ment, than for you.' As you have known more, and sinned more, ye shall suffer more: that was God's language of threatening. Then came God's promised mercies to such as observed his ordinances; And all these blessings shall come on thee and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God. Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground and the fruit of

897
thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store. 'Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out.' &c. [The hon. Member read a number of other extracts from the Bible to the same effect] Great and glorious had been the name and conduct of England, when she trusted in Almighty God, and when one of her Admirals wrote home thus, announcing a victory over her enemies, "It has pleased Almighty God to bless his Majesty's arms with a signal victory." But this was one of the last departing signs of the solemn faith of their forefathers. He would next refer them to God's denunciations, some of which were these:—'But it 'shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his 'statutes which I command thee this day, 'that all these curses shall come upon thee 'and overtake thee. Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be 'in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket 'and thy store. Cursed shall be the fruit of 'thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy 'sheep. Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when 'thou goest out. The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke 'in all that thou settest thy hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me. The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land whither thou goest to possess it,' &.c. [The hon. Member read more extracts of the same description, and then went on] 'The curse of God was on the land, and it had overtaken the people.' That pestilence was in the land, and we ought to hasten to address the throne to proclaim a fast, and day of humiliation in the land, that we might avert this dreadful wrath. We had here the truth—we had departed from our God, and God had departed from us. And unless this nation went on its knees, destruction would be on it. But if we return to God's ways we might expect forgiveness and blessedness. The judgment might, perhaps, yet be averted. For God said, "him that honoureth me will I honour;" and though we have, as a nation, departed from his ways, Yet as his judgments, so are his mercies; "for the Lord is gracious; his mercies are
898
everlasting, and his truth endureth from generation to generation." If we would yet bow down, there is in our God that fathomless store of mercies, that peradventure he will relent, and our glory will return. Nothing, however, but such a course would restore to us that glory. England was no longer the country of peace, glory, and strength, that it had been, and we ought to repent and return from our evil ways. Although we deserved the punishment of our sins, yet, if we repented, God's mercy was abundant, and we might yet be saved. He spoke on authority not to be denied. The word of God had expressed it, even when a curse against a nation had been given. 'If that nation against whom I have pronounced turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do 'unto them.' Innumerable were the instances of God's mercy—as when the prophet went against Ahab, but he humbled himself, and God withdrew the judgment. There was the same fact in the case of Jonah in Nineveh. 'Yet forty days, and 'Nineveh shall be overthrown.' If these applied to heathens, how much more would God's mercy be shown to a nation of Christians? [The hon. Member then read the proceedings respecting Nineveh.] 'So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be 'proclaimed and published through Nineveh '(by the decree of the king and his nobles), saying, "Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; let them not feed nor drink water." But let man and
beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God; yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, and we perish not. And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented him of the evil that he had said he would do unto them, and he did it not.' So would it be with England, if we faithfully, humbly, and sincerely repented. He trusted to be able to set before the nation the truth of its weakness—first, the increase of crime showed the absence of religion and piety; secondly, the oppression of the poor was beyond his conception. He

899
was lost in astonishment to account for it, and was wholly unable to point out human remedies. This was a matter surrounded by tremendous danger. The rich lived in luxury and plenty; the labourer was in a state of actual starvation, and a degree of distress that ought to harrow up their very souls. He could not point out the causes, but the fact was glaring. He appealed to the hon. member for Boroughbridge (Mr. Sadler) to point out the sufferings of the children of the poor. The heathens made their children pass through the fire to their God, Moloch—we make our children pass through misery for our gain. These things proved the sins of the land, and that God's curse was upon it. The destruction of Bristol was a sample of God's wrath when abroad. Passing that and the pestilence, which they were told, "goeth before him," the state of the poor was enough to induce that House to address the Crown to order a fast. It must not be supposed that he was a fool to call on that House, which he did, as a body, only in love and truth. He did not rise to make personal attacks, but to lift up his voice in the name of God. "You sit here (said the hon. Member), like a race of infidels—you do not consult your Maker. This House meets here, and talks on public affairs as if there was no God. Let every man answer for himself. You have no more consideration than if you acknowledged no God. You are all infidels. Look at the public Press, the march of intellect,—the spirit of the day is sheer idolatry. You forget God, and think of doing every thing by capital, by machinery, by laws; boasts are daily made of the liberal mind that is marching through Europe, and which arrogates to itself all the blessings that are enjoyed by man: but you are acting on a wrong principle. All those acts of ungodliness have been practised by other nations. For example, the French left, out that "the king ruled by the grace of God;" denying thereby their fealty to that power by whom alone kings reign and princes deal justice, and from whom cometh all counsel, wisdom, and understanding.'" Then they had also that blasphemy in England, "that all power was from the people"—sheer blasphemy,as all power was from God, and the duty of man was to submit find to obey! Let every soul, said the Holy Writ, be subject unto the higher powers, fur there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, 'therefore, resisteth that power, resisteth 'the ordinance of God: and they that
900
resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil: wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the Minister of God to thee for good; but if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the Minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.' See what is going on in France and England. It is blasphemy to attribute power to the people. He defied the noble Lord to point out a word in the Bible that power was from the people! that slavish bowing to public opinion had robbed the noble Lord of all his honesty and manhood. In the councils of the nation they wore slaves to that blasphemy; but power was only from God. He was aware that he was speaking loud and with warmth, but not with violence; he was sincere, and was urging these truths in his usual way, when he was under an influence. The Motion belonged to each Member individually, as every man had been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and could not disobey the precepts and laws of their God. They might disregard the laws—father and brother—but would they refuse the precepts of God? "I was taken up," said the hon. Member, "on the death of my father, by the nation, which abundantly provided for me and mine; and it is in gratitude for that kindness that I call on the House to address the Crown to issue a proclamation for a fast. It has been done before by Parliament, and I do not admit the objection, that this place is not a fit and proper place. Are we not chosen to meet and advise what, as Christians, we ought to advise for the good of the nation? Are we to leave all religion at the door of the House, and listen to the wiles of Satan? No. I stated it last year, and I will repeat the character of infidelity that pervades the public mind. At that time there was the blasphemous proposition to admit the Jew into this House. If our Saviour was raised, and is now in Heaven, at the head of his Church, are we to admit a Jew to our councils? The Edinburgh Review—the fifth sign of the infidelity of the times—defended that. It said, that 'it was as absurd to talk of Christian government, as of Christian cookery. Man is a fool in his heart, and sayeth those things. It is enormous, that this body of Christians should say, we are not inclined to consider of God's greatness and mercy; if so ungodly

901
as to entertain the question, what a state was the nation in! The bent of the human mind is now to set aside kings and priests, and to set up the people as the sovereigns; and I would call on the nation to humiliate themselves, and avert such evils. If the House reject the Motion—although Government may afterwards order the Fast—yet in that case the House will have dissociated itself from the act, and will give room for infidels and scoffers to say, 'Aye! Let the kings and priests, and 'those who are fools enough to be led by 'them, go out with this last piece of mum'mery before they are expelled for ever. 'We, the nation, will have none of it. 'We know better; and so do our Repre'sentatives.' If you agree to my Motion, I will request the House of Lords also to supplicate for a fast, and we all shall then be bound up together in one solemn act." He would not withdraw his Motion (the hon. Member continued) as he did last year; he would not give way, but would divide the House. He would force the House of Commons to declare whether they would bend their knee to their God. If they would not, the nation should know their refusal. He would have the whole nation, the Lords, and Commons, to join in the act of humiliation. The Ministers had not done it—the House of Commons had put it aside. But, by that anointed name by which he acted, he would appeal to them, and it must be done. Moving the previous question would not do: the House must reject the Motion. "If it does reject it, all Europe will see (said the hon. Member) that ye reject your God's authority. You cannot escape this charge. By the name, and by the blood of that Saviour, I implore you to support this Motion. But I have been told formerly, that in this blasphemous and unhallowed atmosphere I ought not to have used that name. But it is in that blessed name—the name of that living God and Saviour, who now sees us and is amongst us—that I alone appeal and act. Christian men should love to hear me call on the name of Him in whose name they were baptized. Cast not off the reverence due to that name: beware of that infidelity that is creeping on you on both sides of the House, and depriving you of your manhood; for the safety of your own souls, I call on you to honour that name. I have done my duty to avert the evils that are coming on Christendom, preceded by the pestilence. Beware of the wrath that went forth on the plain against Sodom and Gomorrah
902
—and that is a type of the judgment that is fast coming upon Christendom. My cry is, that God's mercy may be on us if we humble ourselves. Let all the people praise and sing for joy, and the desolating force of God shall pass by." The hon. Member concluded by moving, that an humble Address be presented to the King, to order a day for a general fast and humiliation.
Mr. John Waylandseconded the Motion.
Lord Althorpstated that discussion on such a topic was highly inexpedient. He disclaimed being tinctured with infidelity; but he was of opinion that such discussions did not tend to the honour of religion. The Motion was neither desirable nor necessary. He gave the hon. Member who had brought the question forward credit for good intentions. He meant no disrespect to him by not following him in his argument, and should move the previous question; by which he intended that the House should express its opinion, that questions like the present ought not to be taken up. It was the intention of Government to appoint a day of fasting.
Mr. Huntcould not avoid reading two or three verses from the Bible. The hon. Mover had talked of Sodom and of Bristol, and had called us infidels, idolaters, and what not; but had the hon. Member forgotten this passage of Isaiah?—'Is it such a fast that I have chosen—a day for a man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head like a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? Wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord? Is not this the fast that I have chosen—to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh.' What the hon. Member (Mr. Perceval) wanted was not a real fast: a real fast was one that would feed the hungry and clothe the naked.
Mr. Goulburnunderstood the noble Lord to say, that the object would be accomplished without going to the vote. If the noble Lord did not make such a promise, he hoped the Motion would be pressed.
Sir Thomas Baringwould vote for the Motion, if a fast-day were not to be appointed.
Lord Althorp: It is the intention of the Government to appoint a fast-day.
Mr. Briscoeheard the declaration of the noble Lord with pleasure, and it was to him an additional reason for affording his support to the present Government.
Mr. J. E. Gordonsaid, it was a question highly fitting to occupy the attention of the House of Commons; and that the House of Commons in former times was often occupied with such discussions.
Mr. Perceval, in answer to the member for Preston, observed, that a fast of hypocrisy was in no way acceptable to Him that judgeth the human heart. But which of the two was more likely to observe the fast of mercy—he who set aside, as unnecessary, all signs of public contrition, or he who, consenting to such public acts, acknowledged the impropriety of ungodliness when going through the fast of humiliation? He should not state what he felt, if he did not say that the tardy consent at length given to the appointment of a day for a general fast showed him with what reluctance the Government at length assented. He thought that this was done more for the sake of getting rid of the question than from any conviction of the danger impending from God's judgments over the land. He must confess that he was unwilling to force the House to an act which might accelerate those judgments; and, under that impression, he would decline dividing the House. With leave, therefore, he would withdraw the Motion.
Motion withdrawn.
Strangers were then re-admitted, and the business proceeded as usual.

RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN.
Mr. J. C. Herriessaid that, feeling the great importance of the subject which he was about to submit to the attention of the House, he was sorry that it had not fallen into abler hands than his own. He hoped, however, that the clearness of the case, as well as the amount of public money involved in it, would induce the House to bestow upon his statement, and the motion which he should found upon it, the attention which its importance demanded, but to which he knew he himself was so little entitled. The first point to which he should allude, was the application of a considerable sum of the public money, not only without the authority of Parliament, but, in his judgment, directly contrary to the provisions and directions of an Act of Parliament. At the close of the period when they were last assembled in that house, the attention of his right hon. friend the member for Tamworth
904
was drawn to the fact of an apparent misapplication of a sum of the public money without the authority of Parliament. There passed at that time, upon a question put across the table of the House, such an explanation as had placed the subject at the present moment in a more advanced state than, without such an explanation, it could have been. That circumstance would enable him materially to abridge the observations which he should feel it his duty to submit to the House on the present occasion. It would also tend, he thought, materially to diminish the time which he should have to bestow upon the subject, by clearing up and settling at once some important points which he should otherwise have had to prove. There were some principal circumstances —as matters of fact—that were on both sides agreed upon, and which, upon a question of this kind, was of material advantage. The House must be aware that he was about to propose to them to declare an opinion upon this question: that, an engagement having been contracted on the part of this country to pay a foreign loan in another country, with a certain condition annexed to that engagement, and that condition having been notoriously fulfilled or discharged, that the periodical payments of the loan had nevertheless continued to be made, to all appearance—indeed, as he should conceive, to the absolute conviction of every man acquainted with the treaties upon which it was founded—in manifest contravention of the stipulations which had been entered into. But for the admissions to which he had alluded, there might have been some doubts with respect to many of the facts involved in the ease. For instance, it might sometimes be a matter of doubt when a Stale was or was not in a state of independence. Upon that point, however, he should, on the present occasion, have no argument to make—no difficulty to encounter. It was admitted by the right hon. Gentlemen on the other side, of whose conduct he was about to complain, that the act of separation between Belgium and Holland had taken place. It was also admitted—for, after what had passed on a former occasion, he felt himself justified in saying so—that, subsequently to that separation, money had been paid by this country in satisfaction of the Russian loan in Holland. Upon that, he believed, there was no dispute. The point in dispute between him and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite was this: was it, or was it not lawful, on the port of the

905
Ministers of the Crown, after the separation of the Belgic provinces from Holland had occurred, to continue to make the payments to which he had alluded? It was indispensable for him, in order to put the House in possession of the state of the case as he viewed it, and in order to enable the members to come to a correct judgment upon the motion which he should have the honour to submit to them, that he should go into some minute detail. To that detail, notwithstanding the dulness of it, he prayed the attention of the House, because it was necessary to exhibit the true state of the transaction at the period to which he was about to allude. It was necessary that he should trace the origin and trace the progress of the engagement in question, in order that he might clearly state to the House upon what grounds it was he had come to the decision—a decision of which he could not divest his mind—that to continue the payment of the loan to which he had alluded, was an act, on the part of the Government, utterly without the sanction—nay, as he conceived, in absolute defiance of—a specific enactment of the Legislature. The origin of the transaction was this, and he begged the particular attention of the House to it:—The engagement, on the part of England, to pay the debt due by Russia to Holland, was not in discharge of any debt or engagement from England to Russia, but in discharge of an obligation of England to Holland. In order to elucidate the point, he (Mr. Herries) had called, on a former occasion, for two conventions, on which the debt was founded. It was to the first of those conventions that he begged, in the first place, to call the attention of the House. It contained much which had no relation to the subject which he was then discussing, but he should only trouble the House by directing its attention to that part of it upon which the whole of the transaction was founded, and from which every obligation which we had with respect to the loan undoubtedly sprung. The convention to which he was then alluding, was that of the 13th of August, 1814. To that convention was appended an additional article, and that additional article was the foundation of our engagement to pay the Russian loan. The preamble to the article was in these terms:—'In order the better to provide for the defence and incorporation of the Belgic provinces with Holland, his Britannic Majesty shall take upon himself, and engage to defray, the following charges:—1st. the payment of 1,000,000 l.
906
sterling to Sweden, in satisfaction of certain claims mentioned in the convention; 2ndly. to advance 2,000,000 l. sterling, to be applied, in concert with the prince sovereign of the Netherlands, and in aid of an equal sum to be furnished by him towards augmenting and improving the defences of 'the Low Countries; and, 3rdly. to bear, equally with Holland such further charges 'as may be agreed upon between the high contracting parties and their allies, towards the final and satisfactory settlement of the Low Countries, in union with Holland, and under the dominion of the House of Orange, not exceeding in the whole the sum of 3,000,000 l., to be defrayed by Great Britain.' The indefinite obligation mentioned in that article, to pay certain sums in union with Holland, was better expressed by the French, who made use of the terms, "conjointement et toujours en portions égales,' conjointly and always in equal shares. But the indefinite engagement to which he alluded, and the substance of which was, as he had just stated, for the King of this country to pay certain sums for Holland, and with Holland, as Holland might require, for the purpose of securing to that country the incorporation of the Belgic provinces, was reduced to a specific and more binding engagement in the subsequent treaty. The framers of that treaty took care that there should be no mistake. They were at evident pains to make it clearly understood that it was in fulfilment of the first that the second was made. To that second treaty, in which the king of Holland expressed his obligation to the emperor of Russia, and the other allied powers, for the manner in which the Belgic provinces had been secured to him, in order to carry it into effect England stepped in, and agreed to become a party in pursuance of the engagements made by her with the king of the Netherlands in the previous treaty of the 13th of August, 1814. This undertaking, then, and all which related to it, had its origin in the obligations of the king of the Netherlands to the other European Powers, and, in consideration of it, certain colonies were ceded by Holland to this country. But whatever construction might be put upon the general tenour of this treaty, which it was not then of importance to refer to, it was clear, that, from the commencement to the end, the undertaking, on the part of this country, was all on account of, and in the interest of the king of the Netherlands, and in order to maintain the incorporation of the Belgic

907
provinces with his dominions. He had dwelt at some length upon that part of the subject, in order to impress upon the minds of those who, perhaps, might only have cursorily read the treaties, that there could, upon the face of those recorded documents, be no ground for mistake. He was also anxious that the House should be in possession of the terms of the two treaties, because upon them would turn the whole of his observations. He had referred to the origin of the transaction to show the manner in which it had arisen, upon what principle it was established, and to what definite point it was brought by the last treaty. In all the provisions of that treaty, as well, indeed, as in the first, the House would find that, with respect both to principal and interest, England agreed to discharge the loan in equal shares with Holland. That was the foundation upon which the first engagement was made, and it would have been most extraordinary, indeed it would have been wild, if, upon such an occasion, we had undertaken to make payments which Holland did not undertake to make in equal parts with us. If the facts were as he had stated them—and he thought they could not be denied—then Ministers had acted upon the conventions to which he had alluded, in a very illegal way, because England was only to pay her share of the loan conjointly with her partner, Holland. England was bound to pay, in common with Holland, and only in common with Holland; and in no case whatever was it provided, that this country was to make any payments independent of that power. In order always to be consistent with that policy, and in order to mark, in the strongest manner, the object and purpose of the last specific engagement, in order to limit it strictly, and to leave no doubt as to the construction to be put upon it, a clause was introduced, the most befitting that could have been introduced, for the state of things to which he had alluded. It declared, that "it was thereby understood and agreed, between the high contracting parties, that the said payments, on the part of their Majesties the king of the Netherlands and the King of Great Britain, as aforesaid, shall cease and determine, should the possession and sovereignty (which God forbid) of the Belgic provinces at any time pass or be severed from the dominions of his majesty the king of the Netherlands, previous to the complete liquidation of the same." That was perfectly right, perfectly consistent with the
908
principle of the treaty, and with the origin of the transaction. It might have been said, it might even then be said, that, if there were no such clause as that which he had just read, it would have been lawful for the Government of this country to have continued to have paid the loan to Russia after the separation of the Belgic provinces from Holland. But the statesmen of the day did not choose to leave a doubt upon the question. They said, "This treaty shall not only be executive, but prohibitive." They made assurance doubly sure; they strictly prohibited any further payment in case certain circumstances should arise. That case anticipated by the framers of the treaty had arrived, and, therefore, in conformity with the terms of the clause to which he had alluded, payment should have ceased. On the one side it had ceased—Holland, since her separation from Belgium, had ceased to pay, because she says the case has arisen which was contemplated by the framers of the treaty by which she was to be released from the engagement; England, however, continued to pay, notwithstanding the prohibition he had just read, and in spite of the full release he conceived she had. These were admitted facts, and therefore, although he was prepared to prove them, it was not necessary that he should occupy the time of the House by doing so; it was a point conceded that the Government of England, taking a different view of the question from that of Holland—upon what ground he knew not—had continued to make payments to Russia, in spite of the prohibition clearly and distinctly set forth in the treaty, and in spite of the fact that their co-partner in the engagement had felt himself entirely absolved from further payment. He (Mr. Herries) must state, that when the attention of the House was first drawn to this subject in the last sitting of Parliament, and when the noble Lord opposite had, upon that occasion, fairly and freely admitted that the facts which he had just stated had occurred, the continuance of Government to pay the loan appeared to him to be so obviously and flagrantly at variance, not only with the spirit, but with the precise words of the treaty, that he really anticipated, before they again assembled, that any motion such as that which he was about to submit would have been rendered unnecessary by some previous act on the part of the Government, admitting the fact of there being some other ground than any which had yet appeared before Parliament, and that they

909
had taken a new view of the case, and had therefore determined to continue to discharge the loan. But by their inaction upon the subject, Ministers had brought him to the conviction that their only defence could be grounded upon the assertion that there was no meaning in the words "shall cease and determine, in case of the separation of Belgium from Holland." To common understandings the meaning of these plain and decisive words was obvious enough. Ministers, he supposed, had some arbitrary reading of their own, by which they chose to translate them; at all events he could conceive no other grounds upon which they could possibly have continued their payments after the separation of the two countries had taken place. But, upon further investigation, it seemed that Ministers had not even that ground upon which to justify their conduct. It certainly was possible, to suppose that they had entertained a doubt upon the subject—that there was some difference of opinion between them as to the construction to be put upon the treaties. But that supposition could have no place in their answer that evening, because the House had the authority of the Lords of the Treasury themselves, to whom the execution of this treaty was confided by the House of Commons, for saying that the words of the Convention had not been misconstrued. It was admitted, that Parliament gave directions for the payment of the money in a particular manner, and gave specific directions as to the mode in which the Act should be performed, as was the case with most of the money paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The Lords of the Treasury were directed and authorized by their warrant to pay certain sums in certain particular cases, and these were generally stated with a great degree of strictness. He contended that this was the true interpretation of the present case. He was sure that no one would say, that, because an Act of Parliament was not considered sufficiently extensive, that therefore, the Lords of the Treasury were to be permitted to enlarge it. In all questions of this sort Parliament alone had the power to enlarge the provisions of an Act of their own. On a former occasion he called for an account of the monies advanced under the first treaty with Holland. That return was made by the Treasury in an able and satisfactory manner. Great pains had obviously been bestowed upon it; it was highly creditable to those by whom it was drawn up; it was perfectly correct. In
910
1828, the Treasury had also been called upon by the Finance Committee to make a return, not only of the sums that had been advanced under the head of the "Russian Loan," but also to stale to the Committee the condition upon which that loan was continued to be paid. That return was made, containing, of course, all the expenditure which had occurred under the head specified, together with a brief statement of the conditions upon which we were to continue to pay; and it concluded with these words, 'The payments are to cease should the Belgic provinces be separated from the dominion of the king of the Netherlands previous to the liquidation of the debt,' Notwithstanding that recorded understanding of the Lords of the Treasury with respect to the loan, and the conditions under which it was paid—notwithstanding the terms of the convention itself—notwithstanding, he would not call it the limitation, but the prohibition, of the clause in the second treaty—notwithstanding the occurrence of the fact, which, upon the face of the documents to which he had alluded rendered it, to all common understandings, imperative on the Government not to make further payments—notwithstanding that our associate in the transaction, knowing well the justice of the case, and understanding well the engagement under winch he was bound, had refused to continue to make his payments—notwithstanding all these circumstances, the Government of this country had, during the last three times of payment, continued to pay England's share of the debt. Three times the Dutch government had refused to pay—three times the English Government had continued to pay. It was not for him on that occasion to enter into any argument upon the point; or at what particular time the separation of Belgium from Holland might be technically said to have taken place. Suffice it for him to say, that he had so worded his resolution as to make it apply to any payment that might have been made at any time after the separation had taken place. He had given his most cool and deliberate attention to the subject, and he felt convinced, on a review of all the facts he had recapitulated, that there was not the smallest iota of claim on the part of Russia for the continuance of the payment of the debt by England. We were in this situation—we had made two treaties with Holland for the purpose of liquidating this loan, and accompanied with certain conditions, which conditions apply to the

911
case so strongly that the treaty was at an end unless they were fulfilled, We were only to pay these sums of money jointly with Holland, and for the benefit of that Power. England was not, in her separate capacity a debtor to Russia—Russia had no right to make any claim on us for the liquidation of the debt. We certainly were bound to Russia to make payment upon a particular basis; and one of the ground-works of that basis was, that Holland should continue to make joint payments with us. He would ask, whether, if Russia exempted Holland from the payment of this loan, England would be called upon to pay? The payments had reference only to certain objects. The treaty was made with a view to secure the government of the Belgian provinces to the king of the Netherlands. It was considered that we should do much for the attainment of that object by the adoption of this course. If we were absolved from one part of the treaty, we were absolved from the whole; and if we were held by one part, we were held by the whole. He wished to shew that it was not possible that we could be considered the debtors of Russia in any other respect than as being conjointly bound with Holland in this loan. The conduct, however, that had been pursued would go to show that it was a debt from this country to Russia, not with the concurrence of Holland, but a debt from England alone. Holland refused to pay her portion, on the ground that the loan was contracted to continue her in undivided possession of the Belgic provinces, and that she no longer had the sovereignty of that country; and it was impossible, when the principal was exonerated that the surbordinate party should be held bound by his engagement. After much reflection, he confessed he had not been able to arrive at any decent conjecture as to what the nature of the defence to be set up by Ministers would be. Speaking honestly, he really was not able even to guess at the grounds of objection which might be made by Government to the Motion, which, in conformity with the simple facts which he had stated, it was his intention to submit to the House. He could not suppose that any circumstance previous to the date of the treaties would be urged as a ground for putting a construction upon them contrary to that which he had stated as their most obvious and palpable meaning. Neither could he suppose that any other negotiations would be pleaded as giving a colouring to the treaties
912
which would warrant Ministers in taking a course directly at variance with the obvious meaning of their words. He could not suppose that either of these grounds would be advanced, because, after what had been said on a former occasion, it would have been the duty of Ministers, if the whole of the circumstances under which they had acted were not known to the House, to have come down and explained them. Neither could he believe, although he had heard it stated, that Ministers would seek to defend themselves upon the ground that, inasmuch as that this country had been participant in, or had, in some degree, contributed to the independence of the Belgic provinces, that therefore she was not released from her obligation to discharge her share of the debt due to Russia. He could not suppose that such a ground of defence would be set up, because, at first sight, it was obviously untenable. Parliament had confided powers, or rather given directions, to the Lords of the Treasury to do so and so, under certain conditions. Those conditions were imperative, and Parliament certainly did not give the Lords of the Treasury power to dispense with them, and to act in direct contradiction of them. The Government in no case could act upon its own judgment as to what was right, so as to dispense with the authority of Parliament, in the application of any portion of the public money; and such a proceeding came most ungraciously from those hon. Gentlemen who had been so loud in recommending a most watchful care over the national purse. In continuing these payments under such circumstances, they had been guilty of one of the most flagrant outrages on their own avowed principles, that could possibly take place in any department of the public service. If no justification could be founded upon any thing that had occurred before or after the passing of the Act of Parliament, by which it could be shown that the Lords of the Treasury were authorised to pay England's share of Holland's debt to Russia, the House could, of necessity, come to but one conclusion; and he confessed that he approached with wonder the only real ground of defence which it appeared to him it would be possible for Ministers to set up—namely, that they had read the treaty differently, that they had read the Act of Parliament differently from the rest of mankind, or, at least, that the words of the treaty and the words of the Act of Parliament had not, in their minds, the same

913
import that they had in his. If the words of the treaty, or the words of the Act of Parliament, had been loose or ambiguous, he might have thought that such a solution of the difficulty would have been easy and admissible. But those words were so precise, so very specific, so very cautious, that he was at a loss to conceive how it would be possible for Ministers ever to explain their conduct. He had thus stated, tediously he feared, but still, he hoped, distinctly, all the facts of the case. The question was one of such immense importance in its principle and in its consequences, that in the statement which he had made he had endeavoured to throw out every thing which could tend to diminish its clearness, or to divert the attention of the House from the main facts upon which it would have to express its opinion. He had not treated it as a party question, neither had he alluded to the differences of opinion which existed between political parties, nor indulged in any of the taunts which were but too frequent when those who had lately been in office arraigned the conduct of those who were their successors. Undoubtedly he had neglected a very good opportunity of reminding the right hon. Gentlemen opposite of professions made before they had assumed the situation which they then held. He might have drawn a comparison between what they had promised and what they had performed, but he had purposely abstained from making any allusions to their apparent inconsistency. He felt that the subject itself was one which required to be discussed altogether in a different tone and temper. He felt that it was of the utmost importance that every man should dismiss from his mind every party prejudice, and that he should be able to decide upon the question in reference alone to the authority of Parliament—the constitutional privileges of Parliament, and the proper disposal of the public money. Taken in that point of view, the division of that night would be of immense importance, because the question upon which it would take place, involved principles of the highest order, not only in the direction of international affairs, but in the administration of civil government. If the House rejected his Motion, they would sanction the disposal of upwards of 5,000,000 l. of the public money without the direction or authority of Parliament. To all those who thought this constitutional principle of importance that all directions for the expenditure of the public money by Parliament should be implicitly obeyed, and
914
to all those who believed that the assumption of the least discretion on the observance of that high principle was fraught with danger to the liberty of the subject, he strongly recommended to vote for the Motion with which he should presently conclude; all those, on the other hand, who thought that expediency would at any time justify any Minister to dispense with the express authority of an Act of Parliament would, of course, vote against him. Finally, as he felt convinced, that Great Britain was not called upon by the treaty, or authorised by the Act of Parliament, to continue the payment, he hoped that all who were in favour of retrenchment and economy, as well as those who looked upon the Government as bound by treaties, would vote with him in the Resolutions which he would then beg leave to propose. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following Resolutions:—
"That, by the Act 55th George 3rd, for carrying into effect a Convention between his Majesty and the king of the Netherlands and the emperor of Russia, power is given to the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury to issue such sums of money as shall be required for the payment of the interest or principal of a certain portion of a Russian loan in Holland, to be borne (in pursuance of that Convention) by his Majesty as and when the same shall be payable, conformably to the tenor of his Majesty's engagement, as specified in the said Convention.
"That, by one of the articles of the said Convention, recited in the said Act, it is expressly provided, that the said payments on the part of the king of the Netherlands, and of his Majesty as aforesaid, should cease and determine should the possession and sovereignty of the Belgic provinces at any time pass or be severed from the dominions of his Majesty the king of the Netherlands, previous to the complete liquidation of the same.
"That the application of the public money for the purpose of effecting any payments on the part of Great Britain, on account of the Russian loan in Holland, after the possession and sovereignty of the Belgic Provinces had passed from the dominions of the king of the Netherlands, is contrary to the provisions of the Act 55 George 3rd, c. 115, and is unwarranted by any authority of Parliament."
Lord Althorpwas free to admit that the greater portion of the right hon. Gentleman's statement was not an exaggeration of

915
the facts of the case, but he had to complain of the irrelevance of the topics on which he had touched towards the conclusion of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman professed that he was chiefly induced to bring forward this Motion on the ground of public economy. A question of public economy was one which very properly commanded a ready hearing in that House, at least from himself and his colleagues, but it would be unjust to the real merits of the case under consideration to represent it as one merely involving the interests of the public purse, without regard to public honour. The question for the House to determine was, not whether a certain saving might possibly be effected in the public expenditure, but whether the faith of the Crown—that is, the honour of the country—was pledged to pay the sums referred to in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. This was the real question before the House, and he hoped, therefore, that it would be borne in mind by hon. Members, and that they would not persuade themselves, that in voting for the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, they were voting merely to effect a reduction in the public expenditure. The question really was—was the public faith pledged by the Treaty of 1815, to the payment of certain sums to the emperor of Russia? He was ready to admit, that if they confined their views to the mere letter of the Act, framed with a view to carry the provisions of the Treaty of 1815, the inferences of the right hon. Gentleman were not unwarranted, but he maintained, that if they impartially examined the treaty itself, they would arrive at the conclusion that we were bound by it to make good the payments complained of by the right hon. Gentleman. The treaty—he felt he was not assuming too much in saying so—was the document which should be their guide in the present investigation, the Act being merely a formal legislative sanction of its provisions. At the first blush it was his own opinion, that we were not bound to continue the payments under the circumstances of separation dwelt upon by the right hon. Gentleman; but a careful examination of the spirit and provisions of that treaty convinced him that the honour of the country was pledged to the payments, and that on no other consideration than that it was so pledged should we have interfered as we had done in the affairs of Holland and Belgium. That was not the time for considering whether the treaty was originally a wise one or otherwise; the simple question,
916
he repeated, was, whether, by its provisions, was the honour of the Crown pledged to the payment of a portion of a certain loan made between the king of the Netherlands and the emperor of Russia. The right hon. Gentleman maintained that we were not bound to make good the terms of that loan; because as its payment was contingent upon the non-separation of Belgium and Holland, the fact of a severance having taken place between the states, made null the original compact. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's inference would be found in the spirit in which the treaty was entered into, and in a consideration of the object contemplated by the provision which made the integrity of the contract contingent upon the union of Holland and Belgium under one monarch. That consideration would show, that the separation contemplated by the framers of the treaty was one made by external force, and had nothing to say to any separation wholly internal in its source and result. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the sole object of the treaty was to secure the union of the Dutch and Belgic provinces under the king of the Netherlands, and that Holland only derived benefit from its provisions. This was but partially true. Was it no benefit to Russia to be released from a debt? And was it not the evident object of the British Government, in pledging this country to a moiety of the debt contracted in Holland by Russia, to give Russia an interest in preserving the integrity of the kingdom of the Netherlands? It was to effect this object—that is, he repeated, to give Russia an interest in preventing the severance of Holland and Belgium—that this country concluded the treaty, and to that treaty we were in equity still pledged. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to consider the argument founded on the equity view of the case as nugatory. To that he could only say, that as between one upright man in private life and another, so he thought it should be between two nations. If a gentleman pledged himself to the payment of a debt, to which there was also a third party, he thought it would be highly dishonourable in that gentleman to take advantage of the circumstance of that third party having refused to fulfil his engagement, as a legal reason for also refusing to fulfil his engagement. If the conditions on which a debt was contracted were altered or broken by circumstances over which the creditor had no control, did it follow that the moral obligation of the debt was also broken? And as between

917
man and man, so it ought to obtain between nations; what would be dishonourable in the one, would be dishonourable in the other; and what was morally binding on the one was morally binding on the other. So much for the principle involved in the present question. As that question referred to the official department—the King's Exchequer—over which he immediately presided, he felt he was the member of the Government directly responsible for the entire proceeding. He did not shrink from his responsibility, and would merely state the steps which he had taken, in order to show, that if the Treasury acted contrary to law, they did not do so intentionally, and that he did his best to ascertain what the law was before he incurred the responsibility of issuing a Treasury order for the payment of the sums under consideration. When the question of the Russian loan first came under his official notice, he referred it to the law officers of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether, under the circumstances of the case, this country was bound to continue the payment of the monies paid, agreeably to treaty, to Russia on the head of its loan to Holland. And the answer of the law officers was, that we were bound to continue these payments by the treaty, of which the Act of Parliament was a mere formal legislative sanction. In consequence of the opinion of the law officers agreeing as it did with his own, a legal Treasury check was issued for the payment, and the money was paid. It was but right to observe, that the noble Auditor of the Exchequer did, when the matter was first submitted to his consideration, express a doubt whether we were bound to continue these payments. But when the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and the grounds on which it was formed, were submitted to Lord Grenville, he expressed his concurrence with the propriety of these opinions, and consequently with the course pursued by the Treasury. It was true that in some cases the Auditor of the Exchequer was bound to obey the Treasury when it took upon itself the responsibility; but in the present instance the grounds of the whole proceeding were explained to Lord Grenville, and the result was, a conviction produced in his mind of their justness. These were the steps which he (Lord Althorp) had pursued with respect to the subject matter of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and for which he felt himself responsible. He did not, as he had said, shrink from his just responsibility; if he
918
was wrong, he was the responsible member of the Government. With respect to the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman, he had only to say, that as the two first were merely declaratory of fact, he would merely, so far as they were concerned, move the previous question; but as the third Resolution was a direct censure on Ministers, he would meet it with a direct negative.
Mr. Pollocksaid, the noble Lord maintained his high character for honour and manliness, in taking upon himself the responsibility of the payment in question, but, nevertheless the facts of the case, which appeared to lie in a very narrow compass, were contrary to the noble Lord's decision. The treaty was made to consolidate the two countries of Holland and Belgium, and it contained these expressions, "In order the better to provide for the defence and incorporation of the Belgian provinces with Holland," &c. which clearly shewed that the object contemplated was as he had stated it. It further appeared by the treaty, that the allied powers having claims upon Holland for the benefit done to her, gave them up in favour of the emperor of Russia, and upon that arrangement this convention was entered into for the payment of those monies, upon the condition that the payments should cease and determine whenever the Belgium provinces should pass away and be severed from the king of Holland. That contingency had actually occurred, and the king of Holland had in consequence ceased to pay his proportion of the loan. Who impeached his good faith in consequence? Did any man say, that the king of Holland was bound to continue his payments when Belgium was wholly severed from his dominions, and another sovereign on its throne? He must contend that the treaty referred simply to a separation between Holland and Belgium, and made no sort of allusion whatsoever to the species of the separation, or the causes of that separation, against which they wished to provide. If the king of the Netherlands was not bound to pay, why should this country pay? The noble Lord said, the only cause of separation contemplated by the treaty was external force. Where did he find that gloss or comment? If the objection of the disseverment was good for Holland, it was good for us; and was there a man in the House who would dare to say it was not good for the king of Holland? But then, said the noble Lord, would they take advantage of their own act in promoting

919
the separation to escape their pecuniary engagement? But the fact was, the disseverance had taken place before. In November the Belgian Chamber declared Belgium independent. Holland had also agreed to the separation, when the Prince of Orange published a manifesto declaring Belgium free, and offering himself as its head; but the people of that country answered his manifesto by declaring that they were independent without him, and would choose another sovereign. This country, therefore, was no party to the separation, as the States-general of Belgium declared their independence on the 10th of November, and this country had not interfered between the two countries up to that time. But this was another answer to the argument of the noble Lord. If this country was a party to the severance, equally so was the emperor of Russia. And if so, what right had he to demand this payment? He would ask, too, what would have been the consequences if this country had not interfered at all (as it only did interfere to prevent the flames of war being kindled in a corner of Europe)? Surely they would not have been bound at all, unless, indeed, they were to accept the construction of the noble Lord as to foreign violence, and take for granted that the meaning of the treaty was something which it did not express, and which was not to be found within it. He wondered where the noble Lord made it out; and even if he could conclusively make it out, still the noble Lord should have come down to the House to state the true circumstances which had arisen, and for which the treaty had not provided. The truth was, the noble Lord could not justify his conduct by either the act of Parliament or the treaty, and he ought to have come down and explained what the circumstances were which enabled him to give an interpretation of the treaty which its letter or tenor could not warrant. It was plain that his wishes were contrary to the spirit of both treaty and act, and his defence was a mere quod voluit, non dixit lex, which not even his transparent candour could redeem.
The Solicitor Generalwould not enter into a lengthened history of the treaties referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, nor into an examination of the principles of retrenchment now involved in them, but would rest his objection to the present motion on the principle admitted by all jurists and lawyers—that the municipal law of one state did not bind another state,
920
though a party to a common treaty. Whatever, for example, may be the municipal law of Holland, we were not bound by it, only so far as it corresponded with the received usage of the law of nations; the question thus referring itself to one of international law. Without their indulging in the fanciful doctrine of the lex gentium, he would assume that every nation was interested in preserving unsullied its public honour or faith, so that, if he should show that the public faith of this country was pledged to the fulfilment of the treaty of 1815, in its entire spirit, it would follow, that, by every principle of the law of nations, Ministers were not only justified in, but bound to act as they had done with respect to the debt due by Holland to Russia. They must have recourse to the law of nations, or, in other words, public faith and a fair and practical consideration of what was right, in strict equity between two parties to a contract. The state of the two countries, also, at the time must be taken into consideration. In 1814, when the first treaty was made, this country was in the possession of all the Dutch colonies, but, by the Treaty of 1815, we unconditionally ceded to Holland all these colonies, excepting only the Cape of Good Hope, Berbice, Demarara, and Essequibo; and considering it politically advantageous to retain these, England consented to grant a payment of money to Holland as a compensation. And it was stated, that this should be the subject of a new treaty. To those there were certain supernumerary articles which should be taken with the treaty. By that supplementary treaty, England engaged to leave 3,000,000 l. of money at the absolute disposal of Holland, and no qualification was made as to the mode of payment. The obligation of payment was enforced, but the mode of payment was not stated. But, in the Treaty of 1815, it was originally intended that Holland and Russia should be the parties; for what said the preamble? 'His majesty the king of the Netherlands being desirous, upon the final re-union of the Belgic provinces with Holland, to render to the Allied Powers, who were parties to the treaty concluded at Chaumont on the 1st of March, 1814 a suitable return for the heavy expense incurred by them in delivering the said territories from the power of the enemy; and the said powers having, in consideration of arrangements made with each other, mutually agreed to waive their several pretensions under this head

921
in favour of his majesty the emperor of all the Russias, his said majesty the king of the Netherlands has thereupon resolved to proceed immediately to execute with his imperial majesty a convention to the following effect, to which his Britannic Majesty agrees to be a party in pursuance of engagements taken by his said Majesty with the king of the Netherlands, in a convention signed at London on the 13th day of August, 1814.' The great Powers, it appeared, considered they had a demand upon Holland for the sacrifices made by them during the war; but Russia, through the house of Hope, was at the time indebted to Holland in the sum of 50,000,000 of florins. So strong was the obligation imposed on the contracting parties by this treaty, that even war was not to put an end to that obligation or suspend it. War, he repeated, which was the highest prerogative of sovereign power, was not to put an end to the treaty, and he inferred, of course, that no other combination of circumstances could suspend the treaty. They were bound to look at the interest of the three parties, and the treaty was so drawn, that even war between two of them was not to put an end to the obligation. The parties themselves, then, were most anxious to preserve the treaty. He would then come to the clause which said, 'that the 'said payments on the part of their majesties the king of the Netherlands and the King of Great Britain aforesaid shall cease and determine, should the sovereignty (which God forbid) of the Belgic provinces at any time pass, or be severed from the dominions of his majesty the 'king of the Netherlands, previous to the complete liquidation of the same.' The terms of this clause showed that the three Powers deprecated the passing away or the severance of those provinces from the sovereignty of the king of the Netherlands—the very terms, "which God forbid," showed this beyond all doubt. Now, he contended, that in equity and justice, it would be extremely unfair for any one of the parties who had so contracted to pay, to take advantage of a circumstance which they all greatly deprecated, to justify the not executing her own engagements. It was said, that the treaty was confirmed by an Act of Parliament, and that the Ministers ought to have gone by that; but what had the emperor of Russia to do with our Acts of Parliament? He might refer us to an ukase, or the king of Holland might refer us to an art of the States-general,
922
but neither of them would think an Act of Parliament binding. Another principle that had influenced his judgment was, that a party could not take advantage of an act of his own to throw off a pecuniary obligation. Now, what had England done? Had she not interfered between the two countries; had she not assisted to accomplish the separation? It was foolish to shut their eyes to the fact, that Russia might interfere—that family relations and various other circumstances might have induced her to interpose and endeavour to prevent the separation—and what had prevented her interference but the interposition of this country? England had been accessary to the separation, and it was not in good faith to say that a separation which had been, in a manner caused by herself, should be now taken advantage of to avoid a pecuniary payment. In his deliberate opinion, he saw no reason whatever to exonerate this country from the obligations of the treaty. Had we commenced war with either Holland or Russia, still we should have been bound to continue the payments, and, therefore, war between any other parties could not exonerate us. Finally, he must say he had heard no argument, and he knew of none, which could be urged to justify the withholding of the payments.
Mr. Baringsaid, that the subject was one of the utmost importance, for small as the sum really paid which had brought on the question now before the House might appear, still it was of consequence in the present financial state of the country; and besides that, the principle on which it was paid involved the payment of a much larger sum; though that might not been thought so much of at the period when this treaty was entered into, when tens and twenties of millions were thrown away so profusely. In those spendthrift times the amount of such a sum as this was not thought a matter worth discussing, but now when the Parliament and the Government were become more economical, and when if they were not so voluntarily, they would be forced to be so by the country, every sixpence in the public expenditure was a matter of importance. At the same time he must say, that whether the sum in question was 5,000,000 l. or 50,000,000 l., if we were bound in honour to pay it; if the honour of the country were involved in it, no man of honesty would, for a moment, doubt the justice and the necessity of making the payment. The first, thing, therefore, which

923
they had to look to was, whether, in fact, they were engaged, in justice or honour, to continue this payment. And here he must observe, with great deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that he had added very little, if anything, to the plain common sense and manly view of the case taken by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, on this, as he did on every occasion, gave a fair, straightforward, and candid account of his opinion on the subject. It was not necessary for him to follow the argument of the hon. and learned Solicitor General on the question, because he did not look upon it at all as a mere question of law, but as a question of fact; and if it had been sent to the Court of King's Bench for the discussion he should have thought it would have been very properly treated if it had been remitted by the Judges of that Court to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as a matter more fit for his decision than for the opinion of lawyers. As, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman had led the opinion of Ministers on this subject, it might be as well to notice one or two of his arguments. In the first place, they were all agreed as to the nature of the engagement. The question then was, were we legally bound, and if not legally, were we bound in honour and equity to adhere to the contract we had entered into? Were there such circumstances in the case, which though they did not bind us in law, yet were of a nature that imposed an obligation which an honest man would consider as binding on him in equity. If there was no legal obligation on us, but only an obligation in equity and honour, arising out of all the circumstances, then he must say, that the course which Ministers ought to have adopted was to come to Parliament, and lay the case before it. His own opinion was, that all obligation on our part had ceased with the separation of the two counties. If the case for which hon. Gentlemen on the other side had contended could be made out—and there were circumstances in favour of Russia which ought to induce us to continue the payments—then, he repeated, the course Ministers ought to have adopted was, to come to Parliament, and to lay those circumstances before it. The hon. and learned Gentleman the (Solicitor General) had said, that the emperor of Russia would not look to Acts of Parliament, but to the treaty. There he begged to differ from him, for the very terms of the treaty itself would induce him
924
to refer to what Parliament might do. The minister of the king of the Netherlands, who signed that treaty, engaged on the part of his master, that he would take upon himself the payment of one-half of the debt in question, but the Minister of the King of England only engaged that his Sovereign would recommend to his Parliament to enable him to take upon himself the payment of the other half. Now, the case against Ministers was, that they acted, in directing the continuance of this payment as if they had to deal only with an ukase, and not with an act of Parliament, for they made no application on the subject. If the payment had been promised to the king of the Netherlands instead of the emperor of Russia on certain contingencies, and those conditions no longer exsisted, he could easily imagine that the circumstances of the case of Holland would justify a continuance of the payment by the authority of Parliament for Holland, because she had given up some of her foreign colonies for a compensation in having Belgium united to her, and had now lost that compensation by the separation of Belgium. But nothing of this kind existed with respect to Russia. She had lost nothing, but in her case the contingency had happened on which the payment was to cease and determine. He admitted, of course, that we were as much bound to keep faith with Russia as with any other power, but the case must be fairly established that she had a legal or an honourable claim on us before the people of this country should be called upon to part with a shilling of their money on her account. The hon. and learned Gentleman had read the words of that part of the clause which named the contingency on which the payments were to cease. Nothing, he thought, could be more decisive against the hon. and learned Gentleman's own case than those words, "The said payments shall cease and determine should the possession and sovereignty (which God forbid) of the Belgic provinces pass or be severed from the dominion of his majesty the king of the Netherlands." Had that contingency taken place or not? If he went to a lawyer, he would say no, as they had heard that night; but if he went to the Minister, he should be told, yes; but there were circumstances in the case which ought to induce us to continue this payment, though not legally bound to do so. To put the question in a plain light, ho would ask, if any Member of that House at the foot of the hustings was applied to

925
by his constituents requesting him to inform them on what ground it was he had consented to pay away 5,000,000 l. of the public money to Russia, would the answer or explanation which they had heard to-night be considered satisfactory by any man of common sense, who looked at the treaty, and who understood the language? He was sure it would not, for he was convinced that no other construction would be put upon the treaty through the country than that which he had put upon it; but it seemed that the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) had found something in it, which ordinary and vulgar understandings could never make out. The noble Lord (Althorp) had admitted the whole case as far as the occurrence of the contingency on which the payment was to cease, but his (Lord Althorp's) argument was, that there were circumstances in the case which justified the continuance of the payments. If so, he again repeated, the noble Lord ought to have come to Parliament before he directed the payment. It was impossible for stronger words to have been selected than those used in that part of the clause—"If the possession and sovereignty should pass or be severed from." It was well understood by the parties to the treaty that there were many circumstances which might divide the two countries. They might be separated by internal discord or civil war, but the passing of the possession and sovereignty was the contingency mentioned by the treaty. The very circumstance of going to war not being admitted as putting an end to the payment, made the case still stronger for the view which he took of it. Indeed, it was impossible that the parties to such a treaty should not have considered all the contingencies which were possible in such a case, and thus fixed upon one which persons acquainted with the condition and the feelings of the two countries, thus brought under one sovereign would not think very improbable. Any one who knew the state of Belgium at that time must have seen that its union with Holland was a great experiment, the result of which was by no means certain. The union of two people, with feelings hostile on so many important points, could not be considered as one fixed and permanent. It was not possible, therefore, that, skilful Diplomatists and well-informed politicians could have overlooked such a contingency as had happened. How then, he would ask, could it for a moment be supposed that the parties to the treaty,
926
in naming a contingency by no means improbable—on which contingency the great object of the treaty, namely, this payment was to cease—how could it be supposed that it was not the intention of all parties that it should cease when that contingency happened? But then the hon. and learned Gentleman had contended that the government of this country had itself assisted in promoting the passing and severing of these provinces from the possession and sovereignty of the king of the Netherlands. He would say, that if that were really the case, it would be a strong ground for the impeachment of Ministers who had so acted. He was sure that a stronger ground of impeachment could not exist than such a charge as that Ministers had been so acting. The inference which the hon. and learned Member drew from this assumption was, that we ought not to take advantage of our own acts. Such an argument might do very well in Lincoln's-inn, but he was sure it would not be admitted in Downing-street. The noble Lord (Lord Althorp) would, he was sure, be ashamed to act upon any such reasoning, for there could be no greater political crime than that which it implied. If there were any two points on which our interference would be justified, they were the Tagus and the Scheldt. He would not, however, enter upon that subject then, or allude to the influence which France had now acquired in the Netherlands, for he admitted that there were great difficulties attending it. All he had to do with the argument used by the hon. and learned Gentleman was, to say that it made the case of the Government worse. What subterfuge in law could do away with the effect of these plain words, "The said payments shall cease and determine should the possession and sovereignty (which God forbid) of the Belgic provinces pass or be severed from the dominion of his Majesty the king of the Netherlands?" It must, therefore, be evident that the contracting parties fully intended that the payments by Great Britain and Holland were to cease whenever the sovereignty of the latter over the provinces of the Netherlands should pass. He had heard no case made out to support the view taken of this case by Ministers, and therefore should feel it his duty to support the Motion. At the same time he must say, that he should be ashamed of himself if he allowed his opinion on such a case as this to be biased by any feelings of party. He assured hon. Gentlemen opposite that he had no such

927
feeling on this occasion. He looked upon the question, first as a question of good faith on our part, and if any case were made out to show that in good faith we were bound to pay this sum, or that in point of honour, though not in law, we ought to continue to pay what we had stipulated, he would not support the Motion; but, even in that case, he must say, that Ministers should bring the subject before Parliament, for certainly the Members of that House ought to show to their constituents that they would not sanction any application of the public money unless a good and sufficient cause could be made out for the payment of it. Without taking up the time of the House further, he must say, that unless a stronger case were made out than he had yet heard, he must support the Motion. If the House allowed a case of this kind to pass without interfering in it, there would be an end of that salutary control which it ought to exercise over the application of the public money. It would be permitting this Government to do that which the Government of 1814 had not done—to pay this money without the sanction of Parliament. He hoped that in the decision on this question every hon. Member would exercise his own common sense, without any reference to party considerations. He could not know what arguments might be urged on this question by the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, but he must say, that he had yet heard nothing which could warrant him in resisting the Motion before him. At the same time he should have no objection to its being so shaped, or put into any other form which would make it less censurable. If, however, Government should persist in defending the case and resting on its own responsibility, he must support the Motion. In conclusion, he must remind hon. Gentlemen of the possibility of their being again sent to their constituents before the end of the year, and he would, therefore, again ask, how could any one of them justify a vote of the public money without having a good case made out for the application of it? If the whole question should, as he contended it ought to be brought before Parliament, and the continuance of the payment be sanctioned, he was sure that a succeeding Parliament, however strongly disposed to economy, would feel bound in honour to go on with the payments; but certain he was that another Parliament would not sanction the application of any sum of public money without legislative authority.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he must express his surprise that the hon. Member who had just sat down, and who said he was disposed to view this case on its own merits both as a legal and equitable claim on the part of Russia, yet should have felt it necessary, in the course of his argument, to make appeals to the opinion of constituents at future elections respecting the continuation of the payments. If the hon. Gentleman was really disposed to argue the question solely as one of justice or of equity, he would have avoided using arguments for the purpose of awaking certain feelings elsewhere. The hon. Member had said, that if the case involved 50,000,000 l. instead of 5,000,000 l., we ought to pay it, if it were a question of good faith, or if any good case were made out for the payment of the money, but on the score of good faith, which he thought ought to be observed in debate as well as in treaties, he could not see why the hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to mix up with his arguments those appeals which he had made to feelings of parties out of the House. Such a course might serve to catch a few votes, but it left the argument on the case just where it found it, and he, therefore, would proceed to state the case as it came under the view of Government. Before the Treasury made any payments whatever upon account of this loan, after the separation of Belgium from Holland, they had obtained the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. Notwithstanding which, about October last the Treasury first became acquainted with the fact, that a doubt was entertained in the Auditor's office, whether the next payments could be legally sanctioned by him, and in the commencement of January that noble Lord transmitted a letter to the Lords of the Treasury, requesting the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on a case which he enclosed in it, and asking for special directions on the subject, before he should make any further payments on account of this loan. The letter of the noble Lord, which was dated the 3rd of January, was as follows:—
"Auditor's-office, Exchequer-office,
"January 3, 1832.
"My Lords—Some doubts having occurred in this office respecting the legality of any issue which might henceforth be directed by your Lordships to be made from the Exchequer for any fresh payment of dividends on the Russian loan by virtue of the Act 55 George 3rd, c. 115, I think it my duty herewith to enclose a statement which has been there prepared of the grounds of those doubts, such as

929
they have been laid before me, and I humbly request that your Lordships will be pleased to obtain from the opinion of his Majesty's law servants whether, under the circumstances there stated, I shall legally be justified in executing, as far as depends upon me, any such direction; and that your Lordships will also be pleased, in a case so highly important to the public faith and to the interests of the State, to give me such special directions as you may judge fit for my conduct in any part of this business, in which it shall really appear that any legal discretion rests with me.

"I have the honour, &c.

"GRENVILLE."

The Treasury, on the receipt of this letter, at once intimated to his Lordship, in reply, that steps would be immediately taken to obtain for him the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in the case which he had submitted for their consideration. Some delay, however, necessarily occurred in obtaining that opinion, owing to the circumstance of the law officers of the Crown being at the time absent at the Special Commission in Bristol. Immediately on their return to town, the case transmitted to the Treasury was submitted to them, and their opinion taken upon it. That opinion was given upon the 23rd of January, and upon the same day it was communicated by the Lords of the Treasury to Lord Grenville. Thus, without giving him any special directions on the subject, the Treasury communicated to his Lordship the information which he had demanded. The Treasury, without directly or indirectly intimating any opinion to his Lordship as to what course he should pursue, transmitted to him the opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon the case which he had himself proposed for their consideration. It was upon the 23rd of January, as he had just stated, that the Treasury received the second opinion of the law officers of the Crown on this subject, in reference to the case transmitted by Lord Grenville. It was sent that day to his Lordship, and by return of post the following letter, which had been only put into his (Mr. Rice's) hands a few hours before his coming into the House, was received from his Lordship:—
"Exchequer, January 25, 1832.
"Sir—I have had the honour to receive your letter of yesterday's date with its enclosure, and I request that you will lay before the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury my respectful thanks for the information which they have been pleased to supply to me on this important matter.
"The Statute, 55 George 3rd, c. 115, is the document on which the question must turn,
930
as far as relates to my conduct. That is the authority to which I am bound to conform myself. But I am fully satisfied that its true construction depends (as his Majesty's law servants have stated) on that of the treaty which it recites, and for the execution of which it was made. Where, then, must that construction be determined? The officers of the Exchequer cannot interpret the King's engagements with his allies, or pronounce how they are affected by subsequent events and negotiations. We have here no knowledge of the facts, no cognizance of the principles which govern such decisions. All that is officially known to me on the subject is, that the legal and political authorities to whom the consideration of these high matters properly belongs, have advised his Majesty to consider himself as still bound, in maintenance of the national good faith, to continue their payments; and as far as my humble judgment extends, I trust I cannot err in determining, under these circumstances, to discharge my own more limited duty, in obeying, as before, their Lordships' orders in this behalf.

"GRENVILLE."

"Thomas Spring Rice, Esq."

The first letter from his Lordship, calling for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and for special directions from the Treasury, and which he (Mr. Rice) had already read to the House, it would be in the recollection of hon. Members, bore date the 3rd of January, 1832. On the receipt of that letter, a Treasury minute was made, which it would not be necessary for him, he supposed, to state more specifically to the House, than that the purport of it was, that steps should be immediately taken to procure for his Lordship the information which he required. Accordingly, as he had already mentioned, the opinion of the law officers of the Crown was taken as soon as possible upon the case enclosed in his Lordship's letter. It was a material fact, which the House should bear in mind, that the case which had been laid before the law officers of the Crown in this instance consisted of Lord Grenville's letter, and the case which was enclosed in that letter for their consideration. Surely, therefore, throughout this transaction the Government, at all events, deserved credit for plain, fair, above-board dealing, and for an anxiety to discharge its duty to the public and the Exchequer. That opinion was communicated, as he had already stated, to his Lordship, and his Lordship, on the receipt of it, and without receiving any special directions whatever from the Treasury as to the course which he should pursue, wrote that letter to the Treasury which he had just

931
read to the House. [An Hon. Member, in the neighbourhood of Sir Charles Wetherell, asked for the opinion given by the law officers of the Crown.—Mr. Spring Rice, supposing that the query came from the hon. member for Boroughbridge, replied by asking whether the hon. and learned Member was the individual to call for that opinion?—Sir Charles Wetherell said, he did not ask for the opinion, but that the demand had preceded from some hon. Member behind him.] He was glad that it was a misconception on his part; indeed he had so often heard that hon. and learned Gentleman contend, that confidential opinions given by the law officers of the Crown, in cases submitted to them by the Government, were not documents that ought to be laid before the House of Commons, that he was satisfied that if any motion of the kind were made, he might count on the assistance of the hon. and learned Gentleman in resisting it; but it was not possible that any such question as that could be raised in this instance. His hon. and learned friends, who had given the opinion in question, were present in that House living witnesses to explain their opinion to the House, and to defend it. He had contented himself by making a plain statement of facts, and he would let that statement speak for itself. He would maintain, that there were several papers on the Table of that House, and strong ones, too, exhibiting instances in which the Treasury had interposed by special directions, wherever it appeared to the Government that the public service demanded such an interference. The material difference in this case was, that the Treasury gave no special directions whatever, but merely afforded to the noble Lord, the Auditor of the Exchequer, that information which he called for. That noble Lord himself admitted that, in determining the course which he should follow on this subject, he was bound to look, not only to the Statute, but also to the construction of the treaty; and if that noble Lord had the power to exercise such a discretion in shaping his course, how much more was it in the power of the House of Commons to exercise a similar discretion? He called on Members to look at the true construction and spirit of the treaty, and, if they were of opinion that good faith called for the payment of this money, they would resist the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Humehoped the House would bear with him for a few moments, while he attempted
932
to justify to his constituents and the country the vote which he conscientiously felt himself bound to give on the question now before it. The question seemed to him a very plain one. Was there a treaty, and if so, what were its conditions? The conditions were few, and stated with sufficient perspicuity. They were, in fact, but two—one, that the parties were bound to pay the money, even although a war should break out between them; and the other, that if the union between Holland and Belgium ceased, then the payments were to cease also. This point of the continuance of the payment, in the event of war, was one of the strongest arguments possible against the construction put upon the treaty by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and by the hon. Member who spoke last, because it showed plainly that all the conditions on which the payments could take place had been foreseen and provided for, and, therefore, there were no proceedings nor no conferences to be consulted with respect to the true construction of the terms of the treaty. He thought, therefore, that the time must come when the payments must cease, and that the Government had really no discretion left with respect to the course they were to pursue towards Russia and the parties interested. He could have understood the propriety of the Government making some concessions, and consenting to some sacrifices, for the purpose of avoiding a war; but that was not the case here. It was the separation of the two countries which was to regulate their decision; and he repeated they had no alternative but to avail themselves of their situation to get rid of the burthen which the treaty imposed on them He could not understand the propriety of the argument of the hon. Member—that the smallness of the sum made any difference. The sum was five millions and a half, and it was the bounden duty of the Government to relieve the country from its payment. He had been anxious, indeed, that the question, important as he considered it in every point of view, should not be brought before the House incidentally, as on the present occasion, but that time should be given the Minister to look at the propriety of retracing their steps. Why, indeed, had they not considered it themselves in the first instance, instead of consulting the law officers of the Crown? The law officers of the Crown, indeed! Why it was a question so plain and so easily seen through, that none but a law officer

933
of the Crown could misunderstand it. Why did not the Ministers trust to their own good sense, rather than consult those who habitually mystified the plainest questions? He admired the candour with which the noble Lord (Althorp) had admitted, that if they had erred, it was through bad advice. He understood the noble Lord to say, that, doubts having arisen as to the construction of the Act, they took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and a pretty broken reed they had leant upon. He must again say, he regretted that the Ministers had not trusted to their own good sense. He would call on the House, however, to be cautious how they gave their consent to the course which had been pursued, by supporting in any manner the principle laid down; and he hoped the noble Lord would see the propriety of admitting the error that had been committed, and at once tell them he was ready to undo what had been done. He had listened with attention to the speech of the learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General), and he must say, that not one word he uttered had the least reference to the Act of Parliament, which was the only thing with which the House had any thing to do. One, and not the least of the matters to be deprecated in the proceedings of the Government was, that, with all the doubts they entertained of the propriety of their course, they had commenced paying on the 5th of June, 20,000 l. which was followed by another payment of 80,000 l., although Parliament was sitting at the time, and, therefore, it certainly ought to have been consulted, if it was intended that the House of Commons was to retain its due and proper control over the public expenditure, or the disposal of the national resources. He maintained that the Ministers, under such circumstances, ought to have obtained the sanction of Parliament before they continued such payments under the altered circumstances of the case. If the country was to go on making these payments, which must be continued for forty or fifty years, there was not a man in Europe who would not say, that England was paying this money as a tribute to the great Power of the North, in order that Russia might not interfere with her arrangements; and he would say, if this opinion was allowed to go forth, if would be most prejudicial, as well as disgraceful. On that point, as well as others, he regretted what had been done. His duty to his constituents required him
934
to pursue but one course. The principle involved in the question, and all the circumstances attending it, compelled him to vote against the Government, and he implored every hon. Member in that House, who had a due regard to the exercise of a proper control over the public expenditure, to consider well before he sanctioned the course which had in this instance been pursued.
The Attorney-General: After the speech of his hon. friend, and the small reliance he was disposed to place on those "broken reeds," the lawyers could scarcely hope to convert him from the legal opinion he had so strongly expressed. Yet it was fitting that he should offer a few observations with regard to both the points—the one, in some degree, technical, but in truth of high importance, the second involving the merits of the question at issue, which now challenges the attention of the House. In the first place, he wished to remove that erroneous position which appeared to have been taken—that the Act of Parliament was a mere warrant to the Treasury to pay money. It was an Act framed for the purpose of giving effect to the Convention made between his Majesty and the king of the Netherlands, and the emperor of Russia. Such was the object—such the title and preamble—of the Act of the 55th of George 3rd. It recited that Convention, including the words on which the argument in support of the Motion had been founded. But whatever was the fair meaning of the treaty, that the Act enabled his Majesty to perform. This view had been adopted by the distinguished and noble Statesman (Lord Grenville), whose name had often occurred in the debate, whose answer distinctly said, that the Act did confer this power—that, he would issue the money, therefore, according to the terms and spirit of the treaty, and that he would take its construction from the Government; "from the political and judicial authority," said his Lordship. And though the hon. Member (Mr. Baring) might, to a certain extent, be right in his opinion, that this was no question for lawyers, he must admit that the Crown lawyers were bound to give their opinion, when required. He possibly would admit further, that if that opinion were such as to coincide with the sentiments entertained by the political authorities, neither the one nor the other was less likely to be correct by reason of that coincidence. Now, in construing treaties, and especially such treaties as created pecuniary obligations, he would

935
make no appeal to the sense of honour which was said to find its sanctuary in the breast of kings, even though it should be banished from all the earth besides, but he would contend, that the instruments which involve the peace of the world, and decide the fate of nations, ought to receive an interpretation at least equally liberal as those which regulate the interests of men in society. In private transactions the rule is clear, and the principle cannot be impugned. "So construe the words that bind you, as you believe the other contracting party understood them." No estimate could be formed of what must have been the mutual understanding between the contracting parties, without reference to the state of Europe when the treaty was framed. England and Holland were engaged in beating down the power of Napoleon: the assistance of Russia was invaluable for this purpose; she obtained a loan of money in Holland, to be expended in the common cause. Not only were her efforts indispensable to the success of their arms, but her continuing co-operation must protect emancipated Holland against the future aggression of France. To secure it, England shared with her the liability to repay the loan to Russia, receiving as an equivalent not only the guaranteed settlement of Europe, but the rich colonies of Holland in the East. True, the payment is not to continue in case of Belgium being separated from Holland. He acknowledged the extensive meaning of the word, and that the French word "soustraire à I'autorité" had as wide an import. But the relative situation of the contracting parties proved that an amicable internal separation, without forcible interference, from France—much more if brought about with the consent of England herself—could never have been designed to relieve the latter from her engagement; and what the intention of the parties made highly probable, these negotiations rendered indisputable. These negotiations, it ought to be understood, had been, along with the treaty to which they imparted its character, laid before his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor-General and himself, in consultation with the King's Advocate, Mr. Herbert Jenner, whom no one would suspect of being influenced by any political views. The unhesitating opinion of all three was in favour of the continuing obligations of the treaty. A little before the recess, when an important question had been proposed to him, he undertook to satisfy every hon. Gentleman, who perused the Conferences
936
and negotiations, that a right construction had been given to the treaty itself. It had not at that moment occurred to him that reasons of public convenience might prevent the Government from producing these negotiations, without which the question was plainly argued under great disadvantage. But he then was met by the plausible remark, that if the treaty was binding only in honour, and not by its provisions, in the events of recent occurrences, Ministers ought to have come to Parliament for fresh powers to carry it into effect. Gentlemen opposite had then professed themselves perfectly willing to grant the means that might be necessary. He owned himself, therefore, greatly surprised, when he heard the right hon. Mover, not even hinting at such an alternative, complain that the erroneous view taken of the treaty had deprived the country of a large sum of money, which it was clearly not bound to part with. For his own part, he had no disposition to accept the alternative, as he conceived that between nations no obligation could exist by treaty, but what fairly resulted from the due interpretation and application of its language. He could well understand an individual declining to stand upon his strict legal rights, and sacrificing his own private interest to a delicate feeling: but he did not understand one man gratifying those nice sensibilities at the expense of another: he did not see how a trustee or a steward could be justified in so acting for the principal who trusts or employs him. And the Government stood in the relation of a guardian or trustee to the country. Except in so far as treaty might bind, the country was free from all engagement. The supposed necessity of entering into a new treaty, assumed that the old one was not obligatory. On the part of the country, then, the Government would have been bound to resist a merely honorary claim, and the country, appealed to for that purpose, would be justified in withholding powers to enforce an agreement to which it was no party, either by itself or its agent. Had the Crown been advised to inform Parliament that a former Minister had left a treaty imperfect, and to request a vote of public money to meet the omitted stipulation, the House of Commons would have been justified in answering—"We will comply with no such unreasonable demand; we have enough to do with our money in paying our acknowledged debts: we know we may pay if we think proper, though not bound to do so; but the

937
question is, whether we must pay, for otherwise we should throw away resources intrusted to us for other purposes by our constituents." If, however, the proposition contended for was, that a doubt had arisen whether the treaty was applicable to the case or not, and that Government ought to have resorted to the House of Commons for an opinion upon that point, he asserted the directly contrary opinion. The adversary's answer would have been still more decisive and scornful. He thought he heard the language that would be justly used—"The Crown is bound by the treaty: Parliament has empowered the Crown to execute the treaty: the Crown which has the prerogative of making treaties, has the duty of executing, and, of course, that of construing them: act upon your responsibility, and seek not to shelter yourselves under the opinion of a majority in the House of Commons." The undeniable justice of this answer was made apparent by that night's debate, for the hon. member for Middlesex had treated the matter as a question of economy, and the hon. member for Thetford had reminded the House that a stern scrutiny would be made at the hustings of the disposal of this money. Many a Member, he was sure, would honestly pronounce a verdict against himself, if the case were his own, who would find it difficult, with the prospect of a speedy visit to his constituents, to decide a doubtful point of law against their interests. His Majesty's Government was bound, then, to assume that undivided responsibility, and act with firmness upon their own views; and their sole duty was to continue the treaty according to its true meaning. Whether they had done wisely in submitting it to lawyers or not, to lend their aid in discovering what that was, they could not, consistently with the principles of the Constitution, hand over the task to the House of Commons, or any other body. He had not been prepared to hear the argument deduced by his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor-General, from the nature of the separation between Holland and Belgium treated with levity. It was of the essence of the controversy. No greater outrage upon good faith could be imagined, than for a country bound to pay till severance, to bring about that severance, and then refuse to pay. But, then, exclaimed the hon. member for Thetford, you, the Ministers, ought to be impeached, if you did bring it about. Perhaps so, if the Ministers of England had inflamed the animosity of the Belgian people against
938
their government, and incited to the acts of violence that had disgraced Brussels, or in any way fomented the insurrection which made the severance unavoidable. But all these events had occurred in rapid succession, before the Ministers were in power, and even under the control of no English Minister. Still, the separation which they rendered desirable was afterwards approved and sanctioned by our Government, and dishonour would attach to the country, which, under that pretence, should fly from its word. Another excuse for non-payment of our debt was founded on the word "conjointement." England and Holland jointly undertook to pay; and it had been urged that Holland by not paying could relieve England from its liability. A most convenient morality! As if a great nation, bound by its own acts, and responsible for its own conduct, could screen itself from an unambiguous duty under the bad faith of its joint contractor. He repeated that, as the Crown was invested with the power of performing treaties, the people would not wish to be trusted with the interpretation of them, or, at a moment of want and suffering, to be tempted by such subtle reasonings to invalidate the contracts imposed upon them by the legitimate authority of the State. He would venture to predict with confidence, that England would rue the day on which it should depart from that principle of honour and good faith which caused it to respect itself, and ensured the respect of every other nation.
Sir James Scarlettwas not prepared to hear, without remonstrating against it as an unconstitutional doctrine, that the King had a power vested in him, not only to make a treaty or convention, but, as his hon. and learned friend the Attorney General had said, to put upon such treaty that construction which was convenient for the executive to give to it. Much less could he acquiesce in the monstrous proposition that Parliament had nothing to do with the construction put upon it further than to follow it implicitly. Did his hon. and learned friend mean to contend, that if a treaty entered into by the King contained pecuniary obligations as this did, that it could be carried into execution without the authority of Parliament? If so, the House of Commons had no effective control over the public purse, and the Crown, the Ministers, and the law officers, might tax the public at their pleasure, to carry into effect treaties made with foreign countries, If the Government asserted they

939
had a right to demand the acquiescence of that House, because of documents which they exclusively had in their possession, why did they not, as they were bound to do, produce those documents for the information of the House and the country? The Act of Parliament only went so far as to sanction the payment of a certain sum of money, according to the treaty. The question really was, what did the treaty stipulate for? Why, in effect, for the payment of so much money "until the dominion of Belgium should pass away, or be severed from Holland." The French phrase, sera soustrait, could not be more happily translated, and it was clear this phrase could never be turned or twisted so as to be forced to imply that the dominion should be severed by arms or by force. The article of the treaty to which the Act of Parliament referred, sanctioning this payment, could not possibly bear the construction attempted to be put on it by the legal officers of the Crown. Where words were of an ambiguous or doubtful nature, then it might be perhaps convenient to go to the context and general clauses of a convention, to enable us safely to arrive at the proper construction which ought to be put upon them; but this was a case so very much the reverse—a case in which the terms of the convention was so clear, definite, and decisive—that he was only surprised that legal ingenuity itself could have raised a doubt upon the meaning of the words. He confessed he should be as well satisfied if they were referred to the judgment of any six country gentlemen—to say, upon their consciences, what was intended by that clause in the Convention—as if they had been referred to the most expert lawyers or civilians of the day.
Sir Francis Vincentsaid, he considered the treaty as binding upon the country, because we still retained the Dutch colonies, which was the original inducement for us to enter into the convention. Further he would say, that he never heard of a contract made between several persons, and which allowed one of them to annul his own act without the consent of the others. Toillustrate his opinion he would suppose that this country had become involved in war with the king of the Netherlands, and, by means of a British army, Belgium had been severed from Holland; he conceived, even in that case, we should not in good faith have been exonerated from the payment of the money. According to existing circumstances we had really been parties to the separation of the two countries, for Belgium could not be said
940
to be really independent, until that independence was acknowledged by the five powers who had interfered, and this country was one of the most active of the five. It had further been asserted, that, from the known dislike existing between the two countries, a separation must have been made, contemplated by internal means, but this assertion was a severe reflection upon these diplomatists who professed by the union to contribute to the permanent tranquillity of Europe. He considered there were no grounds for such a reflection, and he thought he was fully borne out in saying, that the only severance contemplated was by external force. When he looked at the date of the treaty, which was the 10th day of May 1815, just previous to the battle of Waterloo, and during the period called the hundred days, when the Belgic provinces were in momentary apprehension of being overrun by the French armies. He had, therefore, come to the conclusion that Ministers, in the course they had pursued, had acted according to the dictates of honour, justice, and equity, and he was determined to support them.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that it was highly desirable, on occasions like the present, that the law officers of the Crown should be very cautious what opinion they pronounced on questions which the House might be called on to decide, in the exercise of a high and important duty. He made this observation because he was free to confess that, notwithstanding what had been quoted as the opinion of high authorities on the point of law, he did not, as a lawyer, perceive that any legal ground had been yet offered by any hon. and learned Member, upon which the conduct of the Government in this instance could be defended with success. The stipulation to pay this money was either absolute or limited. Looking to the treaty, he found the limitation clearly expressed in the terms that "this sum shall be payable by this country until the dominion of Belgium shall have passed away, or be severed from Holland." The time then had arrived, when, happily for us, the country was relieved by the express condition of this treaty from all pretext, much less necessity, for paying to Russia this money. Common honesty forbade the continuance of this payment after the period arrived when that dominion had passed away; and he should consider himself guilty of a robbery if he took from the pockets of the people a single shilling to make good any such payment by our Government. He had heard something hinted with reference

941
to the prerogative of the Crown to form conventions and enter into treaties; and that it was also within the King's privilege to accompany such conventions or treaties with pecuniary stipulation for payments to certain of the contracting parties. He was surprised to hear such an allusion made in that House—though it had been done, he confessed, very cautiously and covertly—for they must be sensible that the assumption was falsified by the Act, which spoke trumpet-tongued, being framed upon, and in accordance with, a previous resolution of the Commons, with whom alone must rest the provision for the payment of money, under any treaty or convention. Under these circumstances, he felt if he sanctioned the payment, on this account, of a single farthing, he should be guilty of an act of spoliation upon the public purse.
Mr. G. Sinclairsaid, he had listened to the debate with the utmost attention, in the hope of discovering some sufficient reason to enable him to vote against the resolutions proposed, but he felt bound to say without entering into legal subtleties, but considering the case in a plain and commonsense view that he thought the treaty was no longer binding upon the country. That treaty, it appeared contained, a provision by which we were to pay a certain sum of money until a certain event took place. The simple question, therefore, was, had that event taken place, and no man could entertain a doubt that it had. Belgium and Holland were severed, which it was the object of the treaty to unite; it was not just, therefore, to the people of this country to continue the payments. If there were any further documents which could throw more light upon all the bearings and circumstances of the treaty, he should be happy to see and attend to their contents. It was possible that if such documents were in existence those who had access to them might find the complexion of the case altered; but he formed his opinion from the case before him, and from that he felt bound, although reluctantly to support the resolutions, proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Robinsonwould be quite ashamed of himself if he were to suffer anything he had heard offered in argument by the Members of his Majesty's Government that night to dissuade him from supporting the resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman near him. He felt the terms of the treaty were capable of no other construction than that put upon them by the right hon. Gentleman who had moved the resolutions. The
942
Act of Parliament gave effect to the Convention, so far as the payment was concerned; and if the Ministers had any doubt upon the beating of it on the treaty according to the altered circumstances of the case, it was their duty to consult those only who were parties to the Act. He would never admit, that the Representatives of the people were bound by the doctrine of the law officers, in the interpretation of one of their own acts, upon a question which related to a convention with foreign powers, and which involved no point of the law, and which would force upon the country the payment of a large sum of money for many years yet to come. If anything could add to the weakness of the case as stated by the law officers, it was the conduct of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, who had attempted to bolster up their case by throwing a part of the responsibility of the Act upon the noble Lord (Grenville), but had entirely failed in that attempt; for that noble Lord in his first letter, thought his authority for the payment of the money had ceased, and in his second did not use a single expression to shew that his opinion was changed, or that he was not paying the money out of the Exchequer only according to other people's opinion, and under constraint. By their conduct with respect to these payments, Ministers had placed the country in an awkward situation with regard to the emperor of Russia; for in answer to all reasons for withholding future payments, he would point to what had been already done. This the Ministers had brought upon the public by evading an application to Parliament. These were shortly the reasons which induced him to give the resolutions his support.
Doctor Lushingtonsaid, that however much he deplored the consequences that had followed from what was called "the settlement of Europe," the only thing with regard to the question before the House was, for hon. Members to consider whether existing circumstances imposed upon this country the necessity of continuing the payments stipulated in the Convention. Unless it could be demonstrated, to the conviction of every honest and upright man, that the conditions contemplated by the treaty was actually, and to the letter, fulfilled, they were not released from the obligation it imposed; and although they might lament, still they were bound to support the burden the observance of treaties might entail upon them. Indeed, in proportion

943
as it was their interest to be relieved from the weight which pressed on them, ought the House to endeavour to come to the consideration of this question, not merely unprejudiced in their minds, but perfectly free from anything like a disposition to convert circumstances which had since occurred, into a release from the moral force of a voluntary obligation. It was a mistaken view of this question to look at Holland and Great Britain as the only contracting parties to this treaty; and he was surprised to hear the hon. member for Cockermouth not only treat the subject in this manner, but urge that the fact of Holland's disclaiming the obligation was a strong reason for our coming to the same conclusion. It appeared to him that Russia was a very material party to the treaty. The question, then, was, whether our obligations with respect to her were diminished? The principle of construing such a treaty was perfectly well known, not only to lawyers, but to every gentleman who paid the slightest attention to these subjects to be this; that we were bound not to look to the specific wording of a single article, but to its context. There was another legitimate mode of looking at a treaty; which was, to recur, not only to the wording of the treaty itself, but to the circumstances in which the contracting parties were placed at the period at which they entered into it. He knew nothing of any documents, or of any other instruments, by which to judge of that situation, beyond what was found in the treaty itself. At that particular political emergency, it was resolved by all the great European Powers, with the exception of France, to establish a system which would consolidate the peace that had just then been made; and one principle of which was, to restrain the power of France, by attaching Belgium to Holland. England and Russia joined in the attainment of that end by means of this Convention; and it might be truly said, that a severance of Belgium from Holland, with the consent of England, was never contemplated by any of the parties to the treaty. He entirely agreed with his hon. friend in his statement as to the mode in which this obligation upon us was created; but he wholly differed from him in his conclusion; for, in his judgment, it was clear that the obligation never could cease. It never could have been in the contemplation of the high contracting parties, that a separation of Belgium from Holland was to terminate the obligation of these parties to observe this treaty,
944
because neither of them could have contemplated that event. The object of the treaty was to induce Russia to take an interest in the continuance of the union which existed between Holland and Belgium. It was, in short, to make it the interest of Russia to prevent the severance of Belgium from Holland, and to endeavour, by every possible means, to make it also the interest of Russia to promote the permanency of that union, and to maintain the Netherlands as an independent State. When Russia entered into this treaty, such were the views contemplated by that power, according to the honest meaning, intention, views, and interests which were entertained at the time by the British Government on the same subject. Russia became a party to the treaty according to its genuine import, as he had described it, and which was known to be conformable to the real object and spirit of the British Government. Now, it was contended, that notwithstanding such were the terms of the treaty, we were clearly released from the obligation which it originally imposed upon us, by the occurrence of a contingency which seems to be there alluded to as that which alone could extinguish the binding force of the obligation upon us. All the hon. Gentlemen who had argued in support of the other side of the question, had contented themselves by quoting a single and isolated case connected with this question. The view which he had taken of the case would be demonstrated by reference to the fifth article of the treaty itself, when it was fully considered. 'It is hereby understood and agreed between the high contracting parties, that the said payments, on the part of their Majesties the king of the Netherlands and the King of Great Britain, as aforesaid, shall cease and determine, should the possession and sovereignty (which God forbid) of the Belgic provinces at any time pass, or be severed from the dominions of his Majesty the king of the Netherlands, previous to the complete liquidation of the same. It is 'also understood and agreed between the high contracting parties, that the payments on the part of their Majesties the king of the Netherlands and the king of Great Britain, as aforesaid, shall not be interrupted in the event (which God forbid) of a war breaking out between any of the three high contracting parties; the government of his Majesty the emperor of all the Russias being actually bound to its creditors by a similar agreement.'* But it was
*Parl, Debates, vol. xxxi. p. 716.

945
said, such general terms as these were to be found in all treaties, and therefore they were of little importance. Undoubtedly they were; but for what purpose were they inserted? Always to meet the possible occurrence of the case of a war intervening between any of the contracting parties. In this case, they were predicated of any war which might lead to the disunion of Belgium from the kingdom of the Netherlands, and which disunion, it must be apparent from the expression, "which God forbid," is one of those events which the contracting parties were particularly desirous should never occur. He had demonstrated that it must have been as much the desire of Russia as of England, that the separation of Belgium from Holland should not take place; and that it was, at the time of making the treaty, the very last measure which either England or Russia would wish or contemplate. If, then, this was the feeling and the understanding of the parties at the time, he again asserted that it never was intended by the parties not to adhere to the terms of the contract in the event of a separation being effected between Belgium and Holland, without the intervention, and, if he might say so, the express suggestion of the parties to the treaty. The case of severance, then, which had arisen was never anticipated by the parties. For a single moment it would be worth while to consider how the emperor of Russia would meet the case if we were to avail ourselves of the separation which had taken place between Belgium and Holland to escape from our liability. He would naturally say, "When I entered into that treaty, I expected to receive from the hands of the British Government the money stipulated to be paid to me. It is not a question now whether or no the treaty was a politic one. The only fact I can depend upon is this, that it was the intention of the British Government at the time to pay the money." He might well say again to England, were she to attempt to avoid the obligation the treaty imposed on her, "When I received from your bands this compact, in return for all the services I rendered in what was called the cause of Europe—when I lavished the resources of my country to aid that cause, I believed that you would continue that payment until an event had happened, contemplated by all of us with fear, horror, and disgust—a war to be produced alone by your intervention." Would he not naturally add, "Will you turn round upon me—make
946
yourselves the cause of the failure of this treaty—and then avail yourselves of your own guilty act? Shall you be at liberty to use an argument so irreconcileable with all good faith?" Would this country be at liberty to reply, "True it is, we were tied down by the same treaty with yourself—a treaty which existed in the minds of the parties when it was entered into, as a compact binding on us until a, certain circumstance should occur, which, at the period of that treaty was by both of us considered as the most improbable and unfortunate event that could happen—but now we have changed our policy, and have determined that this very separation of the provinces of Belgium and Holland shall take place, which once we so much deprecated; and we therefore claim to be released from the obligation of that treaty." He should like to know how the able Diplomatists, and the ingenious Gentlemen opposite would shape an answer to that argument—how would their argument look when compared with the words of the treaty—"should the possession of the Belgic provinces at any time pass or be severed from." In fairness the House ought to consider the words of the treaty in the same spirit in which it was made. But hon. Gentlemen said, look at the letter only of the document, and not at its spirit and meaning; and the construction of the parties, as explained by the circumstances, and understood by every honest man. He remembered nothing similar to this attempt on the part of those hon. Gentlemen, except a circumstance which happened in his early days. It was a transaction between the government of India and one of the native princes. A stipulation was made, by which the prince was to pay a certain sum of money, or else his property was to be taken possession of by the Company's government. To the great disgrace of this country, the government of India at that time, by marching an army into the territory of the prince, effectually prevented the money from being paid up; and then turned round upon the prince, and said, "You have not fulfilled your obligations, and therefore your sovereignty is at an end." This, certainly, was a very strong case; but the principle was the same which it was now attempted to be set up to justify the non-observance of a treaty, on the part of Great Britain, which she had entered into, bonâ fide, with Russia. The plain intent and meaning of the compact was, that it should be carried into effect according to

947
its genuine spirit: and so long as the obligations created under it continued to exist, so long it must be performed. He repeated that the circumstances which had so recently occurred in the Netherlands, were not in the contemplation of the contracting parties when the treaty was made; and, not having been so, they could not, in the judgment, of honest men, be allowed to operate as a discharge of either party from the obligations of that treaty.
Sir Edward Sugdenwas of opinion, that there was not a single debateable point in the present question. It was his most full and deliberate opinion, that the Government had no power whatever to pay a shilling of the money, under the circumstances that a separation had de facto taken place between Belgium and Holland. The Attorney General had this night stood up for the rights and privileges of the Crown in a manner that no crown-lawyer had ever dared to do before. The words in the act of Parliament (and never were there clearer words in an act of Parliament) gave a right to the proper officer to pay certain sums of money while a particular case existed. That case no longer existed. What, then, became of the right? But the argument of the Attorney General was simply this—it is the prerogative of the Crown to make a treaty, to construe that treaty, and to execute that treaty, and the representatives of the people have no right on the part of their constituents, to ask how and for what reason they are to pay large sums of money under it, even though they have reason to believe that there has been a violation of an Act of Parliament. He never knew a more gross violation of an Act of Parliament than was here disclosed, and he never knew a more dangerous doctrine than that which the Attorney-General had laid down. It came with an extraordinary bad grace from those who professed to be such decided Reformers. They now broached the most arbitrary doctrines when no Reform Bill was before the House, but to-morrow, when that Bill came under discussion, doctrines of a most opposite description would be laid down. He wished to learn the legal argument in this case; but, although he used his best attention, he could not hear any thing of the kind. The Attorney General said, in arguing the question, "I have had access to information which is not before the House; you, therefore can form no opinion upon it: but still there can be no doubt of the fairness of the deduction which I have drawn from that information," Surely the
948
House would not be satisfied with such a declaration as that. It was a remarkable fact, that all the hon. Members who rose to oppose the motion founded their argument on a different basis. The noble Lord rested on the Act of Parliament; the next hon. Member relied on the severance of Belgium from Holland by the instrumentality of England; while the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General quoted certain papers in their defence. That House, he must say, would want Reform indeed, if it allowed itself to be misled from the path of duty by such contradictory statements. The terms of the treaty were, that the payment should continue until Belgium had passed away from Holland. The phrase was "passed away." Could there be found in language a more comprehensive phrase? He would ask of all Englishmen, had not Belgium "passed away" from Holland? He would ask, had it not been severed from Holland? Was there, he demanded, a single solitary qualification in the case to justify them in saying, that, under the treaty, this payment ought to be continued? There was not one. If Ministers had come down fairly to Parliament, and stated that the spirit of the treaty demanded their interference—if they had declared that unforeseen circumstances rendered it necessary that a more extensive latitude should be given to the operation of the treaty, he would have been the last man to oppose the application, although the money thus supplied might have been swept into the coffers of Russia to assist in the accomplishment of those objects to which the Gazette of Moscow had alluded. But he never would consent that an Act of Parliament should be thus grossly violated. If, on this occasion, hon. Members so far forgot their duty to their constituents as to vote against the resolutions, they would thereby establish the precedent that Ministers could apply the public money, without the consent of that House, in furtherance, perhaps, of objects that might be detrimental to the public interests. The House would then be compelled to accede to treaties having pecuniary obligations attached to them, which it seemed the House was not to be the judge of. It was simply to be called on to pay the money when it might be required, without knowing the reasons for the payment. Such encroachments on the public purse, if tolerated, would go far to prevent their interfering effectually hereafter, wherever necessity should require it.
The Attorney-Generaldenied that there was any discrepancy whatever between his statement and that of his right hon. friend the Secretary of the Treasury, and utterly disclaimed any desire to keep the documents secret on which he had founded his opinion.
Lord John Russellsaid, as the question appeared to involve a charge against the Ministry of which he formed a part, of applying the public money without parliamentary authority, he must admit a very important principle was attached to its consideration. Great pains, had been taken not only to hold this up in a strong light, but also to introduce this subject as a question of economy. He could not view it in either of these characters. It was not a question of economy or of dispensing with an Act of Parliament, but the question before them was, whether they should violate the national faith, He, for one, would not consent, for the sum of 5,000,000 l. to barter the honour and faith of England. Gentlemen opposite had relied on the express letters and words of the treaty. Was this, then, a question that depended merely on the terms of the treaty? Was nothing else to be considered? Were they, in their consideration, to be bounded by the terms alone? Were they to look no further? Those who were selected to consider the subject, thought that they were not to be so bounded. Lord Grenville was decidedly of opinion, that it was not a question of the letter, but of the spirit of the treaty; for, that noble Lord said, in his Letter which had been read by his right hon. friend. 'All that is officially known to me on this subject is, that the legal and political authorities to whom the consideration of these high matters properly belongs, have advised his Majesty to consider himself as still bound, in maintenance of the national good faith, to continue their payments; and, as far as my humble judgment extends, I trust I cannot err in determining, under these circumstances, to discharge my own more limited duty, in obeying, as before, their Lordships' orders in this behalf.' And the noble Lord said this, because it was a question which more particularly belonged to the high legal and political authorities of the country. It was a question of the interpretation of a treaty, and it was not to be taken according to the mere letter, while Lord Grenville meant, of course, to allow the Auditor of the Exchequer to draw the money. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Pollock) who spoke early in the Debate,
950
admitted that this was not a question as to the mere letter of the treaty, but according to the spirit of it. But, as was said by his noble friend (Lord Althorp), there were other considerations than the mere words to be taken into consideration before this House could come to a satisfactory determination—there were circumstances peculiar to this treaty which ought not to be lost sight of. It had been argued on the other side that they were to allow to Russia certain sums of money on certain considerations, and the chief of them were, that the Belgian provinces which had been united to Holland should continue to belong to that Power, but, if they became an independent State, that the payment of this money should cease. But this was not the view of the contracting Power, for the first words of the preamble of the second treaty of the 19th of May, 1815, were these—'His Majesty, the king of the Netherlands, being desirous, upon the final re-union of the Belgian provinces with Holland, to render to the Allied Powers who were parties to the Treaty concluded at Chaumont on the 1st of March, 1814, a suitable return for the heavy expense incurred by them in delivering the said territories from the power of the enemy; and the said Powers having, in consideration of arrangements made with each other, mutually agreed to waive their several pretensions under this head in favour of his Majesty the emperor of all the Russias, &c.'* Thus it appeared that the sum of money to be paid to Russia was partly in consideration of the deliverance of Europe from the hands of the ruler of France; and he would ask, whether the insurrection at Brussels ought to be a sufficient reason to induce us to abandon the engagement which we had entered into jointly with Holland for the payment of this loan. It was, then, on the general interpretation of the treaty, taking into consideration all its bearings, and all the circumstances connected with it, that they were to decide, and not on the interpretation of a single phrase. If they refused to act under this Treaty, would not Russia have a right to say, "It is true there is a separation between Holland and Belgium, but that separation was effected against my wish—I have taken no part in procuring it—I have not yet ratified it; and will you, on the ground of such a separation, which I deny to exist, refuse to pay me the sum which by
* Hansard's Parl. Deb., vol. xxxi, p. 714.

951
treaty you owe me?" The course taken by the hon. Gentlemen to-night was, he conceived, most extraordinary. They came down with a direct vote of censure upon Ministers, without calling for papers, without any allusion to the circumstances which had occurred in 1830 and 1831, and on which they must be aware that the interpretation of the Treaty might in a very great degree depend. He never knew such a vote of censure proposed against any Administration, without preliminary inquiry, without previous investigation. If they were supposed to be unfit for the situation which they held—let the question be fairly put and tried upon its own merits. The whole intention of this Motion evidently was, to censure Ministers without previous discussion or inquiry. The proposition was brought forward under the pretence of economy and retrenchment, by those who never had attempted to carry economy and retrenchment into effect. And this course they pursued because they were hostile to the Government, which was engaged in a measure which they could not bear to see carried. His Majesty's Ministers were attached to economy, but they never would, in pursuit of economy, recommend any measure which appeared to them calculated to disparage the public faith. The candour of his noble friend (Lord Althorp) had been spoken of, and he must express a hope that those who had given his noble friend credit for that candour and manly bearing, would not inflict upon his character the disgrace of having disposed of the money of the people of England without a due consideration of her honour and her engagements.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, that when his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that the Government had acted with the concurrence of the noble Lord, the Auditor of the Exchequer, he was sure that he could not intend to convey to the House that meaning which his words were naturally calculated to bear. It was quite impossible that he could mean to say, that the Auditor of the Exchequer had expressed his "concurrence" in the propriety of this payment. He (Mr. Wynn) had requested the Secretary of the Treasury to read his noble relation's letter to the House. He had not himself previously seen it, and he had had no communication with Lord Grenville on the subject. From his knowledge, however, of Lord Grenville's general opinions, he had felt deeply impressed with the extreme improbability that they should agree in the construction of the treaty now
952
contended for by the noble Lord. He, therefore, had begged the letter might be read. The House had now heard it, and he appealed to them, whether it in any respect supported the assertion that had been made. The Secretary to the Treasury had taken great credit for the candour and fairness of the Government, in laying before the law officers Lord Grenville's letter, with the statement of doubts which it enclosed, but without any counter-statement or comment whatever, which might tend to influence their opinion. Hearing this, he was not a little surprised since to learn from the Attorney General, that a case on this very question had previously been submitted to him and his learned colleagues by Government, accompanied, not only by the treaty, but by all the minutes of the conferences, and correspondence which had led to it, and that it was on the latter that their opinion was principally founded. Again, the noble Lord said, that the treaty had been referred to the consideration of the law officers of the Crown, and that it was upon their decision and advice that the Government had acted. When he heard this, he thought, and he was sure the House thought, that merely the treaty had been laid before the law officers of the Crown, who had been called upon to give an opinion on that alone. But the hon. and learned Attorney General had stated, that not only the treaty, but the minutes of all the conferences that were held at the making of it, were submitted to the law advisers of the Government; and it was not on the mere letter of the treaty, but on a consideration of all the circumstances of the case, that these opinions were given. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) spoke of papers necessary for a perfect knowledge of this case not having been demanded; but with whom did the blame of that non-production rest? If Ministers had any explanation to give, why did they not come down and explain their conduct, and why did they not bring down these papers and lay them before the House? Now, when they found, that a great impression had been created by this debate, they asked for time, and the pretence was resorted to, that this was brought forward as a party question. It was, however, no such thing, but the House of Commons was called upon to act as judge in a matter of the highest importance. It was a usual course, when notice was given of a debate on any particular subject, for the Government to

953
send down any papers or documents that might either elucidate the subject, or tend to justify their conduct. It was impossible for persons not in office to be aware of the existence of all the documents that might be necessary to the proper understanding of any case; and it was not very decent for the noble Lord to complain of the want of that information which it rested with himself to produce. Of course, in a case of this nature, his right hon. friend must have depended on the noble Lord and his colleagues to furnish every information which could in the least degree tend to justify their own conduct. The noble Lord knew that this subject was mooted in the House on the l6th of December, and ample opportunity had, therefore, been afforded to prepare all the necessary information; but not a single document had been laid upon the table. The object for which he supported the present motion was, not to criminate his Majesty's Ministers, but that he felt himself bound, sitting as he did in that House, as a judge on the construction of a treaty in which the people of England were deeply concerned, to give a fair and candid opinion on the case. Let him remind the House of the magnitude of the sum in question, and allude to the importance of their decision. Instead of this being merely a party question, between opposite sides, brought forward merely with a view of obtaining a vote of censure on Ministers, the decision was of much more importance. If the House should negative these Resolutions, the payment of this sum annually would be established; because it would be impossible afterwards to recede or refuse the payment. We must continue to pay it, whether Holland continued or not. If it was refused to the emperor of Russia, he would say "the Parliament of Great Britain had determined by a solemn vote, that his money was to be paid to him, notwithstanding the severance of Belgium from Holland, and it was ridiculous to suppose that it could be broken through." It was a question between the emperor of Russia on the one hand, and the people of England on the other; and that House, as the guardian of the public purse, was called upon to give a solemn judgment on the subject. The result of this Motion would be of serious consequence; for if it was rejected, it would then go forth to Europe, that that House considered the conduct of Ministers justifiable, and the engagement to pay the money would be valid; and the payment could never with decency be refused.
954
As to any understanding, or curious construction of treaties, no private engagement, not communicated to Parliament, could bind either the Parliament or the people. This payment was originally sanctioned by Parliament for the purpose of giving Russia a direct interest in maintaining the union and integrity of the newly constituted kingdom of the Netherlands; but from what had fallen from the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, it would appear as if it was now proposed (without any fresh authority from Parliament) to continue it as a reward to the emperor of Russia for his forbearance in not coming forward to prevent that dismemberment of territory which had taken place; was it then to be understood that this payment was to be continued, in order to bribe that monarch to a policy the very reverse of that which it had been the object of the treaty to establish? Was it not too much to ask the House of Commons to consent to the payment of 5,000,000 l. sterling, for the purpose of obtaining the sanction of the emperor of Russia to the separation of Belgium from Holland? A subsequent Government might interpret the treaty in a different sense, and withhold the payment unless Russia interfered to prevent that separation. The noble Lord implied that the emperor of Russia had agreed, with some reluctance, to the policy that had been pursued with reference to Belgium and Holland; and from the language of the noble Lord it might be inferred that the continuance of the payment of this money was nothing more or less than a bribe to him for his neutrality. The Parliament was called upon, then, to sanction the payment of large sums of money in older to secure the adherence of Russia to a particular line of policy, which was thought to be a desirable object. The Government was bound to shew, that its policy with respect to Belgium and Holland had been good, on which he had very considerable doubts, not conceiving it calculated to uphold the character or to advance the interests of the country. It was the duty of Ministers to make out a case in their justification, and it was too much for them to state as an excuse, that certain papers ought to have been laid upon the Table. The English Parliament was called on to come to a conclusion upon the evidence already furnished. Were they to understand that a payment of money was contrary to the words of an Act of Parliament, and at the same time to be told they

955
should commit a breach of faith in not paying it, because it was in unison with the spirit of a treaty? Such an excuse would never induce the House to neglect its duty on such an important question. If the House went to a vote upon this subject, he must vote in favour of the Resolution. At the same time, if Ministers had any other information to produce, he should be ready to give it his full consideration, but as they had not offered any, or given an intimation that any such was forthcoming, he should feel it his duty to vote for the Motion. He would make one or two observations with reference to the question of maintaining the union between Belgium and Holland. He knew, that former Governments had made the greatest sacrifices for the sake of preserving this union, and maintaining a power sufficiently strong to support herself against the attacks of her neighbours. That was the inducement to preserve the union between Belgium and Holland. That was the chief object of the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the result of which met with the approbation of the Parliament and the country. He, for one, lamented that the House of Orange which had been twice raised up by Providence to be the instrument of the deliverance of Europe—which had rendered such eminent services in the cause of freedom and the progress of civilization—which had so nobly distinguished itself in the last war—should have its interests separated from those of Great Britain, with which country it had always had so intimate a connexion. He regretted, that the interests of that illustrious house should be sacrificed; and, above all, for a course of policy, the success of which was very doubtful. In the present case, it was clear that Holland had declined to pay her share of the loan, and he thought that, to a certain extent, she was justified in doing so. Indeed, he thought, if the payment was to be continued, Holland could make out as good a case to receive part of it as Russia, since it was originally given as a compensation for the Dutch colonies. By the treaties it was agreed, that, on certain conditions, a sum of money should be paid to the emperor of Russia, but in case these conditions were not completed, the treaty was to be void. He did not think such a claim could now be made, and he was sure, that if any impartial persons were appealed to, they would disallow it without hesitation. Indeed he had, for the first time that night, heard that the emperor of Russia
956
had refused to sanction the proceedings with regard to Belgium, and that he was an unwilling party to the negotiations that were now going on with respect to that subject. He had thought, until he had been better informed by the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, that the five Powers were acting in unison, with a view to settle the question on a firm basis. If, however, that was not the case, the House ought to have been made acquainted with the circumstance at an earlier period. They were now called upon to come to a vote upon this important subject, and, after all the attention he had been able to bestow upon it, he could not refuse his assent to the Resolutions proposed by his right hon. friend; but at the same time he should be happy, in order that they might have any further information which the noble Lord might furnish, considering it necessary to the full understanding of the subject, to adjourn the discussion for a short time.
Lord John Russelldisclaimed the construction put upon what he said with respect to the emperor of Russia, who, in his opinion, would not be influenced by pecuniary considerations.
Mr. Huntbegged to tell his Majesty's Ministers, and the House generally, that the result of that night's division would be regarded with the utmost anxiety by the nation. Every Member who had a constituent to boast of would be accountable for his vote, and would have to answer for it. He was an economist, and, seeing the present state of the country he should support the Resolutions which the right hon. Gentleman near him had moved, if it were only on the score of economy; but, independently of that, if he understood rightly, an attempt had been made to interfere with the privileges—nay, with the authority—of that House. That was a thing which he could never sanction. The noble Lord, in vindicating the conduct of the Government, said that the question had been referred to the law officers of the Crown, and that Ministers had only acted in conformity with the written opinion which those legal officers had given. He must say that he agreed with the hon. Member who told the noble Lord that, in doing so, he had referred the question to good authority, but had taken very bad advice. Much had been said about the question having been brought forward in the absence of certain papers. Those papers were in the possession of Ministers, and, if they could have been in the slightest degree

957
available to defend their conduct, it was idle to suppose that they would not have triumphantly produced them. The agitation which prevailed in the country would be sooner settled by questions of this nature than by a great noise made about Reform. The people would see what they had to expect from those who backed Ministers in every proposition they made, however absurd it might be; this was a question to try whether a man was for retrenchment or not. He knew that if the late Government had paid this money, the outcry that would have been raised by those who were now in place, would have roused the whole country. The hon. member for Thetford said truly, that there was not a public Meeting that could not perfectly understand the question. There was no disguising the simple fact that money had been paid without the authority of Parliament, and he should be glad to see the Member who represented a body of constituents uphold that doctrine on the hustings. The vote of the House that night would be an earnest of what they might expect from Reform. For his part, he would not be satisfied with a vote of censure, but would vote that Ministers should pay the amount out of their own pockets.
Sir Robert Peal Sir Robert Peal rose amidst loud cries of "adjourn" from the Treasury Benches. He said, he hoped at least that those Gentlemen who clamoured for adjournment would not accuse him and his friends of wishing to delay the Reform Bill. Seeing the arguments which had been brought forward in opposition to the Motion, he did not suppose the House would consent to an adjournment. The question lay in a very small compass. It was not whether there existed on the part of this country an engagement—an honourable obligation towards another state, but simply whether a department of the Government was justified, by the terms of an Act of Parliament, in continuing a payment to Russia, after the separation of Belgium from Holland? When, therefore, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said that nobody had yet given an opinion as to the binding nature of our engagement to Russia, the answer simply was, that nobody was prepared to express that opinion, because he had not that information which would enable him to form one. When the noble Lord laid the documents on the Table, he might have a different opinion upon the subject from that which he had at present, and far was
958
he from wishing to derive any advantage from a technical construction of a statute; for if an equitable or moral obligation had been contracted, he cared not for the letter of the law, but was prepared to keep strict good faith with Russia. But he would not consent to issue money by virtue of an Act which gave no authority for its payment. There could not be a doubt that the issue was not justified by that Act. If there were secret engagements, had not the time arrived now, after the lapse of fifteen years, when, without inconvenience, they might be laid before Parliament, and the nature of the obligation which they involved publicly declared? If the time had not come, it was decidedly the duty of Ministers to communicate to the House, by a message from the Crown, that such engagements existed, and that it was not consistent with the good of the public service to make them known. Even in the case that in the absence of any engagements, patent or secret, the public interests, on account of recent events, required the continuance of this payment, then, likewise, should Ministers have come down to the House of Commons and declared the fact, and, if they could not disclose all the circumstances, ask for a vote of credit. But certainly they should not have taken that most unwarrantable course of vindicating this issue by pretending an authority which the law did not give. The House of Commons never would support such an erroneous, such a gross construction of an Act of Parliament. The line of defence adopted by the Ministers proved their conviction that they were doing that which was not right. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sheltered himself under the wing of the Solicitor General; the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, crouched under the gown of Lord Grenville, and finding that it could give him no protection, as a last hole wherein to rush, he earths himself in Reform. From thence he invokes the assistance of Reformers, and asks for their vote, not on the merits of the question, but on the ground of their attachment to Reform. Was there ever so childish an appeal? So, because men had agreed with Government on the Reform Bill, they were to surrender the humble privilege of being able to interpret a simple treaty and Act of Parliament. Why, what was the object of Reform? They had been repeatedly told, that it, was to ensure a more strict attention on the part of the House Commons to the public expenditure—to give the Representatives of the people an efficient

959
control over the public money. And were Reformers to be the allies of the noble Lord? Were they to manifest their attachment to Reform, by an utter disregard of the objects of Reform, to promote the means, by a sacrifice of the end of Reform? The noble Lord said, that Ministers were taken by surprise: he denied it. So far back as the 16th of December, he had himself stated his doubts upon the legality of the issue, and recommended Ministers to take it into their serious consideration. No payment was to be made until the 5th of January. Nothing could have been more easy than for the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to have come down, stated his doubts upon the letter of the Act, and demanded a new one, to carry into effect our equitable engagement—if such, indeed, existed. After the warning the noble Lords had received, to say they were taken by surprise, was acting neither according to the manliness nor the candour which had been ascribed to them. The question was, if, under the joint authority of the Convention and an Act of Parliament, the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was justified in paying the money? As he had before observed, he did not know whether there were or were not any secret engagements, but on the words of the treaty he certainly had no authority for the payment. It was contended by Ministers, that, by the spirit of the treaty, if not by the letter, the payment was to continue in every possible case of the separation of Belgium from Holland, excepting one, namely, their severance by external violence. To prove this construction of the treaty, the Solicitor General referred them to the cotemporary speeches of those by whom the treaty had been made. He (Sir Robert Peel) was content to try the spirit of the treaty by this test. On the 26th of May, 1815, Lord Castlereagh stated in that House, that the emperor of Russia was to be relieved from the charge of the Dutch loan, that this country was to bear her share of that charge; 'but,' said Lord Castlereagh, 'only so long as the Netherlands should belong to the House of Orange.'* And again, in reference to the payment of the Russian debt by us, 'it was to be contingent on the preservation of the Low Countries to the House of Orange.'† So that they not only had the terms of the treaty itself, but
* Hansard's Parl. Debates, vol. xxxi—p. 456. † Ibid.
960
the speech of the Minister of the Crown who made it, to prove that his construction of that treaty was the right one. 'But then,' said the Attorney General, 'do not take the construction of the treaty from the English version of it.' The English version is too plain, too decisive, against him; it contemplates but too clearly the separation of the two countries, either by "severing," that is, by force, or by "passing away." 'Look,' said the Attorney General, 'to the version of the treaty in French.' What, then, are the corresponding terms in the French version? Soustraire á la domination—'and these terms apply exclusively,' says the Attorney General, 'to a case of separation effected by external force. He denied this doctrine of the Attorney General. He contended, that those terms, soustraire á la domination, included a separation effected by revolt, as well as a separation effected by foreign armies. He held in his hand a volume lately published by the Dutch government, which contained authentic copies of all the late protocols and diplomatic correspondence relating to the separation of Belgium from Holland. In one of these documents the Dutch minister is speaking of the separation of Limburg and Luxemburg from Holland—a separation about to be effected, not by foreign arms, but by negotiation following on civil contest. What are the terms in French made use of by the Dutch Minister to describe the result of such negotiation? He says the effect of it will be "de les soustraire à0 l' autorité legitime." The words clearly used by this Minister to express separation by consent and treaty are the very words which the Attorney General says can only apply to a separation by foreign arms. All the learned Gentlemen, opposite, however, pledged their reputation as lawyers, that their construction of the treaty was the correct one. They supported their position by arguments involving doctrines so objectionable, that he must attribute the use of them to a complete blindness as to their bearings. The first of these arguments was, that we had been parties to the separation, and were, therefore, not entitled to profit by our own act. To relieve themselves from a blunder, hon. Gentlemen were eager to charge themselves with a crime. The Attorney General said, that the separation of the Netherlands from Holland had been effected by the procurement of England. What! with all our doctrines of non-interference—with all our desire to maintain the power and dignity

961
of the king of the Netherlands—had we, then, been main agents and instruments in diminishing them? And had the Netherlands been actually lost to that sovereign through the procurement of England? He should be sorry if Ministers really had such a defence; but he was ready to deny that they were parties to the separation, in any sense which continued this pecuniary obligation upon the country. So far from our being parties to the separation, the Prime Minister of England had positively denied that we had anything to do with it. On the first day of the Session, Earl Grey was reported to have said, 'The noble Earl had said, that the king of the Netherlands was reduced to narrow limits, and had been deprived of his provinces. But had the present Ministers done this? Was it not done before they came into office? And had not the noble Duke who was at the head of the late Administration openly declared that the two countries were so separated that he looked upon the re-union of them as impossible?'* The present Ministers, then, were in no way responsible for the separation. Were the late Ministers more responsible? So far from it, our original interference was at the express demand of the Court of Holland. If we had been fomenting intrigues in the Netherlands to induce them to declare themselves separated from Holland, we ought not to have profited by our own wrong and injustice; and we should not have been relieved from our obligations. But if treaties entered into at the same time did impose upon us, in certain cases, the duty of meeting our allies and conferring on a difficult state of affairs, it would be monstrous, because we had fulfilled the conditions of those treaties, and done all we could to diminish the evils of separation, that we should be made answerable for that event. The very first protocol of the 4th September begins by setting forth that the king of the Netherlands invites the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Paris, to consult with him on the best means of terminating the struggles which had broken out in his dominions. The very protocol, too, which determines the separation of Holland from Belgium, expressly speaks of it as having been caused by events over which we had no control. In fact, as had been justly observed by an hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pollock), Russia was as much a party to the separation as we were. How then continue
* See ante, p. 32.
962
responsible to Russia? Another argument urged by the other side—most dangerous in its consequences, and still more extraordinary in its principle—was, that in whatever way the severance of the Netherlands from Holland might take place, except by actual foreign attack, our obligations to pay this debt would still continue. Now, suppose the case that France had maintained a powerful party in the Netherlands, and had, by fomenting intrigues, induced Belgium to declare for an alliance and connection with France—there would then have been no necessity for actual aggression upon the part of France, in order to her gaining Belgium from Holland; and yet, "even then," said the Ministers, "our obligations would have continued; for the separation would not have been effected by external violence." Suppose, upon the Belgians electing the Duke de Nemours for their ruler, he had taken possession of the throne of Belgium without marching a single French soldier into that territory—why, even then, according to the doctrine of the Ministers, England would continue bound by her engagements. Is it possible that such a doctrine can be maintained? First, we are to be at an enormous expense in repairing and maintaining fortifications for the express purpose of protecting from France the United Kingdom of Belgium and Holland; and when Belgium shall have been re-annexed to France, we are not only to lose the money expended on the fortifications; but we are to continue payments which we only undertook to pay on the express condition that Belgium should not be re-annexed to France, but continue united with Holland. The whole case, from the beginning to the end, was too clear to admit of any doubt. Look, then, at the Resolutions moved by his right hon. friend. The first and second Resolutions were a mere recital of facts—a quotation from the terms of an Act of Parliament and a convention which no one could dispute. The third Resolution was called a vote of censure by the noble Lord opposite; but, in point of fact, it only implied so much of censure as was necessary to vindicate the authority of this House. He would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, as logicians, to say, whether their logic would permit them to take the course recommended by the noble Lord? They were to admit the two first propositions, and then deny the conclusion drawn from them. Said the noble Lord, "although I admit your major, and do not object to your minor, yet, I must

963
object to the conclusion legitimately to be drawn from them. Nay, I must affirm the reverse." According to the noble Lord, the House was to negative the third Resolution, and so affirm that it is in conformity with the Act of Parliament to continue these payments. He hoped that those Gentlemen who were the warmest advocates of Reform would claim, on this occasion, the privilege of judging for themselves whether or no the authority of Parliament was to he vindicated. The arguments for Reform he had yet heard urged, had not appeared to him extremely cogent; but if the noble Lord opposite carried his amendment—if he could persuade the House to adopt any thing so contrary to the truth—to the plain manifest truth—the conduct of those who voted for him would supply an argument for Reform much more powerful than any which their reason or ingenuity had yet discovered.
Viscount Palmerstonconcurred with the opening observations of his right hon. friend who had just sat down, in saying that the question lay in a nut-shell, and that the arguments upon it had been all exhausted previous to his rising. Beyond that point his concurrence did not go; for, instead of thinking that they who supported the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman had made out that sort of triumphant case which his right hon. friend thought had been established, he must assert, that he never heard any question supported by arguments so contradictory, or so little calculated to carry conviction to any unprejudiced mind. The hon. member for Preston (who seemed only the condensation of the inconsistencies of all his friends) included in one sentence two arguments diametrically opposed to each other. At one time it was said, that this was a dry question of law, arising out of the construction of an Act of Parliament. At another it was boldly asserted, that the law had nothing to do with it, but, that the question depended upon the actual nature of our engagements. One hon. Gentleman reminded the House, with something like an agony of economy, that 5,000,000 l. of money was depending upon the vote, whilst another disclaimed the use of any such argument. His right hon. friend (Sir Robert Peel) contended, that a subordinate department of the Government had violated the provisions of an Act of Parliament; but in what did that violation consist? The Act said, that these payments should be made so long as they were consistent with the tenor of
964
our engagements. How, then, had the Treasury violated the Act of Parliament, when it was not shewn that the tenor of our engagements did not warrant the issue of the money? His right hon. friend said, he would not pronounce an opinion upon those engagements, because he had not the documents before him upon which to do so, and yet he maintained, that Ministers had not acted according to those engagements. It was said to he unconstitutional for the Crown to assume the power to interpret treaties. As was said by his learned friend, it was the prerogative of the Crown to make treaties, and if they contained provisions like the present, they must receive the sanction of Parliament. But the approbation of Parliament, and the authority of the Crown being given, it was not the duty of Ministers to come down on every occasion in which a question might arise as to the interpretation of the treaty, but in cases of that sort to act upon their own responsibility; these were the amount of the doctrines stated by his learned friend, and he contended they were perfectly constitutional; he affirmed it was not the duty of Ministers to come down and ask the advice of Parliament upon every question that might arise, but they were to act in such cases according to their own discretion, subject, of course, to the animadversions of Parliament. In this case, it was necessary the House should look to the situation in which the Government was placed, and what was the nature of the object to be obtained. The treaty was framed on the principle that it was to form a powerful State in the Netherlands, as a barrier against France; to accomplish which, Belgium and Holland were united in one kingdom, to be ruled by the House of Nassau. It was necessary, to perfect this arrangement, that Russia should become a party to it, as the armies of that Power had so materially assisted in the liberation of those provinces; but in the first instance Russia objected to the plan, and her reluctance was only overcome by the exertions of this country, who was thought then to have a manifest interest in completing the arrangement. It was well known, that Russia had strong claims at that time to the gratitude of Europe; she had made enormous sacrifices to maintain the integrity of all existing monarchies against the military sway of Napoleon. After repelling the invaders from her own territory, she made common cause with Europe, and considered herself entitled to some recompense, because

965
her interests would be injured by the proposed union between the two countries, and the sole recompense she demanded was the present loan—that was, that England should join Holland in securing the payment of that loan, and in the discharge of her previous debt to Holland. Of her own accord (and this was important to the question) the payment of the loan was made contingent on the integrity of the kingdom of the Netherlands—that was, Russia knew that it was a matter of paramount importance to England, that the union of the kingdoms of Belgium and Holland under one monarchy, should be observed inviolably by all other nations; and accordingly Russia, solely with a view to manifest her ardent desire to co-operate with England, declared, in the terms of the treaty, that the loan should cease to be obligatory when a separation between Belgium and Holland had taken place. If it had been the policy of England to declare against the union of these kingdoms, Russia would, in the spirit with which she volunteered this condition of the loan, have equally co-operated with what she conceived to be the predilections of England, and have made the separation the basis of the loan. And, he asked, was this gratuitous generosity on the part of Russia to be now turned against herself by those in whose favour she had volunteered? Even upon the separation argument, on which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt with so much satisfaction, Russia was entitled in a continuance of her payments. It had been said, that if we are parties to the separation of Belgium from Holland, we are guilty of a crime; but he said, that the English Government were not the cause of that separation, but, after it had once taken place, it was the duty of the Government to make the best of the circumstances in which we were placed. They certainly refused to take those steps which were absolutely necessary to secure the possession of Belgium to the king of Holland; that was, having recourse to military measures. And supposing they had adopted those steps, it would have been impossible to have receded, and the inevitable consequence would have been, that a general war would have been kindled throughout Europe. But instead of this, Government, conjointly with the other great Powers, used all their endeavours to preserve peace, and happily they had hitherto succeeded. These were the principles on which they had acted, and on which they proposed to continue to
966
act. They had been parties to the separation of Belgium from Holland, but their object was, to secure peace, instead of risking the plunging Europe in blood. They had not taken upon themselves the heavy responsibility of involving Europe in war, and, above all, on a matter of principle. It would, too, have been a war of opinion, and the consequences must have been most lamentable. This country would have been obliged to go on when she was once engaged, and, although we might possibly restore the system of 1815, it would be our last effort. We had hitherto acted in concert with Russia and the other Powers, and he hoped such a course had been adopted as would place the peace of Europe on a firm basis; the greatest difficulties had been surmounted, and affairs in general were proceeding in a satisfactory train. Were Ministers now to turn round upon Russia, and exclaim, "We have gone along with you eleven months in friendly negotiation to preserve the peace of Europe, and now we have got you to the point, and Belgium is severed from Holland, we will cease to pay you the money you claimed at our hands." He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen wished such a line of policy to be adopted, but he should be sorry to belong to a Government which could conduct the affairs of the nation upon terms so base and degrading. Even on the separation argument, on which the right hon. Gentleman had rung the changes that evening, he contended, that Russia was entitled to a continuation of the payments. Had this separation been proved? Was it a matter of indisputable fact? [laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, but it was not clear to him that the king of Holland had, even as yet, admitted that any separation had taken place. He did not put that forward as a part of his case, but merely to shew the haste with which hon. Gentlemen came to their conclusions. The motion before the House was one of censure of his Majesty's Government. If Ministers deserved it, in God's name let the censure fall upon them—if not, let not hon. Members be entrapped by the fraudulent device, that in voting for the present resolutions they were merely voting for a reduction of the public expenditure. The question before the House simply was this—were the honour and character of England bound to continue the payments of the Russian loan? As a gentleman, and a man of honour—as a servant of the Crown, and as a Member of Parliament, he solemnly declared that he

967
thought that the reputation of England was involved in the negative of the right hon. Gentleman's propositions. If the House should arrive at a contrary conclusion, he could only say, that he should not envy the English Minister who, after that decision, should enter into negotiations with foreign Powers.
Mr. Paget Mr. Paget moved, that the debate be then adjourned until Tuesday, in order to afford time for such a due investigation as the great importance of the question demanded.
Lord Althorphoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion. It was unusual in cases of censure on the conduct of Ministers for the House to adjourn without coming to a decision; and even if it were not the usual practice, he would, now that the debate was brought to a close, beseech hon. Members not to separate without coming to a decision.
Mr. Pagethad no other object in view than the public service, and would not, contrary to the sense of the House, persist in his Motion.
Mr. Herriessaid, he would not detain the House many minutes, but there were one or two points to which he found it necessary to refer. The first was, as to the actual separation of Belgium from Holland. He had supposed it possible that such a plea might be thought of, but he really had not expected to hear it gravely advanced; he was, therefore, astonished at the novel doctrine of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which was in effect that because the king of Holland had not given his consent to the separation of Holland and Belgium, therefore the separation had not taken place. According to the same doctrine Louis Philip was not at present reigning in France, for he had not heard that Henry 5th had given his consent to the "passing away" of that kingdom. The declaration of the noble Lord was moreover in the very teeth of his Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session. The words of that document were, 'The arrangements which I announced to you at the close of the last Session for the separation of Holland and Belgium hag been followed by a treaty between the five Powers' &c. It appeared, then, by the Speech from the Throne that the separation had taken place which the Foreign Secretary assured them was still doubtful. He contended that every payment which had been made since the King's Speech was delivered was a direct
968
violation of the treaty—that these payments were to cease and determine as soon as the separation of Holland and Belgium was completed. At that late hour he would not attempt to recapitulate the arguments that had been urged against the Resolutions which he had proposed, and it was probably unnecessary, for he felt satisfied that hitherto no answer had been given to the facts he had brought forward. He felt convinced it was incumbent on the House either to support the Resolutions he had offered, or at least to adopt some steps on the occasion of a similar effect and tendency.
Viscount Palmerstonhad been, he hoped not wilfully, misrepresented by the right hon. Gentleman. He never said, that the king of Holland's consent was what was wanting to constitute a separation of the Belgic and Dutch portion of his dominions, but had only expressed a doubt whether that monarch had ever admitted that a separation had taken place.
The House divided on the previous question, viz. that the Resolution be now put; Ayes 219; Noes 239—Majority for Ministers 20.
The previous question was also put on the Second Resolution, and it passed in the negative without a division.
The House again divided on the Third Resolution: Ayes 214; Noes 238—Majority for Ministers 44.

List of the NOES on the Latter Division.

Adam, C.

Calcraft, G.

Althorp, Lord

Callaghan, D.

Atherley, A.

Galley, T.

Baring, F.

Calvert, N.

Barnett, C. J.

Campbell, W. F.

Belfast, Lord

Campbell, J.

Benett, John

Carter, J. B.

Bernal, R.

Cavendish, Lord

Blamire, W.

Cavendish, Hn. F. C.

Blount, E.

Cavendish, Hn. C. C.

Blunt, Sir C.

Chapman, T. R.

Bouverie, Hon. D. P.

Chaytor, W. A. C.

Bouverie, Hon. P. P.

Chichester, John P.

Boyle, Hon. J.

Clive, E. B.

Briscoe, J. I.

Cockerell, Sir C.

Brougham, J.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Brougham, W.

Clifford, Sir A. W.

Browne, D.

Cradock, S.

Brown, James

Crampton, P. C.

Brownlow, C.

Creevey, T.

Bulkeley, Sir R.

Currie, J.

Bulwer, E. E. L.

Denison, W. J.

Burke, Sir John

Denison, J. E.

Burton, H.

Denman, Sir T.

Buxton, T. F.

Dixon, J.

Byng, George

Doyle, Sir J. M.

Byng, G. S.

Duncombe, T. S.

Byng, Sir J.

Dundas, Hon. T.

969

Dundas, Hon. Sir R.

Lumley, J. P.

Dundas, Hon. J. C.

Lushington, S.

Easthope, J.

Maberly, W. F.

Ebrington, Lord

Macdonald, Sir J.

Ellice, E.

Macintosh, J.

Ellis, W.

M'Leod, R.

Evans, De Lacy

Mangles, J.

Evans, W. B.

Marjoribanks, S.

Ewart, W.

Marryatt, Sir J.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Marshall, W.

Fergusson, Sir R.

Milbank, M.

Foley, J. H. H.

Mildmay, P.

Foley, Hon. T. H.

Milton, Lord

Folkes, Sir W.

Moreton, Hon. H. F,

Fordwich, Lord

Morrison, J.

Fox, C. R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Franco, Sir R.

Mostyn, Hon. E.

French, A.

Nowell, A.

Gisborne, T.

Nugent, Lord

Godson, R.

O'Connor, Don.

Graham, Rt. Hn. Sir J.

Offley, F. C.

Graham, Sir S.

O'Neil, Hon. J.

Grant, Rt. Hon. C.

Ord, W.

Grant, Right Hon. R.

Ossory, Lord

Grattan, H.

Paget, T.

Handley, W. F.

Palmer, C. F.

Harvey, D. W.

Palmerston, Lord

Heathcote, Sir G. T.

Payne, Sir R.

Heneage, G. F.

Pelham, Hn. C. A. W.

Heron, Sir R.

Pendarves, E. W.

Heywood, B.

Penleaze, J. S.

Hill, Lord G.

Penrhyn, E.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Petit, L. H.

Hodges, T. L.

Petre, Hon. E.

Hodgson, J.

Philips, G. R.

Horne, Sir W.

Philips, C. M.

Hoskins, K.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Howard, H.

Ponsonby, Hon. J.

Howard, P.

Power, R.

Howard, R.

Price, Sir R.

Howard, Hon. W.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Howick, Lord

Rider, T.

Hudson, T.

Robarts, A. W.

Hughes, Colonel

Robinson, Sir J.

Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F.

Rooper, J. B.

Johnson, J.

Ross, H.

Johnstone, Sir J. W. B.

Russell, Lord J.

Kemp, T. R.

Russell, F.

Kennedy, T. E.

Russell, W.

King, Hon. R.

Sandon, Lord

King, Bolton

Sanford, A.

Knight, R.

Schonswar, G.

Knight, H. G.

Sebright, Sir J.

Labouchere, H.

Sheil, R. L.

Lamb, Hon. G.

Skipwith, Sir G.

Langston, J. H.

Smith, J. A.

Leader, N. P.

Smith, Hon. R.

Lefevre, C. S.

Smith, R. Vernon

Leigh, F. C.

Smith, G. R.

Lemon, Sir C.

Smith, M. T.

Lennard, T. B.

Spencer, Hon. F.

Lennox, Lord G.

Stanley, Lord

Lennox, Lord W.

Stanley, Rt. Hn. E.G.

Lister, B. L.

Stanley, E. J.

Littleton, E. J.

Stephenson, H. F.

Loch, H.

Stewart, P. M.

Loch, J.

Stewart, E.

970

Strickland, G.

Warburton, H.

Strutt, E.

Warre, J. A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Warrender, Hn. Sir G.

Stuart, Lord D.

Wason, R.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Waterpark, Lord

Tennyson, C.

Wellesley, W. T.

Thicknesse, R.

Westenra, H.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. P.

Western, C. C.

Torrens, R.

Weyland, R.

Townley, R, G.

White, S.

Townshend, Lord C.

Wilbraham, G.

Tracy, Hanbury

Williams, J.

Troubridge, Sir E.

Williams, W. A.

Trail, G.

Williams, Sir J.

Turton, Hon. H.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Tynte, C. K.

Wood, C.

Tyrrell, C.

Wood, John

Uxbridge, Lord

Wood, M.

Venables, W.

Wrightson, W. B.

Vere, Hope

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Vernon, Grenville

Wyse, T.

Vernon, G. J.

Walker, C. A.

Villiers, T. H.

Wilks, John

Villiers, Fred.

Vincent, Sir F.

TELLERS.

Waithman, R.

Duncannon, Visc.

Walrond, B.

Rice, Hon. T. S.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Captain

Cholmondeley, Ld. H.

Agnew, Sir Andrew

Clements, Col. J. M.

Alexander, J. Dupre

Clinton, C. J. E.

Antrobus, G. C.

Clive, Viscount

Arbuthnot, Colonel

Clive, Hon. Robert

Arbuthnot, General

Clive, Henry

Ashley, Hon. J. A. C.

Cock burn, Hon. Sir G.

Ashley, Hon. H. A. C.

Cole, Hon. Arthur

Astell, William

Conolly, Colonel

Astley, Sir J. D.

Constable, Sir T. C.

Atkins, Alderman

Cooke, Sir Henry

Baillie, J. Evan

Copeland, Alderman

Bankes, William

Corry, Hon. H.

Bankes, George

Coote, Sir Charles

Bainbridge, E. T.

Courtenay, Hon. T. P.

Baring, Alexander

Cripps, Joseph

Baring, Henry

Croker, Rt. Hn. J. W.

Bateson, Sir Robert

Curteis, Herbert

Bayntun, Edward

Curzon Hon. Robert

Bradshaw, James

Cust, Hon. P.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Cust, Hon. Sir E.

Brydges, Sir John

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Blair, W,

Dawkins, John

Becket, Rt. Hn. Sir J.

Dawson, Rt. Hn. G.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Dering, Sir E.

Beresford, Colonel

Dick, Quintin

Best, Hon. William

Domville, Sir C.

Boldero, H. G.

Douro, Marquis of

Brogden, James

Drake, Colonel W.

Brudenell, Lord

Douglas, W. Keith

Buck, Lewis

Dundas, Robt. Adam

Buller, James W.

East, James B.

Burge, W.

Encombe, Viscount

Burrard, George

Estcourt, T. H. B.

Capel, John

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Cecil, Lord Thomas

Fane, Hon. Henry

Chandos, Marquis

Farrand, Robert

971

Ferrand, Walker,

Murray, Rt. Hn. Sir G.

Fergusson, R. C.

Neeld, Joseph

Fitzroy, Hon. H.

Newark, Viscount.

Foley, Edward

Norton, Hon. C. F.

Forbes, Sir C.

Nugent, Sir George

Forbes, John

O'Connell, Daniel

Forester, Hon. Cecil

Ogilvy, Hon. Col.

Fox, Sackville L.

Peach, N. W.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Fresh field, William

Peel, W. Yates

Goulburn, Rt. Hn. H.

Peel, Colonel J.

Gordon, Capt. J. E.

Pelham, J. C.

Gordon, Hon. W.

Pemberton, T.

Graham, Marquis of

Piggot, G. G. W.

Graham, Lord W.

Polhill, Captain F.

Grant, Gen. Sir C.

Pollington, Viscount

Grant, Colonel

Pollock, F.

Grimston, Viscount

Porchester, Lord

Guise, Sir W. B.

Perceval, Colonel

Hardinge, Hon. Sir H.

Praed, W. M.

Hay, Sir John

Pringle, A.

Hayes, Sir Edward

Pusey, Philip

Herbert, Hon. E. C. H.

Ramsbottom, J.

Hill, Sir Rowland

Rickford, W. R.

Hodgson. Fred.

Robinson, G. R.

Holmes, W.

Rose, Rt. Hn. Sir G.

Hope, John T.

Ross, C.

Houldsworth, T.

Russell, C.

Hulse, Sir Charles

Ruthven, G. S.

Hume, Joseph

Rochford, G.

Hunt, Henry

Sadler, M. T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Scarlett, Sir J.

Irving, John

Scott, Sir E.

Jenkins, R.

Scott, Sir S.

Jermyn, Earl

Scott, Henry F.

Jones, John

Seymour, H.

Jones, Theobald

Sibthorp, Colonel

Jollifle, Sir Wm.

Sinclair G.

Jolliffe, Colonel

Smith, S.

Johnson, H. Hope

Smith, A.

Kearsley, J. H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Kemmis, T. A.

Stanhope, Captain

Kenyon, Hon. L.

Stewart, C.

Kerrison, Sir Edward

Stewart, Sir Henry

Kilderbee, S. H.

Stormont, Viscount

Knight, Lewis

Sugden, Sir E.

Knox, Hon. John H.

Taylor, G. W.

Lambert, James

Thynne, Lord J.

Langton, W. Gore

Thynne, Lord H.

Lascelles, Hon. W. S.

Throckmorton, R.

Lee, John Lee

Thompson, Ald.

Lovaine, Lord

Townshend, Hon. Col.

Loughborough, Lord

Trench, Colonel

Lowther, Hon. Col.

Trevor, Hon. A.

Lowther, J. H.

Tullamore, Lord,

Lyon, William

Ure, M.

Lyon, David

Valletort, Viscount

Mackinnon, W. L.

Vaughan, J. Edwards

Mahon, Viscount

Villiers, Viscount

Maitland, Viscount

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Malcolm, Sir J.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Mandeville, Viscount

Wall, C. B.

Mayhew, J.

Watson, Hon. R.

Meynell, Capt. H.

Webb,

Miles, Philip J.

West, F. R.

Miller, W. H.

Welby, J. E.

Mullins, F. W.

Wetherall, Sir C.

972

Weyland, John

Wynne, J.

Wigram, W.

Wynne, C. G. W.

Williams, O.

Yorke, C.

Wortley, Hon. J. S.

Young, J.

Wrangham, D.

TELLERS.

Wyndham, Wadham

Clerk, Sir George

Wynn, Hon. C. W. W.

Herries, Hon. J. C.

REFORM—PETITIONS.
Lord Lynedochpresented a Petition in favour of Reform in Parliament, from the Freeholders and Commissioners of Supply of the county of Perth, in county meeting assembled. In presenting this petition, he felt it his duty to call their Lordships' attention to another petition, which was incorrectly said to be that of the county of Perth, and which had been intrusted to his noble friend (the Earl of Kinnoul). That petition was against a Reform in Parliament, and had been hawked about for signatures from mansion to mansion in Perthshire. Their Lordships no doubt recollected, that, during the last Session of Parliament, the word "reaction" had been plentifully used. It had travelled down to Scotland, and meetings were held by the Anti-reformers in consequence, in order to get up petitions. Upon one occasion, he wished to attend such a meeting, and found he could not be permitted to enter, without a card of invitation. This was a secure method of obtaining unanimity, and, of course, the petitions submitted to such meetings were agreed to without a dissentient voice. The Anti-reformers of Perth had pursued the same prudent method, and had contented themselves with publishing their petition in the provincial papers, inviting signatures, and endeavouring to procure them by all sorts of means and influence. The number of signatures was certainly, by such means, very much increased. That the present system of Representation in Scotland did not truly represent the feelings and interest of the inhabitants, must be evident, when he stated that, in the county of Perth, there were not more than 230 freeholders. Under those circumstances, the inhabitants of that county, in common with the other inhabitants of Scotland, were decidedly of opinion that the Reform Bill would be a boon of inestimable value to the people of Scotland,
830
inasmuch as it would create among them that which did not exist at present—he meant an independent yeomanry, such as was the pride of every county of England. They were indignant that this Anti-reform petition should go forth to the world as a document embodying their sentiments. They therefore called a public meeting of the county, which was held on the Links of Perth, and which was attended by upwards of 25,000 persons. The petition which he had then the honour to present was agreed upon at that meeting, and received in a few days afterwards upwards of 27,000 signatures. It had been stated in the Morning Chronicle, that if the late Duke of Athol had been alive, no such meeting as that of which he had just spoken would have taken place, inasmuch as he exercised feudal influence over Perth, and would have exerted it to prevent such a meeting. Now he for one would deny that his late illustrious friend exercised any feudal influence in Perth. Influence he had there undoubtedly, but it was influence which he had fairly earned by his assiduous attention to the business of the county. It was true that his late illustrious friend was a true Tory in principle; but then he was one of those Tories who felt themselves bound, as the King's friends, to support the King's Government. There was, therefore, every presumption that, had the life of the Duke of Athol been spared, he would, as one of the King's friends, have supported the King's Government on this question. The noble Baron concluded, by expressing a wish, that when his noble friend (Earl Kinnoul) should present the Anti-reform petition from the county of Perth, their Lordships would recollect the statement which he had just made, and if they did so, they would receive its allegations with the greatest caution. He then moved, that the petition be read, at length.
The Earl of Mansfielddenied, that this petition emanated from a meeting of the county of Perth, properly convened. He admitted, that it was numerously signed, but it was signed by the inhabitants of Perthshire only, male and female, for he had been assured that a number of women attended the meeting, and had actually signed the petition. It must therefore be taken for the petition of those who had signed it, and not as the expression of the feelings of the freeholders and Commissioners of Supply, representing the properly of the county. He could not help designating the animadversions which the

831
noble Lord had made on the Anti-reform petition from Perthshire, as premature, knowing, as he did, that that petition had not yet been presented. He had read the petition, which was worded respectfully, to their Lordships; but he was sorry to say, that the language of some of the speakers at the meeting at which it was agreed to was of the most inflammatory description. A freeholder of Perthshire who was a candidate for the Representation of Perth, supposing that town to gain the right of sending Representatives to Parliament under the Reform Bill, had, if he was to trust the public journals, addressed the meeting in the following terms:—"I would advise you to cast away the wen that is on your neck—I mean the Bishops." The gentleman who used that language lived in a remote and distant part of the country. He might, therefore, not have heard, that a recommendation had been given to cure that faction by the infusion of a great many new Peers among the old ones; he might not have heard that a majority of the Peers of Parliament were deemed by a Minister of the Crown a mere faction—he might not have heard that such language had come from a person sitting on the reverend bench, or if he had heard of such language, it might have made him alter his opinions as to the propriety of casting away the wen that was on their necks. He was happy, however, to say, that the language of abuse against that respectable bench would be met here with greater indignation even than the vituperation which was lavished upon themselves, and which he knew their Lordships were prepared to meet with silent contempt. He felt it to be his duty to volunteer these remarks in the absence of his noble friend, Lord Kinnoul, the Lord-lieutenant of the county.
Lord Lynedochdenied, that any such language had been used at this meeting by the gentleman in question. He had never heard of the circumstance before. As he was on his legs, he would mention a fact which would show how strong the feeling in favour of Reform was in Perthshire. At the time that their Lordships were discussing the question, whether the Reform Bill should be read a second time, a great number of weavers assembled every day at Perth to see the mail come in from the south, and to learn the intelligence which it brought. After the news came down, that the Bill was rejected, they stopped the mail to know whether there had been any
832
disturbances in London. The guard, who was determined to hoax them, replied in the affirmative, and said, that the Duke of Wellington and another illustrious individual had been shot by the mob. This intelligence, which ought to have excited general disgust and indignation, was hailed with satisfaction by the assembled multitude, and in the vehemence of their indignation against the rejectors of the Reform Bill, they so far forgot the humanity of their natures as to go to a noble and gallant friend of his, and ask him whether they ought not to celebrate the fate of the Duke of Wellington and his colleague by a general illumination.
The Earl of Eldonwas inclined to meet this petition, and indeed every other petition, with respect. The noble Baron, however, had given one of the strangest reasons in the world for paying greater attention than ordinary to the statements of these petitioners: for he had told their Lordships that they were in a state of great misery, because two illustrious individuals had not been murdered in London. But were these reformers at Perth the only reformers who used such language? No such thing. What did the reformers at Manchester say in their public speeches? They said that, instead of justice being done upon the individuals, who, at Bristol and Nottingham, had been convicted of the most enormous crimes, the Government ought to hang up his excellent friend, Sir Charles Wetherell, and the twelve Judges. But was even this all that the reformers of Manchester said? No: they told the country that if the King and the Parliament did not legislate as they pleased, they must take upon themselves the duty of legislating for the country. He did not know whether the King's Attorney General had made any inquiries as to whether such speeches as were printed in the newspapers, as coming from the reformers at Manchester, had been uttered or not. If he had made such inquiries, and had found that such speeches had been delivered, he had not done his duty if he had not instituted proceedings against those who dealt in such inflammatory and seditious language.
Petition to be printed.

TITHES (IRELAND).
Lord King, in presenting three Petitions from several parishes in the county of Cork, against the present system of Tithes, observed, that he wished to call their Lordships' attention to the circumstance that if the landholders

833
of any parish desired to pay their tithes in kind, which undoubtedly they were at liberty by the law of the land to do, they must not give notice to the collector to remove them at the same time, and if any three of them should happen to fix upon the same hour, the law presumed there was a conspiracy, and would visit with heavy punishment parties who might thus accidentally have offended. In such a state of the law he had no doubt the Established Church had pushed its claim too far. Suppose a parish had several hundred persons liable to pay tithes, and they all resolved that they should be taken in kind, how could they avoid, in giving notice, but that several of them must fix upon the same hour? In England the law was different; and the collector of the tithes was bound to prove a conspiracy, but in Ireland the law would, for his accommodation presume that one existed. Tithes had ever been a great grievance in Ireland which had been bitterly increased of late. The urgent necessity for sustenance compelled the people to till the ground, and the pressure of the tax was by this necessity constantly increasing.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, having long observed the marked attention paid by the noble Baron to the subject of tithes in Ireland, he was astonished to find that his name had not been proposed by his Majesty's Government as a member of their Lordships' Committee; and he therefore now proposed that the name of Lord King be placed on the list.
Lord Wynfordregretted that the noble Baron should have used expressions so much calculated to add to the excitement of Ireland on the subject of tithes. There was no difference between the laws of both countries. The common-law was undoubtedly the same, and he would undertake to say that it contained no provision or presumption, that three persons giving notice to take their tithes at the same time amounted to a conspiracy; therefore, if such a law existed in Ireland, it must be created by statute. He should feel obliged by the noble Baron pointing out such a law, and he assured him, if he could refer to it he would most cordially concur in a motion for its repeal.
Lord Kingsaid, he had stated the fact upon respectable authority; he had himself no knowledge of such a statute, although he believed the law to be as he had described it.
The Marquis of Westmeath, in justice
834
to the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland, declared that he never knew an instance of any one of them having demanded the full tenth.
Petitions laid on the Table.

POLITICAL UNION PETITIONS.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that having observed in the public journals that a petition to the King, concerning points of the gravest State policy, had been agreed upon by certain persons styling themselves the Council of the National Political Union, he wished to know from the noble Secretary for the Home Department whether he had felt his duty to present that petition to his Majesty? He was the more induced to ask for information on this point, because he imagined, from the allusion to illegal associations in the Speech from the Throne, that a petition proceeding from such a body would not be acceptable to his Majesty.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he would state the course which he had always pursued with respect to petitions presented to his Majesty from bodies styling themselves Political Unions. Any of the learned Lords near the noble Marquis could have informed him, that a body was not necessarily illegal because it styled itself a Political Union. There was no law, either statute or common, which made a Political Union illegal. The object which these Unions had in view, and the means which they adopted for carrying them into effect, made them legal or illegal. The petitions which he received he always, if properly worded, submitted to his Majesty as the petitions of the individuals by whom they were signed, without recognizing or disavowing the assemblies by which they were voted. With respect to the particular petition to which the noble Marquis had referred, it was couched in such terms that he felt it his duty not to lay it before his Majesty.

BELGIUM.
The Earl of Aberdeen: My Lords; I am quite aware that, in the course which I am about to follow this night, I may be accused of attempting to pursue a singular path. I am ready to admit, that to the King alone it belongs, in the exercise of his undoubted prerogative, to contract alliances, to frame treaties, and to negociate on all matters with the governments of foreign States, and no man can be less desirous than I am, to question or limit that prerogative. But, my Lords, it is also true that, in particular cases, the Parliament of this country has interfered, and

835
circumstances have arisen under which it has not hesitated to question the exercise of a prerogative for the due use of which the Ministers of the Crown are responsible. My Lords, it is not unprecedented in the history of this country that the Sovereign has come down to ask the advice of Parliament, while negotiations were pending, as to the proper course to be adopted; and Parliament has also, unsolicited, at other times carried to the foot of the Throne its humble advice as to the character and conduct of negotiations. Not to keep you in suspense as to precedents, your Lordships must recollect that remarkable instance to-wards the close of the 17th century, when Parliament, in a situation not dissimilar from the present, attempted, in the reign of Charles 2nd, to detach that Monarch from his unnatural connexion with France, and recommended to him in lieu thereof to form an alliance more creditable to his character and to the honour and interest of the country, by cultivating a closer and more cordial intimacy with the Dutch nation. A similar course had been pursued by Parliament on other occasions. It is true, my Lords, that, in the conduct of negotiations of this nature, respect is generally observed to that secresy which is necessary for the successful completion of such transactions. In general, the public know nothing of treaties and conventions until they are concluded, and formally and officially laid upon the Table of the House. I freely confess that, if I only knew that his Majesty was engaged in a negotiation with other Powers, having in view the object which has been stated—namely, the settling the affairs of Belgium and Holland, however little I might feel disposed to trust the views of his Majesty's present Ministers, or however little I might be disposed to place confidence in their exertions to bring the matter to an issue which, to me, would appear advantageous to the country, I should certainly be contented to wait until I saw the treaty laid on the Table, and then, if I thought proper, I would exercise the power which belongs to me as a Member of this House, and would proceed to censure, when advice was no longer of use. But, my Lords, the case at present is materially different. His Majesty informed us, in the Speech at the opening of the Session, that he had concluded a treaty with the king of Belgium, which would be laid upon the Table of the House as soon as the ratifications were exchanged. I must take the present opportunity of observing, that
836
this is a most irregular, and, I believe, an unprecedented course. I never recollect to have heard before of a treaty being announced from the Throne until the ratifications were actually exchanged, and Ministers were prepared to lay it on the Table of the House. This deviation from the established practice may obviously place the country in a situation of very great difficulty. There is no sovereign that gives to his Ministers a power to treat with other nations who does not reserve to himself the right to ratify such treaties or not;—and it is unquestionably not only disrespectful to the Sovereign with whom we treat, to announce the negotiation to the British Parliament under such circumstances, but such premature disclosures may produce results extremely embarrassing to the country. I feel it more necessary to allude to this circumstance, because if I am not much mistaken, the noble Lords opposite have carried the practice which I feel it my duty thus to reprehend still further. With respect to another treaty, which was the subject of conversation in this House the day before yesterday, his Majesty announced, not only that he had concluded the treaty, but that he had directed it to be laid on the Table of the House. This treaty was dated the 30th of November, and his Majesty's Speech was delivered on the 6th of December. It is quite clear, therefore, that the ratifications could not have been exchanged when this announcement was made in the Speech. Is is impossible that they should have been received from Paris at the time, and a noble Viscount opposite has, in fact, stated, that they were received on some day in the middle of December. My Lords, these are not mere forms. Depend upon it that if the usual course be departed from, it may give rise to material inconvenience. I can only answer for the practice of the Administration with which I was connected. So strongly did I myself feel this conviction, that, when I had the honour to fill the office of his Majesty's Secretary of State, I recollect that I signed a treaty with the Austrian Plenipotentiaries, which treaty was in my possession, and although the Government of which I formed a part had good reason to believe that the ratifications had left Vienna, and were on the road to London; still, because they had not been received, I and my colleagues felt it our duty not to announce the treaty in the Speech from the Throne until we were in a condition to lay it before the House. With this notice of the course pursued by

837
his Majesty's Ministers, I have also to advert to an act of the king of the Belgians. That prince has communicated the treaty to which I have alluded to the Chamber of Deputies at Brussels. What power the constitution of Belgium gives him on the subject I do not know. I presume that, if the constitution gives the king any power, it gives him that which is essential to a sovereign—the power of negotiating treaties; but what particular prerogatives it confers I am not prepared to say. I ought, perhaps, to apologize for not being better informed of the nature of the Belgian constitution. But the consequence of the communication I have mentioned is, that we have the treaty authentically, if not officially, before us. Seeing in this treaty provisions which seem injurious to the interests of this country, and highly detrimental to the honour of the King, what course is a Member of Parliament bound to pursue? Is not this the time, when the treaty is brought to our knowledge, and when some of the parties concerned in it appear reluctant to consummate their own act of injustice—is it not now, if ever, the time for Parliament to express an opinion, while an opinion may possibly be of service? I shall hereafter explain the provisions of the treaty to which I more particularly refer; but I now feel myself under the necessity of declaring, that it is impossible for me to conceive how we can discharge our duty to ourselves, to the country, and to the King, if we do not express our opinion at this moment. Having stated the impression which the knowledge of the treaty has produced in my mind, I will act with corresponding sincerity. I look for no papers which have been published over and over again, and commented upon by every newspaper in town—I will not propound any truisms which it might be difficult, to deny—I will employ no parliamentary tactics in order to carry my point; but what I feel strongly I will express honestly, and will call upon this House to declare its opinion by an Address to the Throne, such as I think the importance of the case demands. His Majesty said, in his Speech from the Throne, that he trusted the period was not far distant when the king of the Netherlands would see the necessity of acceding to the arrangement made by the Five Powers; but on the motion for an Address to the Crown, I took the opportunity of stating, not only that I doubted that such would be the case, but that I should
838
be much surprised if a sovereign so circumstanced could assent to such an arrangement, not only because that which was proposed was unjust and detrimental to his interest, but in truth, even if he were inclined to agree, it would be impossible for him to act in such opposition to the unanimous feelings of his people. The noble Earl opposite thought otherwise. He is now better informed. He has now seen what the united efforts of a loyal and patriotic people are capable of performing. He has found that enthusiasm, energy, and zeal are not always the characteristics of a revolutionary party. He has seen a constitutional king supported by a free people, and I think it impossible that he should have seen it without being inspired with respect and admiration. I fear, however, that it is not difficult to perceive that that necessity which the noble Lords opposite made his Majesty say he relied upon, as likely to bring his ally to agree to the arrangement, furnishes a key to the honesty of the noble Earl, and affords an index to the feelings in which the negotiation was curried on. His Majesty was not advised to say that he hoped his ally would see the wisdom, or the policy, or the justice, or the expediency of conforming to the arrangement; but that he would see the necessity. I think, my Lords, that the spectacle presented by the conduct of the Dutch government, supported as it has been by the people of Holland, demands the highest applause. The king has conducted himself with a degree of resolution, of prudence, and of consistency, above all praise: and, if it please Almighty God, I trust his merits will meet with due success. In truth, the cause of Holland is so just a cause, so good a cause that it must prosper and when I say the cause of Holland, I entreat your Lordships to believe that I mean the cause of England too, for I consider them inseparable and identical. I felt so convinced that this cause must sooner or later, receive the success which it deserved, that I declare it was not without a mixture of regret that I was informed of the apparent support which the Dutch government received by the reluctance of Russia and Prussia to countenance anything prejudicial to its rights. I give those Powers full credit for the generous motives which have actuated them; but I regret that they are liable to misconstruction. I regret to see the Emperor of Russia the protector of Holland. I regret to see him occupy the place which I had hoped belonged to England. I felt it would be

839
said, that the resistance opposed by Holland to that necessity, which appeared to his Majesty's Ministers so inevitable, must have received the secret encouragement of other courts. There can be nothing more untrue than that allegation; and, if your Lordships will but reflect for a moment, you will see that it cannot be true. If you recollect the constitution of Holland, you will at once see how utterly useless encouragement would be for such purposes. My Lords, I should like to know what encouragement could enable the king of the Netherlands to raise the supplies necessary to carry on the difficult transactions in which he is engaged. He can only depend upon the support of a united people, and it is not Russian encouragement which can produce unanimity in Holland, or force money out of the pockets of the Dutch. Your Lordships well know what difficulties that country laboured under. Perhaps no country in Europe has such financial difficulties to struggle with as Holland; and yet, notwithstanding this, the States-General have almost unanimously granted to the King an extraordinary supply of not less than four millions sterling, to enable him to meet the emergencies of the moment. I should like to know how far the encouragement of Russia was instrumental to that grant. This is not a case where a State contracts a loan upon ruinous terms from a foreign capitalist; but it is the case of a king of a free people receiving a vote from a free assembly of his free subjects. Therefore I say, that their unanimity is without question. Look, then, at their military exertions. See a population of about two millions having not much less than 100,000 men under arms—this force being composed almost entirely of militia, volunteers, burghers—leaving their occupations and their trades to take up arms in the difficult crisis of their country's affairs. I say, my Lords, that no foreign encouragement could produce such effects as these. It is impossible to conceive that that whole country does not feel as one man. Taking it then for granted that the Dutch nation has displayed a zeal and unanimity which it is impossible to excel, I may be permitted to express a hope, that the Dutch government will not abuse the enthusiasm and energy which the people have manifested. I trust that the wisdom and prudence of the king will not permit him to take advantage of the confidence and patriotism which has shone forth; and as all Europe must have admired his constancy and firmness, I trust
840
we shall have equal reason to admire his moderation and his prudence; and that he will not be tempted to press for unreasonable terms in consequence of the support which must be so gratifying to him. Before I come to the provisions of the treaty, I wish to be permitted to engage your Lordships' attention whilst I take a cursory view of the course which has been followed in the negotiations. It is essential to the case to recollect, that at the Peace of Paris, in 1814, it was determined to constitute the kingdom of the Netherlands. It was declared that Holland was placed under the sovereignty of the House of Orange, which was to receive in addition the Belgic territory; but the Allies, who had made the conquest of the Belgian provinces, thought proper to annex conditions to the delivery of those provinces. Now, undoubtedly, they were perfect masters of Belgium, and had it completely at their disposal. There would not have been any injustice in restoring it to the dominion of the House of Austria. It might have been disposed of, as was at one time advised by Mr. Pitt, in a note which was laid before this House. It might have been added to the Prussian dominions, as it had not, at least for three or four centuries, been an independent country. But the Allies consulted the happiness and prosperity of those provinces more effectually by uniting them with a free and constitutional government, under which they might enjoy the blessings of a free constitution, and all the advantages of liberty. This was followed by a treaty in the same year, in which certain terms were proposed to the king of the Netherlands, and accepted by him, as the fundamental law of the union; and this was annexed to the general treaty at the Congress of Vienna, and acceded to by every Power in Europe. The kingdom being thus constituted, the first question that arises is, has the king of the Netherlands observed the treaty as contained in those articles. I defy any man, in any place, to deny, that the king of the Netherlands has strictly and conscientiously fulfilled every tittle of it. He has conformed in every respect to that which was made the fundamental law of the union of his dominions; and the general course of his government has been such as to extort from all mankind, and even from the noble Lords opposite, the tribute of their admiration. I very well recollect the noble Baron (Lord Holland) who, some six or seven years ago, sitting, at that time, on this (the Opposition)

841
side of the House, when indulging in some of those invectives, which he was not unaccustomed to throw out respecting the sovereigns of Europe in general—Irecollect that, when in full course, he checked himself in the midst of his career, and said, "No; there is one exception—the king of the Netherlands; he loves freedom, and governs in such a manner as to afford a praise worthy example to the other sovereigns of Europe." But, unfortunately, two or three years ago, the king of the Netherlands found it necessary to prosecute the editors of some seditious newspapers, and since then he has lost the support of many of his liberal friends throughout Europe. But I say that he has not only strictly observed the treaty upon which the union of the provinces was founded, but that his strict observance of the treaty was the cause of his losing his territory. The first discontent grew out of the article which prescribes a strict equality between persons of all religious persuasions. No doubt some of the bigoted Catholic party took advantage of this to form a union with some of the most opposite parties. The government might have despised these combinations, but after the French revolution broke out, and the impulse was received from France, the revolution at Brussels took place. I think it impossible for your Lordships to doubt, that if the king of the Netherlands had possessed a corps of 20,000 Dutch troops, that revolution would never had made any progress. But the treaty, by insisting upon a complete amalgamation of the troops, prevented his having a separate corps. Every regiment was composed of Dutch and Belgians, and from the preponderance of the population, nearly two-thirds were Belgians. The effect of this was, that every corps of the mililia was completely disorganised from the beginning, and, in consequence, there was not a single body of men who could act in any military capacity. I, therefore, infer, that the absence of a corps of faithful troops, however small, was the cause of the spread of the revolution. This is the more apparent, from the total want of any reason being ever given for the occurrence of such a revolt. That a momentary revolt may take place in any country, I admit to be very possible, but so senseless, so unintelligible a revolution as that which has been accomplished by the Belgians, the history of the world does not record; and this is so true, that, up to the present hour, no official statement—no manifesto—no reason has been assigned.
842
No detail has been promulgated of the grievances under which the people laboured, of the tyranny which could no longer be endured. So far is this from being the case, that, if I am not mistaken, since the revolution, the leading people have repeatedly met, thinking it right to publish to the world some statement of their case, but it has always been abandoned as hopeless. We are still left, therefore, to speculate upon the causes of the revolution. But the revolution having taken place, the king of the Netherlands, situated as he was, did that which it was undoubtedly his duty to do. He called the States together in the northern and southern provinces, and consulted with them upon the course to be taken in the existing state of affairs. The first grievance was an obnoxious minister, who had already been removed, and a local tax with which the government had nothing to do. But the demands soon rose, and a separation of the provinces was pronounced indispensable. That wish was shared by the Dutch as strongly as by the Belgians. The king, finding it impossible to act in execution of the treaty, naturally called upon the allies, who had imposed the treaty upon him, to concert measures by which a remedy could best be found to repair the evils and injuries to their own work, as well as to the safety of his dominions. Under these circumstances the Conference of London was held. The first object which was held in view, was to establish a cessation of hostilities. That, too, was its first act; and as it was the last act done during my connection with the Administration, I think it right to explain it. I signed the documents the day after I had resigned the seals of office, in consequence of the importance of the object in view, and I should not have taken upon myself to do so under any other circumstances. But I thought, as I was responsible for that department of the public affairs, I could not suffer the country to be involved in the danger of hostilities, if it was in my power, by any act, though not strictly official, to prevent it. That paper was signed on the 17th of November, and it ends our share in the transactions. I must beg leave to take this opportunity of contradicting a declaration made by the noble Earl opposite, that he found the separation of Holland and Belgium effected; that we had accomplished it. I have told your Lordships the only acts which were done during our connection with the Administration. In fact, no question occurred

843
about the separation, except, indeed, that the noble Earl appears more than once to have confounded the separation of Belgium with its independence. But, my Lords, these are two very different things. That an administrative separation was necessary I admit, because it was desired as much by the one party as by the other; but the noble Earl will admit that, about the same time that he and his friends came into office, they found a congenial Ministry in France. About the same time M. Lafitte and General Sebastiani came into the exercise of power in France, and, in conjunction with the French Administration, the independence of Belgium was resolved upon. So much is this the case, that whatever advantages France may have received from the arrangements, I must do the French government the justice to declare, that I have no vestige of a communication from them relative to the independence of Belgium. So long as the Conference was conducted under the Administration of my noble friend near me (the Duke of Wellington) we, in conformity with strict integrity, and with a proper regard for the interests of all, consulted with the Plenipotentiaries of the different Powers, but the noble Lords opposite, instead of following this example, thought proper, in the absence of the Minister of the ting of the Netherlands, to come to a resolution for establishing the independence of Belgium. Against this decision, contained in the protocol of the 20th of December, the Minister of the Netherlands protested in these words:—'The undersigned feels it a duty which he owes to his sovereign, the king of the Netherlands, to protest solemnly, as he does under this present note, against the protocol issued by the commissioners of the Five Powers, on the 20th of December, inasmuch as by its provisions, this act of the Conference attacks the rights of the king of the Netherlands; and he also solemnly protests against all the consequences which may be drawn from those acts of the Five Powers, to the prejudice of the existing treaty, and to the prejudice of all other the rights of his august sovereign.' The king himself also protested against it for the same reasons. His Majesty says, 'If the Treaty of Paris, of 1814, placed Belgium at the disposal of the allied Sovereigns, this power, when they had fixed the fate of Belgium, was then renounced according to the law of nations, and that they were returning upon their own work by these further proceedings,
844
and that the decision to which the Five Powers had come to, for severing Belgium from the House of Nassau, was beyond the sphere of their power.' The Conference of London, it is true, was assembled at the desire of the king of the Netherlands, but this circumstance did not vest in the Conference the power to declare by its protocol that which was contrary to the very object for which they were invited to assemble, nor did it give them the authority, instead of advising for the interest of the king, and for the preservation of his sovereignty, to accomplish the dismemberment of his kingdom. And yet, by this protocol, the Conference assumed to themselves such a power, and the independence was thereby virtually decided upon by them as early as I have stated. I may here take notice of an argument which has been advanced by the Conference in the document last issued by them, and which is dated the 4th of this present month; they say, When the king agreed to the treaty by which his dominions were confined to Holland, he had no right to be heard at the Conference upon that subject, as he had, by so agreeing to that separation, deprived himself of that advantage.' I think that nothing can be more unjust, or indeed I will say more disingenuous, than this remark. What was the king to do? The treaty imposed obligations upon him, and it also conferred rights. But he was bound, before he came to the allies for assistance, to repair and modify their work, in order to obtain the object they had in view; he was bound to ascertain the sense of his people. He did accordingly call the States-General together, and when there was a unanimous decision in favour of separation, the king always referred to the allies, as the parties who must ultimately pronounce upon the question, as they were interested in it in the same manner as he himself was. To say, therefore, that he deprived himself of the power of calling upon the allies, when he did what was necessary to put it in his power to do so, is so unjust, that I am astonished that it should have found a place in a composition so ingenious in many respects, but, at the same time, so fallacious in various particulars. The separation proposed by the States-General, and not sanctioned, be it observed, by the king, for no royal answer has been returned to that proposition, for the separation sanctioned by the king, had only reference to the administrative separation, which might have been established in. 1814. The provinces might then have been

845
united, though with a different administration for each, instead of that complete and uniform amalgamation, which was then adopted by the allies. The Conference appears to me to have proceeded upon an erroneous principle, and to have thought, because the Belgian provinces were once at the disposal of the allies, that for all time to come they had full authority to dispose of them in any way they pleased. This, my Lords, is the most monstrous proposition that can be advanced; it is, nevertheless, that which is maintained in the very protocol in which the Conference declare the separation and independence of Belgium. They state, that they have determined upon what they consider to be for the prosperity of the people of both countries, and the peace of Europe; and that, in fact, the arrangement is made for an European object. But they forget, that when they imposed the obligation of that treaty on the king of the Netherlands, they at the same time gave him the rights which that treaty conferred, and that he could only be lawfully divested of those rights by negotiation with himself, as the king; and that, without his consent, neither this, nor any other portion of his provinces, could be legitimately disposed of. It appears to me, that it behoves England, above all other countries in the world, to be extremely delicate and cautious how she aids in precipitating the entire separation and disposal of these States. Your Lordships will recollect, that this union of Belgium with Holland was a voluntary act on the part of the allies. Holland, no doubt, would willingly have returned to her ancient state, and have enjoyed her republican form of government; but it suited not the European Powers to allow to her that position; and on that account these provinces were united to the provinces of Holland, but they were, I contend again, voluntarily annexed. It was we, however, who chiefly derived the advantage of that annexation. For, in the treaty which we entered into with the king of the Netherlands, his Majesty of Great Britain engaged to restore all the Dutch colonies to the king of Holland which he had lost during the war, with the exception of the Cape of Good Hope, Demerara, Berbice, and Essequibo; and why was the exception made but with a view to the sixth Article of that treaty? There was also a sum of money paid by this country, and a contribution advanced by other continental Powers, towards consolidating that European arrangement.
846
We, while paying money for the erection of the fortresses on the frontiers of Belgium, were doing so without reference to the exclusive benefit of Holland; nor was the money a payment for the purchase of her four colonies, which I have just named. By no means. These arrangements were made, and these fortresses were erected, with a view to check the possible aggressions which might be attempted by France; and for the sum paid by this country an equal sum was exacted from the king of the Netherlands, and disposed of in the same manner; and this was done under what may be called an European inspection; an inspection which was intrusted to my noble friend near me (the Duke of Wellington), who was appointed to see that the fortresses were erected or repaired according to the avowed European object of the treaty. So that, although I do not affirm that these circumstances should have prevented this country from taking any part in the separation of Belgium from Holland, yet I do say, that it becomes us, above all other nations, to be careful how we assist in further despoiling that Power, by whose spoliation already we have so much benefitted. Well, my Lords, after the independence of Belgium was virtually decided, many other protocols were issued. But I shall not enter into the details of the negotiation which took place, but come at once to a most memorable epoch—when (as I find by the eleventh and twelfth protocols) the conditions of this separation were laid down, and proposed to the king of the Netherlands. The king accepted these conditions. He was told they were final and irrevocable. These and other articles were, indeed, called "propositions," but they may be virtually considered final, because, in proposing them to the king of the Netherlands, he was assured that the Conference would never recognize any sovereign of Belgium who would not accede to them. Consequently, by his acceptance of them, he made them binding on the Conference. These articles, however, were rejected by Belgium at the time; and a long course of negotiation ensued, in which the king of the Netherlands met with nothing but insult. A communication was received by the Conference from the king during this negotiation, in which his Majesty expressed his hope, that these final and irrevocable conditions would be carried into execution. I will not repeat the contents of these protocols, but they went to re-assert, that the

847
same views were still entertained by the Conference, and the same conditions were to be annexed to the treaties to be made with Belgium as had already been adopted and determined upon. To these promises, and to these conditions, the Conference adhered with tolerable consistency for some time. I shall pass by much of what then occurred, though perhaps it would not be an uninstructive lesson if we were to go through the negotiation, to shew how little the interests of the sovereign of the Netherlands were actually consulted by his ancient ally and friendly mediator. About the end of May, or the beginning of June last, Prince Leopold came to be seriously thought of as the sovereign of Belgium, and from that time the decisions of the Congress appear to have undergone some change. It is not essential that I should go into the particulars of Prince Leopold's election, and I am not anxious to do so. Suffice it to say, that the Conference then receded from the "final and irrevocable" articles previously agreed upon, and brought forward certain new propositions, which I shall not dwell upon, as they were rejected, and led to no practical result. Neither shall I dwell upon the military movement of the Dutch government, when the king of the Netherlands felt himself grossly outraged by the conduct of the new sovereign of Belgium, who, in his newly-assumed character, took possession of the ancient and undoubted possession of Holland. But I pass over all those matters, and hasten to the treaty, which is the real subject for your Lordships' consideration. This treaty was agreed upon by the members of the Conference, in the month of October last, and consists of twenty-four articles drawn up by the Conference of London. Looking at this treaty, I am at a loss to determine whether its provisions are more impolitic or unjust. By one of the articles of this treaty, we guarantee all the articles of the treaty. Now, I ask the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) whether he is aware of the obligation which he undertakes in signing such a treaty? It has been, for a long time past, the acknowledged policy of the Government of this country to be extremely scrupulous of guaranteeing anything; and we have always been particularly anxious to avoid guaranteeing anything that we were not to do ourselves. When we had bound ourselves to act in conjunction with other Powers, we had frequently found that the onerous part of the guarantee was too apt to fall on us alone. I do not
848
believe, however, that your Lordships are aware of the extent of the responsibility which the Government of this country incurs by the treaty with Belgium. We guarantee the observance of all the articles in that treaty, and the least objection to many of those articles is, that it would be impossible for us to execute them. Amongst other things, for instance, we guarantee the perpetual payment by Belgium of a sum amounting to above 700,000 l. a-year.
The Duke of Wellingtonsuggested, that the sum to be paid by Belgium, amounted to 840,000 l. a-year.
The Earl of Aberdeencontinued. My noble friend tells me that it amounts to 840,000 l. a-year. I rather think, however, that he has been mistaken. It is 8,400,000 florins, which amount, I think, to about 700,000 l. The annual payment of that sum by Belgium we have guaranteed by the 15th article of the treaty. I beg your Lordships to understand, that I do not object positively to all guarantees whatever. I might, for a powerful motive, be induced to guarantee the payment of a sum for a Government that was honest, trustworthy, well-known, and long established; but such was not the case with Belgium. Belgium, possessing a government just formed, just emerged from one revolution, and possibly about to be precipitated into another, how is it possible that we can make her pay? And according to this treaty, if Belgium refuses or fails to pay, this country is pledged in honour to pay every shilling of it. But this is not the only objection to the treaty. The whole of the articles of which it consists are so various and complicated, that the execution of them will require perpetual superintendence and interference. When noble Lords opposite sat at this side of the House, they constantly objected to Congresses: the present Government, however, appear so much in love with Conferences, that they have guaranteed the execution of a treaty which will render Conferences indispensable, for it is quite clear, that in the execution of the articles of this treaty there must be a constant reference to the guarantee of the Great Powers. The next article of the treaty to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is Article 9th, which relates to the free navigation of the canals and internal waters of Holland for Belgian commerce. This article is objectionable, if upon no other ground, because, as I contend, it makes frequent Conferences unavoidable. Upon every occasion of a quarrel

849
between the owner of a Belgian vessel and the Dutch Custom House, a Conference is liable to be called upon to enforce the guarantee. Not a day would pass in which we should not be liable to be called upon to interfere and enforce the guarantee we have made. That objection, however, applies, I will admit, only because of its impracticability. But, further—this stipulation surpasses, in injustice, anything which I have ever happened to meet with in the annals of diplomacy; and especially when it is considered that it emanates from, and is authorized by, a Power professing to be kindly disposed and amicably inclined to the Dutch nation! In the paper issued by the last Conference, of the 4th of January, they declare that this treaty and this article are only a development of those final and irrevocable articles to which I have before referred; that the king of the Netherlands has no reason to complain; and that the Conference have not deviated from the spirit of those original articles. Now, I will only refer to this single article relating to the navigation of the Scheldt and the Rhine. The original article relating to the navigation of these rivers, was in the Protocol, and was converted into what is called "a fundamental principle," which is a species of article that has always, I apprehend, been considered final and irrevocable. By that article (the third of the eleventh Protocol), regarding the trade and navigation of Belgium, it is declared that the terms of the articles 108, up to 117 inclusive, of the Act of the Congress of Vienna, should be applicable to the rivers which traversed the Dutch and Belgian territory. Ultimately, in order that there should be no possible mistake, the Plenipotentiary of his Majesty the king of the Netherlands received from the Conference at the time these articles were sent to them, or shortly after, the following communication. It is dated "Foreign Office, February 18," and signed "Palmerston," which was the day of their acceptance of the articles by the Dutch government. The letter runs thus:—'In submitting to your Excellency a copy of the Protocol, signed in Conference held to-day, the Conference has desired me to express to your Excellency, that the three articles of the treaty destined to establish the separation of Belgium from Holland, apply solely to the navigation of the rivers which traversed and separated the two countries.' Such was what the original article was considered, accepted, and declared to be, over and over again.
850
Now, my Lords, what is the article of the treaty? The corresponding article of the treaty is a development of the original article with a vengeance. It says, that the navigation of the Scheldt to Antwerp shall be under the common inspection of Commissioners appointed by the governments of Belgium and Holland—that moderate rates of pilotage shall be fixed by common consent—that the duties shall be the same for the Dutch and the Belgian commerce—and that the intermediate waters between the Scheldt and the Rhine shall be reciprocally free. The words of the article are, 'Il est également convenu que la navigation des eaux intermédiaires entre 1'Escaut et 'le Rhin pour arriver d' Anvers au Rhin et 'vice versâ, restera reciproquement libre; 'et qu'elle ne sera assujettie qu'à des 'péages modéres qui seront provisoirement 'les memes pour le commerce des deux 'pays.' The Conference, in its impartiality to Holland, directs the intermediate waters between the Scheldt and the Rhine to be free for Belgium. No duty is to be levied on Belgian commerce which is not also levied on the Dutch commerce. The effect of this article, therefore, is, to force the king of Holland to tax his own subjects on his own waters, for there is not an inch of Belgian territory within those "intermediate" waters. Was ever so monstrous a power attempted to be exercised by an ally over the sovereign rights of an independent prince? Have they given any, the least reason for such a course of proceeding? Not an inch of Belgian territory is washed by these waters. And this the Conference have decreed, without consulting the only party whose interest is involved—namely, the king of Holland; but they, out of their great mercy to him, have allowed the right of navigating these rivers to remain to the Belgians, without any reciprocity, or equivalent, to the king of Holland! Why, my Lords, I wish to know what is meant by the terms of this article. It says, 'the com'merce shall be free from the Scheldt to 'the Rhine.' Now, it is not an easy matter to say what is the Rhine. In a treaty entered into with some of the States bordering on the Rhine, by the king of the Netherlands, he had agreed to consider the Leek and the Waal as forming together the Rhine; but the true river, correctly called the Rhine, is a very inconsiderable stream, and not fit for commerce. But what right has Belgium to avail herself of this definition to navigate the internal waters of Holland? This might form the

851
matter of the first dispute under the treaty. I do not mean to say that such a question is not a very fit matter for negotiation between the king of Holland and Belgium. He may allow these waters to be navigated by the Belgians as well as by the subjects of any other Power. But according to this article, a right is given to the Belgians to navigate all the waters between the Belgian frontier and any part of Holland. If any dispute were to arise as to what should be considered the Rhine, it may be contended that the Rhine is not the conventional Rhine, but the true Rhine; and it may be further asserted, that not only those waters, but the waters of Zealand and of South Holland, and those communicating internally with Leyden, Utrecht, and even with Haarlem, will come within the construction and contemplation of this article. If the Conference guarantee the execution of this article, they must, therefore, define the geographical boundaries of the Rhine. This, however, is matter beyond their jurisdiction, because it lies not with them to consider whether the Leck and Waal shall be taken to constitute the Rhine or not—when other nations have agreed by treaty so to consider that question. This very first dispute would lead to great disorder, in consequence of the various opinions which may be entertained on a subject of so much difficulty; and it would be impossible for this country to interfere, by virtue of this article, to enforce its own guarantee, without giving rise to an interminable dispute about this vague right of navigation. My Lords, the king of Holland has protested against this article among the rest; and is it surprising that he should do so? Seeing how little his interests have been taken care of by the Conference, and neglected by this country, on which he had every reason to hope he might implicitly have relied, I cannot feel much astonishment that he should not be inclined to concur in the interpretation of any of the articles which the Conference, or this country, might give to them. Here is another article, perhaps equally preposterous, and equally unjust, for friends and neutrals to have proposed. It is that which entitles Belgium to a free passage through one of the principal fortresses of Holland, that of Maestricht. Such are the words of this portion of the treaty. This permission, as worded, would extend itself so as to endure even in time of war. Here, then, is another condition to which it was impossible that the king of Holland could subscribe. It is a proposition, indeed,
852
which strikes at the root of the sovereignty of every independent prince in Europe. If it be said that one must give a convenient debouché to the commerce of Belgium, why, I ask, is Belgium to be presented with this privilege more than other nations? Is it because that country has revolted from its sovereign? Does the fact of that revolt give Belgium any preferable claim on Holland? There is one other article to which I must be allowed to allude—I mean that which refers to the arrangement as to the duchy of Luxemburg, a portion of which is taken from the king of the Netherlands, without any colour, pretence, or excuse. I cannot believe that the governments of Austria and Prussia will ever ratify a treaty containing this article, which is in direct violation of one of the first principles of the Germanic Confederation. The fundamental act constituting the Germanic Confederation, mutually guarantees the whole of the possessions which constitute the Union, and distinctly declares, that there shall be no voluntary cession, by any of the Powers, of any part of the territory, without the free consent of the Union. These being amongst the fundamental articles of the Germanic Union, I know not by what right it is assumed to take half the duchy of Luxemburg from the king of Holland, giving him compensation here and there in Limberg. It was distinctly declared, in the early communications on this subject, that the duchy of Luxemburg, being a part of the Germanic Confederation, could not be compromised by any arrangements which had or should have relation to Belgium. It is true, that after this express declaration, the king of Holland, in deference to his allies, expressed his willingness to submit to an arrangement as to the duchy, upon receiving a satisfactory territorial indemnity; but he reserved to himself the right of judging whether any indemnity offered to him was satisfactory or not. The indemnity now offered to him, I am willing to admit, is convenient enough in some respects for the king of Holland; but it is an arrangement by which he loses 50,000 inhabitants, and no one can wonder that he has refused to accede to such an arrangement. Unless the Austrian and Prussian governments are under a control which I cannot understand, it will not be possible for them, as members of the Germanic Confederation, to sanction or ratify this treaty. I admit the propriety of mediation by friendly Powers in such a case, but that the allies have any right arbitrarily to make,

853
such arrangements, and to force their acceptance on the king of Holland, is a principle to which I can never agree. The Conference of London has, throughout all its meetings, professed great care for the interests of Holland, and it has been said, that by this treaty Holland is placed in a better condition than it ever was before. It was said, that when Holland gained her high name amongst the nations of Europe, she was not allied with Belgium. And this is very true. But it must be remembered that Holland was then a republic, and it was not her policy to extend her territory. Conquest, European conquest at least, was entirely opposed to the policy of such a form of government. But the case is widely different now—to suit our own views of European policy, and to check the aggrandizement of France, we erected Holland into a formidable State; and subsequently recognised the sovereign of that country as king of the United Provinces; thus throwing a counterbalancing and substantive weight into the scale of the Powers of Europe. By this means you no longer enabled him to pursue that policy as king, which, in ancient times as a chief of a republic he felt it his interest to adopt. But, independent of that consideration, let me ask, what is there in the present condition of Holland to compensate her for the losses which she has sustained; for the giving up of those colonies to which I have already alluded, for the construction of fortresses at a large expense, which were not only not useful, but, perhaps, injurious to the country? How has she been compensated for the loss of all she had acquired in another hemisphere, and for the opening of the Scheldt, which has been insisted on ever since the treaty of Munster, down to the French Revolution? We have desired to navigate the Scheldt even to its sources. I do not suppose that the Dutch government would, at this day, put forward any pretensions to the exclusive navigation of the Scheldt. But among friends—among allies at least—it appears a very small compensation to have allotted it in consideration of what it had had to give up. I am, therefore, utterly at a loss to understand in what manner Holland has been benefited by the means referred to by the Conference. Possibly it may be by the neutrality of Belgium. I think the king must be very easily satisfied with a compensation, indeed, if, after the solemn professions which his allies have made of zeal for the prosperity
854
of his kingdom and throne, such a species of compensation is accepted by him as satisfactory. But, my Lords, if the terms of the treaty be unjust and impolitic, the manner of enforcing them is, if possible, still worse; for how is it enforced? My Lords, those articles to which I have called your attention were originally framed and propounded as final and irrevocable—of that fact I have given you some proof; and they were communicated to Holland with, as I contend, a threat. These obnoxious articles—it is difficult to believe it—were actually drawn up and agreed to without any concert whatsoever with the king of Holland, and without his slightest knowledge. Such a proceeding on the part of a Conference which makes pretensions to impartiality, can scarcely be credited. These articles were communicated to the Dutch plenipotentiary, with a letter, of which the following is an extract:—'They contain the final and irrevocable 'decisions of the Five Powers, who, by 'common consent among themselves, are re'solved to bring about an entire acceptance 'by the averse party, whoever shall reject 'them.' They have resolved, themselves, to bring about the acceptance !—very well knowing that they would be rejected. The Dutch government accepts these articles as a matter of negotiation; but, at least, it entreats to be heard upon some of them, in order that they may be modified, so as to agree with the interest, independence, and dignity of the sovereign. To that request the Conference replied by a note, addressed to the Dutch Plenipotentiary, stating that they owed it to the frankness which characterized an honest course—to the friendship which united their Sovereigns to the king of the Netherlands—to declare, that neither the substance nor the letter of the twenty-four articles could undergo modification. This is the friendly mediation so loudly boasted of! My Lords, I could little expect such language to proceed from the noble Lords opposite, when I recollect that, at the commencement of these negotiations, some of them said to us, "Although you may give these parties advice, yet, above all things, let it be of the most friendly kind, and without any active mediation." I little expected, my Lords, to see this course adopted by those identical noble Lords. I own I cannot understand this inconsistency. What I can understand is, the possibility of proposing to such a state as Belgium, which has never, heretofore, enjoyed national

855
independence, certain conditions for her acceptance, on penalty, in the event of her rejecting them, of your refusing to recognise that State: this I can understand. But how you should be able to pursue the same course towards your own intimate ally—a power whom you have ever, hitherto, found to be worthy of respect, and between whom and other foreign powers you have always understood an honourable connexion to have subsisted—this is what I really cannot possibly comprehend. Those articles, I repeat, were determined upon without the participation or knowledge of the king of the Netherlands or his Plenipotentiaries. This I find stated in the note of the Dutch Plenipotentiaries, and it is not denied or replied to in the elaborate document put forward by the Conference. It was impossible for the Dutch Plenipotentiaries, who were never consulted on the subject, to suppose that there was any intention to interfere with the internal navigation of Holland, and therefore they had made no representations on the subject. The outrageous indecency and disrespect with which the Dutch government has been treated, then, I say, greatly aggravates and embitters the injury done to the king of Holland. All this was done under the character of friendly mediation. General Sebastiani, in his note to the French minister at Brussels, states distinctly, 'the Con'ference at London is a Conference of me'diation, and it is the intention of the king's 'government that it should never lose 'this character.' By the articles of the Treaty, I say, that the Conference has interfered with the lawful sovereignty of the king of Holland, in the provinces of Holland, as well as in the Belgian provinces. Putting the claims of friendship and alliance out of the question, I say that the Dutch government had a right to have been consulted. At the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1818, a declaration was made, that the Allies might mediate upon the call, and at the desire, of any of the contracting Powers; but that the party at whose instance the Conference was called, should be united in the deliberations. This was an act of that association called the Holy Alliance; and, though it went to limit the power of that Holy Alliance, the present Government seemed very willing to dispense with the limitation. Under the rule laid down by the Allies, they were only to interfere upon a formal invitation, and with the express reservation of the right to the party inviting, that he
856
should take part in the deliberations, either by himself or his Plenipotentiary. The king of Holland, in this case, insisted on his right under the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, and complained that the acts of the Conference was a violation of that right—and how was he answered? It was said—"It is very true, by the article to which you have referred, you had a right to be united in our deliberations, and you were united. When we wanted your advice, we asked it, and all through the negotiations you, or your representatives, had free access to us." Now, is not this answer a miserable quibble, when it is admitted, that the articles of the treaty were decided without the participation or knowledge of the king of Holland? I say, give me the Holy Alliance in preference to an Alliance which justifies its conduct towards a friendly power by such an evasion. I do not wish to extend the comparison further; but so far as the declaration at Aix-la-Chapelle, and the manner in which the claim of the king of Holland under that declaration has been treated, I say, that the Holy Alliance appears to great advantage—for, although they might condemn, they did hear. It might be said, that the course pursued towards Holland, though not strictly defensible on other grounds, is justifiable, because it was done to preserve the peace of Europe. Now, I say, that if the wit of man was employed to invent a cause of war—of interminable war—none better could be devised than the treaty which is the subject of consideration. Every article of this treaty is pregnant with war. You cannot proceed a step for the purpose of carrying the treaty into effect without producing war. The first step which the noble Earl is bound to take is, to enforce the ratification of the treaty by the Dutch government; and he has already had a pretty good sample of Dutch constancy and determination. War with Holland, then, is the first step, and where that is to end, I shall not take upon myself to predict. Your Lordships will now see the strange and impracticable position the treaty has brought us to. Where it will end I cannot see, but one thing I can see, that all this tends directly to the gain of France. The last time we entered into a war with Holland the effect was, to throw that country into the arms of France. It is a singular circumstance that the principal grievance which our Government then complained of was, that the Dutch were supposed to manifest a disposition to acknowledge

857
our revolted Colonies. By declaring war against Holland, however, we threw it for a time into the hands of the French. I own, my Lords, I do not fear the enforcement of the ratification of the treaty at present. I have no doubt that France is well content with the footing which we are on with Holland; and she is sure of having a good friend in Belgium. On a former occasion, when this subject came under discussion, in reference to the application made to Prince Leopold to accept the government of Belgium, I took the liberty of predicting, that any Sovereign who was elected to rule over Belgium must be essentially French. It was upon this ground, amongst others, I deprecated the acceptance of the Belgian crown by that illustrious Prince, who, as I think, unfortunately for himself, and unfortunately for this country, has since assumed that crown. When Belgium became an independent nation, our only security, in my opinion, and I then stated it, was in drawing closer the ties which united us to Holland. Subsequent events confirmed that opinion. Prince Leopold, I conceive, has proved the justness of my anticipation. How does he act? Has he not furnished a good answer to the French Ministry, when they are charged with giving Belgium to an individual closely connected with England? Well might they say, "What signifies his connection with England?—what signifies his naturalization? Could a son of France have acted with more devotion than he has done in forwarding the interests of France?" Upon arriving to preside over the revolutionary constitution of Belgium, the first act of Prince Leopold was a declaration of direct hostility to the king of Holland. The king of the Netherlands, while trusting to the promises of the five great Powers, advanced his army for the purpose of carrying the separation into effect. But what was the conduct of the king of the Belgians upon that occasion? Why, he instantly despatched a messenger to the king of the French to intreat his immediate assistance. Now, one should suppose he would have thought of apologizing to the Conference in the first instance; but perhaps he conjectured, that from that quarter he should receive nothing but Protocols, and that it would require something more substantial to repel the bullets of the Dutch army. In consequence of the advance of the French troops, it was agreed that the Prince of Orange should lead back the army under
858
his command;—and the next step of the king of the Belgians was, to intreat that 12,000 French might be left in his new territory, for the purpose of protecting him. That request, however, was not acceded to, principally in consequence of what had been said upon the subject in this House by my noble friend, the Marquis of Londonderry. Yet scarcely had the French troops retired beyond the Belgian frontier, when they returned back again in thousands, and, having changed their dress, took service in Belgium. Another point to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention is, the proposed demolition of the fortresses. Noble Lords opposite said, that this was a question with which France was to have nothing to do, and that it was to be settled between the Allies and Belgium. It was also said, that the fortresses were greater than Belgium had resources to maintain, and that her neutrality being guaranteed was sufficient for her protection. What did the king of the Belgians do in this instance? Why, he said, "I'll destroy the fortresses, and give an additional proof of my confidence in the king of the French, and of my brotherly affection for the French people." For my own part, I believe that the king of the Belgians will make the French very welcome to any number of fortresses they may choose to take. The question which has recently occurred respecting the demolition of some of them, will show what sort of policy is pursued. Among the fortresses proposed to be destroyed are Philipville, Marieville, Mons, and Ath. But, said France at this moment, "No, not Philipville and Marieville, for these we can get whenever we think proper. We want that those fortresses shall be destroyed which have been constructed, not on our frontiers, but in Belgium." This was the language of that Power with which the king of the Belgians had entered into such friendly relations. I contend, my Lords, that the whole result of the engagements entered into by the proceedings of the Conference must inevitably lead to hostilities—they cannot possibly be prevented, if such injustice be persisted in against Holland. The only means which even the Conference itself has to insist upon the fulfilment of those engagements is, by having recourse to force against the king of the Netherlands. To show your Lordships how vicious is the adoption of such a system of policy on the part of England, it is only necessary for me to advert to the

859
language of an eminent Statesman, whose authority ought to have great weight with noble Lords on the opposite side. In 1781, Mr. Fox put a case, in which he supposed that the then king of France, Louis 16th, might be engaged in discussions for the purpose of securing universal dominion, and weakening the power of Great Britain. With a view to this favourable scheme, Mr. Fox supposed that the king of France might say, "Encourage domestic war by all means—encourage revolt in her colonies—set her own subjects in open strife against each other. This will be playing our game precisely to the very point we could wish." My Lords, I will not say how far this system has been acted upon on the present occasion; but this I will say, that I see domestic differences arising, which must give rise to as much strife as foreign warfare. I see nothing in the policy of his Majesty's Ministers that is not likely to lead to the most disastrous results. But Mr. Fox goes on to say, that 'all this may be supposed to have occurred between the king of France and his subjects, and still further it might have been said, that in order to complete the design of establishing an universal monarchy, they must destroy the other rival Powers of Europe. The naval Powers were the most to be dreaded; and, after Great Britain, of those naval Powers, the Dutch were the first to be overthrown. How could they do that without weakening themselves? How can this be effected? Why, by instigating our faithful servants, the Ministers of Great Britain, to go to war with their nearest, dearest, and best friends, the Dutch. True, their interests are inseparable; they are like the right hand and the left of one immense and terrible body; by a brotherly combination of strength and action they are irresistible, and the House of Bourbon must fall before them; but divide them, nay, not only separate, but set them to tear one another, and they will crumble before us. To do this would be impracticable with any other set of men; but nothing is impossible for those Ministers, in the scale of absurdity or madness, to attempt. This would, no doubt, be said, and what must be the astonishment—what the feelings—what the transport of Frenchmen—when they perceive Great Britain go to war with the Dutch with out a cause?—for he declared he never yet could discover a cause for which we went to war with that Power, forgetting
860
all the interests, all the policy, and all the connexion by which we had ever been, and ought always to be, guided with respect to her.'* Yet such, continued the noble Earl, was the war into which the Ministers were going to precipitate the country. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) went so far as to announce it to the Dutch. He said to them, "If you do not accept of these degrading terms, I'll force you to accept them." But then the noble Earl and his colleagues said, that they did not entertain any bad feelings towards the Dutch, and were, on the contrary, prepared to cultivate all the ancient relations of friendship with them. Most assuredly their policy had a very different effect. The noble Earl had excited in Holland a feeling of the most bitter hatred towards this country—the very name of England was abhorred and execrated by the Dutch. The Dutch knew—and the French took good care they should know it—that it was to the noble Earl and his colleagues they were indebted for every thing unjust, oppressive, and ungenerous. In the course of the last year, the British navy was found no less than three times prepared to act hostilely towards Holland, and hostile demonstrations were made on two occasions. The officers of the Dutch navy had come to a universal engagement never to strike to the British navy. They had determined to follow the example of a brother officer, who had blown up his vessel, or to go to the bottom, rather than surrender. The Dutch were no braggarts, and he knew very well that the British navy would make very light of any threats of this description; but he stated the fact only to show that such an inveterate feeling existed in Holland against the people of this country as had no precedent in the history of civilized warfare. When he found the interest of our ancient allies so grossly violated, and the personal honour of the king of Holland himself so loudly called in question, he thought he could not do less than call upon their Lordships to express their decided opinion upon the subject. With these feelings he should beg leave to ask their Lordships to agree to the following Address to his Majesty:—
"To assure his Majesty that we duly appreciate the efforts of his Majesty to terminate, in conjunction with his Allies, the dissensions which have prevailed in the kingdom of the Netherlands, and to maintain
*Hansard's Parl. Hist. vol. xxii. p. 698.

861
inviolate the peace of Europe. That, without calling in question the necessity of facilitating a separation of Holland and Belgium, upon just and equitable principles, we beg humbly to represent to his Majesty, that we have seen with much concern the project of a treaty which has been made public, and which has for its object the provisions consequent upon a final separation of the two States; but which, in our humble apprehension, contains stipulations incompatible with the interests of this country, and injurious to the honour of his Majesty.
"Humbly to express to his Majesty our conviction, that an engagement to guarantee the execution of all the articles of which the said treaty consists, would be improvident and dangerous; that we fear it might lead to the necessity of imposing additional burthens upon his Majesty's subjects; and as the interests which are involved in some of these articles are various and complicated, the interference requisite to ensure their execution must be so frequent, that we cannot but contemplate the probability of future discussions calculated to affect the stability of the general peace.
"Humbly to submit to his Majesty, that stipulations entered into without the participation or consent of the king of the Netherlands, by which a privilege is given to the subjects of a foreign State to navigate in the internal waters and canals of Holland, and to carry roads or canals through the Dutch territory, must be regarded as a manifest violation of national independence, and as destructive of the rights of sovereignty.
"Humbly to remind his Majesty, that it has long been the established policy of this country, and the practice of his Majesty's royal predecessors, to cultivate the strictest union with the Dutch nation—an union which has heretofore been considered as greatly conducive to the security of both States, and as the best support of the liberties of Europe; and which is still not only agreeable to their respective interests, but essential to their common welfare.
"That, to dictate a treaty to the Dutch government, by which the interests of Holland are so deeply affected, and to compel that government to accept it without modification, we cannot but consider as unjust, and as likely to prove fatal to the maintenance of that ancient and intimate alliance, which has so happily subsisted between the two countries.
"Humbly, therefore, to pray, that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to issue such directions as may render the said treaty, in the articles above referred to, more consistent with the regard which is due to the honour of his Majesty's Crown, to the security of our own permanent interests, and to the just claims of his Majesty's faithful and natural ally."
Earl Greyspoke as follows:—My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has told you, in the course of his long and able address, that the Motion with which he had to conclude was an extraordinary one, and only to be justified by extraordinary circumstances. This admission is no more than he ought to have made when he commenced by stating that he wished to prevent the execution of a treaty, which, after a long and arduous negotiation, has at last been brought to a conclusion. On that conclusion has depended nothing less than the peace of Europe. The noble Earl states, that by this treaty not only are the interests of England sacrificed, but all the interests of Europe; he says the honour of the Crown has been degraded, and our commerce destroyed, and he imputes all the mischief to his Majesty's Ministers, but more especially to me. Never was any charge more unfounded. The noble Earl goes on to ascribe to my colleagues and myself, infinitely more power than we are conscious of possessing, if he supposes that we, acting in a bad and malicious spirit, would influence all the other members of the Conference to join with us in such injustice, though their interest in the prosperity of Holland is no less involved than our own. Surely, my Lords, it cannot for a moment be imagined that by any efforts of ours, even were we capable of having recourse to any for so base a purpose, other Powers could be brought to give effect to a treaty which should destroy for ever the power of Holland, and aggrandize the power of France. But what is the charge brought against us by the noble Earl? It is nothing less than that we, with our eyes open, have got the other Allies to agree with us in an unnatural combination, and foul conspiracy against Holland. The noble Earl, in support of the positions he has advanced, has compared our conduct to what had occurred in the reign of Charles 2nd; but never were any two cases so dissimilar. There is no sort of analogy between them. The noble Earl does not take into consideration the extreme difficulty of our situation on first getting

863
into office. He seems to forget that we were placed in the very midst of those difficulties and embarrassments which were produced for us by the noble Earl and his predecessors. The noble Earl gives me much more consequence than I am entitled to, if he supposes I am capable of realizing all that he imputes to me in the criminatory speech he has addressed to your Lordships. For my own part, I am not disposed to arrogate to myself anything that fairly belongs to another; and to the labours and exertions of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department I must give full credit. From him I have found the most earnest and zealous co-operation. I ask, is it owing to me, or to any counsels of mine, that this country has been involved in war, during a period of more than twenty years, and loaded with 800,000,000 l. of debt? I ask, is it owing to me or to any counsels of mine, that, when that war was brought to a conclusion, a political system was established which has subsequently fallen to pieces by its own vices? I ask, is it owing to me, or to any counsels of mine, that, after the Revolution, which had recently taken place in France, Belgium followed the example, and rose against its Sovereign, thus dissolving a union which was originally founded on a vicious principle, and which, even in the opinion of the noble Duke himself, as declared before I came into office, can never be re-established? My Lords, I am not answerable for all these things. When I took on myself the office I hold, I found the country in difficulties; and I may be allowed to ask, am I to be answerable for the system which took its rise in the time of George 3rd? On coming into office I found the country involved in all the difficulties into which my predecessors had brought it. I found Belgium already separated from Holland, and my colleagues and myself endeavoured, under circumstances of the most embarrassing description, to substitute another system for that which had been destroyed by its own vices. It is very easy for the noble Earl to say, you should have done this and that; it is very easy to propound some particular course of policy; but the noble Earl and his friends must be aware that we had not to treat with old-established governments, but with two new governments, emanating from two Revolutions. In candour I must state, that I found France influenced by sound views and just principles of policy. The French government is entitled to the more credit for moderation, since it has been continually
864
assailed and goaded on by a furious party aiming at nothing but war. I need not explain to your Lordships how difficult must be the task of the government of France in its endeavours to preserve peace under such circumstances of violent excitement. If by your own power you could bring all the resources of Europe to one common object, it would be easy enough to effect it; but it should be borne in mind that, on being called to the counsels of the Sovereign, we found Europe a magazine of combustibles, which the slightest spark might set into a blaze from one end to the other. The task we had to perform was most arduous. Belgium, as I have before stated, had been separated from Holland. But the noble Earl seems not to admit the fact. I ask, however, had not the king of Holland been driven out of Belgium? Had he not acknowledged that an administrative separation of the two countries was necessary? Had not the Prince of Orange, by his proclamation at Antwerp, declared the necessity of a separate independence of Belgium? Had not noble Lords opposite, when called upon to assist in restoring the king of Holland to his rights as Sovereign of Belgium refused to do so? Had they not prescribed the duration of an armistice? Had they not prescribed that the limits to which Holland should return should be the same as before the Union of 1814? Whether they formally declared or not the separation to have taken place, it cannot be denied that it had taken place de facto. But then the noble Earl says "you should not proceed all at once to recognize the independence of Belgium." For myself I must say, that my most earnest wish was, that the Prince of Orange should have been raised to the Sovereignty of Belgium if practicable; but circumstances had occurred which completely put an end to any hope of that kind. This was the wish, not only of the Government of this country, but of that of France also. An opposition, however, was urged against it in a powerful quarter, and, to prevent the possibility of the Prince of Orange being appointed as the successor of his father, a separation was decreed. This fact cannot be denied, when I state that noble Lords opposite had sent Ministers to negociate with the Provisional Government of Belgium. Assuming, then, as I must, the re-union of Holland and Belgium to be impossible, what, I would ask, remained to be done? I now openly state that I have been misrepresented in the part I have taken in these transactions. I now declare that

865
there was no more anxious wish of my heart than that Holland should be placed in a situation which should give her a strong defensive frontier, and enable her to take her proper position among the Powers of Europe. But it was necessary, at the same time, to see in what situation Belgium would be placed. Let me for a moment call the attention of your Lordships to the words of the Conference on this subject. The Conference said, "Considering the present moment to be favourable to an arrangement for settling the equilibrium of Europe, it is necessary that Belgium, prosperous, should find in her new state of political existence resources which she can maintain." If Belgium was left without resources, without the means of transport for her provisions, what must be the effect, not only to her own interests, but to the general interests of Europe? Would she not be justly discontented? Would she not take the very first opportunity that presented itself of attaching herself to any Power that was likely to free her from such oppressions, and would she not naturally look to France? On these grounds it was, that the Conference proceeded to lay down certain bases of separation between the two countries. Your Lordships will find them contained in the Protocol of the 27th of January. The territorial division is much the same as formerly, the whole of ancient Holland being preserved to that Power, while she receives, in addition, a certain part of the kingdom of Belgium. It will be recollected that Holland assented to the first proposition made respecting the limits, but Belgium could not be brought to acquiesce in them. It is asked, however, "Why not enforce the original stipulations?" My answer is, that more than one party was to be consulted. The interests of more than one party were involved. Let your Lordships only consider the state of France at the time, and reflect what must have been the consequence of any attempt to compel Belgium into an assent. The consequence must have been an immediate war. Only look to the state of Poland at the time; of Russia, Prussia, and Italy. I say, if anything like compulsion by force of arms had been attempted, a general war must have been inevitable. I felt regret at not seeing the original negotiations carried into effect, believing them to be just and reasonable: but will the noble Earl state that he has ever yet known any negotiations to be finally concluded in the terms originally proposed? No; some modifications are always to be
866
expected in affairs of this kind. Our object was, not to favour this or that Power, but to avoid war. The second propositions, being different in some respects from those first submitted for their adoption, were accepted by the Belgians and King Leopold. The noble Earl has talked of the intrigues for the Duke of Nemours, the Prince of Leiningen, and others, as candidates for the sovereignty of Belgium. All I can say is, that this Government has never been a party to anything of the kind—no, not even to the election of Prince Leopold. We felt, however, the very great necessity of there being in Belgium a regular government, and, when Prince Leopold was proposed as its sovereign, it was quite impossible that there could be any objection to him. A better choice could not be made under any circumstances. I entertain the highest opinion of his virtues and talents, and he has, on some trying occasions, given the strongest proofs of both. As to the charge urged against him by the noble Earl, of his being the creature of France, I believe it in my conscience to be totally destitute of foundation. Any conduct more calculated to prove beneficial to the interests of this country, or to entitle him to the deep gratitude of his own people, cannot be conceived than that of the king of the Belgians. I hold the principle of non-interference, as a general maxim, as strongly as ever I have done; but then I am not prepared to say, that there may not be some proper exceptions to the rule. In the present case, however, there has been no interference on our part, for the people were left to their own free choice of a government under the sanction of the five great Powers. The noble Earl then proceeded to state, that their Lordships had had several discussions on this subject before; and when we interfered to prevent the French Duke de Nemours from being elected king of Belgium, all history justified him in saying, that if the choice of a sovereign by one country furnished cause of danger to other states, other states had, on that ground, and on that ground alone, a right to interfere. Had not we, then, a right to interfere with the election of the Duke de Nemours, closely connected as he was with the Royal Family of France? If the noble Earl had seen the Duke de Nemours enthroned in Belgium, would he not have come forward, with sneers much better founded than those in which he had indulged that night, to protest against our neglect of British interests? If, then, we had a right to protest

867
against the election of the Duke of Nemours, so had the French government a right to interfere with the election of Prince Leuchtenberg. But all this merely showed the difficulties by which the five Powers had been hampered all through these negotiations. He had now explained to the House the situation in which we were, when the eighteen articles now accepted by Belgium were refused by Holland. On this refusal, a long negotiation again took place—a negotiation which was interrupted at last by the invasion of Belgium by the troops of Holland. One of the disadvantages of his present situation was, that he could not do justice to his case without stating arguments and facts which, if disclosed, might perhaps impede the progress of present negotiations. He would say nothing more of that invasion, than that it was an unexpected and even an unwise proceeding. It was certainly contrary to the spirit of one of the protocols. It was made, too, without notice, and even under some degree of disguise and concealment. For Sir Charles Bagot, our ambassador at the Hague, had no notification of it, and the Dutch ambassador, when he came here to conclude the treaty, assured us that he left Holland without knowing that such an invasion was in contemplation, and, when called upon for an explanation of it, told us that he had no explanation to give. It was under these circumstances that an English fleet—which, the noble Earl said, had now been sent three times with hostile intentions to Holland—was ordered to assemble in the Downs; and he said, boldly, that in his opinion, Ministers would have grossly neglected their duty if they had not employed the means within their power to force the Dutch to renew the armistice which they had violated. "But then," said the noble Lord, "the French army advanced into Belgium, and that is a proof that Prince Leopold is subservient to France." Now he really asked the noble Earl, what he would have had Prince Leopold to do in the circumstances in which he was placed? Prince Leopold had recently arrived in the country, and found its finances in confusion, its army disorganized, and that armistice broken which we had compelled Belgium to conclude, when she was successfully invading the states of Holland, unprepared at that time for any attack. Was, then, Holland, which had prepared her means in tranquillity procured by the interference of the Allies, to be permitted to make an attack upon Belgium, when she
868
was unprepared either to meet or to resist it? The noble Earl had told them, that Prince Leopold should have appealed at once to the Conference. Supposing he had appealed to the Conference, what would have been the result? Why this—that before he could have got an answer from the Conference, Belgium would have been overrun. The noble Earl had even turned aside from his argument to indulge in another sneer, for he had told them, that if Prince Leopold had made such an application to the Conference, all that he would have got in reply would have been another protocol. But to return from this digression. The French army having advanced into Belgium, compelled the Dutch to retire. The Conference then took the case into consideration, and having done so, approved of all that France had done. "But then," said the noble Lord and some of his able coadjutors, "you have got a French army introduced into Belgium—how will you manage to get it out again?" He had told the noble Earl and his friends, at the time, that he relied on the good faith of the French government, and time had since proved that his reliance had not been vain, for Belgium had been evacuated. "But then," said the noble Lord, "the French troops returned to Brussels disguised in blouses." He had also heard that story; but, from the information which he had received, he believed that there was no truth in it. The noble Earl might, perhaps, have better information on the point than he had; the noble Earl appeared to rely upon Dutch authority; but if he would only take a few facts from Belgian authority, he would learn that there were some thousands of Prussian soldiers serving in the Dutch army. For his own part, he believed that there was just as much truth in one of these stories as in the other, and not a whit more. But then the noble Earl found fault with the stay of the French officers at Brussels after their troops had evacuated Belgium. For his part he fully believed they had not remained longer in that city than was necessary to give some form to the new levies. Having established these points, he would now proceed to detail the course of proceedings which the Conference had afterwards pursued. They took the protocol of the 27th of January as the basis of their proceedings. This produced a series of objections both from Holland and from Belgium. It was then proposed that each of these two parties should take the statement of the other, and

869
make his own observations upon it. It was then found that the two parties entertained such conflicting views, that no arrangement could be formed between them. What, then, was the Conference to do? Informed as it was of all the facts in dispute—knowing the views of the different parties—looking back at the basis laid down in the protocol of the 27th of January—charged, too, as it was, with the conservation of the general peace of Europe, what could the Conference do but take the whole matter into its own hands, and act as arbiter in that which they could not otherwise bring to a satisfactory conclusion? The Conference then met in a spirit of strict impartiality and justice: indeed, if favour was felt towards any party, it was felt towards Holland, and not towards Belgium. Acting in that spirit of impartiality and justice, and influenced by the principles which he had already described, the Conference produced the twenty-four articles. He had before asked their Lordships to consider what the Conference could do under the circumstances? He now asked that question again. Could they have united Belgium with any other foreign Power? That was obviously impossible. There were no means whatever left for securing the peace of Europe except the erection of Belgium into a neutral State, affording by its neutrality a barrier of defence to other States against aggression. "But," said the noble Lord, "the twenty-four articles are inconsistent with the honour of this country, are injurious to Holland, are such as Holland neither can nor ought to submit to;" nay, more, are such as the noble Lord thinks sufficient to justify him in exciting Holland to resist them. It may, therefore, not be inconsistent with the due consideration of this subject to examine what the points of difference between the two nations are on these articles. He would prove to the House, that they were so slight and insignificant that it was impossible not to see, and seeing not to pity, the extreme virulence which had built a charge upon them. What, then, were the objections of Holland to the twenty-four articles? What were the points upon which she was so much injured that she needs must dissent from a treaty from which, in other respects, she received so much advantage? They were, the internal navigation permitted to Belgium; the free passage given to Belgian subjects on their route to Germany through Sittard and Maestricht; and the claim which the king of the Netherlands made upon the duchy of Luxemburg. He
870
wished the House and the people of England to understand, that all the speech of the noble Earl came shortly to this—that rather than there should be reserved to Belgium the right of navigating the Scheldt, of passing through Maestricht and Sittard, and of exchanging a part of the province of Limburg for part of the duchy of Luxemburg, the noble Earl was prepared to risk a general war. Rather than Antwerp should have a free traffic on the Rhine, and Limburg be assigned to Holland for part of Luxemburg, the noble Earl would throw the whole Continent into confusion. Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum, was the cry of the noble Earl; and if, in the performance of strict justice, war should be the consequence, the noble Earl was ready to undertake it. But let the noble Earl ask himself whether, when the question of carrying on that war should be formally propounded to the Commons and people of England, the Commons of England would afford him the Supplies essential to carry on a war begun on three such paltry matters. He did not think it necessary to dwell further on these subjects; but still he thought it might not be uninteresting to examine them a little more in detail. There was a protocol in which the noble Earl declared that he recognized the hand of an able master, which he praised for its ingenuity, but which he condemned for its lack of sound reasoning and acute argument. To whom the noble Earl attributed that paper, he could not tell; but a more able, indeed a more unanswerable paper, he had never read. He might rest the whole question relative to the navigation of the Scheldt on the very able manner in which it was treated in that paper. How, then, did the case stand? In the basis of separation annexed to the protocol of the 27th of January, it was stated that there should be a free navigation to the subjects of each Power in the waters passing through the limits of both. Now the right of 'free navigation' depended on the Treaty of Vienna, and that treaty explicitly said, that the navigation, not merely of all rivers, but of all the branches of the said rivers up to their mouths, should be free. It was therefore untrue that this stipulation had been made expressly in favour of Belgium. What, however, had been the attention paid to the Treaty of Vienna as to the waters of Holland by the king of the Netherlands? He would inform their Lordships in a very few words. For the last fifteen years that sovereign had held out against that interpretation

871
which all the diplomatists had put upon the treaty, and which every honest man in Europe must of necessity put upon it. Though the terms of the treaty were most explicit, the king of the Netherlands maintained that the branch of the Leck only should be free. He asked, when such was the case, whether it would have been prudent to have left such a point unsettled in any treaty of peace made between Belgium and Holland? It was therefore stated distinctly in the protocol, that Belgium was to have the right to navigate the rivers which extend from the Scheldt to the Rhine. How could this be an injury to Holland? This proposal was made to the king of Holland at the same time that it was made to the government of Belgium. No answer was given to it. The proposal, he repeated, was made to the king of Holland on the 15th of October, and no answer was given to it till the 15th of December. The most remarkable feature in this transaction was, that, though the answer of the Dutch government was communicated to us on the 14th of December, it was communicated to the Cabinet of St. Petersburgh on the 5th, and was even submitted to the two Chambers of Holland previously to its being submitted to us. The free navigation of the rivers between the Scheldt and the Rhine would not interfere either with the commerce or with the defence of Holland. If Holland was what Holland once had been, and if Dutchmen were not changed from their former nature, he would never believe that the skill and industry of Holland would not be able to enter into competition with the skill and industry of Belgium, even though Belgium had the free navigation of the Scheldt. This point, of the free navigation of the Scheldt, and of a free route through Maestricht and Sittart into the confines of Germany, was all the advantage which Belgium received from this arrangement. All the other points were decidedly in favour of Holland. For instance, the partition of the debt was decidedly favourable to Holland. A fair and equal partition of the debt would only have assigned 5,000,000 of florins to Belgium, whereas Belgium now had to pay 8,400,000 florins, for which she was to get this free navigation, and a free route by Maestricht and Sittart. These points, though favourable to Belgium, were not injurious to Holland. He now came to the objections which had been raised by the noble Earl to the proposed cession of
872
part of Luxemburg to Belgium, and he trusted to be able to prove, that no injury was done to the rights of sovereignty belonging to the House of Orange, either in its character of king of Holland, or of Grand Duke of Luxemburg. The noble Lord stated, that there was a difference of 50,000 in the population of the two districts ceded; but there was another difference to counterbalance that excess, and that was, that whereas the parts of Luxemburg ceded to Belgium were barren, the parts of Limburg ceded to Holland were fertile, and even necessary to her defence. The cession of that district of Limburg, by connecting the defences of Holland with Maestricht, would place her in a better military position than she ever was placed in at any former period of her history. He thought that he had now answered satisfactorily the different points to which the noble Lord had adverted. "But," continued the noble Lord, "you have violated the independence of other nations." He was most unwilling to employ force to impose upon other countries terms which they disliked; but that unwillingness must give way before the necessity of preserving the peace of Europe. He had hoped till that night—but after the exciting speech of the noble Lord, he doubted whether he could hope any longer—that to these conditions the king of Holland would have acceded, without any very violent resistance. When these articles were framed, he expected that they would be met by resistance in Belgium—but by none in Holland. In both those respects he had been disappointed. He might not like these articles himself; but necessity sometimes obliged men to adopt measures which they did not altogether approve. Considering the past political life of the noble Lord, he was astonished at the new light which had burst in upon him, and at the new-born zeal with which he stood up in behalf of the independence of nations. He would ask the noble Lord, however, whether he recollected the transfer of Norway to Sweden, and of Saxony to Prussia—that great moral lesson to the king who had assisted the emperor of France, which was followed by a punishment which fell only upon his innocent subjects? He would ask the noble Lord whether he recollected the transfer of Genoa, and the interference of the European Powers—first with Greece, and afterwards with this very government of Belgium? He regretted that there should be any necessity for the use of strong language, but

873
he must be permitted to say, that during these negotiations, which, if they had terminated unfortunately, must have produced a general war throughout Europe, there was no other safe path for the Government to follow, save that in which it had fortunately walked. With respect to the guarantee of the debt under the articles, he would tell the noble Lord how that was. The amount of the article was this—that 8,400,000 florins was to be taken from the debt of Holland and inscribed in the book of the Belgian debt, which from that moment became the debt of Belgium; our guarantee of that article of the treaty was, that it should be so transferred, and we were not in any degree responsible for the payment of it. That was, at least, his construction of the article, and that, he believed, was the construction of every one. He wished their Lordships to consider whether a better arrangement could have been made, and whether it deserved the character which had been ascribed to it by the noble Lord. It had secured to Holland her independence and her station in Europe, without exacting from her any sacrifice incompatible with her interest, or injurious to her honour. She might be encouraged by speeches in that House, and by comments out of that House, to persevere in a course prejudicial to her true interests. Stock-jobbers and speculators in securities, if they could get one farthing per cent on their time bargains, would not scruple to risk the peace of Europe: those persons, by the events of the last war, and by the enormous increase of the debt, had obtained a pernicious influence which might prevent the peace of Europe—an influence which might be described in two lines of the poet—
''Hinc usura vorax, avidumque in tempore fœnus, Et concussa fides, et multis utile bellum."
If the negotiations were broken off, and the ratifications were not exchanged, he should be glad if other measures of security could be devised; but in his opinion, there was very little chance that the object in view—the preservation of the general peace—could, by other means, be attained. His object, and the object of all the negotiations, was to obtain a security against war, whilst he endeavoured to preserve the honour of this country, and of all the countries concerned. Their Lordships might decide to-night on a vote of censure upon Ministers, covered by an Address to his Majesty, in order that he might call in other Ministers, and break off the negotiations—for that must be the consequence—negotiations
874
brought so nearly to a satisfactory conclusion. The noble Lord might then have an opportunity of breaking off these negotiations, which he, in conjunction with his colleagues, and with the concurrence of the four great powers of Europe, had endeavoured to conclude, and which he still thought would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
The Duke of Wellingtonagreed certainly with his noble friend, that he owed some apology for the vote which he was about to give in favour of the Address; but he must state, that what principally induced him to consent to the present motion being brought forward, was his sense of the injustice done to Holland by the departure from the principles of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. Holland had been forced to consent to the measures determined on by the Conference of London, without having time or being allowed to consider them. It was upon that ground he rested his justification for requiring that that treaty should now be reconsidered, and he should endeavour to prevail upon the noble Lords opposite to reconsider it themselves. He regretted that that noble Earl, whose whole time and attention must have been engrossed with other subjects, had not been able to give his attention to this particular business, for he believed such facts had never before occurred in negotiations between any two Powers, except on the occasion of the interference of the three Powers between the Turks and Greeks. But the noble Earl said, that the interference with Belgium and Holland was not a mediation. It certainly did not commence in a mediation, but it had terminated in the assumption of an arbitration—the most unjust that ever was known—on the part of the five Powers; and the noble Earl had boasted that he carried their opinions along with him for the conclusion of the treaty. He asserted, that the arbitration was most tyrannical, for the parties were never called on to hear the reasons of the sentence which was passed on them, nor had they any opportunity of making their defence until the sentence had been pronounced to be irrevocable. The noble Earl had spoke of the concurrence of the French government as one of these Powers. He did not know whether that government had concurred in the treaty or not. But if it had been a party to it, it must certainly have changed its views since, for it had declared that it would not hear of the alteration from a mediation to an arbitration. He did not know whe

875
ther they meant that principle to be applied to the Belgians only. He could not suppose that they did not mean that there should be a mediation as respected Belgium, but that the powers of an arbitration should not be employed against the king of the Netherlands. Their Lordships were well aware of the important distinction between the two terms. In February M. Sebastiani said, that the interference of the five Powers was only in the way of mediation, and that the French government could never consent that it should lose that character. But now their Lordships were told that the character of an arbitration was forced upon the Conference. Was it forced upon them by those of the five Powers who had refused to ratify the treaty because it had become an arbitration? or was it they who, as their Lordships were told, carrying the rest of Europe along with them, had forced the Conference to act as arbitrators? He presumed to say, that he had had a long experience in these affairs, and he would assure their Lordships of his sincere belief, that if England was induced to give up Holland, every other Power in Europe would be ready to peck at her. It was on such considerations he grounded the vote which he was about to give. The noble Earl had been pleased to charge the members of the late Government with having prepared the embarrassments in which his Majesty's present Ministers were involved; but why did not the noble Earl prove that? He had often challenged the noble Earl to come forward and prove that any embarrassment felt by the present Administration had been caused by the Government of which he had been a member. He had said before, that the last revolution in France was a visitation upon Europe, for which the late Government of this country was as little to blame as the noble Earl himself, or as any other person at that time in opposition to the Government. He had often said in that House, that there was not an individual in Europe who had less to do with that revolution and with the measures of Prince Polignac than the individual then addressing their Lordships. But if the members of the late Government had nothing to do with that revolution, they had also the satisfaction, the consolation, of reflecting that they had never eulogised it. The noble Earl spoke, as usual, very harshly respecting the settlement of Europe in 1814 and 1815. But the noble Earl ought to remember that that settlement had maintained the peace of Europe ever since, with
876
the exception, which he had always regretted, of the interference between Turkey and Greece. Was not the noble Earl aware that he was, up to the present day, carrying on his negotiations under the arrangements of that settlement. The power which the noble Earl professed to have over the Conference of London was entirely owing to that settlement, of which he so much complained. But the noble Earl said, that the late Administration left him in difficulties. It was they, however, who commenced the settlement of the difference between Belsgium and the king of the Netherlands; and he must express his belief, that the present Ministers found that the other Powers were negotiating (at the time when their predecessors signed the last protocol) with a sincere desire to bring those transactions to a speedy and an amicable conclusion. The late Government did no more than settle the suspension of hostilities, and take an engagement from the two hostile Powers that they would adhere to the suspension. They settled upon a line beyond which neither party should pass; and in the same protocol it was distinctly stated, that the line was determined on only for the purpose of suspending hostilities, and not as the definite separation of one territory from the other. On the 7th November (and it was curious and extraordinary that on that occasion the late Government avoided the error into which the noble Earl opposite fell in ten days after) the late Ministers refused to guarantee the suspension of hostilities; but the noble Earl guaranteed it. Indeed he would not say, that the noble Earl had since made good his guarantee. The late Government refused to make good the suspension, because they knew that if it should be violated it would be necessary to go to war to enforce it, and that then it would be very difficult to determine to what Power the task of its enforcement should be committed. The only way in which the noble Earl had executed the guarantee was by forcing the king of the Netherlands to break up the blockade of the Scheldt; but he had not compelled the Belgians to adhere to the suspension. It was difficult to say to which Power the task of enforcing this engagement should be intrusted. The noble Earl, however, cut the matter short; the guarantee was never enforced against the Belgians, but it was against the king of the Netherlands, by our compelling that sovereign to break up the blockade of the Scheldt. There were no steps taken, on

877
the other hand, to compel the Belgians to adhere to the suspension, and more especially in the neighbourhood of Maestricht. There was one very curious circumstance connected with this guarantee, which he thought well worthy of their Lordships' consideration. On one occasion, in February or March, the suspension of hostilities was to be enforced against the Belgians by a blockade of their ports—and how was this to be done? By neutral Powers. But it must be well known to the noble Lords who signed the protocol, that a neutral Power can have no right to blockade the ports or seize the ships of one of the belligerents. The noble Earl professed to have acted throughout with impartiality. How did the Conference prove this? At the same time that they threatened Belgium with the blockade of her ports by the ships of a neutral Power, they gave notice to the king of the Netherlands that he must, by the 20th of March, break up his blockade of those same ports, or that a fleet would be sent to compel him to do so. Now this was called impartiality; but upon what ground that character was given to it, he was quite at a loss to understand. The next part of those transactions to which he begged the attention of their Lordships, was the declaration of independence. The noble Earl (Grey) stated, that he had always been of opinion that the best arrangement for the peaceful adjustment of the differences between the separated States would be, that the Prince of Orange should become Sovereign of Belgium. But the mischief was, that what the Belgians wanted in the first place was, to have their independence declared by the five Powers; and the first step taken, after the guarantee for the suspension of hostilities, was to make that declaration of independence. This took place on the 20th of December; and on the 9th of January the French Minister (M. Sebastiani) wrote to the Belgian Minister at Paris, expressing great sympathy for the Belgian nation, which long formed part of France, and was still a member of the same great family, and assuring him that the government of France had obtained for Belgium all that it could obtain for her. That the separation from Holland had been brought about by that government, and that the independence of Belgium had thereby been consummated. Such was the construction which the French minister put upon the declaration. Again—in the month of August, M. Meulenere, the secretary of the Belgian government,
878
addressed the Conference in these terms:—'The circumstances under which the sus'pension of hostilities, in November, 1830, 'was proposed by the Conference and ac'cepted by the Belgian government, are 'too well known to require that I should 'recal to your recollection, that Holland, 'seeing her army suddenly disorganised by 'the natural effects of the separation of 'Belgium from her dominions, readily ac'ceded to the suspension; but that Belgium 'might have continued to profit by the state 'of things at that time, and might have 'pushed part of her population out of her 'own limits, and that yet, on the assurance 'that her independence would be acknow'ledged, she acquiesced in the wishes of 'the live Powers, and made her debut in 'the political world by a sacrifice to the 'peace of Europe.' Such was the construction which Belgium put upon the declaration. Such was the result of the noble Earl's negotiations, as far as France and Belgium were concerned. After that came the discussion of what was called the 12th protocol, in reference to which the noble Earl said, that Holland had adopted the basis laid down by the Conference for the settlement of the separation of the two countries, and that the protocol No. 12 did not give her all that she had since obtained north of the Mouse. But on this part of the subject he begged to observe, that that protocol held out to Holland other arrangements (besides the territory upon the Mouse), which were likely to induce her to agree to the basis. According to that basis, Holland was to retain possession, and entire possession, of the Duchy of Luxemburg, and she had every reason to believe that she was to retain possession of the German Encloses, as they are called, and that her territory was to be kept as a continuous line to the north of the Meuse, by other territory to be afterwards conceded to her. This protocol also contained the basis of a settlement of the debt which was satisfactory to Holland; and with respect to that part of the article which referred to the rivers and canals having access into the Rhine, or being connected with that river, there was a letter from the Secretary of State, declaring that that article was intended to refer to nothing but the rivers by which the countries were separated. This basis of arrangement was, therefore, satisfactory to Holland, and was readily accepted. Here it was worthy of remark, that the Conference declared the settlement contained in the twenty-four articles irrevocable. But

879
the noble Earl now told the House, that they had been obliged to depart from that settlement, because an adherence to it would have caused a general war in Europe. On that point he begged leave to contradict the noble Earl; for, after the French government had declared, in the first instance, that they had some doubt respecting that arrangement, they gave a full consent to the whole of it, on the 1st of March, and agreed to carry it into execution; at the same time again declaring its determination to adhere to the mediation, and not to allow any armed intervention on the part of any State in Europe. There was, therefore, no reason for deviating from the settlement which France had adopted, and which was satisfactory to Holland. But it happened, just at that time, that negotiations commenced for the election of Prince Leopold to the Throne of Belgium. The noble Earl (Grey) had said, that the Government of this country had nothing to do with that election. But the noble Earl would allow him (the Duke of Wellington) to refer him to a letter from the noble Lord who was at that time employed in Belgium. From that letter it appeared that one of the objects of the noble Lord's residence in Brussels was to bring about that election; and, for that purpose, he recommended certain arrangements with a view to facilitate the acceptance of that offer by Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg. The evidence went clearly to show that the election of that Prince was the cause of the abandonment of that settlement which had been accepted by Holland, and which Belgium had refused. He must be permitted to say, that he intended no disrespect to the king of Belgium, on the contrary, he had a great respect for his talents and attainments, and he trusted, that if that Prince would take on him the character of an independent sovereign he would be an excellent king of that country. But then he must be independent, not only of this country, but of France. To prove the interference of our Government, he must further state, that Lord Ponsonby was ordered to state to the Belgian government, that he should leave Brussels on the 1st of June, unless the articles were accepted by that day; but they were not settled, and he departed, and the first thing that was done after his return to London, was the alteration of the basis of the settlement already agreed upon. This was done without consulting the Dutch minister, in consequence of some representation made by Lord Ponsonby to the
880
Conference; and the Belgian government was told, that if they accepted the articles, the Conference was willing to go into negotiations to obtain from Holland the cession of Luxemburg for a valuable consideration—that is, for the cession of an equivalent territory. Now, according to the usual practice of such negotiations, Holland ought to have been consulted. But no such thing. The first that Holland heard of it was by the publication of Lord Ponsonby 's letter. The king of the Netherlands remonstrated, but he was told that, bon-gré mal-gré, he must accept the new settlement. He would not follow the noble Earl in all that he had said respecting the war between Holland and Belgium. That formed no part of the question now under consideration. Holland had great provocation to go to war when she did. He (the Duke of Wellington) differed entirely from the noble Earl on that subject. What he said at the time in that House was, that he never believed that the king of the Netherlands had acted with treachery. The notice which that king gave at the time ought to have been understood differently from the construction which the Conference put upon it, and they ought to have prevented the consequences that followed. Notwithstanding the guarantee, hostilities had never been suspended in the neighbourhood of Maestricht. In the same manner, hostilities were continued in the neighbourhood of Antwerp. Under these circumstances, how had king Leopold acted? Before he left this country, he accepted the eighteen articles. But when he arrived at Brussels he swore to the Constitution, which required that he should take possession of other territory which had belonged to Holland a century back. This hastened the conflict between the two countries, and the dispersion of the Belgian army brought on the French invasion. The noble Earl had asserted, that it had been prophesied that they would not again retire. He certainly could say for himself, that he had never been a party to any such prophecy; he had always asserted when some strong remarks had been made on the speech of the French minister, in which he declared it was the intention of that country to obtain possession of the Belgian fortresses, and to garrison them with French troops, that that speech was nothing in comparison to his signature. He knew that the French troops would evacuate the Belgian territory at the time stated, because he was satisfied

881
that the king of the French would keep his word, and never sanction such a gross breach of faith as to endeavour to keep them there. At that time, however, he had remarked that he understood there were several French officers in Belgium, who were engaged in organizing the people, and this, he had stated, was calculated rather to impede than to promote the independence of that country. This statement had been contradicted at the time, and he was told there was no foundation for such an assertion, but he had since received further proofs that he had been correct, and he now, therefore, repeated, that if there were French officers engaged in the organization of the Belgian army, such a step was not calculated to sustain the national independence of the Belgians. If they were engaged in any other than military service, still their employment at all in that country was most objectionable. He trusted that their Lordships would see in the whole of those transactions something, not only of indiscretion, but of what, in common language, would be called bad faith. He now came to that part of the question which turned on a comparison between the twenty-four articles of October and the guarantee of February respecting the debt. From what the noble Earl had said, he believed that the noble Earl had not had time to attend to those transactions. The noble Earl said, that the guarantee was, that Belgium should pay 8,400,000 florins of the rentes. But, to place that portion of the common debt on such footing, the consent of the creditors must be obtained to take the king of Belgium as a debtor, instead of the king of the Netherlands. That they would not do, without the guarantee of the British Government. But, after all, that was not the arrangement contemplated. The fact was, that the whole remained still the debt of the Dutch government. The interest was to be paid half-yearly in Brussels and Amsterdam. So that there had been no such transfer as the noble Earl supposed. Certainly the noble Earl had no time to attend to these details. If he had, there would doubtless be less reason to complain. But what, then, was the nature of the guarantee? If the Belgians should fail to pay the interest, how was this country bound to Holland? Was each of the five Powers bound to pay one-fifth of the amount, or was Great Britain bound to pay the whole sum in the event of their failure? It was true their Lordships had heard nothing of an Act of Parliament upon the
882
subject, to give the Attorney-General another opportunity of delivering an opinion that the money must be paid. But the King's honour would be bound; and his Majesty would be obliged to come down to Parliament, and say that he had guaranteed the payment, and call on Parliament to enable him to make good his engagement. But the guarantee was not confined alone to the debt: it went much further; it extended to all the details of the navigation of the Rhine and the canals. If all the various questions growing out of these matters were to be settled by negotiation, the Conference of London must be permanent. The noble Earl had been pleased to state, that the arrangements of these twenty-four articles were in strict conformity with the basis agreed to by the king of the Netherlands. He, therefore, must request the noble Earl would inform him where he could find in any part of the basis to which that sovereign had agreed, one word which could give the Belgians the right of passing vessels from the Scheldt to the Rhine? He knew not whether the noble Earl had read the letter from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the ambassador of the king of the Netherlands respecting the article in question; but in that letter the noble Secretary assured the ambassador that the Conference would not deviate from the settlement to which Holland had already agreed. The third article of the Treaty of Separation left the Belgians the free navigation of the rivers which cross the territories of both the States. The ambassador of the Netherlands had waited on the Conference to give the King's adherence to the treaty; and he must have protested against that third article, or the letter would not have been written. But the noble Earl affirmed, that the treaty relating to the navigation of the Rhine secured the navigation also of the rivers and canals connecting the Scheldt with that river. But he could assure the noble Earl that the treaty contained no such provisions. That treaty said, indeed, that the branches of the Rhine, and the rivers flowing into it, should be free to the navigation of the parties to the treaty. But there was not one word in it about the canals. How, then, could the noble Earl say, that the navigation of the Dutch canals was given up by that treaty to the Powers who were parties to it? Even if the king of the Netherlands could be induced to consent to the navigation by the Belgians of the Dutch canals, it must of necessity

883
be on payment of the duties both OH the Rhine and on those canals. It was by England that the demand was originated, he suspected, for the purpose of favouring Belgium; for the purposed arrangement was not to be found in any previous treaty. The general custom throughout Germany was, that the Powers, the territories of which were seated on the banks of a river common to several states, had the management of that part of it which flowed through their country, subject to the payment of tolls which were sometimes regulated by treaty. The King of Holland possessed this common right, and he was bound to provide for the due passage of the river; but the noble Earl insisted upon his sharing a charge, which properly belonged to himself, with the king of the Belgians. He must now advert to the right asserted, on the part of the Belgian commerce, of passing through Maestricht. He contended, that the case was not at all similar to that of the permission granted by Prussia to some of the minor Powers to pass through the Prussian fortresses, to which it had been compared. Independent of the principles proclaimed by the Belgians, when they said, "Belgium must be permitted to plant her flag and proclaim the principles of her independence in the towns and possessions of those opposed to her—we must have a garrison every where." Such a speech as this must, of course, excite attention in Holland; and could their Lordships believe it possible that another State would tolerate a free passage through its fortified places to persons who held such doctrines? And, with respect to the fisheries, although that was of minor importance, yet, still there were rights attached to them in various places through which the different rivers flowed, which ought to be respected, but for which no provision was made to reserve the rights of the king of the Netherlands. It was, therefore, not at all probable that that sovereign would be disposed to acquiesce in such propositions. But, if he were induced to grant these concessions, why was he not to have the benefit of making a Treaty of Commerce from which he would derive all the advantages of them? Let their Lordships consider what Holland had paid for Belgium. By the Treaty of 1814, Belgium was united to Holland; but Holland was to give compensation to Sweden for the cession of certain colonies, and to advance money for the restoration of the fortifications in the Low Countries. For that purpose she had sold four of her
884
colonies. Holland had to pay 1,000,000 l. to Sweden, and 2,000,000 l. for the Netherland fortifications, in addition to the 1,000,000 l. for her share of the contribution of Paris, besides the Russian loan, and other sums, amounting altogether to 7,000,000 l. sterling; besides 20,000,000 of francs. Such was the sum which Holland had paid for Belgium; and the compensation which it was now proposed she should receive was 600,000 florins, or about 60,000 l. a year. The noble Earl opposite had said, that this arbitrary act had been the only way of avoiding a war. But the whole question was one of justice. Had we a right to do what we had done? So far from avoiding war, in his opinion, the course of conduct pursued in this respect by his Majesty's Ministers was calculated to breed foreign war, as their course of conduct in another respect, was calculated to breed civil war. He called on their Lordships, however, not to be alarmed at the declaration of the noble Earl. The noble Earl allowed that three great Powers hesitated to ratify the treaty; he (the Duke of Wellington) might, he believed, say they were determined not to ratify it, until they had the consent of the king of the Netherlands, who, on his part, never would consent to it in its present form. He had only to add, in conclusion, that he trusted their Lordships would not be deterred from doing their duty on this and other subjects by threats either of foreign or domestic war.
Viscount Goderichmust say, that he thought the noble Duke who had just sat down had given no answer at all to the powerful speech of his noble friend near him. The noble Earl (Aberdeen) who had brought forward this Motion seemed to think it was a perfectly justifiable one, but yet he had thought it necessary to produce to their Lordships precedents in support of it, supposing naturally enough, that, in the present state of our negotiations with regard to Belgium and Holland, their Lordships might be of opinion that the course which the noble Lord had thought proper to pursue was any thing but justifiable. When, however, the noble Lord went to the reign of Charles 2nd for a precedent, the noble Lord must have selected from that part of our history merely because the matter then in question related to Holland, as the matter now in question did; for assuredly there was no other similarity between the two cases. That which, in the reign of Charles 2nd excited the anger and the indignation of Parliament, was a knowledge

885
of the profligate corruption of the King, who had been bribed by France not only to desert, but to assist in crushing and destroying, our ally, Holland. It was known, too, that the corrupt Ministers of Charles had shared in the bribes of their profligate master; and under these circumstances it was, that the Parliament of Charles 2nd took the measures to which the noble Lord had alluded. He trusted, that even the noble Lord himself would hardly say that the present case and that of Charles 2nd were parallel, so far as the reasons of the course pursued in the two cases were concerned. He would readily admit, however—putting out of consideration the extreme case of Charles 2nd—that a case might occur which would fully justify such a motion as the present; but then, in order to render such a motion justifiable, their Lordships would have, in the first place, to decide that the Ministry had done something which threatened, in its consequences, to compromise the interests of the country, or the dignity of the Crown. Were their Lordships prepared to say, that in the measures hitherto pursued by the Government, so far as their Lordships had received information of those measures, there was any thing which could justify their Lordships in coming to such a conclusion? He thought their Lordships would be far from entertaining such an opinion, which he was sure would be as erroneous a one as ever men entertained. He did not mean, at that late hour of the night, to drag their Lordships once more through all the circumstances of the Belgic revolution; but it would be absolutely necessary to go somewhat back, in order to understand the position in which the Government was placed. The noble Duke (Wellington) had found fault with his noble friend (Earl Grey) for saying that the late Government had provided the present with all the difficulties and embarrassments by which this question was surrounded; but he had heard no such expression fall from his noble friend. He had understood his noble friend to say, that the present Administration had inherited those difficulties and embarrassments from its predecessor. His noble friend had said,
"We found them: they are not ours;" and most truly had his noble friend described the manner in which this Government had met with these difficulties. The origin of the troubles of Belgium was, to all appearance slight, and apparently easy to remove. The obnoxious minister might have been dismissed, and the local taxes
886
complained of might have been abolished; but neither was done, and, indeed, scarcely time was given for doing either. One short week entirely changed the character of these troubles. The attack of the Prince of Orange on Brussels might, if it had proved successful, have again turned the tide, and have succeeded in putting down the malcontents. The fact, however, was, that it did not succeed; and that failing, it made matters much worse than they had been before. The subsequent stages of the revolution pressed with a rapidity which was almost unprecedented, and which must have baffled the policy of the most sagacious and the most prudent man. The independence of Belgium was de facto established from the moment in which the Belgian Congress proclaimed and declared that independence; for, from that moment it became evident to every man that the separation between the Belgic provinces and Holland could not be prevented, except by force. In this light it was quite evident that the king of Holland himself viewed the affair; for he did not call upon the other powers to mediate between him and Belgium, but he called upon them to put down the Belgic revolution by force, and so to reduce his revolted subjects to obedience. No one could doubt what the answer of the Powers would be to such an application. They refused to entertain it, and they wisely so refused. The application, therefore, proved no more than that the Dutch clearly perceived that nothing but force could prevent a separation of the Belgic provinces from Holland. He was justified, then, in saying, that the independence of Belgium was de facto established when the present Government came into office,—since nothing short of an universal war, which was not to be thought of, could have prevented its separation from Holland. He would ask, then, whether it would have been wise, even though it had been practicable, to allow matters to remain in that condition? And if not, what could be done?—how could negotiations for the settlement of these troubles be even commenced, without first acknowledging the independence of Belgium. The Government was compelled to choose between acknowledging the independence of Belgium, and entering into a war for the purpose of putting an end to that independence. Such was the necessity under which the Ministers had found themselves compelled to act on coming into office; and if their Lordships admitted the existence of

887
that necessity, it was impossible that they could entertain the Motion of the noble Earl. Their Lordships might have known from the ordinary channels of information what decision the Conference had made upon particular points of the subsequent negotiations; but before their Lordships could fairly judge respecting those decisions, they ought to be in possession of all the facts which had influenced the determinations of the Conference. At present it was impossible to communicate those facts to their Lordships; and in the face of that impossibility, which no one knew better than the noble Lord himself, the noble Earl had brought forward this Motion—a Motion, the object of which was (for it was idle to mince the matter), to condemn the Ministers to perpetual infamy, and to call upon them to give reasons why they should not be so condemned, though the noble Earl was aware that such a call was a mockery, since their tongues were tied, and their public duty prevented them even from stating their case. He did not think it necessary, after the able speech of his noble friend, to trespass further upon their Lordships' attention than just to notice slightly one or two of the objections of the noble Earl (Aberdeen). First, then, the noble Earl had contended, that the article respecting the navigation of the rivers was unjust; but the noble Earl had given no reason for this opinion, and he confessed that he was at a loss to perceive wherein the injustice of the article consisted. The article was, in fact, derived from certain principles laid down and acted upon by the Congress of Vienna. The principles were, as the noble Earl was well aware, at variance with the old maxims of the law of nations; and the object of them was, not to prevent collision, but to facilitate commerce, and to make nations less strangers to each other than they were before. These were, he admitted, very wide principles, but not more wide than wise, although in direct opposition to the principles of the noble Earl (Aberdeen), whose argument was, that the rivers should be shut up, in order that commerce might be obstructed, and nations made more strangers to each other than they had ever been before. Now, it had never occurred to any one in the Conference, nor to many probably out of it, that the opening of these waters would be injurious to the interests of Holland. Indeed, the Dutch themselves had not made this discovery till it was of use to them as a pretext for not agreeing to the terms proposed
888
by the Allied Powers. They did not object to it in the memoir, though he believed they did in the note which had been sent to the Conference; but then that objection was of a different character to that of the noble Lord. They said, that it was unheard of, that the duties and tolls, &c. should be regulated by the common consent of other Powers. Now, this he begged leave to deny. It was not unheard of. A treaty was signed on the 29th of May, 1815, between Prussia and Hanover, respecting the navigation of the Ems; and an article of that treaty said, that the duties on Prussian and on Hanoverian ships should be the same; but it said, also, that the two Powers should, of common accord, settle what the amount of those duties should be. He thought, therefore, that the Dutch had made more of this article than it was worth, and he had shown that they were wrong in their facts when they talked of such a regulation being unheard of. It would not be difficult for him to show, that the greater part of the noble Earl's objections were as unsubstantial as this respecting the navigation of the rivers; but he felt that at so late an hour he had already trespassed too far upon their Lordships' attention. Although nothing could exceed the vehemence, not to say violence, of the imputations which the noble Earl had cast upon the Government, he must be allowed to tell the noble Earl that, as far as his own conscience was concerned, he felt perfectly easy under these imputations, knowing them to be utterly destitute even of the shadow of foundation. He called upon the House to go to the vote with this recollection, that if—and he solemnly declared the fact was so—the Government had conducted these negotiations from the commencement to the end with the most strict and scrupulous attention to the honour and the interests of the country, no motion could be more uncalled for, and unjustifiable, than the present; and that while, on the one hand, the noble Earl had made out no case which ought to lead their Lordships to suspect for a moment that the conduct of Government had not been of that character, so, on the other hand, a sense of public duty precluded the Government from making public those facts which were essential to the complete justification of their conduct.
The Earl of Aberdeenbegged to assure the House, that there were but one or two points to which he was desirous to allude, and, that he would do so as briefly as possible. Now that he had learned from the

889
noble Earl (Grey) what the noble Earl meant by a guarantee, he was not at all surprised, that the noble Earl had entered into a guarantee of such a nature as that which he had described. Now that he knew how the noble Earl understood his engagements, he should not be surprised at any engagement the noble Earl had made, or might make. The noble Earl had told them, that all they would be called to do, under this guarantee, was to see the amount of the debt transferred from one great book into another great book, but the words of the treaty were—'And the payment of the 'sum above mentioned, of 8,400,000 florins, 'shall take place regularly every six 'months either at Brussels or Antwerp, in 'hard money, without any deduction of 'whatsoever nature it may be, either at 'present or in future.' Surely the noble Earl could hardly have read the treaty which contained these words, but if he had really read it, and yet so understood the guarantee, then he might, with equal safety, guarantee even the course of the winds and the waves. But let the treaty be agreed to, and he would defy the performance of it, because, to perform it would be found impossible. With reference to the division of the debt, the noble Earl had said, that he considered the portion assigned to Belgium as an ample portion, and, that such division was only the developement of the old engagement. Now by the old engagement, the portion taken by Belgium, was 14,000,000 florins, and by the new engagement it was 8,400,000 florins; so that if this were a developement at all, it was a developement of a very odd character—a developement by means of contraction. According to the opinion of the members of the Conference themselves, the Dutch had a right to expect, that upwards of 10,000,000, at least, of the debt, would be charged to Belgium. The noble Earl had, in the first place, denied, that any unnecessary intervention had been had resource to, and then he said, that violence had been resorted to, from necessity, to induce the Dutch government to yield. If the House was to be told, that this prince objects to this king, and that potentate to the other, and if every power was to have a veto in the nomination of a sovereign, a pretty sort of independent State must be the result. If foreign powers arrogated to themselves to choose or exclude particular individuals from the sovereignty of a State, what became of that undoubted power which the noble Earl contended was
890
inherent in any nation to choose its own government. He would beg to add one word more in reference to the remark made by the noble Viscount (Goderich) who had said, that the navigation of rivers was occasionally regulated by a convention between those sovereigns through whose territories they flowed, and had instanced Prussia and Hanover with regard to the Ems. No doubt, two interested parties could regulate such matters as were common to themselves, and, therefore, they ought to have left this right to be settled between Holland and Belgium themselves; the complaint was, that a third party had arbitrarily stepped in and insisted upon the navigation of rivers without consulting either party, and against the especial interest of one of them. His great objection to this treaty, however, was—apart from the injustice of it—that it would render war unavoidable. However great might be the noble Earl's desire to preserve peace, he would too soon find that this treaty would force him into a war. In spite of what had fallen from the noble Lords opposite, he must contend that the late Administration left to its successors no other than very light embarrassments in regard to our foreign relations; and he had always looked upon a greater probability of war as one of the almost inevitable results of the retirement of the noble Duke near him from his Majesty's councils. That illustrious man had, by his abilities, his experience, and his reputation, been enabled to inspire our allies with confidence, and to strike fear into the hearts of our enemies; and those feelings in the bosoms both of our friends and our foes were never higher than at the moment the noble Duke quitted office. The noble Lord had taunted him with the separation of Saxony, and affirmed, that he (the Earl of Aberdeen) had no reason to complain of the separation of Luxemburg; but he must again and again declare, that he considered the projected division of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg as the forcible spoliation of the territories of an old ally. The noble Earl had told him to look at Genoa, and Sardinia, and Saxony; but those were conquered countries, to be dealt with as the conquerors pleased. These instances furnished no justification of the present, which was the robbery of our friend and ally.
The House divided on the Motion. Not content, Present 59; Proxies 73, 132; Content, Present 39; Proxies 56–95; Majority for Ministers—37.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

PEERS PRESENT, 59.

DUKES

Holland

Sussex

Selsey

Norfolk

King

Richmond

Chaworth (Earl of Meath)

Devonshire

St. Alban's

Cloncurry

MARQUISES

Sundridge (Duke of Argyll)

Landsdown

Cleaveland

Melbourne (Viscount Melbourne)

EARLS

Shrewsbury

Somerhill, Marquis of

Pomfret

Clanricarde

Radnor

Fife (Earl of Fife)

Tankerville

Gower

Essex

Dover

Mulgrave

Wellesley (Marquis Wellesley)

Oxford

Albemarle

Oakley

Cowper

Ponsonby of Imo-killy)

Grey

Gosford

Foley

Chichester

Byron

Carlisle

Lilford

Denbigh

Hill

Hood

Kilmarnock (Earl of Errol)

Goderich

Falkland

Mendip (V. Clifden)

BARONS

Belhaven

Saye and Sele

Brougham

Lyndoch

Durham

Fingall (E. of Fingall)

Teynham

Poltimore

BISHOPS

Dacre

Chichester

De Saumarez

Killaloe

Sefton (E. of Sefton)

TELLER.

Seaford

Lord Auckland

PROXIES, 73.

DUKES

Buckinghamshire

Grafton

Huntingdon

Somerset

Nelson

Brandon (Duke of Hamilton)

Craven

Minto

Bedford

O'Neill

Portland

Spencer

MARQUISES

Ilchester

Winchester

Derby

Queensberry

VISCOUNTS

Anglesey

Leinster

Stafford

Grenville

Westminster

St. Vincent.

Breadalbane

Lake

Northampton

BARONS

EARLS

Suffield

Ferrers

Wenlock

Camperdown

Dundas

Lichfield

Montford

Charlemont

Gardner

Cawdor

Clinton

Fortescue

Fisherwick (Marquis of Donegall)

Morley

Hillsborongh (Marquis of Downshire)

Lovell and Holland

Lyttleton

Onslow

Yarborough

892

Erskine

Clements (Earl of Leitrim)

Sondes

Crewe

Dinorben

Monteagle (Marquis Sligo)

Ducie

Howard of Effingham

Alvanley

Hawke

Ponsonby (Earl of Besborough)

Boyle (Earl of Cork)

Howard de Walden

Howden

Dawnay (V. Downe)

Kenlis (Marquis of Headfort)

Ludlow (Earl Ludlow)

Ranfurly (Earl of Ranfurly)

Dunmore (Earl of Dunmore)

Vernon

Stafford

Dormer

Stourton

Templemore

Sherborne

Segrave

BISHOP

Plunkett

Norwich

Granard (E. of Granard)

List of the CONTENTS.

PEERS PRESENT, 39.

DUKES

Sydney

Cumberland

Gordon (Earl of Aberdeen)

Wellington

MARQUISES

Beresford

Abercorn

Arbuthnot

Salisbury

BARONS

Thomond

Penshurst (Viscount Strangford)

EARLS

Wicklow

Wynford

Vane (Marquis of Londonderry)

Stuart de Rothsay

Boston

Carnarvon

Bexley

Eldon

Clanwilliam (Earl of Clanwilliam)

Delaware

Mansfield

Ellenborough

Rosslyn

Douglas

Bathurst

Colville

Orford

Montagu

Verulam

Carrington

Jersey

Lyndhurst

Brownlow

Harris

Caledon

Grantley

Beverley

TELLER.

VISCOUNTS

Lorton

Lord Kenyon

PROXIES, 56.

DUKES

Morton

Newcastle

Clancarty

Rutland

Longford

Buckingham

Digby

Northumberland

Doncaster (Duke of Buccleuch)

Beaufort

MARQUISES

Chesterfield

Ailesbury

Scarborough

Exeter

Leven

Hertford

Selkirk

Bristol

Norwich (Duke of Gordon)

Tweeddale

Bute

Wilton

Cholmondeley

Lonsdale

Camden

Glengall

EARLS

Mount Edgecumbe

Hardwicke

Dartmouth

893

Warwick

Manners

Falmouth

Hopetoun Earl of Hopetoun)

Home

Graham (Duke of Montrose)

Clanbrassil (Earl of Roden)

VISCOUNTS

Maryborough

Hereford

Oriel (Viscount Ferrard)

Strathallan

Gort

Ker (M. of Lothian)

Exmouth

Bayning

BARONS

Dynevor

Bagot

Sheffield Earl of Sheflield)

Farnham

Stowell

Wallace

Redesdale

Southampton

Prudhoe

Rolle

Lauderdale (Earl of Lauderdale)

Cowley